That's not the issue Julia. She represents an organisation that is wholly without transparency.
-
-
-
I suspect it's no coincidence that all of these organisations are fronted by young women. Any criticism of them or the thing they represent gets turned into claims of bullying.
-
The whole funding meme is an absolute ad hominem. Chloe, Kate Andrews and others our coherent ideas into the public square. Debate and argue against them but constantly crying about their funding is totally unproductive
-
That would be fair enough if Chloe, Kate and, er, the rest were representing themselves. But they're not, and it seems we (the ordinary folk) are not "allowed" to know who *is* being represented. That's just ... weird and sinister.
-
Do you know who own all the newspapers of the journalists and commentators who are often on TV
-
Yes. Rupert Murdoch. Lord Ashcroft. The Barclays. Who else?
-
The point being we know. No one is asking for these think tanks to be de-funded, just transparent about who funds them. I know who owns the Telegraph and can take a view on whether it's an honest broker.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
She is a member of a pressure and lobby group that lacks any form of transparency. She is no more bullied than any other public figure. Questions that should be asked are, which indivuals she represents and why is she being invited on to programmes like
#BBCqt -
Julia
I am not a left wing hate mob, but I am pleased that Chloe Westley has been outed as a mouthpiece for shadowy background figures who secretly fund the #TPA, and use Chloe to promote views that benefit no one but themselves Openness & transparency is all that is needed
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It has nothing to do with disagreeing with someone. When that person is an employee of a private company masquarading as a grass roots organisation which refuses to reveal who funds them, that is a huge issue which totally undermines our democracy!
-
New conversation -
-
-
Julia. Jules. Ju-Ju. I know, you know, and all but the very, very gullible know this Waitrose Katie Hopkins low camp cabaret act of yours stopped being fun yonks ago. Yes I KNOW - it gets the clicks. Honestly though, is it worth the pricking embarrassment at how SHABBY it all is?
-
And it's the same bloody game OJ plays. Say something contentious, check through responses for a couple of arseholes, claim a pile-on.
-
Yup. Bullies always play victim. It's an integral part of the nastiness.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
She is not a not a strong young outspoken woman, but a snake oil salesman who refuses to reveal the ingredients of her poison.
-
Why does funding matter? Are you intellectually unable to debate with her on the points she makes? It is the equivalent of a child putting their fingers in their ears and saying "la la la I'm not listening"
-
It matters greatly, because she is a lobbyist, and her she is putting forward the views of her paymasters.
-
It matters not one bit whose views she puts forward. If you disagree with what she says, DEBATE HER. Are you able to do so? Yes or No?
-
The reason it matters is that by falsely calling themselves a think-tank and an educational body, they create the impression that they are qualified experts who have reached expert opinions on topics. Which is why they get exposure. But it's a lie. They're just paid shills.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I have no issues with Chloe’s age or gender. My issue is with who she works for: a right-wing think-tank that refuses to disclose the sources of their funding. If the over-exposed Chloe is going to pop up on the BBC, it’s only fair that we know EXACTLY who she represents.
-
Chloe sure as hell doesn’t represent the ordinary taxpayer.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.