Maya Forstater

Someone at an NGO advocating position X and someone at a bank advocating position Y are in the same position. Both paid for what they do. Both, I expect, acting in good faith.

I'm going to have one last try because I feel a bit sad about what seems to be the answer. Do you disagree that people advocating for social change are performing a different activity from people who are putting forward positions to benefit their clients financially?

Making proposals, commenting on proposals etc is same activity whoever does it. As a society we are better off if able to judge and test solutions without trying to weighing the souls of those involved or decide a solution must be right because it's advocated by the 'right' team.

And another issue is whether activities in support of social change/justice are assessed differently from activities of businesses, non profit making bodies, etc. If so, what are the differences, eg whether and when is it acceptable to personalise?

I think the key is for all those commenting to be clear on their own position, and (if relevant) funding. Then those reviewing the comments can take that into account. But also TIIN process could be improved - numbers often opaque, and rarely reviewed with hindsight.

Most responsible NGOs do. Do you also agree thought that lawyers that are active in policy debates should disclose their clients? I see little difference (other than the fact that lawyers charge more than lobbyists)

If they’re acting for clients, absolutely. If they’re not, then of course not.

what if they're acting in the interests of their current, past and prospective clients generally, rather than a specific client(s)? this happens all the time.