This article really is clutching at straws.

Ashcroft is a single, private individual. It is his own business if he gives his own money (of which there is admittedly a lot) to a political party – bear in mind Labour have also had plenty of rich individuals as donors too.

Ashcroft does not select parliamentary candidates, and nor does he get any of his moeny from public funds.

Unite is a union, which affiliates itself with the Labour party, despite by their own count of 30-40% of their members affiliating themselves with Labour. Members have to opt out of political donations rather than opt in, and have no control about which party Unite donate to.

It has sought to use it’s political and financial muscle to directly influence the selection process – and not just in one seat as the author suggests, but clearly, through Unite’s own leaked papers, 41 or more. Some of the means it has tried to do this are potentially illegal.

Unite is also the beneficiary of significant amounts of public funds, either directly from government grants (union modernisation fund etc) or indirectly, with taxpayers funding union officials and Labour renting buildings with public funds from Unite. Without these sources of income from the taxpayer, Unite (and other unions) would have significantly less money to donate to Labour. More importantly this is taxpayers money being diverted to party political ends.

To overlook the massive differences in the funding from Ashcroft and the funding Labour recieves from unions, and to ignore the clear conflicts of interest Unite’s funding of Labour entail is something only a union itself could do….but then Tim Fenton is a union man, and owes his own personal funding to them.

Is it any surprise he is unable to be critical of his paymasters, and doesn’t that show us a good example of how this union funding can lead to undue influence?

“and have no control about which party Unite donate to.”

They do. Union conference can pass a motion withdrawing support. It’s hard to believe that you don’t know this already.

Yeah, why don’t we hear anything about Lord Ashcroft ever? It’s a conspiracy!

There are 723 hits for “Ashcroft” on Lib Con
There are nearly 5,000 hits for “Ashcroft funding” on the Guardian

I’m just not sure that this as unexplored an area of journalism as you seem to think.

@ 2 Akimov

Unions could in theory withdraw support/funding from Labour. They could also choose to share political funding around several parties depending on each member’s wishes. My pigs will be fed, watered and ready to fly the day this happens though.

In practice though, this doesn’t happen – Unions fund Labour and Laobur alone.

@ 3 TimJ

Note also how much less is made of Lord Sainsbury’s massive funding of the Laobur party and associated think tanks than of Ashcroft funding the Tories.

For some further reading:

http://action.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/page/-/publications/Donations%20Report%20Q1%202012.pdf

@1 @4

I am not “A union man”. I am not a member of a Trades Union. I receive no money from any external organisation, and certainly not from Unite, or indeed any other union.

So, Tyler, you can retract that one. If you’ve got the spine to admit that you’re a malicious little shit.

As you were.

Take a look at Private Eye’s breakdown of the latest honours to see what shiny baubles were given to sleazy vermin who just happened to be donors to the Tory party

@1 @4

I have screen shotted the first Tyler comment, which is plainly defamatory.

I have no connection with any Trade Union. None whatsoever. I do not hold a membership of a union.

Moreover, I receive no external funding from any organisation in pursuit of writing the Zelo Street blog, or indeed any other activity.

Tyler, you are invited to withdraw an accusation that you have just made up on the fly and cannot stand up.

Tyler can’t do any better job of creating a bad impression of you than you have done yourself by your own failure to defend your posts on LC.

@Tim Fenton:

I think you’re missing the point.

The issue is the methods allegedly used, hence the anger within the Labour movement.

If true, you’d agree that this was wrong surely?

Ashcroft is a different matter, regardless of relative severiy.

@ Tim Fenton

Search your name on google and what do you get?

“Blogger Tim Fenton writes for Liberal Conspiracy on the blacklisting of union activists from public sector construction contracts, and the media’s silence over it all.”

That’s on the TUC facebook page.

Your name also seems to pop up in minutes of UNITE meetings and on other matters surrounding the unions and events/protests they organise.

Maybe you aren’t directly paid by the unions or your blog isn’t funded by them, but you certianly seem to have the best interests of unions at heart.

Good luck with “defamation” by the way – you may want to look up the legal precedence for that to have occured before you go bandying that little number about.

So my point basically stands. Like any hard lefty shouty blogger you did the decent thing and totally ignored my actual argument, set up a straw mand and tried to tear that down. How about (trying) to answer the content of what I actually wrote?

@ Tim Fenton

btw, when talking about defamation, do I need remind you of that nasty little incident you got yourself in a pickle over back in 2010?

Stones…glass houses?

“they don’t empty your bins, mend the roads, run the trains or maintain your car”

They must have been doing something though, because if it was set up solely to funnel nondom cash to the tories that would be a serious criminal offence.

What exactly does it do?

you might expect to see as much prominence given to Ashcroft as is now being given to the Unite union

Also: why would you? Ashcroft stopped donating to the Tories back in 2010. Why should historic donations be newsworthy now? This is basically just a ‘quick! look over there!’ bit of whataboutery tenuous even by the standards of this site.

@10 @11

Tyler, now you’re dissembling.

If a union site chooses to quote a blog, that does not mean there is any connection between the two. It means that they choose to quote a blog – no more, no less.

Then come the smears in support: again, if any union chooses to quote someone in any document or meeting minutes or other correspondence, that too does not link the two (I have never attended any Unite meeting).

You said “Tim Fenton is a union man, and owes his own personal funding to them”. This was not true. Then you described unions as my “paymasters”. This is also not true.

So don’t tell me to “look over there” at whatever you’d rather everyone talk about. You were challenged over your deliberate and defamatory statements, and all you can manage is to try and snivel your way out of them.

And if you think that I’m a “hard left shouty blogger”, then you really ought to get out more.

And no, I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about regarding an incident in 2010, so perhaps you’d enlighten everyone.

As Tyler has had well over three hours to put up, I assume he’s shut up and gone off to crawl back under his rock.

So, folks, remember this poster’s dishonesty and inability to back up his claims next time he appears and sounds off.

I do not understand this article, I thought this was an internal Labour power struggle, Milliband seems to be moving the party away from its founding core towards a more Westminster village base. The Conservatives have already taken this journey and paid the price with lost membership it looks as if Labour is going in the same direction.

To me the Labour party has always been directed by the unions that was its whole reason for its formation in the first place, to give voice to the working man in our parliament. Whether rich union bosses actually do give voice to the working man is a different matter.

The question is as both the major parties are rejecting their core supporters who is going speak for the normal man, or put another way who do the new Tory and Labour parties represent if not the common man be he an electrician, farmer, dentists or small shop keeper.

@1 Your arguments may be based on facts and sound reasoning, and they may be eloquently put but you seem to be forgetting this is a liberal blog. Labour is good and Conservatives are bad. Now go back to your corporate master, brownshirt et al

So don’t tell me to “look over there” at whatever you’d rather everyone talk about.

Have you seriously just posted this as a comment under your own article which tells everyone to “look over there” at something you’d rather everybody talked about?

I’m starting to think this is a parody.

@ 18 Dave

Not before I have snatched some milk from children and drowned some kittens.

A few of the authors on here can actually argue their point, but I find more and more simply resort to personal ad hom attacks (or in this case, threats) or simply willfully ignore any point which counters their argument.

Ultimately I feel that quite a few of the left-wing posters simply believe they stand on some sort of moral high ground, and view anyone on the right as inherently nasty – hypocritically ignoring their own behaviour while making these attacks. Sally and Jim who post on LC are great examples. Whether it is a mechanism to obscure sound rational debate or it is a defence mechanism for when weak arguments dissolve I don’t know – but it certainly does act to lessen the value of anything these people have to say.

@19 – Agreed, I tend not consider people in terms of left or right anymore, it’s much more useful to consider whether or not they are a twat.

Tyler, climb down from your Shetland pony. You said some things about Tim Fenton that you plainly have no evidence to support, why not just apologise and move on.

@ 22 UKLiberty

Try checking out the links I’ve also posted – seem to provide evidence. Unless of course there is another Tim Fenton, living in Crewe, involved with the TUC and Unite. Possible, but unlikely.

As for Tim Fenton’s threats of defamation, he’d have to prove that he suffered actual harm from my statements (and last time I checked accusation of defending/working for/being paid by a union is wouldn’t cover that). He would also have to prove that I acted with reckless disregard for the truth (and the evidence I provide above shows I have at least attempted to find the truth, so recklessness on my part will be near impossible to prove) AND I have acted with malice in an attempt to damage him. he also has to try and quantify the damage to himself or his business.

In short, he can bring it on.

Ashcroft is a single, private individual. It is his own business if he gives his own money (of which there is admittedly a lot) to a political party – bear in mind Labour have also had plenty of rich individuals as donors too.

This is the essence of the problem for Tories, no?

Ashcroft, an individual, can manipulate the democratic process with his wealth.

So can Unions of course. But they are at least representing millions of workers and are accountable not just under their own constitutions but under specific statute too.

@ BenM

Ignoring that Ashcroft hasn’t donated to the Tories fr 3 years and speaking in more general terms about individual donors:

Firstly, individual donors, whilst they can contribute large sums, almost never can bankroll the whole party, as Unions do for Labour. It is also a lot easier to see where any influence, undue of otherwise has been placed. Individuals don’t have access to the political machines, repleat with large numbers of staff in national and local government that a union has. Nor are they directly funded from the taxpayer pruse, which unions are. If anyone can “manipulate the democratic process” it would a union, with plenty of financial, political and human resources – which is really what this Falkirk thing boils down to.

Secondly, Unions claim to represent their members, but are almost without exception Labour supporting, often politically far to the left of Labour. Yet by their own admission only 30-40% of their members vote Labour. How is funding and supporting only one party representative in that case – especially in terms of funding political parties? In the individual donor’s case, there is no question of that person representing anyone but himself, so where that person chooses to place their financial backing really has no bearing on *representative* democracy.

Wow this really is a humdinger. Don’t mind me while I get out the popcorn.

So I google Tim Fenton and what immediately strikes me as odd is that he accuses the Boris bus of being “a criminal waste of money” yet then lectures others on defamation. Note to Tim, from someone who actually knows something about the law, accusing someone of wasting money criminally is defamation. Please do confirm whether it was in fact you Tim who wrote the article for Huffington, because what also struck me as odd, is that I would have imagined you as a sort of Greenwich University student with greasy hair wearing a stained shirt and who still had spots and dreamed of dolphin safe tuna. It was odd therefore that I was met with a picture of a man who looks like he is in his 60′s. I would have thought a person of such maturity in years would have been a little more mature in thinking as well.

The very simple fact that Tyler was pointing out was that the donations made by these individuals and groups to the Conservatives were not having an impact on selections, whereas it looks like Unite’s were. These are therefore two very different ideas, and I hardly think it requires more explanation as to why they are different, unless you are one of those people who struggles to understand which way round you sit on a toilet seat.

I am also not sure where “you’re a malicious little shit” sits in the comments policy, or is this another case of one rule for those who agree with apparatchik sentiment and another rule for those who don’t. A policy favoured, I might add, by the dictatorial inbreeds of the 20th century.

@ BenM

Thinking about it further:

Is it wrong for groups or individuals to have influence on the political process? It’s impossible to stop it, be they donors, pressure groups or think tanks….so as far as I am concerned as long as it is within the law and more importantly out in the open, in plain sight, I don’t have a problem with it.

So much so, that I actually don’t have a problem with the idea of Unite trying to get their people into Labour seats (***as long as no laws were broken, which might not be the case in Falkirk***). Indeed, as long as people are well aware of how those people got there, and that their strings are pulled by Unite first, and Labour second, then it’s up to the people to choose who represents them. If they want a union sockpuppet who cares more for the producer element than the consumer of services that is truly their own democratic choice.

@24 Tyler

No, the Unions don’t “bankroll the whole Party”. Membership fees outstrip the £8m in affiliation fees Labour gets.

You claim individuals don’t have access to political machines, but large donations get them that access. Once again, the Union “machine” itself represents millions of workers.

The Hedge Fund manager is but a single individual wielding as much clout within the Tory Party as millions of Union members.

As for Labour Party affiliation, Union members can opt out of having their fees added to the political fund, and most will be aware of Union political leanings in this country given how relentlessly the Tory media attempt to demonise unions. Tories like to pretend union members are dupes, but most are not.

It’s fatuous to argue that one sort of big donor to political parties has a corrupting influence but another doesn’t.

The only way out of this would be to reduce the amount any one person can donate or, better, to introduce public funding for political parties and ban all other sources of funding.

Of course, the cynicism towards politicians, fostered largely by the millionaire-owned media, makes this unlikely.

So the millionaires retain their individual influence, not that you could tell from the policies their favourite party has pursued.

Oh, wait…

@22

Hello Tyler.

You really can’t stop, can you? Now I’m being told that I’m involved with the TUC as well as Unite.

I am involved with neither.

Of course, you could provide a scrap of evidence to back up an assertion that is otherwise formed of nothing but a combination of hot air and petty malice, but hey ho.

And you still haven’t told me what I was supposed to have been involved with in 2010 that is such an embarrassment to me.

I suspect I’ll be in for a long wait.

Tyler: “Ashcroft does not select parliamentary candidates”

If you are donating £4.1m and you do not like something, be it a person or a policy, this will tend to be taken extremely seriously.

What I find far more sinister than Lord Ashcroft’s political donations (which are most likely motivated primarily by his personal ideology) are those coming from large companies and corporations. These companies are required to spend their money in a way which benefits their shareholders; which means such payments could only be justified by making a return on investment from such donations. In other words, they are buying something of benefit to their shareholders. What is it, if not buying policy or buying a favourable attitude from regulators?

When the trades unions decided to fund a political party it was an enormous leap forward for class consciousness in Britain. At last working people has grasped the reality that whilst they could by unionisation abolish the competition between themselves as wage slaves, it was the competition between the capitalists themselves that constantly undermined them both as organisations and politically. Capitalists were able to up sticks when working people had gained decent conditions and pay or brand unions politically as self-serving when their struggles effected not just the immediate boss class they were in conflict with but the petit-bourgeois and middle classes and wider society. They realised that they needed a political programme for socialism that could address the concerns of the whole of society and liberate workers once and for all from wage slavery. Unfortunately the party they bankrolled turned out to be opportunists not intent on ending capitalism but sharing in its super profits especially those that could be obtained from imperialism. With the link between the unions and the political opportunists now being severed mainly by the political opportunists themselves (in an attempt to destroy political class consciousness) there is a good chance of fighting this and forging a new political movement for revolutionary socialism that the workers organised in unions and the wider labour movement and even the hard-pressed middle classes being crushed by the 2008 Collapse of Capitalism can support.

@ Jungle

Is this any different from unions donating money though? It is clear unions have tried to force their people into parliamentary seats, and also directly influence legislation.

@Tyler #22:

As for Tim Fenton’s threats of defamation, he’d have to prove that he suffered actual harm from my statements

Go on thinking that, Tyler…but remember that the Internet is a permanent medium.

And bear in mind that passing off your paymaster’s instructions as your own independently-formed opinions would lower you in the estimation of most right-thinking people.

That’s all, folks…

@ Robin Levitt

Eh?

Unless working for a union is a crime or otherwise slanderous, I haven’t slandered Tim Fenton. Add to the that the evidence of his activities, and it looks like I have done some research, am not purposefully making up falsehoods and my intention is factual rather than malicious. He would also have to prove damages, which is very difficult given no-one is likely to change their opinion of him if he has worked for a union and he has suffered no financial penalty.

Paymasters? I don’t have any political paymaster. I just think Tim Fenton’s article is pure just whiny apologetic pro-union guff, regard the man himself very lowly, and took it upon myself to respond. Much as you have responded to my post.

@Tyler #34:

Libel is actionable without proof of damage; defamation in a permanent medium is libel; defamation is publishing material about someone that tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking people – as for example by accusing them of trimming their published opinions so as not to offend their presumed paymasters.

Join the dots.

And that is indeed all, folks – I don’t plan to get involved in an interminable sideshow to this thread teaching Tyler the law of which he so plainly has “a little knowledge”.

@35. Robin Levett: “…defamation is publishing material about someone that tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking people…”

Right-thinking people might regard the exchange between Tyler and Tim Fenton as political banter. Going to court would be a gamble, possibly one that served neither side.

Tyler needs to show some balls by acknowledging that he got some facts wrong. Give him (her?) space to argue about opinion rather than unestablished “facts”. Tim Fenton needs time to accept apology.

Firstly, can I just ask the moderators of this site why the links to the evidence I keep providing about Tim Fenton keeps getting taken down? Is Tim Fenton himself moderating this blog? I’ll post it for a third time.

@ Robin Levitt

My girlfriend is a lawyer, so I did actually bother to ask her about this. To prove libel/defamation, one would have to prove that what I said had no basis in fact, that I had made no effort to discover the truth (which seems to be that Tim Fenton does work with/for the unions, though someone seems keen to keep removing the post with all the links), what I said was malicious, and it did damage to Tim Fenton.

Given all that, Tim Fenton can sue me all he likes – but he’ll end up bankrupting himself doing so.

I’ve posted the evidence/links *again* at 38 above. I’ve also taken a screenshot this time, so if someone takes the post down again in an effort to defend Tim Fenton and discredit me, at least I will have the evidence it was posted, should Tim Fenton actually try and take me to court.

These companies are required to spend their money in a way which benefits their shareholders; which means such payments could only be justified by making a return on investment from such donations.

Companies can donate to political parties in the same way that they can donate to charities. Neither donation needs to see a return.

38.
You seem to be deluded. Stating that a post on a website is defamatory does not indicate a threat to sue. Perhaps you should take the matter up with your girlfriend rather than LC readers.
The calumnious twaddle that you submit is devoid of quality and reason so you need to work harder.

@Tiler #37:

In deference to your girlfriend (who I believe is a US lawyer (where Sullivan requires public figures to prove malice)); in English (& Welsh) law:

To prove defamation (whether libel or slander) the Claimant has to prove that the Defendant published a statement that “lowered him in the estimation of right-thinking people” (the classic definition). Once that is established , then the claim is made out subject to any defences the Defendant may raise.

Libel (by contrast to slander) is actionable per se – that is, without any proof of damage. Slander requires proof of damage other than in four special cases: imputations of unchastity, imprisonable conduct, (certain) disease and disparagarment in trade or profession.

No malice need be proven by the Claimant other than to defeat certain defences (eg of qualified privilege). Even the US doesn’t go as far as requiring proof of malice as a necessary element of the tort in all cases.

There is no onus of proof upon the Claimant to prove the falsity of the defamatory statement; but the Defendant may “justify” his statement by proving its truth. Justification doesn’t stop the statement being defamatory, but provides a defence against the claim. In your case, to justify your statement you’d need to prove both that Tim “owes his own personal funding to [the unions]“, and that that influenced what he wrote.

The Defamation Act, when brought ito force, will change the landscape – but for now, with great respect to her, your girlfriend is wrong (as, by the way, is Wikipedia).

…and, if a moderator is indeed removing links to evidence supporting Tyler’s claims, can s/he please explain why?

@Robin Levett
Dont get me started on Wikipedia, especially in light of your sage advice on slander/libel!

We are supposed to live in a representative democracy. We know who the Tories represent – donors like Bearwood. Labour was set up to counteract that long-standing bias to the right and represent not capital, but workers – or people whose capital is in their knowledge, skill, experience, talent and, yes, labour. So now we have two parties brazenly unrepresentative of the bulk of the population and a third party desperate to divest itself of any trace of being representative of a majority of people who work for a living and depend on wages and salaries to live. This is not democracy. It isn’t even the watered down version we call representative democracy, by Labour’s own choice. And it isn’t good enough.

@ Robin Levitt

She is a South African lawyer, but SA libel law is based on UK law, and she assures me the burden of proof and the defences to such are almost identical.

Regardless, it doesn’t really matter as Tim Fenton will do nothing more than threaten me on a blog.

The man is clearly a hyprocrite and a coward, as surprise surprise! The post I make with all the links to evidence of his union activity has been taken down (no doubt by Tim Fenton, unless Sunny is willing to say otherwise and justify it) for a third time!

Tim Fenton screams that I am defaming him, then effectively does the same thing to me when I provide evidence to back up my accusation by simply delelting it.

For those with a few minutes to spare and willing to spend 15 minutes with google, and given the links I have posted for the 4th time are almost certainly going to be deleted once again, just search for combinations of “Tim Fenton”, “TUC”, “Unite Union” and “Zelostreet”. You should easily find most of the links.

I’ve carried out a search as Tyler suggests. There seems to be a Tim Fenton who is a Unite rep. A union rep is a voluntary, unpaid workplace position.

Tyler probably doesn’t like the idea of union reps carrying out union work during their contracted hours, despite many employers finding them useful. Then again, one has to wonder about who’s computer and who’s time he is under when he writes his drivel.

@ Cherub

I understand Tim Fenton is self-employed, so I don’t really want to get into an argument about the merits of union reps and their working hours.

I would only point out that reps *do work* for their union, and almost certainly have that union’s best interest at heart. It also flies in the face of Tim Fenton’s claims about having no union affiliations.

@Tyler #45:

She is a South African lawyer, but SA libel law is based on UK law, and she assures me the burden of proof and the defences to such are almost identical.

She is wrong in the respects I pointed out in my comment. She is also wrong in saying that SA libel law is based on UK law (as if there were such a thing). South Africa is a mixed jurisdiction, and SA libel law seems to be based more on the Roman law of insults. There’s a paper here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1963171_code941689.pdf?abstractid=1963171&mirid=1

which looks specifically at the role of truth as a defence to a defamation claim in South African law as contrasted with English, which goes into this relationship. The author points out in relation to English law that:

…the law of civil libel and of slander has, by and large, always accepted that truth was a defence in and by itself. This position was best encapsulated in the modern age by Littledale J’s statement in M’Pherson v Daniels in 1829 – ‘the law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he either does not, or ought not, to possess’

whereas in South African law:

The settled position of South African law is that the defendant can escape liability in an action on defamation (iniuria famae) if, but only if, the words spoken were true and their utterance was ‘for the public benefit’

(my emphasis, reflecting the author’s thesis).

He explains the contrast between SA and English law as arising from their different conceptual roots in entirely different legal systems:

…Technically, what a claimant does when he sues ‘in defamation’ before a South African court is bring an actio iniuriarum.

This is bound to be significant because, the moment the action is framed as an iniuria, and more specifically – to use Roman law’s own taxonomy – as an iniuria verbis (that is to say, an insult committed by words), a whole body of principles is brought into play that does not fit easily with the general principles of a ‘law of defamation’ – a later concept which has been superimposed onto the law of iniuria. If one thinks, as modern English law does, in terms of the protection of deserved reputation, then veritas as a defence follows as a logical consequence; but if one thinks, as the Romans did, in terms of contumelious behaviour, then truth is prima facie irrelevant and will only bite when, coupled with an additional element, it becomes sufficient to negate the required mental element without which there can, by definition, be no contempt.

@Tyler.
Whether you’re climbing a mast or digging a hole, the sight of a massive arse is not a pretty one.
@25.
Writers of articles published in the Huffington Post do not get to choose the headline.

‘Cherub #47 &
@Tiler (sorry, I spelled your name correctly last time)
#48:

Surely Tim Fenton is the Chief Operating Officer of McDonald’s?

The accolades didn’t go unnoticed by McDonald’s. Mr Thompson said the company appreciates the recognition and Chief Operating Officer Tim Fenton said, “We are an industry leader and we take that seriously.”

http://adage.com/article/news/mcdonald-s-don-thompson-defends-chain-obesity-minorities/241670/

@ Robin Levitt

According to my gf, 90% of SA law is based on the UK legal system, the big difference being trial by Jury (though in both systems libel/defamation would be via court applciation to a judge).

In SA law the “public benefit” point is very specific, and tends only to encompass whistleblowing and corruption in public office. I have first hand knowledge of this, as one of the political parties (not the one you might think) defamed the company I worked for.

Regardless, I don’t really want to get into a long, technical legal discussion in which I have to refer to advice from various lawyer friends – it’s not really the point of this topic. Suffice to say, I don’t beleive I ahve defamed Tim Fenton as I ahven’t said anything demonstrably untrue, and it is quite a stretch to suggest that people would think worse of him for working for a union (after all lots of people do). By his reckoning, given the various pointed things he has said and views he has taken about the government and those that voted for it, he could just as easily be accused of defaming Tory voters – when in reality he simply doesn’t like them, and is entitled to his views. I doubt very much I will be recieving any court summons any time soon.

Unless the COO of McDonald’s writes for LC, i think we are dealing with the one who lives in Crewe and writes the zelostreet blog. I did endeavour to make sure I was searching for the right one before I posted those links.

Oh, and someone has take down those links *again* wihout bothering to own up to it or give a reason.

@Tiler (maybe it’s a point of principle for you to continue to misspell my name) #52:

The issue isn’t whether people think worse of Tim F for working for a union – if he does; that wasn’t your claim. Your claim was that his ostensibly independently-arrived-at opinions were in fact simply his mouthing what his paymasters wanted him to say.