Bill Borrett, chairman of the Mid Norfolk Conservatives, launched a staunch defence of Ms Taylor, who has been facing questions over whether she fulfilled a pledge to donate £10,000 to charity after receiving it from Attleborough Town Council.

Mr Borrett said Ms Taylor had done "nothing wrong" and accused her critics of "blatant political opportunism".

Mid Norfolk Conservative chair, Bill Borrett, has thrown his support behind Taila Taylor (Image: Bill Borrett)

His remarks are the first time a senior Conservative has spoken out about the saga surrounding Ms Taylor, the deputy mayor of Attleborough and a member of the town and Breckland councils.

She has been under growing pressure in recent weeks from fellow members of Attleborough council to clarify whether she has fulfilled an agreement to donate £10,000 to charity following a legal dispute with the authority.

The money was part £20,000 in damages that were awarded to her in 2021 after a judge ruled she had been unlawfully removed from committee roles at the council following bullying allegations, and had been defamed by the authority.

Taila Taylor has declined to say what steps she has taken to fulfil the charity obligation (Image: Mid Norfolk Conservatives)

The settlement included a clause that half of it should go to a local good cause, but Ms Taylor, who is standing in next month's county council elections, has declined to clarify whether this happened.

Instead, she has accused the council of not fulfilling its obligations under the settlement, meaning she does not have to abide by the clause.

She has declined to say what steps she has taken since 2021 - during which time she has remained a member of the council, including serving a spell as mayor  - to ensure the authority met its obligations and allowed her to make the donation.

Mr Borrett, who also sits on Breckland as well as Norfolk County Council, claimed Ms Taylor was the victim of "relentless hounding by the media".

Mr Borrett has said Ms Taylor's (Image: Archant)

He added: "The facts are straightforward. The agreement in question was openly negotiated and entered into by Attleborough Town Council through proper and transparent processes in 2021.

"Let’s not forget that the compensation agreed came about as a result of Councillor Taylor being the victim of a similar campaign of bullying and any current legal discourse is focused on whether all parties have met their obligations. I understand she has done nothing wrong and I am more than happy to support her.

"This is not a new development, it is not hidden and the current attempts to mischaracterise it now, by some members of Attleborough Town Council, in the heat of an election period, are plainly politically motivated and are designed to intimidate, hound and misrepresent."

For several weeks, Ms Taylor has been facing questions over the issue from Reform councillors, one of whom - Daniel Burcham - will be standing against her at the County Hall poll on May 7, in what is shaping up to be Norfolk's bitterest election fight.

Daniel Burcham will stand as the Reform candidate for the Attleborough ward in the county council elections (Image: Daniel Burcham)

The two represent different factions on the feuding Attleborough Town Council - which has earned the nicknames Battleborough and Aggroborough.

Ms Taylor, along with members of her family and friends are part of a group, mainly made up of Tories, called the Taylors, who have long held a majority on the council.

Mr Burcham and other Reform members who have been voted on more recently are known as the Newbies.

Mr Burcham has clashed with the Taylors on a number of occasions. 

Ms Taylor’s mother, Samantha, who is the chair of Breckland Council, is alleged to have called him a “vexatious little rat” at a meeting earlier this year, in what is one of many disputes between Mr Burcham and the Taylors.

Samantha Taylor, Ms Taylor's mother, has also clashed with Mr Burcham on the warring council (Image: Breckland Council)

As well as their political rivalry, the tensions also stem from a heated business dispute.

For two months last year, Mr Burcham ran the town's Bear pub, which is owned by the Taylors, before they ended the arrangement.

The family, who also own the London Tavern pub on the high street, said this was because he had not met lease conditions.

He has since taken over another local Attleborough pub, the Griffin, but his departure from the Bear prompted heated debate in the town, especially online.

Mr Burcham was one of a group of Attleborough councillors who last month asked the police to investigate what had happened to the £10,000. The force has yet to say if it will do so.

Mr Burcham has critisced the Tory's for their stance on the donation scandal (Image: Daniel Burcham)

Following the Tories' show of support, Mr Burcham accused the party of "a culture of avoiding accountability".

He added: "If it was the case that Attleborough Town Council had not upheld its side of the arrangement, it should have been challenged. Did this happen?

"The reality is that £10,000 is unaccounted for and the agreement seems to have been broken.

"We deserve answers. What steps were taken to ensure the council fulfilled its obligations so the donation could be made?"

SO WHAT DID THE SETTLEMENT SAY?

The settlement, which was made in May 2021, stated: "In respect of the sums set out at clause 1.1.1 (and subject to full compliance of this Agreement by the Defendant [the council]) the First Claimant [Ms Taylor] shall pay the sum of £10,000 to a charity or project based in Attleborough of the First Claimant’s choice within 12 months of this Agreement."

Ms Taylor has argued in the past that she is not obliged to make public what has happened to the £10,000 and has accused the council of failing to honour its own obligations under the agreement.

She said it left defamatory material online and removed a required public apology from its website, and that this released her from her charitable obligation.

She has also said that she has continued to donate to local good causes.

Her critics have continued to challenge her, asking her to explain exactly what steps she took to ensure the council fulfilled their obligations, allowing her to fulfil hers.

She has since said she was unable to take steps to make sure the council met its side of the bargain because it would have been a conflict of interest, which she said she declared at the time.

Charitable donations are an intensely private matter.

What someone gives to a good cause is no one’s business but the donor’s.

The case of Taila Taylor, which we have been reporting for several weeks, is a little different however.

In this instance, we believe there is a very significant interest in the public being told whether a donation had been made.

To rehearse the details, Ms Taylor received the money from her own council - or, rather, from the Attleborough taxpayer - as part of a £20,000 settlement.

The council agreed on the sum because a judge had ruled she had been treated badly by the council.

Councillors do a tough job. Many authorities find it hard to recruit members.

We acknowledge the difficult role they perform and when they are treated badly, they deserve our support.

So we make no comment about the £20,000 given to Ms Taylor and express our sympathy for any injustice suffered.

But surely it is fair for locals to question what has happened to the clause in the settlement that required her to donate half to charity.

Perhaps she has done so and believes it is a personal matter which is not the business of those who gave her the cash.

But in this case, it seems fair to know for certain what has happened.

The 2021 settlement was explicit that her donation was conditional on the council meeting its side of the agreement, which is entirely reasonable.

If Ms Taylor believes the council did not meet its side of the bargain, as she says, then it seems fair to ask what actions she took to ensure the authority - of which she has been a member ever since the deal was struck, including a spell as its mayor - took to enable her to make that donation.

After all, that is what lies at the heart of this issue.

If a politician is given £20,000 of public money on the understanding that half should go to charity, it does not seem unreasonable that the onus should be on the politician to ensure it happens.

So, Ms Taylor, tell your voters whether you have made the donation. Or, if not, what steps you took to make sure you could.

We assume the Tories have asked these same questions, so perhaps they too could tell us.

© Eastern Daily Press