It matters not if she has courted controversy. The article she wrote, that I linked, stands on its own merit. If you have a strong argument to disprove the article, lets hear it.
Her assertions:
The fact that Alex Salmond, ...
is using crowdfunding to pay his legal costs for a judicial review into the Scottish government’s handling ..., is somewhat gobsmacking.
Her opinion. It cannot be disputed. How can I possibly prove that she does not find it gobsmacking?
I ... wonder why this wealthy man ... must use crowdfunding to clear his name.
He is not trying to prove his innocence in this legal challenge. He is challenging the Scottish government's policy, processes and procedures. Any decision by any court that hears any case on this issue will not clear his name, nor convict him.
Therefore Suzanne does not have a credible understanding of the issues. her opinion can now be dismissed as pure gossip.
But, nevertheless, let us continue:
I am not suggesting Salmond did anything remotely like this, but surely it is perfectly possible to support Scottish independence and let the Scottish government do its work.
Alex Salmond is still arguing for Scottish independence. So her assertion is nonsense. he is still supporting the Scottish government, just challenging them on this issue. He has stated he wants to be a member of the party when he has cleared his name. But this challenge will not do that! It is purely about the processes and procedures.
What does this crowdfunding exercise convey to women who have endured sexual harassment, I wonder? Crowdfund your legal fees against well-known rich men or forget it?
His legal fees are to challenge the Scottish government's (and his party) process of investigating and handling of the investigation, not the police investigation.
So any charge, any prosecution that is possibly due in the longer term is separate and nothing to do with this crowdfunding. Suzanne does not seem to appreciate that. She appears to think that his crowdfunding is to finance any prosecution against him. Therefore she fails to understand the issue.
But one thing is clear. Salmond, innocent or guilty, is signalling his power in a way I find deeply worrying. The message being sent out to women is that if you make accusations you will be up against enormous power and wealth.
This crowdfunding is to challenge the Scottish government's handling of the process. It will not determine innocence or guilt. Only a police prosecution can do that. So again, she does not understand the processes that are going on.
Need I go on. The rest is pure chatter. (in the sense that it is white noise padding out the article and giving it some semblance of direction, along with a lot of intimations, based on other cases.)
The conclusion is that Suzanne is out of kilter with this issue.
But her general direction is acceptable and admirable, just not on this ticket.
Her general willingness to court controversy is typical of her class of journalists: if they are talking about your article you are being successful.
The message is second priority.