Should a public figure use crowdfunding to use for paying legal fees?

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

For all I know they're not plumbers either, but that's not part of the thread.

Silly transam.

What not Muslim?
Not foreigners?
Not immigrants?
Blimey a thread not about plumbers, not about foreigners, not about Muslims, not about immigrants!

 

[EddieM]

Can't find it, but I seem to remember reading that people who contribute towards a defendants court costs can be held jointly liable for any costs awarded to the plaintiff if they win the case?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

I am now taking bets on whether one of the usual mob start an abusive rant, hoping to get the thread locked or deleted, to avoid Dumpty's embarrassment.

I will start by offering evens.

 

[Notch7]

This article is relevant:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ex-salmond-crowdfunding-scottish-independence

Alex Salmond is using crowdfunding to signal his power. That’s wrong

The message being sent out is that what happens to women is always less important than the reputation of ‘great’ men

Nicola Sturgeon warned the campaign risked discouraging women from coming forward with sexual abuse abuse allegations.

She also called for donations to Womens aid which helps the victims of abuse. Surely a more worthwhile cause.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Perhaps Salmond is using it as a barometer for his popularity. Not a bad idea actually.

I see the funding page is now closed having achieved twice its target amount.
Does that mean that Alex Salmond is more than twice as popular as he suspected he was? Especially as the total was still going up when the page was closed.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

This article is relevant:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ex-salmond-crowdfunding-scottish-independence

Alex Salmond is using crowdfunding to signal his power. That’s wrong

The message being sent out is that what happens to women is always less important than the reputation of ‘great’ men

Nicola Sturgeon warned the campaign risked discouraging women from coming forward with sexual abuse abuse allegations.

She also called for donations to Womens aid which helps the victims of abuse. Surely a more worthwhile cause.

Suzanne Moore has courted controversy on several occasions.

Moore falsely stated that Germaine Greer had undergone a hysterectomy at 25
In January 2013, a "throwaway" comment in an essay by Moore, which had been reprinted by the New Statesman,
was criticised on Twitter as transphobic], to which she responded. Her response led to a larger row involving wider sections of the transfeminist and radical feminist[ blogosphere, and after her friend Julie Burchill came to her defence in an opinion piece in The Observer, which was widely criticised by whom? as hate speech and withdrawn by the paper the following day, the row expanded to much of the British press.
Moore stood as an independent candidate for the constituency of Hackney North and Stoke Newington in the 2010 U.K. general election due to her disillusionment with the main political parties. She finished sixth with 0.6% of the vote, forfeiting her deposit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Moore
A Katie controversial Hopkins wannabe, perhaps?

 

[Notch7]

Suzanne Moore has courted controversy on several occasions.

Utterly irrelevant.

If you want to add to the discussion, provide your own insight into what she has written.

For example:
The message being sent out is that what happens to women is always less important than the reputation of ‘great’ men

Do you think the 2 women that have filed the claims arent important?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Utterly irrelevant.

The post is about Alex Salmond and crowd funding, is it not?
"Should a public figure use crowdfunding to use for paying legal fees?"
Or are you now claiming that the thread is about something entirely different?

If you want to add to the discussion, provide your own insight into what she has written.

What do you think this is, scotch mist:

I see the funding page is now closed having achieved twice its target amount.
Does that mean that Alex Salmond is more than twice as popular as he suspected he was? Especially as the total was still going up when the page was closed.

Suzanne Moore has courted controversy on several occasions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Moore
A Katie controversial Hopkins wannabe, perhaps?

For example:
The message being sent out is that what happens to women is always less important than the reputation of ‘great’ men
Do you think the 2 women that have filed the claims arent important?

When did this become the main issue of the thread?
You cannot even stay on the main issue of your own thread.

 

[transam]

Neither of the two persons mentioned are SNP members.

Tis true I am not in the SNP

 

[Notch7]

You cannot even stay on the main issue of your own thread

Yes I can and I have.

Unlike your weak strawman:

Suzanne Moore has courted controversy on several occasions

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.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

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.

 

[Notch7]

He is not trying to prove his innocence in this legal challenge.

Of course he is.

Or do you think he is trying to prove his guilt?

It is notable you havent countered the key messages in the article:

1. Alex Salmond is using crowdfunding to signal his power. That’s wrong

2. The message being sent out is that what happens to women is always less important than the reputation of ‘great’ men

The conclusion is that Suzanne has summed up this issue well.

His legal fees are to challenge the Scottish government's (and his party) process of investigating and handling of the investigation

That is what she says here:

the former leader of the Scottish National party, is using crowdfunding to pay his legal costs for a judicial review into the Scottish government’s handling of sexual harassment claims against him, is somewhat gobsmacking

not the police investigation.

Where in the article does it state the crowdfunding is to pay for defence of any police investigation, which makes no sense, you cant defend against a police investigation, only a subsequent court case if there is a charge.

his 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.

Where does she say the crowdfunding money will be used to determine innonence or guilt? -she did not, you took the words out of context to imply that was what she meant. She does understand the processes that are going on.

 

[ellal]

Governments regularly 'crowd fund' to prosecute/persecute the general population...

The thing is that those 'donating' have no choice in the matter - they are taxpayers!

 

[SammyInnit]

Governments regularly 'crowd fund' to prosecute/persecute the general population...

The thing is that those 'donating' have no choice in the matter - they are taxpayers!

 

[motorbiking]

Can't find it, but I seem to remember reading that people who contribute towards a defendants court costs can be held jointly liable for any costs awarded to the plaintiff if they win the case?

Not true. But it’s possible you may be thinking of class actions.