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

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Deleted. Posted by accident.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

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?

I cannot dumb it down any further.

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.

A Judicial Review will consider whether a proper "decision-making process" was followed by the Scottish government.
It will not look at whether or not the "correct" decision was made.
The court will seek to ensure that principles of natural justice and fairness have been followed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45295578
In fact, if the court finds in the Scottish government's favour, it will strengthen their hand and weaken Alex Salmond's case.

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

Total nonsense because Suzanne does not even know the gender of those that lodged a complaint.
She is championing the rights and protection of women. Totally acceptable and admirable, just not on this ticket.
She is proven to be out of kilter on this issue.

Two people have made sexual harassment complaints against Scotland's former first minister Alex Salmond.
The details of the claims of sexual harassment and who made them have not been officially released.
The Scottish government's permanent secretary, Ms Evans, would only confirm that two complaints of sexual harassment had been made against Mr Salmond.
The Scottish government insisted the investigation had been "entirely confidential".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45295578
So Suzanne is guessing with her conclusions and exploiting the issue to raise her public profile.

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]

I cannot dumb it down any further

No, what you mean is, you cant provide anything worthwhile to support your argument, so you resort to being condescending.

I note you still havent responded to the key points she makes the article, which sums up the situation very well and proves that Suzanne has interpreted the situation well.

I will repeat for you

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

Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/...paying-legal-fees.508220/page-3#ixzz5PvyEggSR

This is you clutching at straws:

Total nonsense because Suzanne does not even know the gender of those that lodged a complaint

This is you clutching at more straws:

and exploiting the issue to raise her public profile

Neither of which detract or weaken the key points she made, that you still havent responded to

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

I note you still havent responded to the key points she makes the article, which sums up the situation very well and proves that Suzanne has interpreted the situation well.

Total nonsense. She is exploiting this issue for her own agenda. Which I have said repeatedly, is an acceptable and admirable agenda, just not on this ticket.
She is unaware of the allegations made against Alex Salmond, including the gender of the complainants, so how can she possibly, reasonably and credibly use these allegations to support her agenda of protecting female complainants?

Additionally, the crowdfunding is to finance a challenge against the Scottish government's processes and procedures.
It cannot and will not clear him, or find him guilty of any wrongdoing.

 

[Notch7]

Total nonsense. She is exploiting this issue for her own agenda. Which I have said repeatedly, is an acceptable and admirable agenda, just not on this ticket.
She is unaware of the allegations made against Alex Salmond, including the gender of the complainants, so how can she possibly, reasonably and credibly use these allegations to support her agenda of protecting female complainants?

Additionally, the crowdfunding is to finance a challenge against the Scottish government's processes and procedures.
It cannot and will not clear him, or find him guilty of any wrongdoing.

It is not total nonsense, your lack of an argument highlights that.

You keep saying she is exploiting this issue for her own agenda, but the article and your assertions dont show that.

And you still are avoiding answering this:
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

Additionally, the crowdfunding is to finance a challenge against the Scottish government's processes and procedures

Yes Suzanne says that in the article.

It cannot and will not clear him, or find him guilty of any wrongdoing

The article does not say it will. It says why should a rich man need crowdfunding to clear his name. Not the same thing.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

It is not total nonsense, your lack of an argument highlights that.

You keep saying she is exploiting this issue for her own agenda, but the article and your assertions dont show that.

Her obvious lack of understanding and unsupported assumptions illustrate exactly that, she is exploiting this issue for her own agenda. This issue is completely unrepresentative of her agenda. But she pretends it is another typical case. It is not, and she has no knowledge of it to claim it is.

And you still are avoiding answering this:
1. Alex Salmond is using crowdfunding to signal his power. That’s wrong

Is he?

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

Is it?

It cannot and will not clear him, or find him guilty of any wrongdoing.

The article does not say it will. It says why should a rich man need crowdfunding to clear his name. Not the same thing.

Then your second sentence is totally unrelated to your first.
Allow me to explain that to you:
"The article does not say it will clear him of any wrongdoing". OK, I will accept that without bothering to check its veracity.
"It says why should a rich man need crowdfunding to clear his name. " A completely unrelated comment to the statement above.
If it will not clear his name, then he is not crowdfunding, in order to clear his name.
Then the question about why should crowdfunding be used to clear one's reputation is purely hypothetical and unrelated to this issue.

 

[Notch7]

Her obvious lack of understanding

You keep saying that, but have nothing to back it up.

Clearly she does understand it.

illustrate exactly that, she is exploiting this issue for her own agenda.

So you claim to support your argument. The article doesnt confirm or prove that.

Is he

Is it?

I see, so you are unable to venture any opinion.

Certainly this isnt the only media article that sees it that way.

I wonder what opinion you would have if it was a conservative MP.

Do you not think the crowdfunding could make it more difficult for women in the future?

 

[Notch7]

Then your second sentence is totally unrelated to your first.
Allow me to explain that to you:
"The article does not say it will clear him of any wrongdoing". OK, I will accept that without bothering to check its veracity.
"It says why should a rich man need crowdfunding to clear his name. " A completely unrelated comment to the statement above.
If it will not clear his name, then he is not crowdfunding, in order to clear his name.
Then the question about why should crowdfunding be used to clear one's reputation is purely hypothetical and unrelated to this issue.

Im not sure what you saying, you seem to be goibg round in circles trying to prove a point that does not exist.