That could be fair enough then, unless you know for sure that his case where he is suing the Scottish government is false then he may well have a case which means he is within his rights to sue. The fact this means it would come to public attention as a result of his status is neither here nor there. If he is right in his case then he can't be blamed for the result of it.
I don't think anyone has doubt he has the right to use whatever legal action he believes necessary in pursuit of justice. It is just the perception it creates. And perception does matter in politics.
I do find the crowd-funding to be a step too far. Not just in this case. I find the number of people begging for money for personal reasons to be an unwelcome addition to our online world.
He could easily afford his own legal fees just from his Russia Today income alone.
I can see the argument against him crowdfunding given he is already wealthy enough, it doesn't endear him to me. Although I could see an argument that if he is innocent and wrongly accused that he shouldn't have to front his own money to prove his innocence (or get justice in regards to suing)
Brexit news: Panasonic will move its European headquarters from the UK to Amsterdam in October as Brexit approaches.
The aim is to avoid potential tax issues linked to the UK's decision to leave the EU, said Panasonic Europe's chief executive Laurent Abadie.
In the run-up to March 2019, a number of multinational firms have said they plan to move jobs out of the UK.
Several Japanese financial companies have said they intend to move their main EU bases away from London.
Panasonic's decision was driven by a fear that Japan could start considering the UK a tax haven if it cuts corporate tax rates to attract business, Mr Abadie told the Nikkei Asian Review newspaper.
If Panasonic ends up paying less tax in the UK, that could render it liable for a bigger tax bill in Japan.
If everyone wanted the case to be about individual justice then it should have been kept out of the public sphere. Such an important political figure was always going to result in this getting mixed up in politics. Those rubbing their hands at the chance to get at Salmond have their own part to play just as much as those backing him to the hilt, it should be about whether he commited a crime or not and justice for those involved if he did. Not a chance to take a crack at the SNP or the independence movement.
Salmond is the one who decided to sue the Scottish government - he is the one who brought it into the public sphere. He could have let the process play out in the normal way - but he chose not to. And then decided to ask the public to pay for it.
It really isn't a good look - and I would say the same of any politician of any party. This isn't about party politics at all.
Salmond's claim for the Judicial Review is (quoting the beeboids):
"Mr Salmond claims that the subsequent investigation into the allegations against him by senior Scottish government civil servants was "unfair and unjust".
Access to the accusations made against you, and to know the identity of your accusers, is a basic point of natural justice / legal principle, and on those points he is correct to question the process.
The last thing we need is organisations (whether Universities or the Scottish Government) running their own kangaroo courts without proper process or representation. We all know about Obama's Title IX shambles in the US education system.
So on this one I support Salmond's right to launch a Judicial Review. Not so clear on the Crowd Funding, though, as that may let a few Nationalist conspiracy theories back out of the bag.
Cynics may note that it is also the case that Judicial Review of the original decision process is a standard way for the wealthy or celebs to expunge any record of accusations against them, which prevents future travel impacts etc.
Comments
I do find the crowd-funding to be a step too far. Not just in this case. I find the number of people begging for money for personal reasons to be an unwelcome addition to our online world.
He could easily afford his own legal fees just from his Russia Today income alone.
The aim is to avoid potential tax issues linked to the UK's decision to leave the EU, said Panasonic Europe's chief executive Laurent Abadie.
In the run-up to March 2019, a number of multinational firms have said they plan to move jobs out of the UK.
Several Japanese financial companies have said they intend to move their main EU bases away from London.
Panasonic's decision was driven by a fear that Japan could start considering the UK a tax haven if it cuts corporate tax rates to attract business, Mr Abadie told the Nikkei Asian Review newspaper.
If Panasonic ends up paying less tax in the UK, that could render it liable for a bigger tax bill in Japan.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45351288
The tax implications in Japan are a new wrinkle for the "cut corporation tax" advocates.
"Mr Salmond claims that the subsequent investigation into the allegations against him by senior Scottish government civil servants was "unfair and unjust".
He said he had been given no opportunity to "see and therefore to properly challenge the case against me" and that he had "not been allowed to see the evidence"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45333462
Access to the accusations made against you, and to know the identity of your accusers, is a basic point of natural justice / legal principle, and on those points he is correct to question the process.
The last thing we need is organisations (whether Universities or the Scottish Government) running their own kangaroo courts without proper process or representation. We all know about Obama's Title IX shambles in the US education system.
So on this one I support Salmond's right to launch a Judicial Review. Not so clear on the Crowd Funding, though, as that may let a few Nationalist conspiracy theories back out of the bag.
Cynics may note that it is also the case that Judicial Review of the original decision process is a standard way for the wealthy or celebs to expunge any record of accusations against them, which prevents future travel impacts etc.