Read on Twitter
I’m interested in transparency in crowdfunded litigation, & have read a lot of current discussion about #backto60 application for permission to appeal refusal of application for judicial review. I share others’ concerns about the adequacy & accuracy of information for supporters https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/status/1193577556315983872
I asked what I think are reasonable questions (see link) about information which would help people decide whether or not to support the attempted appeal emotionally or financially, & was blocked, as others have been, by @2020comms & other promoters https://twitter.com/barbararich_law/status/1193516308375179265?s=21
I’ve every sympathy with women suffering the hardships of inadequate retirement income, but think it wrong to solicit donations for further legal proceedings without better explanation of what is involved in seeking permission to appeal an unsuccessful judicial review application
@nearlylegal has a more detailed thread on the lack of transparency in crowdfunding this litigation, well worth reading here https://twitter.com/nearlylegal/status/1193657871109636096?s=20
& at his request, @BylineTimes have corrected an article about the case which referred to preparing for an appeal following "two contrary rulings" rather than to permission (granted) & substantive ruling (dismissing the application), as it should have done https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1193826000162955265?s=20
Although this article has been corrected, #backto60 website still gives prominence to the success of the permission hearing, rather than explaining the substantive judgment & prospective appeal, & does not account for spending from funds raised to date
The only response of @2020comms to questions raised about transparency in its crowdfunding for the proposed #backto60 appeal has been to RT this message of confidence, first posted before judgment refusing the judicial review application was given @nearlylegal
@bylinetimes story on appeal has now been further amended - @davidhencke claims that amendments make it “crystal clear”, but I think reference to permission & substantive judgments as “two contrary rulings” is not crystal clear, as does @Frances_Coppola https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/status/1194253819317833733?s=21
There's still a notable lack of clarity in the #backto60 crowdfunded litigation. Those who request spending information are told to "have faith", & even an independent journalist has seen fit to amplify a pure conspiracy theory about the proposed appeal https://twitter.com/nearlylegal/status/1194720327101755394?s=20
This is the information currently shown on either backto60’s or its Crowdfunder website. It expresses unqualified optimism, but does not accurately describe either the history of the case or the present legal route & estimated costs of an application for permission to appeal
Other than the contractual rules of a crowdfunding platform, there is no scheme of regulation of fundraising, or any requirement to account for individuals who are crowdfunding litigation, & I think this case illustrates a need for it
It should hardly need spelling out, but a lack of transparency like this (1) means that people do not have adequate information to decide whether or not to invest both money and hope in a case, (2) breeds conspiracy theories and mistrust in the integrity of judges and the courts
