This weekend’s rabbit hole has been the #BackTo60 campaign. (NB I’m not commenting on the justice or merits of their aims, just on the nature of the campaign). They (or rather Joanne Welch @2020comms ) have raised some £225,000 in crowdfunding, supposedly for the (failed) 1/9

judicial review and application for permission to appeal to the court of appeal. But this is crowdfunder, not crowd justice, so funds go to the person, not the lawyers directly. No accounts of expenditure of these sums have been provided. None at all. 2/9

There is zero clarity about where the money has gone. @davidhencke - a journalist/PR for the campaign has said variously ‘the money is going to the lawyers’ and ‘it will have to cover both the legal action and further campaigning’. So, well… 3/9

And then there is what appears to be a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters on what happened on the judicial review. #backto60 messages, echoed by @davidhencke , are that there were two ‘contrary rulings’ in the JR, because at permission stage Justice Lang.. 4/9

‘accepted all our arguments’. See this pic from @2020comms and this article on @BylineTimes https://bylinetimes.com/2019/10/10/back-to-60-pensions-scandal-1950s-women-launch-crowdfunder-to-bring-appeal/ (I have asked for para 2 to be corrected). Why does this matter? Because it is wrong. Permission stage on a JR simply looks at whether the grounds are arguable 5/9

Finding that grounds are arguable is most certainly not finding that they are right. That is what the substantive hearing is for, and #backto60 lost wholly at the substantive hearing. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2019/2552.html Trying to pretend this was somehow a split decision is not honest. 6/9

I can only imagine it is trying to whip up the prospects of an appeal to their base. I can say it is not honest because when I politely raised the mistake, in one tweet, Joanne Welch @2020comms blocked me. 7/9

Determined, energetic campaigning is something to be applauded. Taking £225,000 from supporters with zero clarity about where the funds have gone & will go, while misrepresenting to your supporters about what judicial review permission and substantive hearings meant, well... 8/9

There are better ways of doing this. Like being open about prospects and grounds of appeal to the court of appeal. Like publishing accounts of where the money has gone. And not blocking anyone who isn’t an unquestioning devotee. Otherwise, things at least look questionable. 9/9