-
You have tho attempted to make it about the amount of money or Lansman personally gaining
No, I have not, and what I said is not a strawman argument. I never attributed any views to the author. I am fully aware of what he said and merely dismissed it as insubstantial because what he presents isn't very interesting or goes very far, even though he tries to make it appear as if there is a 'complex snarl of companies'.
I merely said that in order for the allegations that he makes to be more substantial, he would need evidence of there either being a lot of money (my point is nobody's going to be interested if the political 'slush fund', to use h2o's word, is very small, e.g. enough to pay for the photocopying, but if it's thousands of pounds then that's a different story, even if the structures set up for both are the same in being completely unaccountable), or of someone benefiting personally by siphoning off donations. That's all there is to what I said there. I can't think of other possibilities, but perhaps there are some.
Everyone is obviously welcome to disagree that the article is insubstantial and to think that it is substantial on the evidence it presents.
You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Oliver Schick
but the article wasn't really about Lansman personally gaining, it was about the lack of transparency, decision making etc. I also think the article was limited and just raised some questions I expect to be easily answered.
You have tho attempted to make it about the amount of money or Lansman personally gaining then suggested without these the article has no substance. Which is a strawman as the original article wasn't about that.