Surely the words in red also apply to KT ? Has he posted any prove or evidence ? I think the really big thing is that he hasn't denied it has he ? and with a partner who owns a string of law firms, I would have thought any incorrect statement would have been jumped on ASAP
I agree and you are actually making my exact point for me. If we want to apply that level of expectation to provide evidence/proof to the owners I think it's perfectly fair to have that expectation of the Trust. That way everyone operates under the same rules. Genuinely, imagine if the Trust operated under these rules it would absolutely show a clear distinction in expected and actual behaviour between the supporters and owners. Thanks for supporting my view.
RE the other point about not getting sued being proof what you said is true. I get the point you and others have made when saying this but it's not really the way the world works is it. I mean think about this logically. If I called you a w****r and you didn't sue me does that mean you are w****r?
Another example using that logic. Nobody from the Trust has taken legal action against me for what I said yesterday...does that mean I'm right? What if you state something that's true but without the full context or detail. Like people did when they said the Trust gave up it's seat on the board. It's a fact. They technically did but you and I know that only tells a fraction of the whole story of why that happened.
