I think the more apt description would be that when you’re got something that makes other people money, then you will be protected. When that ends you’re fair game.
I also agree that the more money you have the better defence you can get, but I don’t believe laws only apply to the poor. That’s hyperbole.
I don’t believe that’s what I said, or at least it wasn’t my intention. I was more trying to highlight that wealthy people (which are not in the way to being poor) will be protected by the people that stand to gain from that protection, not simply for being rich.
I also explicitly said that the justice system does favour the rich, not in a malicious way but more because we have a system that means rich folk can afford more man hours which translates to a better defence.
I want to be clear I’m not defending rich folk here, just being a pedant I guess.
Weinstein? Diddy? Epstein?
I think the more apt description would be that when you’re got something that makes other people money, then you will be protected. When that ends you’re fair game.
I also agree that the more money you have the better defence you can get, but I don’t believe laws only apply to the poor. That’s hyperbole.
So the logic is…
The laws only apply to the poor except for exceptions where rich are on their way to poor and can be used as examples of the exception .
I don’t believe that’s what I said, or at least it wasn’t my intention. I was more trying to highlight that wealthy people (which are not in the way to being poor) will be protected by the people that stand to gain from that protection, not simply for being rich.
I also explicitly said that the justice system does favour the rich, not in a malicious way but more because we have a system that means rich folk can afford more man hours which translates to a better defence.
I want to be clear I’m not defending rich folk here, just being a pedant I guess.