> On Jan 4, 2016, at 21:48, Michael Cullum <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote: > > I do apologise for saying offender, it was the wrong word to use there, but I > think the context of the rest of my post made it clear the meaning was not > meant to say that they were automatically guilty (although at the point in > proceedings I was referring to was where their name had been released to the > public and you'd hope that guilt would be established by that point beyond > reasonable doubt, at which point, the legal terminology does change from > accused to offender). > > The exact context there of using the term I was actually saying it was > imperative that the accused has a voice to refute those allegations if you > read on (I'm not sure if you did as you snipped off my email straight > afterwards?).
If there's an accusation, then *due process* needs to be applied. If it rises to the level of needing *due process* then the police should be involved. There's no need, *none at all*, for a star chamber *or* a mob to be an amenable authority to salve someone's hurt feelings and ban someone else, not even in a temporary capacity. -- Paul M. Jones pmjone...@gmail.com http://paul-m-jones.com Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP https://leanpub.com/mlaphp Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP https://leanpub.com/sn1php -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
