Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
No...I mean innocent. I mean guys that get labelled as something that did nothing.
Sorry but just because someone says something happened and it cant be proven in a court of law, that does not make them guilty anyhow....THATS the trouble.
I understand that men have taken advantage of situations forever, and those that have should be drawn and quartered. We used to have a system for determining this. That system has now been replaced by 144 character statements from anonymous to well known people, and voila...a persons life is altered, or even ruined. No real investigative process involved...just allegations.
Social media, for all its awesomeness and usefulness at times, has become a bane on everything I believe this country stands for. Even worse IMO, there seems to be zero desire to alter this course. Frightening stuff.
|
Can a person be unsuitable for a position of public trust without having been convicted of a criminal offense. Is the moral qualification for premier or MP the lack of a criminal conviction?
I agree it's concerning to destroy people lives on Allegations. And if random dude on Facebook starts being lynched and fired for accusations outside the workplace then we have gone to far. But when you choose to enter a position of public trust you are and should be held to a higher standard than a lack of a criminal conviction.
Really the process for this should be internal HR processes which certainly is a lower standard than the courts and in place of evidence severance is paid. Can't really do that for an elected official.