Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> 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 pmjones88@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