Tools

Not good enough

DR ROWLEY should have been protected from his own hubris by the Parliament and restrained from making such wild and slanderous accusations without proof or without first substantiating them to the point that they could have been considered evidence.

What protects us all from each other and protects our rights and freedoms is the burden of proof put on the accuser. He who alleges must prove. Dr Rowley had ample time to make a prima facie case, to put teeth to his “evidence” so that when presented in the House, the shock of the revelations would have been followed by swift investigation and prosecution.

What we were treated to instead was some high level scandalising of the Parliament and once again the people are left unsure as to what to believe.

I’ll tell you what I believe. In his zeal to put the Government to the sword Dr Rowley threw due diligence aside and, armed only with hubris and some salacious accusations attempted to make a case out of “it sounds plausible”. Yes it does “sound plausible”, but thankfully for all of us that is not enough.

If it were, we would all be running around this morning screaming our innocence from rooftops while our enemies made hay with our names and character.

This is not about who you like or don’t like or what sounds like it could be true, this is about right and wrong and about how these matters are supposed to be dealt with.

Phillip Edward Alexander
via e-mail
This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript enabled. Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.

Express Poll

Are you satisfied that enough is being done to enforce road traffic laws?

  • Yes
  • No

Weather

More Weather