Yes - it could be seen as scapegoating - a balancing mechanism that actually keeps the status quo intact.

When constructive criticism from without bounces off a hard defensive shell - and from within is rendered impotent by an evaluation process with the same standards of those being criticised - we have groundhog day.

But then - Rome wasn't built in a day - how about Manila?

I agree with DJB entirely on this - even in court, with "evidence" provided - it is ultimately a decision that is formulated in the mind of the trial judge as to a verdict "beyond doubt" - a matter of perception while in close proximity to the beating heart of the case.
How can anyone further removed reach any worthwhile conclusion, when it is task enough inside the courtroom?
Surely there must be a time to sit on hands, hold tongues & leave this sensitive decision entirely free from any influence whatsoever - which is why I feel it was such a travesty - that once it had entered the public realm in such scant and arbitrary detail - an already threadbare impartiality became immediately and opportunistically torn completely assunder - and the people's consciences let it happen.
Landslide mentality - a landscape without the individually deep ethical roots to prevent it from happening.

Hi Jepoy - are you thinking of taking up journalism - may I humbly suggest that you offer readers a little more to get their teeth into.

Here's a little UK news quote from January this year - "Thirteen of Britain's main charities, who together constitute the Disasters Emergency Committee, have asked broadcasters to air an appeal during primetime on Monday seeking donations for Palestinians affected by the conflict.

But the BBC and Sky, which have 24-hour news channels watched in the Middle East and have closely followed Israel's three-week war in which 1,300 Palestinians were killed, say they will not air the appeal for fear of being seen to take sides.

"Our commitment as journalists is to cover all sides of that story with uncompromising objectivity," John Ryley, the head of Sky News, said in a statement on Monday.

"That is why, after very careful consideration, we have concluded that broadcasting an appeal for Gaza at this time is incompatible with our role in providing balanced and objective reporting of this continuing situation to our audiences."

Now - in no way am I suggesting that the UK news is normally without bias and spin - but to me this indicates the path that should be adopted - by media, politicians alike - in sensitive cases - by not adding any fuel to a potential conflagration.

Jepoy - I have already asked you, on this very forum, to provide one single speck of evidence to support your version of events - and you failed to do so.

I cannot see why you would hesitate, if indeed you were in possession of such evidence - therefore your attitude can only be motivated by contempt, wishful thinking - or worse - if you are deliberately trying to thwart the course of truth.

Your behaviour is so pertinent to the content of this thread - you are demonstrating the mind set of blind contempt so graphically - well done.

Thank you Jepoy - for perfectly illustrating that contempt - what would we do without you?

It is already scandalous that what has always essentially been a truth - secretly shared by only two people, disguised by one of them - has been exposed to such a travesty of uninformed and parasitically distorted public debate.

Leeches - sucking the blood to feed their contempt.

A contempt so heated that it can vaporise a critical component of law - the presumption of innocence - and a most valuable component of civilisation - the presumption of impartiality.

A contempt that was hiding behind the skirt of lady justice but is now revealed in its full ugliness - as the lady herself steps away.

What we have seen can only replace those components - with a presumption of presumption - fed by ill-informed gossip and viral rumour - such a presumption can only reflect a total lack of trust in the judicial system, by all those who consider themselves worthy of making pre-emptive judgement for themselves - resulting not in it gaining authority and strength, but being perceived as weak and incompetent.

Its own built in securities have been abused, its own tenets ignored - and very few people have had the courage or vision to step back from the feeding-frenzied crowd and plead for impartiality - implore obedience to the security of rights for the two human beings central to the whole episode.

In short - it has been a circus - and if this portal is a glimpse into the general behaviour of a country - then that country needs to tuck its head back into its heart.

@ Madonna - "I think I shall never see, a poem worse than a cut-off tree. " - look again!

I can see no rhyme nor reason,
Maybe we should call it Tree-son,
If guilty on investigation -
The punishment - decapitation.
With capital offences lumped,
So - no to bail that could be jumped.
No clemency or recantation,
(certainly no emigration)
These signs of mental deprivation
(The pun - an equal revelation)
Do not Spruce a Pining nation.
Other than that . . .
At the drop of this hat . . .
I am also truly stumped.

Absolutely "hair-lirious" - thanks benignO :)

@ momblogger - before you are accused of gross hypocricy - can you prove to me that you are not actively and verbally supporting through some of your behaviour online, the type of criminals associated with the raising of "dirty money" - often used to fund terrorist activity?