>“Why not?” was Dawe’s indignant reply. Was there a law against choosing whatever words he liked?
That's one of those cases I kinda fear being in.
How do you prove you're not giving away secrets in some secret way when the clue is some random events in life that have little behind them other than happenstance.
Isn't this the entire foundation of the fundamental right of innocent until proven guilty? Of course in practice it isn't so simple. In an extreme condition that is extremely unlikely, you could be found guilty exactaly for that reason perhaps. At what point statistically is it on the wrong side of "reasonable doubt"?
I'm just thinking of assuring the local security folks that I'm not doing a bad thing / avoiding the hassle of them thinking I am. When I probabbly don't know what the bad thing even is.
Well, not really, that's more about simply being accused not being enough to imprison or hang you.
They tried to transform their suspicions into material elements and came empty handed, and left the man alone, which is the core difference between a democracy and an authoritarian regime.
However this coincidence is so strange that on that basis alone I am wondering if they did not miss something.