Reply #212: I am going to try and explain this as best I can

[Vladimir]

although I am clearly not doing a very good job of it. It is absolutely true that in a court of law, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, I challenge anyone who has ever done political work to turn up on the doorsteps of potential voters with that attitude. See how far it gets you when someone starts asking questions about your candidate, based on what they have read or seen or heard, and you tell them to "prove it". Or for example if someone at work asks me why I support RESPECT, if they ask me whether Galloway is corrupt - I do not tell them to prove it. I try and persuade them otherwise by showing them why their doubts are misplaced. The onus is on the activist to persuade a sceptical public (and so it should be - a sceptical audience is an audience that is trying to think for itself), and not otherwise! And not least precisely because the activist has more time, by definition, to spend learning about the issues. So when Kiki posted the issue of the War on Want charity, a more constructive response would have been something along the lines of:

"So you say, but Galloway was expressly cleared of any dishonesty. Everyone makes mistakes, the important thing is that he accepted the findings with good grace and returned a sum of money in excess of that required by the auditors."

It may be that you would still not persuade Kiki to put aside her worries about GG in this respect, but I dare say you'd stand a much better chance.