[lliamander]

First of all, as an aside, I think a silver lining to all of these controversial accusations is that many people are becoming more educated on standards of evidence and discussing what standard to use when. I think a better understanding of these concepts is probably the best way to find common ground.

> I don't think it's at all reasonable to presume that all of those should have a threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Would you require "beyond a reasonable doubt" before you'd even apply the slightest caution? Or do you see the benefit of taking proportionate steps based on lesser probabilities?

I absolutely agree. The question is, what standard would you use? Likewise, what standard would you want used by your employer if you were accused of something?