Are bondbreakers still being named these days? The storm over this seems to have passed.
I can't understand a few things about this.
Firstly, what is the problem in being a bondbreaker? It's a contract between 2parties, isn't it? Just like the countless contracts that are being entered into every day all over the world. I'm not sayin that it's good to break a bond, simply that there's nothing wrong if all the terms and conditions of the break are done in accordance with the contract.
Secondly, about naming these people. Actually, I don't see the big deal in naming them either, but why would the corporation giving the bond or the press want to bother naming them? I can understand why the persons involved in the process would want to, but why would the press bother about such a minor matter? Why would the rest of the corporation and the management want to spend time and effort naming these insignificant bondbreakers, taking up space that could be better used in the newspapers or even on their website for instance. Why even bother?
The press names bondbreakers, but in some criminal and court cases, they don't name the people involved. because "there are children involved". Other than in child abuse or molest cases for which I understand why the parents are not named, why can't these adults be named in all other cases? Is it necessary to "protect" the children of an adult scammer, fraudster, robber, rapist or murderer?
I can't understand a few things about this.
Firstly, what is the problem in being a bondbreaker? It's a contract between 2parties, isn't it? Just like the countless contracts that are being entered into every day all over the world. I'm not sayin that it's good to break a bond, simply that there's nothing wrong if all the terms and conditions of the break are done in accordance with the contract.
Secondly, about naming these people. Actually, I don't see the big deal in naming them either, but why would the corporation giving the bond or the press want to bother naming them? I can understand why the persons involved in the process would want to, but why would the press bother about such a minor matter? Why would the rest of the corporation and the management want to spend time and effort naming these insignificant bondbreakers, taking up space that could be better used in the newspapers or even on their website for instance. Why even bother?
The press names bondbreakers, but in some criminal and court cases, they don't name the people involved. because "there are children involved". Other than in child abuse or molest cases for which I understand why the parents are not named, why can't these adults be named in all other cases? Is it necessary to "protect" the children of an adult scammer, fraudster, robber, rapist or murderer?
