But that wouldn't be proveable, if they never stated their principles. Almost anyone could then claim to be principled if they didn't state what principles, unl

But that wouldn't be proveable, if they never stated their principles. Almost anyone could then claim to be principled if they didn't state what principles, unless we knew the innermost contents of their mind; or unless their behavior was grossly self-contradictory (rather than nuanced, or deniable). > There's no magic in principles being explicitly stated. Sure there is: we can see the audit trail of precisely what principle they claimed to adhere to and, when. For example in this case the defence for Paula Vennells (and other key figures) is going to be very interesting. What if Vennells blames expert advice, or the prosecutors, or Fujitsu?