Ashley Madison

[lindier]

It has been reported that there have Been suicides resulted from the hacking of the adultery dating site.
Now first Ido not think it is appropriate either to condemn or condone the users of that site. Although I was happily married for many years and was totally faithful there are many trapped in loveless marriages or relationships for whom such a site is a way for sexual relief. And far better a relief valve for consensual sexual than the alternative.
However there is something which does concern me a little. I have noticed a number of members who are seeking to resign from our community and have asked that their details be deleted. I have also seen that Meatpie is reluctant to permit this.
Now there might be good technical reasons why this is not practical, as a technophobe I have no way of commenting with an authority. However there might be a number of members who have seen the hacking on the Ashley Madison site and are concerned that they could be outed as A member of our community and are concerned that this might have some impact on their life in the real world.
Now let me make it clear, I am happy with my membership and have no wish to resign. However I can see that others may not be so comfortable and would wish so to do. And rather than the being locked into something with which they are uncomfortable it might be kinder toilet them go.
As I said there might be good reasons why this is impracticable. If not what benefit is there to keep them against their will.
It might be interesting to get a general view on this. I am however conscious that last time I suggested taking a consensus on something, on the issue of a chatroom, I was surprised by the total lack of interest in my proposal and I have a horrible suspicion that history might repeat itself.

 

[deaddirty]

I very much agree, and what happened at Ashley Madison should concern us all.
For those that don't know, the site was hacked and the whole membership database extracted and now published online - that's real name, address, 'interests', sometimes credit card details, etc. Already members of AM have been outed to partners, family, friends, workmates etc, some have been blackmailed, there have scams offerring falsely to delete the information for moneey (it can't be deleted now, its all over the internet), and already two suicides believed to be a result.
Meatpie, i was going to PM you today about this, but since lindier has raised it here there's no reason to say it privately. I'm sure you are very careful about security, but there is no way any site can be guaranteed hack-proof, and since we are 'well known' (or 'notorious' to some) on the internet, we are a potential target for the haters. I'm guessing that afer what's happened at AM and the publicity, that risk has increased.
As you know I've always thought that members should be free to actively leave the site and be removed from the members database if they wish, and never understood why it was difficult - just because it's not compulsory on V-bulletins to allow it, doesn't mean it's not common sense and basic humanity to allow someoe to walk away if they feel the need. That's part of basic Right to Choose, which you've always championed admirably in most other ways whether or not someone has specific good reasons. Plus, for some of I think there is an element of addiction (I see it in myself at times, just a bit), and no one should ever make it difficult for someone to move away from any addiction.
After what's happened at AM, that's become much more important. Meatpie, however good our security the risk is there. It really is essential now that if anyone wishes to end their membership and be deleted from the database (not just log off for the last time and get on with their lives), they should be free to do so!
Incidentally, won't that free up a certain amount of bandwidth and storage space, so actualluy help the site as well?

 

[feettartar]

I very much agree, and what happened at Ashley Madison should concern us all.

What SHOULD concern us all is the revelation how many gawd dammed bible-thumping republican politicians were using TAX PAYERS $$$$ to be on the site from their gov't computers! - and now THEY'RE CAUGHT! I say, FUCK, YEAH !!!!!

 

[lindier]

We have some interesting politicians over here too. One former member of parliament, now a peer, is accused of sexual offences against a juvenile. Because he is now suffering from dementia and could not properly conduct his defence it would be unjust to try him. It has been suggested that the allegations were covered up many years ago when he was fully compos mentis.
Allegations have also been made against a former cabinet minister, now deceased, and even a former prime minister, although in that case the allegations are scarcely believable given that the security to which he was subject could never have allowed him to molest anyone without the world and his wife being aware of it.
Other former politicians are facing accusations although, so far as I am aware, no charges have been brought. Much of this may well be muck raking from former opponents and there may well e no truth in the rumours. Indeed a well respected former speaker of the commons, also deceased, has been accused although no evidence seems to have been put into the public domain. As you cannot defame the dead I should have expected it to have surfaced had there been any truth in the rumours.
So I guess there is evil and cover ups in all legislatures. But, to be fair, I am uncertain what benefit is gained by pursuing the dead or mentally infirm. I should however welcome a vigorous pursuit of anyone who is in a position properly to defend himself or herself.
Might be interesting to have views on this. I guess one argument might be that it provides closure to the accusers, the Jimmy Seville affair suggests that, but I'm not certain that justifies destroying reputations posthumously.

 

[deaddirty]

More detail came out yesterday, when a former MP who has been questioned by the police reported tha allegations against him, which he vigorously denied, in detail. The allegations come from someone who claims to have been abused and nearly killed as a teen by a group which included the then MP and the prime minister (I am not sure whether he was PM at the time, so Lindier's point about security may not apply). 'Teen' claims that 'MP' was about to cut his penis off whith a penknife, when PM told him to stop. I do not believe that for one minute! That suggests to me that the other allegations are also false or grossly exaggerated. The MP has to resign when he was convicted of sex with late-teen rentboys (the age of consent was still 21 then, so that was illegal) - I could believe that he was into something darker, but he has vigorously denied it and as I say some of the other allegations just aren't credible, so my guess is that he may well be innocent. I doubt if the darker elements of this story ever happened at all.
The allegations against the peer are totally separate (and of sex ith boys, not violence and killing), seem to come from a number of different sources, and look much more credible. He is probably genuinely too far gone in dementia to defend himself in a fair trial, so i doubt if we will ever know for sure. And fairness is important - however vile the crime, that does not make the person accused automatically guilty!

 

[lindier]

I think the allegations against Edward Heath were after he had been removed from the conservative leadership by Margaret thatcher after having lost two elections. However as an ex Prime Minister at a time when the I.R.A. were running rampant the protection would have been exhaustive. And whilst I did not like Heath, or thatcher either for that matter, it is difficult to see him mixed up in matters such as alleged. For one thing he always seemed to have an exaggerated sense of his own importance and would never have put his reputation at risk. And again Maggie had no interest in protecting the great sulk who never forgave her for his loss of the leadership.
Again Harvey Proctor who had to resign because of the allegations against him involving under age sex was a right wing M.P who had no friendship with Heath and said that they would never have even shared a cup of tea.
It seems the only evidence is the word of an anonymous informant and that his word has not been collaborated.
Greville Janner, who is accused of sex with under aged boys, seems to have been diagnosed with advanced dementia and this has been agreed by the prosecution authorities although the final decision will be for a judge and jury. All that can take place is a so called trial of the facts when the prosecution will present their evidence, in effect to show that there is a prime facile case against him. But there can be no finding of guilt or any penalty. Janner will die an innocent man whatever public opinion may think. And it is quite possible that he is innocent, he made many enemies in a distinguished political career
I have used the actual names of the Politicians because they are all in the public domain. In British law you can libel the dead with impunity and Proctor has gone to the Press and given interviews as understandably he does not wish to live under a cloud of suspicion.
I suspect this one will run and run. However if allegations point to a living or active Politician things might become more interesting. So far there is no indication that this will happen.
And finally remember the British concept of justice. Better ninety nine guilty men escape than one innocent person be convicted.

 

[stustustugoo]

all the stupid fuckers that were exposed got exactly what they deserved!!!!!! hahahahahahahahahahaahahah

 

[deaddirty]

All the stupid fuckers who were actually guilty, yes.
And lindier - yes, I agree absolutely.

 

[lindier]

Snag is some innocent men have had their reputation trashed. So whilst I agree that anyone who can be proved to have been involved deserves all he gets equally I believe that people who are just accused without any evidence deserve anonomity.
I have always felt it wrong that alleged rapists have their details all over the press whereas their accusers, even if it is prove that the accusations were malicious and unfounded, cannot be identified. And,of course, the old canard about mud sticks can ruin someone's reputation even though a court will have found them innocent.

 

[deaddirty]

The Guardian put it well today:
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ctor-accusations-due-process-must-be-observed

There is probably no political issue on which the Guardian ever agreed with Harvey Proctor. In the 1980s, the former Conservative MP was one of the most rightwing men ever to represent his party. Though he was forced out of politics after involvement with young male prostitutes that would not be illegal today, he was no loss to the House of Commons when he left in 1987. But when Mr Proctor returned to the limelight this week, he spoke words that should be listened to with care and concern.
Mr Proctor’s house was very publicly searched by police in March as part of the Operation Midland investigation into allegations about a 1970s and 1980s Westminster paedophile ring. This high-profile search was part of a pattern. It included the police announcement, made outside Edward Heath’s home this month, that the former prime minister was being investigated too. Swoops on the homes of the late Leon Brittan and the former army chief Lord Bramall, who is still alive, received similar publicity. Highly publicised police actions have also marked separate investigations into Sir Cliff Richard.
Allegations against public figures, especially when they allege child abuse, must be fully investigated. Yet proper investigation must respect the presumption of innocence. That is especially true if the case involves the kind of allegations about which Mr Proctor spoke this week, which, if proved, would rightly ruin anyone’s reputation. Yet police appear to be ignoring the presumption far too often. Mr Proctor is an unsympathetic figure; but if his denials are honest, which is for a court to decide, he would be a victim too.
It is hard to avoid the perception that the police are playing post-Jimmy Savile publicity catchup. So is society more widely. For the many victims of child sex abuse who were ignored, or who felt in some way themselves to blame for their ordeals, there is a place for the big, symbolic gesture. It is important, in addition to the police investigations, that the Goddard public inquiry into allegations of an establishment cover-up will also allow survivors to give evidence of what happened and how it has affected their lives.
But it is also important that the process of establishing the truth is not swayed by the need to meet victims’ and survivors’ understandable desire for justice or by any attempt by police, journalists or MPs to surf the wave of public outrage against child abuse. Any justice that involves destroying the lives of other innocent people is no kind of justice at all. Naming a person against whom allegations have been made may be justified in some circumstances if it encourages other witnesses. But it is another thing to helicopter in on a dawn raid, having tipped off a TV crew in advance.
Due process ought to apply in all cases. But it is not due process when police issue a statement that untested allegations – which include immensely serious claims about which many outside observers remain sceptical – are “credible and true”. Truth is for a court to decide, not the police – and not the media either. Responsible MPs would not abuse their privileges on such matters either.
The allegations may prove to be credible and true. But they may prove to be neither. There may be no charges. The claims may be shown to be false. In that event, police, media and MPs who should have known better and acted with more respect for the law would have much to answer for

I also found Proctor's politics thoroughly unpleasant - Tea Party grade or (for those who know the London Underground) - 'Dagenham - two stops beyond Barking'.
But seeing him, him especially, on prime-time TV, saying 'I am a homosexual. I am not a murderer, a paedophile, or a pederast' - that was a good moment.