Slashdot Mirror


Ghostwriter Reveals the Secret Life of WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange

An anonymous reader writes "From the Telegraph, 'He is vain, secretive, paranoid and jealous, prone to leering at young women and making frequent sexist jokes – and that's not the view of one of his many enemies, but of a friend ... A damning picture of Julian Assange ... has emerged in a detailed account by his ghostwriter. Assange behaves ... like an egotistical tyrant interested more in his own self-publicity than in changing the world. Worse still, he turns on his friends with increasing regularity ... Assange describes the Ecuadorean ambassador offering him diplomatic asylum as 'mad', 'fat' and 'ludicrous'. Even Assange's girlfriend, WikiLeaks researcher Sarah Harrison, grew increasingly frustrated at his behaviour. 'He openly chats girls up and has his hands on their a**e and goes nuts if I even talk to another guy,' she says. O'Hagan, who had hoped to find an anti-authoritarian rebel figure worthy of admiration, says he comes to regard Assange as someone who sacrificed the moral high-ground by attempting to evade trial over the rape charges.' — The Scotsman adds, 'Canongate director Jamie Byng yesterday hailed O'Hagan's account of the "impossibility of trying to ghost Assange's memoirs". He tweeted: "Andy O'Hagan's compelling, ring side account of Being (& being around) Julian Assange is smart, accurate and fair."'"

57 of 359 comments (clear)

  1. So? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like much we already knew or suspected. I'm more interested in why some people keep trying to show us what an awful character Assange is, instead of focussing on what he has done. Love him and Wikileaks or hate them; the latter seems a lot more relevant.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:So? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You shouldn't suspect anything. The fact is we have no idea what he is really like, except that it almost certainly isn't what the media have portrayed.

      The fact that Slashdot posts this shit is a sad sign of the slow decline. You wouldn't get this over at SoylentNews.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you can vilify someone, you no longer have to refute their message.

    3. Re:So? by poetmatt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Additionally, the man is effectively in captivity under a lot of stress. That can present a very different person than that individual might be if not for being locked in the fucking embassy, for example.

    4. Re:So? by dugancent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We should be more interested in WikiLeaks and their info/message, not the blonde guy at the top.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    5. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do we either have to love both Assange and Wikileaks, or hate both Assange and Wikileaks?

      You can love Wikileaks and hate Assange, or love Assange and hate Wikileaks. To even bring in finer shades of grey, you can believe that Assange is probably not that nice of a person, and the Swedish investigation is legitimate, but still appreciate the effort put towards Wikileaks, and you can appreciate some of what Wikileaks has done but dislike other acts of Wikileaks.

    6. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      What crimes? Sex without a condom?

    7. Re:So? by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Assange's history of treating other people like dirt, including allies, friends, and Wikileaks volunteers, goes back long before he chose to jump bail and become a fugitive from justice. It hasn't exactly been much of a secret either.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    8. Re:So? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sounds like much we already knew or suspected. I'm more interested in why some people keep trying to show us what an awful character Assange is, instead of focussing on what he has done. Love him and Wikileaks or hate them; the latter seems a lot more relevant.

      Probably because like here, the people who support him make a ton of noise about how he is just a saint who has been vilified by a vengeful US government and those who say "Hmm... maybe he's not a good guy after all" tend to get drowned out. Bradley Manning might have an interesting take on whether his friendship with Assange was worth it in the end. And as to a certain extent he's arguably a criminal avoiding justice, it does tend to cast a negative light over everything he does. My biggest questions are things like "Why do you only seem to publish things that put the US in a bad light? Where are the secrets from places like Russia and China, where we know corruption is the norm?" Suppose he was given information about how top Chinese Communist Party officials secretly own various businesses and profit extraordinarily from them while they keep wages down for their employees and he chose not to publish it. Would those of you who defend him still do so? How do we really know that he's not selectively releasing the information he gets to suit some ulterior motive that most supporters wouldn't like?

    9. Re:So? by Nemesisghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You shouldn't suspect anything. The fact is we have no idea what he is really like, except that it almost certainly isn't what the media have portrayed.

      The fact that Slashdot posts this shit is a sad sign of the slow decline. You wouldn't get this over at SoylentNews.

      How do you know that that he isn't the prick that the media has made him out to be? Here we are talking about a guy who was willing to sacrifice confidential informants & journalists just to reveal the truth of how bad the US is. Anyone willing to push their agenda at the costs of innocents is not someone to be admired.

      If SoylentNews is going to filter out news it finds distasteful, then I'll stick with Slashdot. I don't need a nerdy version of FoxNews/MSNBC.

    10. Re:So? by cheesybagel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Innocents? They provided him the information. In most countries just doing that is enough to get convicted for treason. If they didn't want the information to be published why did they give it to Wikileaks to begin with?

      Do you think there is anyone with a flawless personality? I still admire him for what he did exposing all that information. But it doesn't mean I need to appreciate his entire way of life.

    11. Re:So? by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      ...instead of focussing on what he has done.

      One of the things he's done is built a cult of followers who insist that he's leaking secrets purely for the good of the world. It's reached the point where anyone criticizing him is dismissed outright as being a brainwashed government shill, especially here on Slashdot where the hivemind reigns supreme.

      However, the actual existence of a benevolent intent is what makes all the difference, factually. If Assange's claims of benevolence are honest, then he's a whistleblower who only gave information to enemies out of necessity or accident. If he really only cared about spilling secrets, then he's a spy who communicates through a very public medium, using scandalous stories as obfuscation.

      We can't really "focus on what he has done", without a clear idea of exactly what that is. Is he a whistleblower or is he a spy? Only Assange knows for sure, but whatever he says is obviously biased. For anyone else interested in facts, the only materials we have to consider are articles like this - written by observers, showing only their observations of the man's behavior. Maybe they support his claims, and maybe not.

      When we consider the effects of Assange's actions, we should not forget the parts that oppose our own preferred opinions. In comparison, consider that Joseph Stalin helped defeat the Nazis and establish his country as a superpower. On the other hand, he was a tyrant whose powerful nation was forged by oppressing dissent. A few generations from now, if we consider Julian Assange to be a hero, do we include the word "accidental"?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    12. Re:So? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      That's pretty much the point. Why does anyone care about his autobiography? I care about one of his projects.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:So? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Sounds like much we already knew or suspected. I'm more interested in why some people keep trying to show us what an awful character Assange is, instead of focussing on what he has done. Love him and Wikileaks or hate them; the latter seems a lot more relevant.

      Probably because like here, the people who support him make a ton of noise about how he is just a saint who has been vilified by a vengeful US government and those who say "Hmm... maybe he's not a good guy after all" tend to get drowned out.

      This. And because it places his requests for "cooperation" from various agencies/corporations and his threats (carried out at least once) to shut down Wikileaks until he was funded in a... very interesting light. Not to mention it also casts light on the various internal rifts and defections, policy decisions at various stages of Wikileak's life, etc... etc...

    14. Re: So? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Yes, the apple tree must stand tall to give you apples. But do you care about how the tree became the tree it is now from the sapling it once was? No, you want the tree to stand there because you want the apples!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:So? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

      Then, why does Assange's "need" outweigh the needs and rights of his alleged victims and the people/government of Sweden to have the allegations against him investigated?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    16. Re:So? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Assange never made a career out of giving people advice on how to conduct their sex lives or personal lives. He's critical of big governments and their actions (such as engaging in wars). Unlike Falwell, he isn't a hypocrite, because Assange is not a government, nor a member of any government, or anyone with any kind of governmental or military power whatsoever: it's impossible for him to practice (or not) what he preaches.

    17. Re:So? by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      A lot of people don't understand that the CIA realized that character assassination is MUCH more effective (and less messy) than physical assassination a long time ago. It's also a great way to deal with an IMF head who suddenly decides to start challenging the dollar.

      This sounds like the latest salvo in a concerted effort to assassinate Assange's character (since Ecuador and the UK would probably frown on anything more direct). Not sure how they got to his ghostwriter (or if he was perhaps a plant all along). But it's clear that they did.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    18. Re:So? by Dialecticus · · Score: 2

      ...goes back long before he chose to jump bail and become a fugitive from justice.

      He may be a fugitive from something, but it strains credulity to call it "justice".

    19. Re:So? by Triklyn · · Score: 2

      "say yes... ... um, yes?

      consent, you guys heard it, that was consent"

      i'm paraphrasing the league there, poorly, but please, please stop being facetious and obtuse.
      conditional statements don't just automatically default to true.

      if (a == 1)
      b=1;
      else
      b=1;

      is a pretty retarded statement.

    20. Re:So? by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that Slashdot posts this shit is a sad sign of the slow decline.

      I disagree. While the description of Assange is obviously untrustworthy, and most likely an attempt at character assasination, it's quite newsworthy that such attempts continue. It paints a frightening picture of not Assange, but the state of our Western democracies.

      Also, Slashdot's discussion system means everyone gets to see both the reactions such a story generates, and even more importantly the moderations they receive. It is quite relevant to all of us and the future of our civilization if such sustained effort to destroy the credibility of resistance actually produces results.

      None of us knows anything about Assange from credible sources, so everyone is free to believe what they will. Thus what they choose to believe reflects their pre-existing bias, not unlike in the Zimmerman-Martin affair (where people apparently used their crystal balls to come up with ludicrously detailed blow-by-blow descriptions of what obviously must have happened). It matters little if Assange is a scoundrel, a Cape, or a mere human; but it matters a lot whether people are willing to simply take the government's word of it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    21. Re:So? by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People forget this part. They see Assange as a saintly figure who cares deeply about all his human worshippers. There were Afghanis who worked secretly with the US had their names revealed, putting their lives in danger. Now if Assange had admitted he didn't know about these names being released then I could see his fans forgivin this lapse in judgement. However Assange said that he did not care if those people died because they had been cooperating with the US, and his fans don't seem to notice or care.

      Assange is not just a messenger here.

    22. Re:So? by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      ... but it matters a lot whether people are willing to simply take the government's word of it.

      Or Assange's word. And this story isn't from "the government," but from someone he chose to work with.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    23. Re:So? by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no evidence about this farcical plot. If the US wanted Assange they could have had their UK lapdogs turn him over much more easily than devising a mission impossible scheme to get Sweden involved.

      "As you recall" I presume is based on the authorized story supplied by the Assange supporters? Scrubbed and polished so that the hero never looks bad in any way and is only a victim. The whole point of this article is to show that maybe his story isn't so clear and clean.

      For everyone who says "maybe he's not an angel, but you have to listen to the message", why don't they also say "maybe he is a rapist, but you have to listen to the message"? This is because they know the message won't be listened to if it comes from a rapist, which is the incentive they have to deny that it ever happened, or to claim that Sweden somehow is in bed with the US, that Assange's very life is in danger, that the women were coerced or have financial gain to lie, etc.

    24. Re:So? by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      In free countries the press is supposed to fill the function of wikileaks. Of course, today's 'journalists' are too busy 'making a difference' to do their damn jobs.

    25. Re:So? by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      No. he is not accused of rape. He has been accused of nothing.

      And the stories about his womanizing? Almost every guy posting at Slashdot. Perception management is everything.

    26. Re:So? by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      "Probably because like here, the people who support him make a ton of noise about how he is just a saint who has been vilified by a vengeful US government..."

      Straw man. No one is a saint. No one said he is a saint. And he has been vilified, tracked, and set up by an
      EXTREMELY vengeful US intelligence community - which is much different - and separate from - the US government. Governments come and go, but our real masters live behind the scenes and pull perception management stunts like this.

      How many men, how much money, did they spend to track down every physical movement, every call, every text, every phone call he made? And interview every woman they could find that slept with him until they found two (sleeping with him at the same time) who would say "boo"? And further, one of those dropped the matter with disgust once she found the US was using her to get Assange.

    27. Re:So? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      And the stories about his womanizing? Almost every guy posting at Slashdot.

      Womanizing isn't really the same thing as fantasizing.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    28. Re:So? by doom · · Score: 2

      We stopped using ReiserFS because its performance really wasn't very good compared to its modern competition.

      Really? No numbers I've ever seen have ever tested file systems in the one case the ReiserFS targeted but no one else seems to have: large numbers of small files.

      But then, I haven't stopped using ReiserFS either. (And yes, it is being maintained, last I looked the Debian team was still doing bug fixes to Reiser 3.)

    29. Re:So? by HeckRuler · · Score: 5, Informative

      There were Afghanis who worked secretly with the US had their names revealed

      Were there now?

      You'd think the Pentagon would have known about them:

      On 11 August 2010, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents",[55] although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."[56]

      In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."[57] Both Wikileaks and Greenwald pointed to this report as clear evidence that the danger caused by the leak had been vastly overstated.[58][59]

    30. Re:So? by Dan541 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So if I accuse you of rape, you should be dragged to my country for a crime you haven't even been charged with and then deported to a third country to face execution for breaking their laws?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    31. Re:So? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Falwell is a terrible example. Preachers are supposed to lead by example, they're supposed to be above worldly things (and believe it or not, many people both clergy and non-clergy are).

      A better example would be Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich. With Clinton, he was a lousy husband but the best President I've seen since I started voting in 1972 (voting age was 21 in 1968). Those who hated him still hated him, everybody else complained about the government paying forty million bucks to prosecute a blow job.

      Gingrich was pretty much the epitome of evil while pretending to be a Christian (he actually worships money, like most Americans). Christians do NOT divorce their wives who are dying of cancer so they can legally bang some other chick. Yet he's still got a lot of clout (ran for Pres in 1012).

      Clergy are held to a higher standard than their congregations are. What's worse, Falwell practiced what he so vehemently preached against.

    32. Re:So? by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      Ah yes, everyone forgets those poor innocent informants that Julian Assange sacrificed. Except, it's not really a "sacrifice" as they're alive and well. They don't even need protection. At least according to the Pentagon.

      So... He put their lives in danger. At least, people were worried that they'd be in danger.

      Well, sort of. I mean, let's just say it like it is: The shills and apologists damn well hoped a few of them would wind up dead so they'd have something to throw at Assange.

      But yeah, the guy certainly comes off as a dick. And if that were in any way comparable to the blatantly evil and illegal bullshit that he helped expose, then I might hold it against him. Seriously, have you looked this stuff up? Your US taxpayers dollars helped buy young male sex slaves. DynCorp actually has a history of this and yet we still employ them.

  2. And it matters why? by fsck-beta · · Score: 2

    Yea a lot of people who do really amazing things aren't always the best people. Sure he deserves some criticism, but we obsess over these take down articles. Clickbait etc

    1. Re:And it matters why? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Not just clickbait, but an actual hatchet-job which will be defended by Wikileaks opponents as "We know he's imperfect and you shouldn't be worshipping him" (which we weren't anyway.)

      Clearest clue this entire article is written in bad faith: this poor attempt to imply hypocrisy:

      But Assange, who was quite happy to reveal the secrets of governments around the world proved far more reluctant when it came to talking about his own past and private life.

      No idea if Assange is an unfaithful harasser of women or not, but this isn't an article I'd trust on the subject. And no, I'm a fan of the message, the messenger isn't important.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  3. If you can't win. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can't win: Ad Hominem.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:If you can't win. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      That's one of the key tactics that have been used for ages. Can't refute their claim, can't dispel the allegations, can't debunk their claims? Attack them instead of their message.

      Works for various three-letter-agencies, works for a certain cult that claims to be a church while being a thinly veiled front for bad SciFi, works all the times. I can't remember many terrible things being said against the woman who filed rape charges against Assange, though. If you could point me to some it would actually be helpful.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Not a ghostwriter. by o_ferguson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Speaking as a ghostwriter, this is not how one operates. This guy is just being an asshole.

    --
    - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
    1. Re:Not a ghostwriter. by o_ferguson · · Score: 2

      Thanks. I needed to get the word count up.

      --
      - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
    2. Re:Not a ghostwriter. by o_ferguson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My reading is that O'Hagan was brought in by the publishing company to try to take the book in the direction they wanted, not the direction Assnage wanted. Once this backfired, he explicitly compromised his strong desire to have no public connection to the text by becoming a mouthpiece against Assange in the world of news and current affairs programs. The length of time (years) since the incident has no bearing on the professional ethical implications of violating the privacy of a primary source, even if that source is committed to the idea of violating institutional opacity, and even if that privacy is assured only by convention, and not by a specific NDA.

      --
      - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
  5. vain, paranoid, sexist by tomhath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could describe any number of people who are/were successful in public but had feet of clay. Rev. Martin Luther King, Pres. Bill Clinton - the list goes on and on (admittedly King wasn't necessarily paranoid, they really were out to get him).

    1. Re: vain, paranoid, sexist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They really are out to get Assange.

  6. Re:shocking by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    can I have 'smear campaign' for 100, please, alex?

    we can see thru this character assasination easily enough; but the fact is, if you keep repeating lies enough, people will believe them.

    regardless, what the man has done is what matters. personality does not enter into it, not one bit.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  7. Love the pro-Assange crowd here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry to post A/C, but there's too much hate for contrarian opinions on Slashdot.

    I love how the pro-Assange crowd is already dismissing this. I'm sorry, but it does matter. The "why" someone does something is just as important as the "what". Assange takes a lot of credit for Wikileaks, but the truth is there are a lot of people involved in Wikileaks who are more valuable to the organization whereas Assange's narcissim and poor ethical decisions have not only made him an easy target but have also damaged the brand itself. With what they're trying to do, maintaining the ethical and moral high ground is paramount as the only thing they have to go on for their work to make a difference is their reputation; once that's damaged then the public at large will not trust them and nothing will ever really change. If you truly believe in what you're doing, then you don't put yourself into compromising situations with women etc.

  8. oh noes by melchoir55 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He's self centered and likes to flirt with younger women. Oh no! Our faith in the very integrity of wikileaks must be revisited!

    Meanwhile an enormous personality cult continues around an asshole who regularly destroyed the lives of people working for him (Steve Jobs).

    If I were going to pick someone to have a beer with, I would pick Assange any day. I don't give a fuck if someone has personality flaws. That means he is the same as every other human alive. What I care about is their effect on the world around them. Assange has had such a net positive impact with wikileaks that no amount of aggressive flirting or being-a-dick-sometimes(tm) is going to burn it.

    1. Re:oh noes by cheesybagel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not to mention the liver transplant he got. People his age usually get pushed all the way back to the transplant list. Even then, after he got his liver, did he even bother taking his pills to at least ensure he lived a bit longer so the transplant wasn't useless? No. He did a crazy mystical diet where he died shortly afterwards.

  9. Re: a**e by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's just one of the fancy new features of beta. You're welcome, slashdotters. ;)

  10. Not actual ghostwriter by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Informative

    more like self appoint, failed and bitter biographer.
    "[When Assange would not cooperare with the writier]... Assange's publisher, Cannongate, releases its own version of the autobiography, after Assange allegedly fails to honour the terms of his contract. The book flopped, selling only 700 copies in its first week"

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  11. has his hands on their a**e by cowwoc2001 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Silly question: what does a**e stand for? :)

    1. Re:has his hands on their a**e by Eevee · · Score: 3, Funny

      It stands for the value of 'a' raised to the power of e (roughly 2.71828). Now, while Euler's number is damn sexy, I'm not sure why he kept putting his hands on it...

  12. NSA Campaign by StormReaver · · Score: 4, Informative

    Remember, the NSA's stated M.O. is to publicly smear Julian Assange in order to get people to divert focus away from the crimes commited by the U.S. Federal Government.

    Julian's character is an irrelevant distraction, so don't get drawn into a debate over the messenger. Stay on message: The U.S. Federal Government has committed crimes against its people, and will do anything to cover it up.

  13. Re:assange, QEII spotted boarding QEII together? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    Paul Revere used to butter the milkmaids with his baby-batter.

    Philippides, the courier of Marathon used to drink too much, and then screw the serving boys.

    However, they are NOT discounted as messengers.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Re:shocking by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 2

    Various Swedish legal experts have fallen on either side of the debate, for example fairly critical article on Assange quotes Swedish professor emeritus of international law, Ove Bring, as saying: "the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime". So even the experts disagree. Unless you have some inside knowledge I do not see how you can be so sure as to say "technically the charges would come after". So your remarks smell like trolling to me...

  16. Re:Read the article by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

    Bear in mind that "the article" is published by The Telegraph, which is the UKs chief mouthpiece for the right-wing establishment. Kind of like Fox-News, but not quite as bad.

    So left's not confuse what it says with actual facts. They might be the facts, they might not. But The Telegraph is not a reliable source, so we don't know.

  17. Re:Oh man by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The woman who had the sex with him dropped out the accusation man. She voluntarily let him in her bedroom and had voluntary sex with him before. She just wasn't 'in the mood' one of the times he did sex with her. That is a crime in Sweden? Good thing I don't live there.

    Yeah, it's entirely possible for someone to consent to sex one night and then not consent to sex the next morning. See, people have the right to say no, whether it's because they're not "in the mood", because they're sleepy, because they're sick, or any other reason. And forcing yourself on someone who has said no is rape, even if you've previously had consensual sex with them in other circumstances. And that's not only a crime in Sweden, but in most other countries.

  18. Typical BPD/NPD behavior by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

    This behavior is all in line with those who have Borderline and Narcisistic Personality Disorders. Most highly motivated people with the drive to be leaders have them to some degree. Some worse than others. That's why all of our elected officials are essentially pricks motivated by self gain rather than true public service. Their behavior drives away the decent people who might otherwise want to participate but can't tolerate interacting with such people.

    While not the most admirable traits to have, it also isn't a crime to be a backstabbing asshole. It seems like someone is on a character assassination agenda.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.