>>I can't comment on "It boils down to ..." - you seem to have more direct, first-hand knowledge of this issue than I do.
>>
>>My source was posted right here in this thread.
>>
>>As I mentioned in my last post I think people being discussed have a right to be identified.
>>
>>I think I've said several times that it does the tattler a great disservice if the speculation is unfounded. Which is why so many posters have retained the hypothetical nature of the discussion. It was *you* who converted it into the particular, not anybody else.
>>
>>If by "involved party close to him [AK]" you mean Marcia Akins, why not just say so?
>>
>>Because (apart from your contribution) the matter is hypothetical until *somebody* fronts up with the facts- in particular, the letters described in this thread as being sent to the employer.
>>
>>Having raised their names, perhaps you should now take the responsibility of inviting them to the thread to deny their involvement, which will end it?
>
>Although this discussion is nominally "hypothetical", the damage done is already real. My purpose in joining this thread has been, ironically, to try to introduce what I consider ethical behaviour to a thread about ethics. I think any implication that I'm the "bad guy" in this thread is misplaced.
>
>As for inviting them to this thread, that's a good idea and I'm going to do exactly that. I'll post a message here directly to Naomi, and I'll try to get an e-mail address for Andy and contact him that way.


You're not the bad guy at all, Al. It's just that the people who were told privately about what happened were asked to keep quiet about it. There was a good reason for that, which I will not state because that is also private. Unfortunately there was one individual who couldn't manage to keep quiet about it.