This is sad - I don't know Stefan but have met him a few times, and can attest to the fact that he is a decent guy.

Obviously his behaviour here is way out of line - it should act as a wake up call for him to sort stuff out.

I hope, given time, he can be given a second chance though - everyone does stuff they regret, and no-one should be completely beyond the pale.

From the article: debilitating addiction to cannabis

Medically, this makes no sense.

There is such a thing as addiction to marijuana. He may or may not have it, and it may or may not have something to do with his actions here, but it does exist.

Some people in the comments at that link are trying to make a distinction between "physically" and "psychologically" addictive. This is a common belief, but medically, there are no such distinctions. Addiction is defined as continued use despite consequences, and whatever the mechanism, it occurs with marijuana in some people.

That is not the definition of abuse. Per DSM-IV criteria for substance abuse addiciton:

"One of the following must be present within a 12 month period: (1) recurrent use resulting in a failure to fulfill major obligations at work, school, or home; (2) recurrent use in situations which are physically hazardous (e.g., driving while intoxicated); (3) legal problems resulting from recurrent use; or (4) continued use despite significant social or interpersonal problems caused by the substance use."

I know that we technically-minded people like to be precise in our wording, but I think that "continued use despite consequences" is a reasonable summary of that exhaustive definition. :)

Medically this is untrue. You need to understand the actual definition of "addiction" before making statements like this.

i believe mike was fighting for any excuse of his action.

knowing stefan (a small bit) i can only agree that he is one of the most charming, smart and helpful people in the london scene. that offense is super-far out of character for him

as a journalist... his job is the very OPPOSITE of "fighting for any excuse for his action." REALLY weak

Guess that's fair. It just stood out to me that the writer seemed to be calling out drug addiction, rather than the acute influence of the drug.

No, standing close is not qualifying for sex offender. It's the "problematic" bit that makes him a sex offender. The fact that you suggest otherwise is rather disingenous.

And given that he pleaded guilty what else of his story do you need to hear?

Can we please stop making excuses for sexual assault?

> And given that he pleaded guilty what else of his story do you need to hear?

I agree with the rest of what you say, but in general it's rather dangerous to assume that somebody pleading guilty to a crime necessarily means they did something wrong.

I don't really think you can dismiss what's presumably the key point as merely "problematic" ;)

First you say he did not act "in the most ethical manner in business matters". Then you say "I thought of him as a good person of high moral character". Are those statements not at direct odds with one another? I don't think business ethics and morals are exactly orthogonal to one another.

Believe there's an extra or missing logical operator there.