13 Netflix tricks you need to know

Chris Bell in The Telegraph


1. Watch stuff from the US

First it was thicker hamburgers, then cheaper cars. And now Americans get a superior Netflix service too - with our transatlantic cousins getting newer TV shows and a far broader range of movies. You can circumvent these regional restrictions on the UK service, however, by using a network service like Media Hint. It only works on computers – but for around £2.50 a month (or £25 a year) it will allow you to access Netflix in other countries too. An alternative free option which does the same thing is the Hola unblocker browser plugin, which works with Chrome, Firefox or the Android OS (although some reports suggest it is secretly selling users' bandwidth to hackers). Either way, be warned: accessing Netflix in other countries is a violation of your user agreement, so attempt at your own risk.

If you want to access US Netflix via your Xbox, PlayStation, Apple TV or iPad, then it’s fractionally fiddlier- in that you’ll need to manually change your DNS settings to fool your system into believing you are based elsewhere. On an Apple TV, for example, go into your Settings, go to General, then Network. Select your Network Name, then select Configure DNS, and Manual. From there, enter a new DNS code – these are subject to change, but Netflix Fixer posts regular updates about valid codes, as does Droidkit. If these free ones fail to work, or you don't like the sound of it, then try a paid-for service such as Unblock Us, which does the same for $4.99 (£3.20) a month (there’s also a free trial). But again, be aware you’re violating your service agreement.


2. Kill the buffering – via the secret menu

Is Walter White pixellating before your very eyes? Is Frank Underwood buffering continuously? Netflix is supposed to automatically calibrate your streaming depending on your connection – but you can bypass that via a secret settings menu. On a computer, just click on any video while pressing Shift+Alt (Shift+Option+Click on a Mac), and under “Stream Manager” you can manually adjust the bandwidth usage. There is also an option to adjust how the audio and video synchronises, just in case the dialogue and actors’ mouth movements have parted company.

List: the 85 best movies on Netflix UK

3. Kill the buffering – via an even more secret menu

If you’re on a Smart TV, Blu-ray Player, or game console, you’ll need to reset your Netflix application. But oddly, this requires a code similar to the old Konami Code of videogaming lore. Launch Netflix, and on your controller or remote, press the following: Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, Up, Up, Up, Up. This brings up a secret debug menu of your general information (plus, if you're on Xbox, technical information such as AV stats, a frame rate counter, a log and so on). Tweak the settings from here, or take the option to deactivate then relaunch the app – allowing you to change the settings and eliminate the buffering.

4. Check your resolutions

Knowing how to stream movies in HD only matters if you're actually getting HD. So check what you’re actually watching by going to Your Account page. Select Playback Settings, and under Data Usage, select High. Then click Save. But be warned: High Definition munches through data – so make sure it doesn’t devour your allowance.

5. Choose your viewing time carefully

According to Digital Trends, one factor influences video quality above all others: the time of day - whether that time falls under typical peak hours when everyone else is watching and clogging the system. “Getting HD (720p) at 9 in the evening, for example, was next to impossible,” they reported, “let alone 1080p Super HD.” Bingeing on Mad Men at 4am, therefore, will see better results – but then, you knew that already.

6. Avoid spoilers and other irritants

Netflix pet hates: everyone has them. But now, chances are, they’ll be sorted out by Flixplus – a worthwhile Chrome browser extension created by the Lifehacker website team specifically to root out all the annoying Netlfix features. Among the 18 tweaks it offers, Flixplus can hide potential spoiler images and text snippets, remove duplicate recommendations, disable that irritating Facebook integration prompt and even show IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes ratings. And it has just been updated to cope with the new Netflix menu system. Get it here.


7. Stream better by setting up a VPN

This trick originated in the US – where some broadband providers have been accused of “choking off” data at peak times, so the video quality of services like Netlfix plummets. But Virtual Private Networks may yet prove useful in the UK as video streaming gets more popular. In short, by connecting via a remote network, they allow you to circumnavigate any gateway your ISP (Internet Service Provider) may have imposed – ensuring connections speeds that are, in some cases, 10x faster than normal. But it does require some technical expertise – a step-by-step guide can be found here.

8. Make the subtitles legible

Oh, Netflix minions: for all the work you put in to adding accurate subtitles, you then dash it all by making the typeface too small, or the text colour too light, for you to read easily. Changing the default yellow sans-serif font is easy, however - go to Your Account then, under Your Profile, select Subtitle Appearance. In the pop-up box, change and preview until you're satisfied.


9. Use Keystroke Shortcuts

Streaming from your laptop or computer? Let your fingers do the navigating for precise, easy control. Hit Spacebar or Enter keys to pause/play. ‘PgDn’ also pauses, while ‘PgUp’ plays. F enables full-screen viewing, while Esc takes you out of it. Hold Shift and the Left Arrow to rewind, while Shift and the Right Arrow fast-forwards. Up and Down Arrows change volume, while M toggles for mute.

10. Access the Apple TV “bonus” features

If you’re watching via Apple’s little black hockey puck of delight, then try hitting the Up arrow twice on its remote while viewing – it brings up a banner with a thumbnail image, description, and rating. Pressing down is more useful though: it brings up a progress bar, notched with chapters. And if you hit the left or right arrow you can leap forward or back 2–6 minutes depending on the length of the title.

11. Watch Netflix with friends - anywhere

Desperate to share your theory on why Claire Underwood is the real brutal epicentre of House Of Cards? Try Rabbit, a group chat service which, unlike similar services like Google Hangouts, allows you to launch a window where you and your other “guests” can watch and discuss Netflix together. Or, indeed, anything you’re watching through a browser – YouTube, Hulu, badger webcams and so on. It also means only one of you needs a Netflix account, although the legality of doing this is what lawyers might describe as “murky”.
Credit: The Netflix app Rabbit

12. Access Netflix’s internal catalogue

While your viewing habits – and more specifically, the ratings you give programmes – teach the Netflix algorithms what to suggest on your listings, sometimes you’re just in the mood for… a Critically-acclaimed Understated French Drama. We all do. Instead of painstakingly searching out such a creature, however, Netflix have helpfully, but secretly, created a vast number of category IDs that you simply type into the search bar instead. These enable quick access to broad groups like Cult TV Shows (74652) or esoteric listings like Visually-striking Martial Arts Movies (3196). Luckily, you can find updated ID lists here and here. Those French dramas, by the way, are under 3949.


13. Improve your viewing choices

Paralysed by the sheer choice on offer? Netflix’s built-in star rating offers a rough guide as to the quality of the movie/show – but when you really need the wisdom of a larger crowd, try the Chrome extension Netflix Enhancer. The recently-revised tool allows you to see a film's Rotten Tomatoes score as well as its IMDb rating – not to mention access to other IMDb content as well as any trailers. Still indecisive? Try Netflix Roulette. Put in an actor, a genre, or another determining factor, and hey - who knows what you’ll end up watching.

Why is China's stock market falling and how might it affect the global economy?

Katie Allen in The Guardian



What has happened in China?

China’s stock market has fallen sharply over recent weeks despite measures by officials in Beijing aimed at calming investors’ jitters and shoring up global confidence in the country’s slowing economy.

Shares in China had soared 150% in the 12 months to mid-June as individual investors piled into the rising market, often borrowing heavily to do so. But chiming with warnings that shares were overvalued and the signs of an economic slowdown, the momentum came to a shuddering halt when shares hit a seven-year peak.

Following another plunge on what was dubbed “Black Monday”, China’s stock markets have now given up all their gains for the year.

China’s shock move to devalue its currency, the yuan, this month only served to intensify worries about the world’s second-largest economy.

Shares around the world followed China’s stock markets lower. About £74bn was wiped off the value of the FTSE 100 and on Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped by a record of more than 1,000 points at one stage.

Commodities such as crude oil and copper have also tumbled to multi-year lows as investors take fright over signs of waning demand in the world’s leading consumer of raw materials.

The currencies of emerging Asian economies have weakened as investors drop those assets seen as riskier to hold. But investments perceived as safe havens in times of trouble, such as gold and some government bonds, are in demand.

Is this a repeat of the 2008 global financial crisis?

Some of the falls on stock markets are certainly reminiscent of the swings seen around the time of the collapse of the US bank Lehman Brothers. The FTSEurofirst 300, a pan-European share index, suffered its biggest one-day drop since late 2008, losing 5.4%. For Shanghai’s composite index, Monday’s 8.5% slump was the biggest since February 2007.

But some economists say the parallels stop there. They see limited risk to China’s real economy from the stock market turmoil and little to be worried about beyond China.

Julian Jessop, the chief global economist at the consultancy Capital Economics, said: “The current panic is essentially ‘made in China’. The recent data from other major economies, including the US, eurozone and Japan, has generally been good ... Aside from the bad news from China, there is very little to support fears of a major global downturn.”

But others are less sanguine. They point out that China’s slowdown is just one of many factors worrying investors alongside lingering political problems in the eurozone, signs of weaker global growth and vast sums flowing out of fragile emerging markets such as Brazil. Furthermore, policymakers apparently have few tools left to help.
Should I be worried?

George Osborne, the UK chancellor, suggests not and believes China’s stock market woes will not have much impact on European economies.

But there are plenty of other voices saying this could get a lot worse. 

Larry Summers, the former US Treasury secretary, has suggested that the US Federal Reserve may be forced to ease monetary policy, rather than hiking interest rates in the next few months as had been expected.
— Lawrence H. Summers (@LHSummers)August 24, 2015

As in August 1997, 1998, 2007 and 2008 we could be in the early stage of a very serious situation.
— Lawrence H. Summers (@LHSummers)August 24, 2015

It is far from clear that the next Fed move will be a tightening.

Furthermore, experts say policymakers do not have many tools available to shore up the global economy this time around.

Interest rates are already at record lows and central banks have spent years printing electronic cash in quantitative easing (QE) programmes, cheap money that many blame for the latest market troubles.

Stephen King, the HSBC economist, warned back in May: “The world economy is sailing across the ocean without any lifeboats to use in case of emergency.”

Damian McBride, Gordon Brown’s former spin doctor, spelled out his advice for an impending crash on Twitter.
— Damian McBride (@DPMcBride)August 24, 2015

Advice on the looming crash, No.1: get hard cash in a safe place now; don't assume banks & cashpoints will be open, or bank cards will work.
— Damian McBride (@DPMcBride)August 24, 2015

Crash advice No.2: do you have enough bottled water, tinned goods & other essentials at home to live a month indoors? If not, get shopping.
— Damian McBride (@DPMcBride)August 24, 2015

Crash advice No.3: agree a rally point with your loved ones in case transport and communication gets cut off; somewhere you can all head to.

Another tweet posted later on Monday:
— Damian McBride (@DPMcBride)August 24, 2015

Today is just the stock market catching up with the terror over defaults that's been gripping the bond market for months.

What if I have money tied up in stocks?

Individuals with money invested in shares should not worry too much for now, financial market experts have said.

Nick Dixon, an investment director at the asset management company Aegon UK, said: “If pension savers don’t need to access their fund for many years, they needn’t be alarmed by short term volatility.

“Stock markets are in for a bumpy ride over the coming weeks, but if savers can stomach the ups and downs, equities are likely to provide superior returns over the medium and long term.”
What does it mean for interest rates?

There had been widespread expectation that the US Federal Reserve would start the gradual process of hiking interest rates as soon as next month. Signs of a potential hard landing for China could well stay the central bank’s hand.

The same goes for the UK, where the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, recently hinted that a rate hike could happen around the turn of the year.

In China, meanwhile, the country’s central bank is widely expected to ease monetary policy further to shore up growth and confidence.

What will this mean for inflation?

A silver lining economists highlight for those countries that rely on imports of oil and other commodities is that this global sell-off will keep prices low. Oil has more than halved from a peak of $115 per barrel last summer to a Brent crude price of less than $44 per barrel now. At least some of that will be passed on to drivers in lower fuel prices.

Philippe Waechter, the global chief economist at Natixis Asset Management, said: “On the upside, the fall in the oil price will be positive news for European economies as consumer purchasing power will be increased.”

What happens next?

Officials in Beijing are under pressure to step in with more measures to restore stability to China’s stock markets. The trouble they face is that every action is also perceived as a further sign of quite how worried they are about the slide in shares and the wider economy.

Bill O’Neill, the head of the UK investment office at UBS Wealth Management, said: “There will be some form of additional stimulus over the next few days and weeks.

“That is likely to be combined with supportive words from developed economy central bankers aimed at offering reassurance that accommodative policies will remain in place regardless of when interest rates start to rise.”

From Thursday, investors will be looking to the US and a symposium of central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, for signs of how this new bout of market volatility may influence their interest rate decisions.

10 funniest jokes of the Edinburgh fringe

Source: The Guardian

1. Darren Walsh: I just deleted all the German names off my phone. It’s Hans free.

2. Stewart Francis: Kim Kardashian is saddled with a huge arse … but enough about Kanye West.

3. Adam Hess: Surely every car is a people carrier?

4. Masai Graham: What’s the difference between a hippo and a Zippo? One is really heavy, the other is a little lighter.

5. Dave Green: If I could take just one thing to a desert island, I probably wouldn’t go.

6. Mark Nelson: Jesus fed 5,000 people with two fishes and a loaf of bread. That’s not a miracle. That’s tapas.

7. Tom Parry: Red sky at night: shepherd’s delight. Blue sky at night: day.

8. Alun Cochrane: The first time I met my wife, I knew she was a keeper. She was wearing massive gloves.

9. Simon Munnery: Clowns divorce: custardy battle.

10. Grace the Child: They’re always telling me to live my dreams. But I don’t want to be naked in an exam I haven’t revised for.

Honourable Mentions

Jenny Collier: I never lie on my CV, because it creases it.

Ian Smith: If you don’t know what introspection is, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

Tom Ward: I usually meet my girlfriend at 12:59 because I like that one-to-one time.

Gyles Brandreth: Whenever I get to Edinburgh, I’m reminded of the definition of a gentleman. It’s someone who knows how to play the bagpipes, but doesn’t.

Ally Houston: Let me tell you a little about myself. It’s a reflexive pronoun that means “me”.

James Acaster: Earlier this year I saw The Theory of Everything – loved it. Should’ve been called Look Who’s Hawking, that’s my only criticism.

Is the game up for China’s much emulated growth model?

Jayati Ghosh in The Guardian



Illustration by Robert G Fresson



Whatever happened to emerging markets? Brics, Mints, whatever global investors call them: For a while it appeared as if countries such as Brazil, India and Turkey had secure and buoyant futures, regardless of the travails of advanced economies. There was much trumpeting of their advantages, such as the demographic bulges producing young populations. Few asked about the nature of the growth, or whether it could last. The euphoria spread, leading to large private-capital inflows that pushed up asset prices in these countries.

That already seems a long time ago, as investor opinion has done yet another volte face. Investors who were slow to read the tea leaves during the boom times have now taken fright. In just 13 months, capital outflows from these countries have crossed $1tn. Stock markets have tanked across countries as distant and diverse as Malaysia, India, South Africa and Brazil; currencies have depreciated; and bond issues are slowing down, with fewer takers.

For a change, this is not being driven by policy in the developed world. Unlike the “taper tantrum” unleashed in mid-2013 by Ben Bernanke, the then US Federal Reserve chairman – when he simply announced the possibility of reducing the massive liquidity stimulus that was being provided in the US – the current skittishness in emerging markets is the fallout of what is happening in China. This is hugely important, not just because of China’s major role in global trade, but because it signifies the end of a particular growth strategy that many other countries were trying to emulate.

The recent travails of China’s economy are well known by now: falling real estate prices put paid to the construction boom, and the subsequent bursting of the stock market bubble was hamfistedly controlled through official measures. But these current difficulties are the outcome of earlier economic strategies that were widely celebrated, when the going was good.

From the early 1990s China adopted an export-led strategy that delivered continuously increasing shares of the world market, fed by relatively low wages and very high rates of investment, enabling massive increases in infrastructure. It led to big increases in inequality and even bigger environmental problems, but the strategy seemed to work – until 2008-09, when exports were hit by the global financial crisis.

Yet even then, China, India and other large emerging markets continued to grow. The talk at the time was that they were already “decoupled” from the west. In reality, China (and much of developing Asia) had simply shifted to a different engine of growth without abandoning the focus on exports. The Chinese authorities could have generated more domestic demand by stimulating consumption through rising wage shares of national income, but this would have threatened their export-driven model. Instead they put their faith in even more accumulation to keep growth rates buoyant.

So the “recovery package” in China essentially encouraged more investment, which was already nearly half of GDP. Provincial governments and public sector enterprises were encouraged to borrow heavily and invest in infrastructure, construction and more production capacity. To utilise the excess capacity, a real estate and construction boom was instigated, fed by lending from public sector banks as well as “shadow banking” activities winked at by regulators. Total debt in China increased fourfold between 2007 and 2014, and the debt-GDP ratio nearly doubled to more than over 280%.

We now know that these debt-driven bubbles end in tears. The property boom began to subside in early 2014, and real estate prices have been stagnant or falling ever since. Chinese investors then shifted to the stock market, which began to sizzle – once again actively encouraged by the Chinese government. The crash that followed has been contained only because the government pulled out all the stops to prevent further falls.

All this comes in the midst of an overall slowdown in China’s economy. Exports fell by around 8% in the year to July. Manufacturing output is falling, and jobs are being shed. Construction activity has almost halted, especially in the proliferating “ghost towns” dotted around the country. Stimulus measures such as interest rate cuts don’t seem to be working. So the recent devaluation of the yuan– which has been dressed up as a “market-friendly” measure – is clearly intended to help revive the economy.

But it will not really help. Demand from the advanced countries – still the driver of Chinese exports and indirectly of exports of other developing countries – will stay sluggish. Meanwhile, China’s slowdown infects other emerging markets across the world as its imports fall even faster than its exports and its currency moves translate into capital outflows in other countries.

The pain is felt by commodity producers and intermediate manufacturers from Brazil to Nigeria and Thailand, with the worst impacts in Asia, where China was the hub of an export-oriented production network. Many of these economies are experiencing collapses of their own property and financial asset bubbles, with negative effects on domestic demand. The febrile behaviour of global finance is making things worse.

This is not the end of the emerging markets, but is – or should be – the end of this growth model. Relying only on exports or debt-driven bubbles to deliver rapid growth cannot work for long. And when the game is finally up, there can be severe political fallout. For developing countries to truly “emerge”, a more inclusive strategy is essential.

Once, firms cherished their workers. Now they are seen as disposable

Will Hutton in The Guardian


 

July 1909: a street in Bournville village near Birmingham, a new town founded by chocolate manufacturer and social reformer George Cadbury. Photograph: Topical Press Agency/Getty Images



More than 100 years ago, the Cadbury family built a model town, Bournville, for their workers, away from the overcrowded tenements of central Birmingham. Cadbury’s vast chocolate factory was at the centre of thousands of purpose-built villas, a village green, schools, churches and civic halls.

The message was clear. Cadbury cherished and invested in their workers, expecting commitment and loyalty back, which they got. Sir Adrian Cadbury, now in his 80s, still proudly shows visitors how his Quaker forefathers felt a genuine sense of responsibility to their workers. His family believed in capitalism for a purpose – innovation and human betterment.

Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, would regard the Cadbury family as crazed. His relationship with his workforce is entirely transactional: they are to give their heart and soul to Amazon, undertaking to follow Amazon’s “leadership principles”, set on a laminated card given to every employee, and can expect to be summarily sacked if they don’t make the grade. These injunctions are aimed at not only Amazon’s fork-lift truck drivers and packagers but also at its executive workforce.

At first glance, the principles seem unexceptional, exhorting “ Amazonians” to be obsessed with customers, drive for the best and think big. In practice, they mean workers have to be available to Amazon virtually every waking hour, as a devastating article claimed in last week’s New York Times. The workers should attack each other’s ideas in the name of “creative challenge” and buy into the paranoid culture Bezos believes is essential to business success, with their hourly performance fed into computers for Big Brother Bezos to monitor.

Working at Amazon has become synonymous with stress, conflict and tears – or, if you swim rather than sink, a chance to flourish. It is, as one former executive described it, “purposeful Darwinism”: if the majority of the workforce can flourish in such a culture, you have a successful company. Bezos would claim in his defence that he has founded the US’s most valuable retailer that ships two billion items a year. Cadbury ended up being taken over. Better his approach to capitalism than defunct Quakers, except now everyone is expendable. This is the route to success. Or is it?

The nature of firms is changing. The capitalist world of the so-called golden age between 1945 and the first oil crisis in 1974 was defined by Cadbury-type companies. Even if they didn’t build estates in which their workers could live, big companies offered paid holidays, guaranteed pensions related to your final salary, sickness benefit and recognised trade unions. Above all, they offered the chance of a career and personal progression.

This was the domain of the corporation man commuting to a steady job in a steady office in a steady company with their blue-collar counterparts no less secure in a steady factor. It delivered though. If western economies could again grow consistently at 3% or 4%, underpinned by matching growth in productivity, there would be delight all round.

The companies were much more exciting than they looked. They were purposeful – repositories of skills and knowledge, seeking out new markets, applying new technologies with an appetite for growth. In Britain, great companies such as ICI, Glaxo, EMI, Unilever, Thorn, British Aircraft Corporation, Marconi along with Cadbury were centres of growth and innovation.

A critical doctrine at the time was they were held back by trade unions and soft economic policy that encouraged inflation. The proof that inflation was so damaging is scant and beyond the print, coal, rail and motor industries, British trade unions were pretty weak and pliant. What instead held these companies back was the evaporation of the guaranteed markets of empire. Second, a short-term, gentlemanly, disengaged financial system was unable to mobilise resource behind these companies and their greater purpose as imperial markets shrank. That wasn’t widely understood then – and certainly not now. Instead, the economic problem was defined as pampered, unionised workers, a view further entrenched by an avalanche of free-market economics from the US. Worker privileges and rights must cease.

So to the firm of today. The new model firm no longer has workers who are members of the organisation in a relationship of mutual respect and shared mission with committed, long-term owners; rather, the new ownerless corporation with its tourist shareholders employs contractors who have to pay for benefits themselves and can be hired and fired at will.
They are throwaway people, middle-class workers at risk as much as their working-class peers. Unions are not welcome; pension benefits are scaled back; sickness, paternity and maternity benefits are pitched at the regulatory minimum. Last week, the Citizens Advice Bureau said it estimated that 460,000 people nationwide had been defined by employers as self-employed (and thus entitled to no company benefits), even though they worked regularly for one employer, often in office roles. It is the same approach that has delivered 1.4 million zero-hours contracts. All this allegedly is to serve growth. Except over the last 20 years, growth, productivity and innovation in both Britain and America have collapsed. These new firms whose only purpose is short-term profit with contractualised workforces turn out to be poor creators of long-term value. The exceptions, paradoxically, are the great hi-tech companies such as Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook.

The alchemy of their success is they combine innovative technology, produce at continental scale, invest heavily and commit to a great purpose, usually because of the powerful personal commitment of the founder. Bezos may have constructed a Darwinian work environment but it is all “to be the Earth’s most customer-centric company”. He has invested hugely to achieve that end, but his workplaces, by contrast, seem terrible.

But even Bezos does not want to be depicted as an employer with no moral centre: he urged his employees to read the offending article and refer examples of bad practice to his human resources department.

Ultimately, long-term value creation can’t be done by treating your workforces as cattle. It’s the great debate about today’s capitalism. It would be a triumph if it was taken more seriously in Britain.

What happens when an Ashley Madison-shaped bomb goes off in your marriage?

Helen Croydon in The Telegraph

As Loraine, 43, put her three-year-old daughter to bed in their home in Windsor she received a text from her husband. Instead of his usual “almost home” cheery tone, what she opened ripped her world apart. It was an explicit message clearly intended for someone else – another woman. “It pains me to recall the words but suffice to say it was obvious they had either had sex, or were about to.” She says. “I went into shock. I felt sick. I couldn’t eat. I couldn’t think straight. I had so many questions for him.”

She confronted him and he claimed it was harmless flirtation with someone he’d met on an evening out with friends. But weeks later when Loraine logged on to the family computer, she found a page open at an email account under an alias name. The inbox was full of messages from women and notifications from a dating site which, like Ashley Madison, appeared to be aimed at married people seeking affairs.

“What followed was the worst few weeks of my life,” says Lorraine. “It sucked every ounce of self-confidence out of me. I started to blame and question myself. I wondered if I’d been giving too much attention to my daughter and neglected him. He admitted he had a problem, akin to an addiction. I did my best to understand it. I wanted things to be right. I wanted to whitewash it, press reset. I even stepped up efforts in our relationship – that’s how much I wanted it to work. I was super strong and thought ‘we’ll get through this – some good will come from it’. But inside I was devastated.”

Lorraine’s earth shattering discovery happened three years ago and a year later brought about the end of her marriage.

More than a million Britons fear their work and home lives could be wrecked after their details were leaked online by hackers who published the entire database of the Ashley Madison adultery website

How many couples around the world face similar ordeals this week as they deal with the fallout from the Ashley Madison hacking scandal? An anonymous group calling itself The Impact Team went through with its threat to publish personal details of its 37 million worldwide subscribers. It first dumped the data on the dark web, but it didn’t take long for the information to drip-feed on to the mainstream internet. Several sites sprung up allowing worried spouses to check whether their other halves were straying by entering their email address. One internet user who claimed to have created a searchable database reportedly saw their website crash within minutes of going live.

More than 100 UK government email addresses was among those leaked, as well as more than 20 BBC ones, but it was unclear how many were genuine users of the site. Michelle Thomson, one of the SNP’s newly-elected Westminster MPs, was along those who said someone had stolen her email address and used it without her knowledge.

Within days, relationship counseling service Relate was receiving calls from people who had discovered partners’ details among the data and had their infidelity confirmed to them. Family law firms also report they have been contacted by suspicious spouses since the leak.

Many have taken to the internet forum SurvivingInfidelity.com to express their shock and seek advice. It makes for moving reading: “I had been hoping against hope that my husband would not show up on the list but it seems that he is….This nightmare never seems to end,” says one. Others share tips on how to access the data: “I’d be HAPPY to pay someone to mine the data, package it up and send it to me. Surely this service will be offered shortly, right?”

The group behind the attack apparently have a gripe not only with the morals of a website offering an illicit playroom to married people, but with Ashley Madison’s practice of charging its subscribers to delete information. “Too bad for those men, they’re cheating dirtbags and deserve no such discretion. Too bad for ALM (the company behind Ashley Madison), you promised secrecy but didn’t deliver,” the hackers wrote last month.

Founder of the site, Noel Biderman, said: 'The reason we’ve been so successful is because monogamy is counter to our DNA'

But public exposure could prove an irresponsible means of justice. Susan Quilliam, a relationship psychologist and author of The New Joy of Sex, says discovering a partner’s infidelity can cause more devastation to the innocent party than the guilty one. “When you lose a relationship and you weren’t expecting to lose it, there is betrayal, shock, horror, bereavement, denial, depression. It impacts on family, friends, relatives. In a way it’s worse than a bereavement. With a bereavement you lose the future with them. When you discover casual infidelity you lose the past too.”

And what of the danger to those whose details have been leaked in punitive regimes? Data monitoring group CybelAngel says there are 1,200 email addresses with a Saudi Arabian suffix, where adultery is punishable by death. Also included are names on Ashley Madison’s gay encounters site, many from countries where homosexuality is illegal. Blackmailers have reportedly been trawling through the database in an attempt to extort users.

The Canadian company behind Ashley Madison, Avid Life Media, has long defended its business principle, claiming humans have cheated for centuries and they are merely enabling people to meet their sexual needs free from emotional complications. The founder of the site, Noel Biderman, told me in an interview in April this year: “The reason we’ve been so successful is because monogamy is counter to our DNA…What we’ve done is created a platform where likeminded individuals can be more honest and open about their intentions than they could be on [other sites].”

There may well be plenty of anthropological arguments to support the “monogamy is unnatural” thesis, but there are plenty more in favour of a little self-control.

As Quilliam points out, too much of a good thing can lead to problems: “Men and women have always had urges for short-term sexual encounters but in previous years we didn’t have the opportunity. Now it’s available. It’s online. Because it’s so easy there is a danger of getting addicted to the high. There is a dopamine rush with every message and every encounter. We try to curb smoking by making it not readily available, banning it indoors etc. Perhaps we should be thinking about what we can access online.”

When Lorraine discovered her husband’s secret dating life, she created a fake profile to try and understand why her husband would want to betray her. “The only way to forgive was to try to understand it,” she explains. What she discovered angered her: “If you don’t log on for a while you get reminders, or incentives like a month’s free membership. They even give tips on how not to get caught. On bank statements the name of the transaction is disguised – they’ve got it all sorted. It’s actively encouraging deceit. Obviously if someone wants to cheat they will cheat, but these sites accelerate a behaviour pattern. It’s like giving a drugs to drug addicts and then putting them all together to encourage each other.”

'Despite the morally questionable tagline, 'Life is short, have an affair,' Ashley Madison’s popularity is undeniable'

Despite the morally questionable tagline, “Life is short, have an affair,” Ashley Madison’s popularity is undeniable. It claims thirty-seven million members in 50 countries worldwide, including 1.2 million in UK and reports a growth in membership of 20% since March this year (although a growing number of supposed members whose details have been leaked online insist they had never even heard of it). And it is just one of a growing number of so-called cheating dating sites.

Nor is it just men who may be feeling nervous this week. Ashley Madison recently told the Telegraph it has more female members than men, although it refuses to disclose how many are active. A source close to the FBI investigation into the leak has, morever, told this newspaper that many of the female profiles on the site appear to have been created by a relatively small number of individuals. Men pay to send and receive messages. Women do not, and it has been claimed that fake profiles are created to reel in husbands.

There are plenty who support the actions of the hackers. Denise Knowles a counselor at Relate, says: “When something like this comes into the public arena people take time and take stock to look at their relationship. When a secret like this is discovered, it can open up the possibility of talking about things and it can give the opportunity for good to come out of it.”

But for Lorraine, no amount of talking could fix her relationship. Discovery of her husband’s sordid secret spelled the end. “I absolutely did not want to divorce him but it was always the elephant in the room,” she says. “I’m still heartbroken and I can’t explain to my daughter why we separated. If I hadn’t found what I did, we’d have made it.”

What may have been intended by the hackers as a self-righteous pop at philanderers around the world is fast escalating into something with far graver consequences. The data even included extracts from profiles, quoting cringeworthy descriptions of sexual fantasies. It was perhaps an attempt at ridicule, expected to be greeted by nothing more than sniggers. The reality is that the biggest cost is not to the adulterers being exposed, but the families affected.

Death of buy-to-let: landlords wake up to Osborne's 150pc tax

Richard Dyson in The Telegraph

Hundreds of thousands of landlords and their accountants are digesting the impact of George Osborne’s shock tax change unveiled in the summer Budget on July 8.

The tax increase, on which there was no consultation, will be phased in from 2017 and fully implemented by 2020.

The change was unexpected, and the new regime is highly complex, so investors and their tax advisers are only now fully grasping its effects. Many investors remain unaware of the change, or underestimate its severity.

All higher-rate taxpayers who own buy‑to‑let properties on which there is a large mortgage will pay substantially more tax. Some current basic-rate taxpayers will also be hit, because the change will push them into the higher-rate tax bracket.

Those who are worst affected will see:

● the actual tax they pay on their investment rising twofold or more;

● the tax rate payable rising above 100pc, meaning that more than all of their profit is paid in tax;

● a degree of tax that pushes them into loss, making their investment financially unviable and forcing them to increase rents sharply – or sell.

Scroll down for a worked explanation of the changes.

What is also becoming clear is that worst hit will be those modest, middle-class savers who have prudently chosen to invest in buy‑to‑let, often alongside pensions and Isas, as a means to supplement their income.

The mechanism of Mr Osborne’s tax attack is the removal of landlords’ ability to deduct the cost of their mortgage interest from their rental income when they calculate a profit on which to pay tax.

So very wealthy landlords who do not need mortgages are untouched.

• Comment: This Alice in Wonderland tax sets a new benchmark in financial absurdity

In effect, the Chancellor wants to tax landlords on their turnover rather than their profit, meaning that tax will be payable on nonexistent income. This explains why tax rates will, for some, exceed 100pc: landlords will have to pay all of their profit in tax, and then pay more tax still.

As landlords absorb news of this shock tax attack, many have turned to online forums to vent their dismay. Some are writing to their MPs and directly to Mr Osborne.

More than 14,000 have signed an online petition calling for the tax to be withdrawn.

Other buy-to-let investors, though, remain unaware of the tax bombshell poised to wreak havoc on their finances. Accountants, mortgage lenders, brokers and other professionals are themselves still working through the ramifications.

Tina Riches, tax partner at accountancy and investment firm Smith & Williamson, said: “We are contacting all of our clients who have mortgaged property which they let, and we want to speak one-to-one with those worst affected. It is going to have a significant impact.”

Smith & Williamson has calculated that any higher-rate taxpayer landlord whose mortgage interest is 75pc or more of their rental income, net of other expenses, will see all of their returns wiped out by 2020.

So mortgage costs above 75pc of rental income will mean the buy‑to‑let investments become loss-making.

For additional-rate (45pc) taxpayers, the threshold at which their investment returns are wiped out by the tax is when mortgage costs reach 68pc of rental income.

The investors worst affected are therefore likely to be those who have bought recently with large mortgages. Low-yielding properties, such as those in London and other parts of the South East, where rents are comparatively low relative to property prices, will also be exposed. That is because rental income is likely to be lower relative to investors’ mortgage costs.

“It will be very difficult for middle-income borrowers to get into buy‑to‑let in future,” Ms Riches said. “It won’t end overnight, but existing investors will sell and far fewer will buy. Buy‑to‑let may well waste away.

“The wider worry is that the Government can make such radical changes without any consultation. What other areas will come under attack?”

Connie Cheuk owns 5 Properties - Photographed at her home in Littlehampton. Photo: Philip Hollis

Read how Connie Cheuk (pictured above), a landlord with five properties, will see her tax bill rise by almost 40pc. She is even contemplating giving up her 18-year career as a teacher as a means of reducing the tax impact

Britain’s big mortgage banks are reluctant to comment and appear to want to downplay the impact, perhaps to reassure their shareholders. But a senior executive at a top-five buy‑to‑let lender admitted privately to Telegraph Money: “For a group of customers there is a challenge, a potential for their cashflow to turn negative. They will be loss-making. Overall, this move makes it substantially harder for investors to generate a net income from buy‑to‑let.”

Of the many landlords to contact us, several are considering selling. This would enable them to pay off mortgages and limit the tax damage. Others will evict tenants and refurbish properties so they can be re-let for more.

One landlord described how a property currently let to a single mother of four, who is on benefits, will “not wash its face” once the tax starts to bite. If he converted the property into two units he could increase the current rent to cover the tax. The council would have to rehouse the family, he said, “and there is already an acute shortage of housing in that area”.

Another landlord described a £110,000 property, on which there is a £68,000 mortgage, let to an elderly couple at “about two thirds of the going market rent”. It generates an annual £1,100 profit, which would fall to £370 after the tax change.

“The property needs a new boiler, which would wipe out profits for years,” the landlord said. “My options are to increase rent significantly, which the tenants can’t afford, or evict them and sell up, or convert the property into smaller units.

“The Chancellor doesn’t grasp the misery he’ll cause – or doesn’t care.”

When George Osborne announced the change, he implied that the extra tax would hit only higher-earning landlords.

It’s true that every mortgaged landlord who pays 40pc or 45pc tax will indeed pay much more under his proposals.

But some basic-rate taxpayers will also pay more tax – because the change will push them into the higher-rate bracket.

In fact, contrary to Mr Osborne’s suggestion, the only buy-to-let investors who will not be hit are the very wealthy who buy property in cash and who don’t need a mortgage.

At the heart of the change is landlords’ future inability to deduct the cost of their mortgage interest from their rental income.

In other words, tax will be applied to the rent received – rather than what is left of the rent after the mortgage interest has been paid.

Here is a worked example assuming you, the landlord, pay 40pc tax.


NOW

Your buy-to-let earns £20,000 a year and the interest-only mortgage costs £13,000 a year. Tax is due on the difference or profit. So you pay tax on £7,000, meaning £2,800 for HMRC and £4,200 for you.


2020

Tax is now due on your full rental income of £20,000, less a tax credit equivalent to basic-rate tax on the interest. So you pay 40pc tax on £20,000 (ie £8,000), less the 20pc credit (20pc of £13,000 = £2,600), meaning £5,400 for HMRC and £1,600 for you. Your tax bill has therefore gone up by 93pc.

Now, say Bank Rate – and in turn your mortgage rate – rises by a small fraction, lifting your mortgage cost to £15,000, while your rent remains at £20,000.

You will have to pay £5,000 tax in this scenario, so you make no profit at all.