Jackson & Olding

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Dear god I can't believe I'm going to say this but hugh has a point. Paddy was acquitted. That doesn't mean that he was innocent but it means that you have to treat him as though he was. He effectively served a year ban in the run up to and period after the trial. He is serving an effective international ban. That doesn't mean that London Irish were right to sign him. Nor am I saying that people shouldn't boycott if that's how they feel. But there's a strong element here of him being singled out when there are plenty of others who deserve similar treatment.

FWIW I think PJ is a scumbag but my issue is quite clearly with some of these morons treating him like he's a rapist & implying that he is even if not explicitly stated. We know for a fact there's some repulsive and misogynistic stuff on that whatsapp group - if you want to hate him for that then be my guest but I don't feel that's what's driving these feelings on here or in the mob in Belfast back when he was standing trial...

The problem is that by suggesting other people, who have offended in different ways, are guilty of larger crimes (not the legal kind) than the one whose crime is against women, you are suggesting that sexism is a lesser crime.

Which is wrong. Sexism is just as bad a crime as anything else, and should be treated with as much gravity as anyone else.

And, actually, it's worse because it's a part of society that is acceptable in many places across the world, and that is wrong.

Except he gave Calum(ny) Clark as an example and what he did was very definitely criminal and iirc ended a fellow pro's career.

Not all forms of misogyny are as bad as the other, and some are very definitely not a bad as some other things

[hugh_woatmeigh]

Dear god I can't believe I'm going to say this but hugh has a point. Paddy was acquitted. That doesn't mean that he was innocent but it means that you have to treat him as though he was. He effectively served a year ban in the run up to and period after the trial. He is serving an effective international ban. That doesn't mean that London Irish were right to sign him. Nor am I saying that people shouldn't boycott if that's how they feel. But there's a strong element here of him being singled out when there are plenty of others who deserve similar treatment.

FWIW I think PJ is a scumbag but my issue is quite clearly with some of these morons treating him like he's a rapist & implying that he is even if not explicitly stated. We know for a fact there's some repulsive and misogynistic stuff on that whatsapp group - if you want to hate him for that then be my guest but I don't feel that's what's driving these feelings on here or in the mob in Belfast back when he was standing trial...

The problem is that by suggesting other people, who have offended in different ways, are guilty of larger crimes (not the legal kind) than the one whose crime is against women, you are suggesting that sexism is a lesser crime.

Which is wrong. Sexism is just as bad a crime as anything else, and should be treated with as much gravity as anyone else.

And, actually, it's worse because it's a part of society that is acceptable in many places across the world, and that is wrong.

I think verbal sexism is a far lesser crime than physical assault, yes. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

[Numbers]

FWIW I think PJ is a scumbag but my issue is quite clearly with some of these morons treating him like he's a rapist & implying that he is even if not explicitly stated. We know for a fact there's some repulsive and misogynistic stuff on that whatsapp group - if you want to hate him for that then be my guest but I don't feel that's what's driving these feelings on here or in the mob in Belfast back when he was standing trial...

The problem is that by suggesting other people, who have offended in different ways, are guilty of larger crimes (not the legal kind) than the one whose crime is against women, you are suggesting that sexism is a lesser crime.

Which is wrong. Sexism is just as bad a crime as anything else, and should be treated with as much gravity as anyone else.

And, actually, it's worse because it's a part of society that is acceptable in many places across the world, and that is wrong.

Except he gave Calum(ny) Clark as an example and what he did was very definitely criminal and iirc ended a fellow pro's career.

Not all forms of misogyny are as bad as the other, and some are very definitely not a bad as some other things

Incisive.

The crux of this matter is Hugh defending the actions of PJ as though he were innocent because he wasn't found guilty, the point being even if he didn't rape the girl what he did was inexcusable, as such this person should not be in a position where he could be seen as a role model for others, it's quite simple really.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

I'm with you Numbers. HW has taken the acquittal as justification to effectively write off the 'incident' and boil PJ's behaviour down to a few unsavoury WhatsApp messages.

The acquittal could be taken to represent a broad spectrum of possible explanations for the events of the evening. These range from a belief that the girl made a vexatious and false complaint (A position taken by HW) to the polar opposite that the acquittal represents a travesty brought about by a corrupt judicial system (Occupied by the #ibelieveher campaign). I don't put myself at either of these extremes, but I do tend towards the latter. While I accept the acquittals, I believe that the behaviour of Jackson and Olding, when measured against the balance of probabilities, rather than the more stringent demand to prove beyond reasonable doubt, can be considered utterly unacceptable.

In terms of comparison to other offenders, what they did on the night and afterwards is substantially worse than Israel Folau's shite-spouting tweets and yet Folau has now been denied the opportunity to ply his trade in Australia, while Jackson and Olding are being portrayed as victims because people don't want to see their clubs associated with them.

[Stom]

I'm with you Numbers. HW has taken the acquittal as justification to effectively write off the 'incident' and boil PJ's behaviour down to a few unsavoury WhatsApp messages.

The acquittal could be taken to represent a broad spectrum of possible explanations for the events of the evening. These range from a belief that the girl made a vexatious and false complaint (A position taken by HW) to the polar opposite that the acquittal represents a travesty brought about by a corrupt judicial system (Occupied by the #ibelieveher campaign). I don't put myself at either of these extremes, but I do tend towards the latter. While I accept the acquittals, I believe that the behaviour of Jackson and Olding, when measured against the balance of probabilities, rather than the more stringent demand to prove beyond reasonable doubt, can be considered utterly unacceptable.

In terms of comparison to other offenders, what they did on the night and afterwards is substantially worse than Israel Folau's shite-spouting tweets and yet Folau has now been denied the opportunity to ply his trade in Australia, while Jackson and Olding are being portrayed as victims because people don't want to see their clubs associated with them.

Well yes. We have a situation here in Hungary with an incredibly corrupt judiciary who always find in favor of the man over the woman. And over the past year, that has led me to truly see these crimes from a different PoV.

[Spiffy]

When I was a child my Ma caught me fishing in the pick-n-mix in Woolies. Apparently I lifted an aniseed gob-stopper had a good aul slobber on it and then, appalled by the taste, put it back.

And now London Irish won't give me a contract!

What the feck is wrong with the world?

Aye.... and ye haven't stopped yer gob since.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The problem is that by suggesting other people, who have offended in different ways, are guilty of larger crimes (not the legal kind) than the one whose crime is against women, you are suggesting that sexism is a lesser crime.

Which is wrong. Sexism is just as bad a crime as anything else, and should be treated with as much gravity as anyone else.

And, actually, it's worse because it's a part of society that is acceptable in many places across the world, and that is wrong.

Except he gave Calum(ny) Clark as an example and what he did was very definitely criminal and iirc ended a fellow pro's career.

Not all forms of misogyny are as bad as the other, and some are very definitely not a bad as some other things

Incisive.

The crux of this matter is Hugh defending the actions of PJ as though he were innocent because he wasn't found guilty, the point being even if he didn't rape the girl what he did was inexcusable, as such this person should not be in a position where he could be seen as a role model for others, it's quite simple really.

Well apparently it needed saying since I was responding to:

The problem is that by suggesting other people, who have offended in different ways, are guilty of larger crimes (not the legal kind) than the one whose crime is against women, you are suggesting that sexism is a lesser crime.

Which is wrong. Sexism is just as bad a crime as anything else, and should be treated with as much gravity as anyone else.

And, actually, it's worse because it's a part of society that is acceptable in many places across the world, and that is wrong.

which treated all forms of sexism as the same and all as worse than other things.

[hugh_woatmeigh]

I'm with you Numbers. HW has taken the acquittal as justification to effectively write off the 'incident' and boil PJ's behaviour down to a few unsavoury WhatsApp messages.

The acquittal could be taken to represent a broad spectrum of possible explanations for the events of the evening. These range from a belief that the girl made a vexatious and false complaint (A position taken by HW) to the polar opposite that the acquittal represents a travesty brought about by a corrupt judicial system (Occupied by the #ibelieveher campaign). I don't put myself at either of these extremes, but I do tend towards the latter. While I accept the acquittals, I believe that the behaviour of Jackson and Olding, when measured against the balance of probabilities, rather than the more stringent demand to prove beyond reasonable doubt, can be considered utterly unacceptable.

In terms of comparison to other offenders, what they did on the night and afterwards is substantially worse than Israel Folau's shite-spouting tweets and yet Folau has now been denied the opportunity to ply his trade in Australia, while Jackson and Olding are being portrayed as victims because people don't want to see their clubs associated with them.

Can you provide the class with a specific example of what PJ and Olding did/said that justifies their unions abandoning them? And that justifies the hundreds of thousands in debt PJ had to incur? Go on serj. Change my mind.

On a related note, that drubbing tonight couldn't have happened to a nicer club.

[hugh_woatmeigh]

Except he gave Calum(ny) Clark as an example and what he did was very definitely criminal and iirc ended a fellow pro's career.

Not all forms of misogyny are as bad as the other, and some are very definitely not a bad as some other things

Incisive.

The crux of this matter is Hugh defending the actions of PJ as though he were innocent because he wasn't found guilty, the point being even if he didn't rape the girl what he did was inexcusable, as such this person should not be in a position where he could be seen as a role model for others, it's quite simple really.

Well apparently it needed saying since I was responding to:

The problem is that by suggesting other people, who have offended in different ways, are guilty of larger crimes (not the legal kind) than the one whose crime is against women, you are suggesting that sexism is a lesser crime.

Which is wrong. Sexism is just as bad a crime as anything else, and should be treated with as much gravity as anyone else.

And, actually, it's worse because it's a part of society that is acceptable in many places across the world, and that is wrong.

which treated all forms of sexism as the same and all as worse than other things.

I still can't make sense of his comments but I've always thought him to be a bit special since his insistence that George Lowe would be capped by England back in the day.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I'm with you Numbers. HW has taken the acquittal as justification to effectively write off the 'incident' and boil PJ's behaviour down to a few unsavoury WhatsApp messages.

The acquittal could be taken to represent a broad spectrum of possible explanations for the events of the evening. These range from a belief that the girl made a vexatious and false complaint (A position taken by HW) to the polar opposite that the acquittal represents a travesty brought about by a corrupt judicial system (Occupied by the #ibelieveher campaign). I don't put myself at either of these extremes, but I do tend towards the latter. While I accept the acquittals, I believe that the behaviour of Jackson and Olding, when measured against the balance of probabilities, rather than the more stringent demand to prove beyond reasonable doubt, can be considered utterly unacceptable.

In terms of comparison to other offenders, what they did on the night and afterwards is substantially worse than Israel Folau's shite-spouting tweets and yet Folau has now been denied the opportunity to ply his trade in Australia, while Jackson and Olding are being portrayed as victims because people don't want to see their clubs associated with them.

Can you provide the class with a specific example of what PJ and Olding did/said that justifies their unions abandoning them? And that justifies the hundreds of thousands in debt PJ had to incur? Go on serj. Change my mind.

On a related note, that drubbing tonight couldn't have happened to a nicer club.

Nothing justifies the hundreds of thousands of pounds that PJ had to pay to defend himself but that's irrelevant. Blame Grayling.

Ulster are perfectly justified in dumping PJ and Olding for:
1. Engaging in sexual activity that left a young girl bleeding, visibly upset and sufficiently aggrieved that she felt their behaviour should be reported to the police.
2. sending messages which effectively treated women as pieces of meat to be exploited.

London Irish would be perfectly justified in not hiring PJ for the same thing.

World Rugby would not be justified in banning them (or Folau) from playing rugby.

[hugh_woatmeigh]

I'm with you Numbers. HW has taken the acquittal as justification to effectively write off the 'incident' and boil PJ's behaviour down to a few unsavoury WhatsApp messages.

The acquittal could be taken to represent a broad spectrum of possible explanations for the events of the evening. These range from a belief that the girl made a vexatious and false complaint (A position taken by HW) to the polar opposite that the acquittal represents a travesty brought about by a corrupt judicial system (Occupied by the #ibelieveher campaign). I don't put myself at either of these extremes, but I do tend towards the latter. While I accept the acquittals, I believe that the behaviour of Jackson and Olding, when measured against the balance of probabilities, rather than the more stringent demand to prove beyond reasonable doubt, can be considered utterly unacceptable.

In terms of comparison to other offenders, what they did on the night and afterwards is substantially worse than Israel Folau's shite-spouting tweets and yet Folau has now been denied the opportunity to ply his trade in Australia, while Jackson and Olding are being portrayed as victims because people don't want to see their clubs associated with them.

Can you provide the class with a specific example of what PJ and Olding did/said that justifies their unions abandoning them? And that justifies the hundreds of thousands in debt PJ had to incur? Go on serj. Change my mind.

On a related note, that drubbing tonight couldn't have happened to a nicer club.

Nothing justifies the hundreds of thousands of pounds that PJ had to pay to defend himself but that's irrelevant. Blame Grayling.

Ulster are perfectly justified in dumping PJ and Olding for:
1. Engaging in sexual activity that left a young girl bleeding, visibly upset and sufficiently aggrieved that she felt their behaviour should be reported to the police.
2. sending messages which effectively treated women as pieces of meat to be exploited.

London Irish would be perfectly justified in not hiring PJ for the same thing.

World Rugby would not be justified in banning them (or Folau) from playing rugby.

1) I don't really think blood is an accurate indicator of anything really. Sometimes it just happens...
2) Visibly upset the morning after, aye. Regret about who you slept with the night before in the sober light of day does not constitute non-consensual intercourse.
3) Generally I'd agree but the motive doesn't stack up here and it tracks back to the second point. We all do things we regret when we're drunk. That doesn't make it non consensual.
4) I'd generally agree on the exploitation piece but the fact I'd bet money on PJ or Olding playing professionally in Ireland again suggests that it was done to appease the baying feminist mob and manage the blowback rather than it being the right thing to do...

I know I'll be accused of jumping to conclusions but the positions that all parties agree were utilised during the 'act' are not physically possible to maintain if the female doesn't consent and she admits she was able and alert so what's really going on here? It's a clear cut case of regret the morning after. And it sucks, it really, really f*cking does but you deal with it like everybody else.

[hugh_woatmeigh]

FTR I'd warrant that every decent looking chap has treated a woman like a piece of meat at some point in their lives. Luckily most will mature. There are definitely some double standards in this thread.

[Mikey Brown]

Hmm.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

1) I don't really think blood is an accurate indicator of anything really. Sometimes it just happens...
2) Visibly upset the morning after, aye. Regret about who you slept with the night before in the sober light of day does not constitute non-consensual intercourse.
3) Generally I'd agree but the motive doesn't stack up here and it tracks back to the second point. We all do things we regret when we're drunk. That doesn't make it non consensual.
4) I'd generally agree on the exploitation piece but the fact I'd bet money on PJ or Olding playing professionally in Ireland again suggests that it was done to appease the baying feminist mob and manage the blowback rather than it being the right thing to do...

I know I'll be accused of jumping to conclusions but the positions that all parties agree were utilised during the 'act' are not physically possible to maintain if the female doesn't consent and she admits she was able and alert so what's really going on here? It's a clear cut case of regret the morning after. And it sucks, it really, really f*cking does but you deal with it like everybody else.

This post fails to take into account several of the facts that were presented to the court.

Hideous as it is to dredge through the issue of blood in a rape trial, the court was provided with forensic evidence that established that the girl's blood was on her white jeans and PJ's duvet. It was conceded by the prosecution that menstrual blood could not be ruled out, but I know of very few 18-year old girls who would haul on a pair of white jeans for a night out at the height of their period. The court was also presented with clinical evidence of a vaginal tear. Vaginal tears do not, in my opinion, "sometimes just happen". They tend to be the result of shoving something in there that the owner is not quite ready for.

The girl did not wake up the next morning and regret what had happened. She was taken home by the 4th defendant and was, as recorded in his evidence, hysterical in the car on the way home. She recognised what had happened to her immediately.

As Eugene has pointed out to you earlier in this tedious and apparently futile odyssey, the victims of rape frequently freeze and are unable to move or scream or do anything other than comply with their assailant(s). The position occupied by the 'threesome' offers not one single shred of evidence for or against consent. What it does establish is that, at the very least, two men engaged in sexual activity with an 18-year old girl who they had met only hours earlier and who, it is universally accepted, was drunk. That is where, guilty or not of rape, their exploitative behaviour crosses the line of what is acceptable and what is not.

Change your mind? There is little point my trying to change something that apparently doesn't exist.

[Which Tyler]

1) I don't really think blood is an accurate indicator of anything really. Sometimes it just happens...
2) Visibly upset the morning after, aye. Regret about who you slept with the night before in the sober light of day does not constitute non-consensual intercourse.
3) Generally I'd agree but the motive doesn't stack up here and it tracks back to the second point. We all do things we regret when we're drunk. That doesn't make it non consensual.
4) I'd generally agree on the exploitation piece but the fact I'd bet money on PJ or Olding playing professionally in Ireland again suggests that it was done to appease the baying feminist mob and manage the blowback rather than it being the right thing to do...

I know I'll be accused of jumping to conclusions but the positions that all parties agree were utilised during the 'act' are not physically possible to maintain if the female doesn't consent and she admits she was able and alert so what's really going on here? It's a clear cut case of regret the morning after. And it sucks, it really, really f*cking does but you deal with it like everybody else.

This post fails to take into account several of the facts that were presented to the court.

Hideous as it is to dredge through the issue of blood in a rape trial, the court was provided with forensic evidence that established that the girl's blood was on her white jeans and PJ's duvet. It was conceded by the prosecution that menstrual blood could not be ruled out, but I know of very few 18-year old girls who would haul on a pair of white jeans for a night out at the height of their period. The court was also presented with clinical evidence of a vaginal tear. Vaginal tears do not, in my opinion, "sometimes just happen". They tend to be the result of shoving something in there that the owner is not quite ready for.

The girl did not wake up the next morning and regret what had happened. She was taken home by the 4th defendant and was, as recorded in his evidence, hysterical in the car on the way home. She recognised what had happened to her immediately.

As Eugene has pointed out to you earlier in this tedious and apparently futile odyssey, the victims of rape frequently freeze and are unable to move or scream or do anything other than comply with their assailant(s). The position occupied by the 'threesome' offers not one single shred of evidence for or against consent. What it does establish is that, at the very least, two men engaged in sexual activity with an 18-year old girl who they had met only hours earlier and who, it is universally accepted, was drunk. That is where, guilty or not of rape, their exploitative behaviour crosses the line of what is acceptable and what is not.

Change your mind? There is little point my trying to change something that apparently doesn't exist.

I've been trying hard not get involved in this futile effort, but I do want to say "hear hear" to this post.

[Puja]

1) I don't really think blood is an accurate indicator of anything really. Sometimes it just happens...
2) Visibly upset the morning after, aye. Regret about who you slept with the night before in the sober light of day does not constitute non-consensual intercourse.
3) Generally I'd agree but the motive doesn't stack up here and it tracks back to the second point. We all do things we regret when we're drunk. That doesn't make it non consensual.
4) I'd generally agree on the exploitation piece but the fact I'd bet money on PJ or Olding playing professionally in Ireland again suggests that it was done to appease the baying feminist mob and manage the blowback rather than it being the right thing to do...

I know I'll be accused of jumping to conclusions but the positions that all parties agree were utilised during the 'act' are not physically possible to maintain if the female doesn't consent and she admits she was able and alert so what's really going on here? It's a clear cut case of regret the morning after. And it sucks, it really, really f*cking does but you deal with it like everybody else.

This post fails to take into account several of the facts that were presented to the court.

Hideous as it is to dredge through the issue of blood in a rape trial, the court was provided with forensic evidence that established that the girl's blood was on her white jeans and PJ's duvet. It was conceded by the prosecution that menstrual blood could not be ruled out, but I know of very few 18-year old girls who would haul on a pair of white jeans for a night out at the height of their period. The court was also presented with clinical evidence of a vaginal tear. Vaginal tears do not, in my opinion, "sometimes just happen". They tend to be the result of shoving something in there that the owner is not quite ready for.

The girl did not wake up the next morning and regret what had happened. She was taken home by the 4th defendant and was, as recorded in his evidence, hysterical in the car on the way home. She recognised what had happened to her immediately.

As Eugene has pointed out to you earlier in this tedious and apparently futile odyssey, the victims of rape frequently freeze and are unable to move or scream or do anything other than comply with their assailant(s). The position occupied by the 'threesome' offers not one single shred of evidence for or against consent. What it does establish is that, at the very least, two men engaged in sexual activity with an 18-year old girl who they had met only hours earlier and who, it is universally accepted, was drunk. That is where, guilty or not of rape, their exploitative behaviour crosses the line of what is acceptable and what is not.

Change your mind? There is little point my trying to change something that apparently doesn't exist.

I've been trying hard not get involved in this futile effort, but I do want to say "hear hear" to this post.

I've been trying to stay out as well, even when presented with the incredible assertion that "blood sometimes just happens" during sex, which just raises so many questions, so few of which I actually want the answer to. I'm hoping against hope that he meant menstruation, rather than vaginal tears being a regular occurrence in his sex life.

Thankfully Serj has taken one for the team in making this post.

Puja

[Donny osmond]

This post fails to take into account several of the facts that were presented to the court.

Hideous as it is to dredge through the issue of blood in a rape trial, the court was provided with forensic evidence that established that the girl's blood was on her white jeans and PJ's duvet. It was conceded by the prosecution that menstrual blood could not be ruled out, but I know of very few 18-year old girls who would haul on a pair of white jeans for a night out at the height of their period. The court was also presented with clinical evidence of a vaginal tear. Vaginal tears do not, in my opinion, "sometimes just happen". They tend to be the result of shoving something in there that the owner is not quite ready for.

The girl did not wake up the next morning and regret what had happened. She was taken home by the 4th defendant and was, as recorded in his evidence, hysterical in the car on the way home. She recognised what had happened to her immediately.

As Eugene has pointed out to you earlier in this tedious and apparently futile odyssey, the victims of rape frequently freeze and are unable to move or scream or do anything other than comply with their assailant(s). The position occupied by the 'threesome' offers not one single shred of evidence for or against consent. What it does establish is that, at the very least, two men engaged in sexual activity with an 18-year old girl who they had met only hours earlier and who, it is universally accepted, was drunk. That is where, guilty or not of rape, their exploitative behaviour crosses the line of what is acceptable and what is not.

Change your mind? There is little point my trying to change something that apparently doesn't exist.

I've been trying hard not get involved in this futile effort, but I do want to say "hear hear" to this post.

I've been trying to stay out as well, even when presented with the incredible assertion that "blood sometimes just happens" during sex, which just raises so many questions, so few of which I actually want the answer to. I'm hoping against hope that he meant menstruation, rather than vaginal tears being a regular occurrence in his sex life.

Thankfully Serj has taken one for the team in making this post.

Puja

I can’t quite believe they’re still feeding the troll, but yeah, good on ya Serge for not giving up and staying cool.

Donny

[Mikey Brown]

Pff. Feminists.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

Do you mind not interrupting while we’re baying?

[Mikey Brown]

Quit your virtue signalling.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I agree with everything that Serj says, except that vaginal tears can just happen. There's research on it and they're really bad indicators of consent, occurring in something like 7% of consensual intercourse iirc, and only 23% of non-consensual. However the reason I raise it is that you might expect someone to show at least a modicum of concern for a person bleeding and failure to do so indicates much the same as whatsapps.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

So there is a greater than 3:1 probability of a vaginal tear occurring in non-consensual intercourse than in consensual.

As I have consistently said, I do not contest the acquittals which were delivered by a jury working on the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. I have also said that it is far easier for a defence counsel to introduce doubt than it is for a prosecution case to eliminate it - and particularly so when dealing with the testimony of individuals who were drunk.

This issue is no longer about criminal guilt, it is about the standards of behaviour of individuals who represented not only a brand, but their country. The action which was taken by the IRFU and Ulster Branch was based on the outcome of their own investigation which, being administrative, applied the lesser standard of balance of probability. The outcome was and remains appropriate. Jackson and Olding were acquitted of criminal charges, but their behaviour was disgraceful, exploitative, disrespectful in the extreme and deserving not only of the sanctions applied by their employer, but of the vilification leveled at them. I also believe that any club that chooses now to be associated with them is equally deserving of opprobrium.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

For how long? Forever?

[SerjeantWildgoose]

Would you let John Leslie back on Blue Peter? Or do you think he would be welcomed back by any reputable TV company? Leslie didn't even face a court before charges were dropped.

The entertainment business is pretty rigid when it comes to sexual impropriety because a large chunk of their paying public are just as rigid, if not more so. Earlier in the thread the point was made that someone accused of a sexual crime is, in the public eye, guilty until proven innocent - and probably not even then. It is unfair, but no less so than a legal system that allows a defence counsel to attack the character and testimony of a victim of sexual assault in court in order to introduce that shred of doubt that will result in acquittal.

You will notice that I have consistently used the word acquittal when referring to the outcome of the Jackson and Olding court case. I have not used and will not use the word innocent.

So, for me, this is one of those cases where I do not want to see either of them play rugby in Ireland again.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The entertainment industry is notoriously forgiving about sexual accusations, as the ongoing careers of Roman Polanski and Woody Allen attest.

I think I'd struggle to see either play for Ireland again. I wouldn't want either to represent me, and I feel that if they felt they deserved to pay for Ireland or Ulster it would be a pretty clear indication that they didn't. However I don't feel at all the same about them playing elsewhere, even for London Irish where there's every chance I'll become a season ticket holder again.