O'Connor loving overseas rugby lessons

Fair enough. But usually it's a word that people use to be emphatic about someone who has displayed poor character, and it is in pretty common useage, so potentially not gratuitous given the context. But yes, it would be a shame to see this sort of language to be used flippantly or become commonplace in describing players and people around rugby. I'm sure Daz would agree with that. B*****rd is often mistakenly analogised to b***ch imo, when I've always believed it was much more akin to ar******le given its normal contextual useage.

Slander is spoken, libel is what you are looking for.

Calling JOC a 'b' on a public forum has nothing to do with political correctness. Its about class.

From the bloke who literally 3 minutes earlier wrote a post lamenting "Aus PC is the worst in the world!" It's amazing how many sensitivities are fleeting.

Proud of that post Daz? I think we all know who the "b" is.

That is not the law as it stands in Australia, no where near it. Intention is irrelevant.

Aus PC is the worst in the a world. We don't have much else to worry about, do we.

Oh, please, don't get the public school brigade started....inferiority complexes are hard to handle.

All that matters is how he plays. He is expressing a desire to be better, isn't that the aim?

Rob G, OK, Hooper is greatly overrated, happy now?

There are CGI cows getting swallowed up in the vortex of circular logic. Duck Blll Paxton!

If the whole KB thing was a conspiracy by NSW players and administrators to support sexual harassment at work and to get rid of the best coach/HR manager team the Wallabies have ever seen, what were the QLD members of the ARU board doing? Why have they also supported the conspiracy?

Neither of us know all the details that FFF has to make the comments. We both know you don't have any information to make a judgement call on his credibility. Therefore I can only say with certainty that your accusations are baseless. I warned you about your basic skills in comprehension.

Oh ok. This is different. You are you are now calling me out for slander. And a baseless one that. Isnt it a bit like calling someone a stealing thief? In any case, if I get it right, based on YOUR own logic, as opposed to how slander works in real life: - You are calling me a 'baseless' slanderer for calling someone else out for slander. - Doesnt that then make you a baseless slanderer yourself? ;) I pity the folks still on this thread. Fortunately for them (and me), there is an unsubscribe option. Im only responding now, because you called me out for slander (against a person who slandered). And on principle, I thought I should reply: - On the highly unlikely event that person indeed did provide the proof that EM's had a mistress and that she was Di Patson - I would have apologised and thanked for the contribution. Quick and easy. Then watch as the ARU and maybe the Wallabies implode. - If the nameless slanderer did not reply, the admin would have removed it because it is a slanderous statement by a nameless person. But no, the person did reply and shared no evidence. Only more hearsay, and MORE slander: - ie its a true story from inner sanctum - thought it was common knowledge etc Now you YOURSELF insinuate there may be something there after all: - You also state it seems to be the reason that Beale was 'easily forgiven'. - You have now contributed to the very trash that grapeseed has eloquently explained he want to avoid. As do I. I have answered your question about slander. Thats it from me. Adios amigo.

The point being that attacking KB without the full story or a blogger without knowing the full story is exactly the same level of slander. Many will disagree with FFF but there seemed to be claim of insight that may never be proved to everyones satisfaction. Many reporters, Wallaby team mates and ARU officials have indicated there is more to the story than the public has been told. That appears to be why he has been easily forgiven. Most however are not prepared to go into detail and we can only speculate why. Care should be taken by all parties before throwing stones in glass houses.

I'm glad I don't live in a society where the burden of proof is on the public to substantiate or otherwise a potentially defamatory statement made by a commentator. I am happy I live in a society where a commentator must substantiate his own statements or risk being accused of defamation. I am glad that I live in a world where, if someone makes a statement impugning someone publically like this, and fails to provide evidence, then I can accuse them making a defamatory claim. Otherwise I could make the (totally unfounded and untrue) claim that Michael Cheika had an affair in 2011 when his wife Stephanie was pregnant, provide no evidence for this, but apparently no one can accuse me of slander unless they have conclusive proof to the contrary. No, making the claim without substantiation is enough to be justifiably accused of defaming someone. The rest is tortured logic.

So you revealed comments as baseless and hearsay and gossip. If you can prove that then you have an argument. Your simply saying they are such without actual evidence leaves you with your pants on fire. Also makes you a baseless slanderer.

Maybe I am slow on the compression. Though, I thought I explained it clearly. - his accusations were revealed as baseless - it was exposed as hearsay / gossip - it was reported as such and removed from the site by the admin fyi, It is the onus of accused slanderer to prove their case. Not the person who pointed it out. Because it leads to school yard behaviour, sullying, family close friends etc. Unless that person, this case me, wants to refute or makes their own baseless defaming statement, which I have not. Comprende amigo? So that's pretty much all there is I believe. And again, that's all from me. You too, may have the last word

I knew it - one week into the new year and look at the trouble Brand O'Dollar has caused off the field already!

Beales latest offense was minor but punching his captain goes against a lot of what team sport is meant to be about. A soldier who assaulted a superior officer because he didn't want to do what he was saying, that would be a severely punished offence because it's goes against leadership structures that keep the core moving in the same direction. Sport has these, obviously to a lesser extent. If the core aren't afraid of consequences for their behaviour you inevitably loose unity (your ideal team player will do anything for the better of the team) . Beales continued issues, however minor they are, show he wasn't worried about punishments coming his way. He would have benefitted from 6 months to a year away to clear his head and he would likely come back a hungrier competitor.