I'M sure most people empathise with Iain McLaggan's family and agree that they should stand by him ("Support for jailed McLaggan", October 4). They must feel distraught. When people feel hurt and afraid, they tend to lash out.
But is it appropriate for them to attack the media and the judiciary? Objections could be lodged in a more constructive, less obtrusive manner.
Family and friends seem to have initiated a spat in the media. Donna McLaggan says her brother "would never hurt any woman". Sadly many women (and men) do feel hurt by this incident.
The truth is whichever way you look at this incident, McLaggan threw caution to the wind when he had sex (unprotected?) with a young girl in his care at Shamwari. He did hurt her.
The 18-year-old girl was ill, her hair soiled with vomit. The girl has a pre-existing medical condition. Why didn't he call a doctor? Instead he had sex with her.
His impulsive actions do not speak of "integrity" or a "high social standing" as M Phillips says in defence of McLaggan ("Rape sentence far outweighs crime", October 5). If that is true one would expect him to know better.
His actions contradict the ethics prescribed by Shamwari and most game lodges in our country where the ethos is to "protect and do no harm".
McLaggan compromised his colleagues, guests and his employer.
Shamwari has invested millions to build a reputable safe haven for tourists!
His mum says he is "intelligent and incapable of rape". Psychologist Daniel Goleman says "emotional intelligence matters more than IQ" and the key ingredient is "self restraint".
With or without consent, it seems there was no evidence of self restraint when McLaggan impulsively and indiscriminately had sex with a young guest at Shamwari.
McLaggan knows beyond a reasonable doubt exactly what happened on that fateful night. The law can't actually free him! The truth sets us free.
JW (name supplied), Port Elizabeth