Vale Spanky

[DerekandClive]Trev denies spilling the Brasso[/DerekandClive]

Family seeks more information about Roebuck's death
Scott Spits
December 5, 2011 - 3:47PM

Peter Roebuck's family claims the cricket writer would not have committed suicide and has organised for a British criminal lawyer to visit South Africa to investigate his death.

British newspaper The Times is reporting that the lawyer arrived in Cape Town at the weekend and was hoping to speak to South African police.

According to the report, Roebuck's family, including his widowed mother and his five remaining siblings, said his final communications with them - including an email written to them four days before he died on November 12 - detailed his intention to carry on with his life.

"We need to obtain some facts," Roebuck's sister Beatrice Roebuck, told The Times.

"Peter was on record as saying that he would never commit suicide and all the information we have is being played out in the media."

She also told the paper the family would request a second post-mortem examination.

"We are allowed to ask for that as members of his family and that is a standard part of our investigation," she said.

"We are not coming to any conclusion straight away, but we want our lawyer to look at the hotel room Peter was in and to find out where we stand with the investigations into his death.

"The window arrangements in his hotel are questionable. A window in this kind of air-conditioned building is not easy to open. If it was open and Peter was sitting on the sill, he could have fallen out. Was he in the bathroom? We heard straight away that his death was suicide, but conclusions were reached immediately and we do not have a coroner's report. Some lovely things have been written about Peter, but also some vile things. We want Peter's name to remain a good name."

The newspaper claims it has seen Roebuck's final email to his mother in which he had expressed an interest in spending more time in England and wrote about looking ahead to Christmas.

Roebuck's sister told the newspaper she had ascertained that the sole person whom Roebuck dined with on the night of his death was Nic Kock, who assisted with his philanthropic work in South Africa and who dropped Roebuck off at the Southern Sun Hotel in Newlands at 8.55pm on November 12.

"Nic said that Peter was his normal self. If Peter was in the custody of the police, as we read, then we would like to know how he could have died," Beatrice said.

"I am not yet ready to meet the policeman who supposedly was in his room. We as a family do not have the legal power to investigate this ourselves."

Roebuck's family has yet to receive communication from the police in Cape Town and does not know when the post-mortem will be concluded.

"We are not aware of the post-mortem having finished or of any findings as yet, and the information on the internet is not clear," she told The Times.

It is believed a funeral will be held in England when Roebuck's body is released by the South African authorities.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/family-seeks-more-information-about-roebucks-death-20111205-1oeqg.html#ixzz1fdKONSF2

I knew it!

Also in the SMH

Peter Roebuck's sad legacy December 5, 2011 - 6:36PM
Comments 8



If only they could all be so proud.
I feel sorry for gay blokes - not in a pitying, condescending way, and certainly not every gay man.

There are plenty of gays who annoy me - particularly the vicious, snippy, Carson Kressley wannabes who think they can slag off the world and get away with it because they're playing the part of the stereotypical bitchy queen.

But my heart goes out to the men and boys who struggle with their homosexuality, who live secret lives because their family or colleagues would not accept them if they came out.

Advertisement: Story continues below It must be gut-wrenching: it's hard enough liking yourself when the world is merely apathetic to you, let alone if people despise you just because of who you're attracted to.

Every erection is an occasion for shame.

I saw an interview recently with a high-profile designer and nearly fell off my chair when he mentioned his "wife". The bloke has always struck me as being camp as a row of tents, and my gay mates assure me I'm on the money.

However, the man in question married to ensure harmony with his tradition-minded family, leading a double life when away from the marital home.

He's not alone. I'm sure you can think of a famous sportsman, TV personality, musician, even a friend, who maintains the facade of heterosexuality fearing career or family reprisals.

The recent suspected suicide of revered Sydney Morning Herald cricket writer Peter Roebuck highlights again how there are still men, in 2011, in queer old Sydney of all places, who feel humiliation about their sexuality (and this is assuming Roebuck was gay, a fact no-one has yet unequivocally proved).

Yet we wonder why gay men are sometimes so unforthcoming?

After his death, London's Sun newspaper made the allegation Roebuck had "groomed" a 26-year-old Zimbabwe man who had accused him of sexual assault - a term usually reserved for sex predators who prey on the under-age.

Despite much innuendo, not one person has come forward with proof that Roebuck was a paedophile, only that he allegedly had a thing for young (adult) guys.

If Roebuck did sexually assault the guy, it cannot be condoned. However, if a 26-year-old man approaches an older man on Facebook trying to win his favour, and the man, as Roebuck allegedly did, asks the young guy to "bring a stick in case I need to beat you", I'd suggest he's very naive to not know there's a flirtation happening.
Change the gender equation, so Roebuck had a thing for young women and we'd be saying, "Ah, yup, like half the men in the world."

But still we get characterisations like this from the Herald Sun, which described Roebuck as "a dark soul who waged a war within over his sexuality".

Or this unsubstantiated slur from an Indian commentator: "While steering clear of under-age boys, Roebuck manoeuvred himself into a position of authority with an assembly line of young men."

Sounds a lot like Hugh Hefner to me, or any number of rich dudes who like to bed much younger women, luring them with the trappings of power.

Which is not to condone either behaviour, it's just the stench of homophobia vapours off so much of the reporting done on Roebuck since his suicide and that still informs a lot of the mainstream world's view of homosexuality.

"It's weird." "It's dark." "If you like men, you must also like boys."

It also makes harmless flirting a very dangerous pastime for gay men. As one friend told me: "You cruise by making eye contact, reading body language trying to get close enough to a bloke to read his sexuality. It's a minefield; you can still get bashed or even hung on a barbed-wire fence."

One of Roebuck's sympathisers wrote in the Herald that "he fought to reconcile himself to his flaws, and it was the central drama of his life".

And this is what makes me sad.

Sexuality is not a flaw, nor should it be the central drama of anyone's life.

It just is.


http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/culture/blogs/all-men-are-liars/peter-roebucks-sad-legacy-20111205-1oees.html#ixzz1feXejLjI

Such a good point about if he'd been courting young women he'd be seen as a bit of a player.

Even on here people were making ridiculous accusations, and some flat out lies.

I think in the midst of everything Danny threw in a line saying that the lads he got done for spanking were 15, when they were 19.

Boo f*cking hoo. I got the age wrong by getting my information through the medium of this place when it was brought up four years ago. You want me to apologise? OK:

I'm sorry Peter, further to the misinformation placed on here I reinforced it within my train of thought by the notion that a 19 year old would be much less likely to allow his botty to be smacked, whereas it would be more believable for a 15 year old to do so. If you think that I'd purposefully change the age of the spanked-in-question, then I can only throw myself at your mercy to believe that it's not really my style.

I accept your apology on Peter's behalf.

Oh, you also said that they were "young boys" even after it had been explained that they were 19. I think Peter would appreciate an apology for that too.

I'm hardly going to trust some shandy who 'thinks' things that haven't been documented on the forum. Furthermore, 'young boys' is up to interpretation - youth is a subjective thing usually relative to the person saying it.

Red wrote:
Every erection is an occasion for shame.

It would be, wouldn't it.