Vale Spanky

Without realising it I was a :Peter Roebuck fan on the sly- must have read 90% plus of all his articles linked from Cricinfo. He was the living embodiment of well articulated, if not always well informed, contrariness- always worth reading. I resented him when he appeared to become an (unwanted) Aussie when the Aussies were all-conquering, but in hindsight he was refreshingly free ofEnglish blinkers.

I fear there will be tawdry stories and allegations to follow...

It seemed that Gideon Haigh knew by the time they went to air this morning which is why his comments were skewed the way they were. Not much hint of it on Grandstand though, it was more of a tribute day. From first reports it seemed that the police, agitation and death were all inextricably linked. It may have even been a misunderstanding but the police involvement suggests that he when he landed in Cape Town he never expected it to be his final destination. So the way he ended his last article does seem rather prophetic.

"A lot can happen in a week. It just did."

Sadly you know that there may be salacious revelations to follow. At least though unlike the Woolmer saga, the police announcing a cause of death avoids rivers of wild speculation.

Brass Monkey wrote:Aye, as has been said, I didn't agree with a lot of his views but his articles were well constructed and came from an obviously intelligent perspective. I suppose we all need a different view on things, but he could be so incredibly objectionable. No-one should die like this, though and it's a crying shame. RIP.

Agreed, he always wrote well constructed articles however we could do without this BS from Crocinfo...

'Roebuck had always pressed the importance of avoiding nationalism in how the game should be viewed.
"He was a rare global voice in the game," he said. "He used to say that there was too much nationalism in cricket writing. His writing was devoid of any allegiance to nation, team or any player. '

Devoid of nationalism? FFS every other piece he wrote on England included droves of ethnicity and blood type!

Anyway, not the time for that I guess. R.I.P.... always seemed a bit 'weird' and obviously had issues.

Very bad news
RIP

Cricket commentator Peter Roebuck in sex case probe

by: Peter Badel in Cape Town From: Herald Sun November 14, 2011 12:00AM



Peter Roebuck in May 1981. Picture: Adrian Murrell/Allsport/Getty Images. Herald Sun

SOUTH African police have launched an inquest into the death of Peter Roebuck after the esteemed cricket journalist plunged six stories to his death from a Cape Town hotel room.

Cape Town police captain Frederick van Wyk confirmed Roebuck, 55, died about 9.15pm on Saturday.

It is understood he had been spoken to by Cape Town police, who were reportedly investigating sexual assault claims.

In 2001, the former Somerset captain was given a suspended jail sentence after admitting caning three young cricketers he had offered to coach.

Asked if Roebuck had been interviewed about sexual assault allegations, Mr van Wyk said: ''I cannot comment on that. We are investigating the death. I have nothing more to say."

Roebuck was staying at the Southern Sun Hotel Newlands in Claremont, Cape Town, where he had been covering the first Test.

He arrived back at the hotel after dinner with a friend and was last seen being spoken to by police.




The Herald Sun has learnt Roebuck jumped out of a window while police were still in his room.

He landed on the awning outside the entrance to the hotel.

A source told the Herald Sun: "The police came to his room and wanted to speak to him. I'm told he was being questioned for sexual assault." ABC radio commentator Jim Maxwell is expected to give a statement to Cape Town police today.

A shocked Maxwell said there had been no suggestion the respected writer was contemplating taking his life.

"Things happen. As far as I could see ... there wasn't a problem.

"He's one of the outstanding writers on the game of cricket. He was a person who had a great sense of humanity," he said.

"We've lost a wonderful friend and supporter."

In 2001, Roebuck, of Exmouth in Devon, pleaded guilty at Taunton Crown Court to three charges of common assault.

He was jailed for four months on each count, but the sentences were suspended for two years.

Roebuck was seen to be in good spirits all week at the Newlands during the Test.

He was seen having breakfast with the fiancee of an African youth he had helped put through university.

It is understood Roebuck has spent more than $100,000 putting Africans through high school and university.

Anyone with personal problems can call Lifeline on 131 114

JKLever wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Aye, as has been said, I didn't agree with a lot of his views but his articles were well constructed and came from an obviously intelligent perspective. I suppose we all need a different view on things, but he could be so incredibly objectionable. No-one should die like this, though and it's a crying shame. RIP.

Agreed, he always wrote well constructed articles however we could do without this BS from Crocinfo...

'Roebuck had always pressed the importance of avoiding nationalism in how the game should be viewed.
"He was a rare global voice in the game," he said. "He used to say that there was too much nationalism in cricket writing. His writing was devoid of any allegiance to nation, team or any player. '

Devoid of nationalism? FFS every other piece he wrote on England included droves of ethnicity and blood type!

Anyway, not the time for that I guess. R.I.P.... always seemed a bit 'weird' and obviously had issues.

That last bit is basically true I think, especially on the point about "not time for that...".

The old Latin saying was "De mortuis nihil nisi bonum" - "Say nothing about the dead unless it is good".

The wisdom in that position is that it's far from saying there is nothing "bad" one could say.... nothing one could not dwell on.

Just that it may be better for the dignity of the speaker (and sometimes his/her peace of mind) if the grotty stuff is readable between the lines rather than lambasted.


I'n sure there are extreme cases where that can't apply (e.g. personal/physical/sexual abuse, especially when it has also been covered up for years). Cover-ups of that sort suspend all general moral protocols, I think. Because they have betrayed that common code.

But generally, I think it's sound advice.

Sad if true. In view of his previous sentence, despite being given in another country, another conviction would have almost certainly resulted in a custodial sentence and South African prisons are no easy number, especially for a white man on a sexual assault charge. Reminiscent of Tony Lock, who survived two separate under-age sexual assault charges but who fell victim to cancer.

Apologies for the entries on the CDL thread but I didn't connect this thread with PR until it was pointed out

PeterCS wrote:

JKLever wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Aye, as has been said, I didn't agree with a lot of his views but his articles were well constructed and came from an obviously intelligent perspective. I suppose we all need a different view on things, but he could be so incredibly objectionable. No-one should die like this, though and it's a crying shame. RIP.

Agreed, he always wrote well constructed articles however we could do without this BS from Crocinfo...

'Roebuck had always pressed the importance of avoiding nationalism in how the game should be viewed.
"He was a rare global voice in the game," he said. "He used to say that there was too much nationalism in cricket writing. His writing was devoid of any allegiance to nation, team or any player. '

Devoid of nationalism? FFS every other piece he wrote on England included droves of ethnicity and blood type!

Anyway, not the time for that I guess. R.I.P.... always seemed a bit 'weird' and obviously had issues.

That last bit is basically true I think, especially on the point about "not time for that...".

The old Latin saying was "De mortuis nihil nisi bonum" - "Say nothing about the dead unless it is good".

The wisdom in that position is that it's far from saying there is nothing "bad" one could say.... nothing one could not dwell on.

Just that it may be better for the dignity of the speaker (and sometimes his/her peace of mind) if the grotty stuff is readable between the lines rather than lambasted.


I'n sure there are extreme cases where that can't apply (e.g. personal/physical/sexual abuse, especially when it has also been covered up for years). Cover-ups of that sort suspend all general moral protocols, I think. Because they have betrayed that common code.

But generally, I think it's sound advice.

Hmmm, i'm not so sure. I think the mass hysteria that the media is capable of producing over various deaths, Princess Diana being the prime example, is harmful in some respects. I think people, living or dead, should be judged in context and people shouldn't be afraid of pointing out their character flaws.

I was very annoyed by the reactions of some people to the death of Michael Jackson, and was glad to those who pointed out some of his terrible, sordid acts. If his life story was to be re-written as some sort of latter day saint, as some apologists would have it, what sort of example is that setting to future rich and famous celebrities that will follow in his footsteps?

Some of the revelations about Roebuck that emerge might not be very nice, but I guess my curiousity mean that I want to know the full story and will be inclined to read some of these various follow-up articles.

Gary, I wasn't championing sanitisation, let alone sanctification.

But (for example) if you descend to a volley of spite and backbiting about someone you feel was guilty of spite and backbiting, you are not really burying anyone. Rather glorifying what you reject.

By the same or a similar token, if you choose to wallow around in the detail of actual or alleged sordid deeds, I am not sure you purge yourself. Or rise above it, so to speak. It's all a bit Little Richard, methinks. Vicarious indulgence.

PeterCS wrote:Gary, I wasn't championing sanitisation, let alone sanctification.

But (for example) if you descend to a volley of spite and backbiting about someone you feel was guilty of spite and backbiting, you are not really burying anyone. Rather glorifying what you reject.

By the same or a similar token, if you choose to wallow around in the detail of actual or alleged sordid deeds, I am not sure you purge yourself. Or rise above it, so to speak. It's all a bit Little Richard, methinks. Vicarious indulgence.

Whereas this is all a bit Cliff Richard....

Let the story be told - the good and the bad parts.

I wonder if his Mum and Dad are still around. They must be going through hell if they are.

Red wrote:Looks like he jumped from the sixth floor.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2060931/Peter-Roebuck-committed-suicide-say-police.html

CSA in playing race card shock.

mynah wrote:Let the story be told - the good and the bad parts.

Aye

Unfortunately, as suspected, this has a murky backdrop to it.

lardbucket wrote:The Black Dog, then, pushed along by an inability to bear the public scrutiny of his faults and foibles. A nasty combination, and very sad for those that loved him.

aye, may he rest in peace.

Police investigating sex assault claims

Oh dear, unfortunately my first private thought is on its way to being validated.

So he was being questioned and suddenly ran to his window and jumped? Sheesh.

The Age Newspaper in Melbourne's headline is he fell to his death. Not he jumped to his death.

Eh? It's been reported as suicide. He had to have jumped otherwise it would have been an accident.....

Paul Keating wrote:The Age Newspaper in Melbourne's headline is he fell to his death. Not he jumped to his death.

I think that's an old headline, its been reported that he committed suicide so he must have jumped rather than fell.

Only other option is foul play, which they've definitely ruled out. Besides something bizarre like him cutting his wrists, stumbling across the room and falling. Would that still be suicide? Who knows.


Anyway, sounds like he essentially died of shame.

In regards to his writing, I think Aggers says it best in an article on the BBC where he describes Roebuck's writing as "fearless". It's the same impression I got from his work. He just didn't give a sh*t what people thought, which is admirable in a journalist, even if you disagree with some of the content. That, in itself, is ironic, given the alleged reason for his suicide - ie caring what people thought.

Also, not much mention of his playing career, which (I gather) was a fine one and probably more of an achievement than his contrary polemics.

Paul Keating wrote:The Age Newspaper in Melbourne's headline is he fell to his death. Not he jumped to his death.

It amounts to just about the same thing