Peter Roebuck Dies

[Cutter]

A priest who professes to be doing the work of God, who you're told as a child (and for the adults who continue to believe) that they are the agent of God, in whom you're supposed to trust without reservation and to whom you must confess everything?

I'd say a fair forking bit of difference.

Roebuck was a man like any other. Priests are given a cloak of holiness, trust and sanctity. Those priests who have transgressed don't generally earn the wrath of the world for sexually assaulting adult men either. Their victims are younger, intimidated, helpless and traumatised. Children are given to them in trust and they are authority figures. To breach that is far worse in my opinion. That is much like saying that it is no worse for a judge or policeman to lie in court than it is for a journalist.

Currently we don't know anything about the sexual assault allegation except that it was made by a 26 year old Zimbot man. Bolt's article is mischievous and disingenous. Like most Bolt articles. You would do well to exhaust other news sources before reading Bolt. If you want something that will interest you, go to www.aldaily.com. The likes of Bolt don't get a run there but valid opinions abound.

In any event, and as I said to begin with, let us see what emerges here before deciding whether Roebuck's memory should be vilified or deified.

 

[barbarian]

Thanks Cutter I do actually 'exhaust all other sources before reading Bolt', as I actually never read the guy. But I was sent this article and thought it was worth putting up here.

I think the priest analogy is a bad one, and it instantly conjuers up images of child abuse which at the moment has nothing to do with Roebuck. He should have just said 'public figure'.

Roebuck was a public figure, and I believe he has been afforded far more space and dignity than others who have suffered similarly auspicious endings. Especially when it seems that other journos know FAR more about Roebuck (and possibly the circumstances surrounding his death) than they are letting on. All of these thinly veiled references to his 'inner demons' and other aspects of his personal life indicate this.

Honestly I don't think it is a particularly bad thing, and I think the media would do well to do this in every case of prominent (yet suspicious) death. But they don't, and it is clear here that the journos have closed ranks to protect one of their own, for the time being anyway. I'm sure the truth will eventually come out, but I feel like we could know a bit more than we currently know now.

 

[Cutter]

Andrew Bolt weighs in to the Roebuck saga, and for once I agree with some of what he says:

Apologies, based on your introductory sentence I gathered you were a Bolt reader (albeit one who didn't always agree with him).

Thanks Cutter I do actually 'exhaust all other sources before reading Bolt', as I actually never read the guy. But I was sent this article and thought it was worth putting up here.

I think the priest analogy is a bad one, and it instantly conjuers up images of child abuse which at the moment has nothing to do with Roebuck. He should have just said 'public figure'.

Roebuck was a public figure, and I believe he has been afforded far more space and dignity than others who have suffered similarly auspicious endings. Especially when it seems that other journos know FAR more about Roebuck (and possibly the circumstances surrounding his death) than they are letting on. All of these thinly veiled references to his 'inner demons' and other aspects of his personal life indicate this.

Honestly I don't think it is a particularly bad thing, and I think the media would do well to do this in every case of prominent (yet suspicious) death. But they don't, and it is clear here that the journos have closed ranks to protect one of their own, for the time being anyway. I'm sure the truth will eventually come out, but I feel like we could know a bit more than we currently know now.

The fact that Roebuck is a public figure means he is afforded no space or dignity. In fact, it probably meant he jumped because he knew he would be afforded no space or dignity. Clearly we disagree on this point but how you can say a public figure who dies in unusual circumstances is ever afforded space an dignity is astounding. I've viewed what has happened as being an attempt to balance the allegations of sexual assault with insight into the man we didn't know. They know we'll all draw our own conclusions but they want us to know the good parts of his character as well jumping to conclusions about the rest.

That so many people are trying to tell us he was a good guy suggests he may have been okay. We'll know more in due course, but in the absence of the articles lauding him we'd all have jumped to the conclusion you and Paarl did early on which was that he was dodgy. Maybe he was but he was also someone who did a lot of good.

And we don't know how much his colleagues knew or didn't know. That is Bolt being mischievous again.

 

[barbarian]

The fact that Roebuck is a public figure means he is afforded no space or dignity. In fact, it probably meant he jumped because he knew he would be afforded no space or dignity. Clearly we disagree on this point but how you can say a public figure who dies in unusual circumstances is ever afforded space an dignity is astounding. I've viewed what has happened as being an attempt to balance the allegations of sexual assault with insight into the man we didn't know. They know we'll all draw our own conclusions but they want us to know the good parts of his character as well jumping to conclusions about the rest.

I think you misunderstood me. I agree, public figures are almost always afforded absolutely no space or dignity. My point is Roebuck has been given a fair bit of both if you ask me, especially considering the circumstances surrounding his death. I am not suggesting a cover-up or anything, just that the journos have shown far more respect for PR than they have for anyone else in recent memory. As I said I think it should be that way for everyone, but as it stands I think there is more tot his story that we have not been told.

I know they want to tell us the good parts of his character, but is that their job? Sure I can tolerate a certain amount of eulogising, but it is also the job of the media to bring us the story, investigate the aspects of this strange man that lead him to take such an action. I think they have been a bit light on in that regard.

Look I am not suggesting anything dodgy on the part of either Roebuck or his collegues. Just that I feel like there is a bit more to this story, and we are not getting it as quite a few journos decided to close ranks in support of their dead mate.


.

 

[Cutter]

My only response to that is to take the opportunity to quote myself (which I never get the chance to do):

... in the absence of the articles lauding him we'd all have jumped to the conclusion you and Paarl did early on which was that he was dodgy.

That is why they've done it and I don't blame them. The allegation of sexual assault by itself was a vacuum we'd already started to fill.

 

[barbarian]

That is why they've done it and I don't blame them. The allegation of sexual assault by itself was a vacuum we'd already started to fill.

But that is not their job, surely? Their job is to report on what happened and why. Sure there is a place for eulogies, but the circumstances surrounding his death sound dodgy as hell. The response to that is not to flood the pages with glowing eulogies, but to find out what actually happened to either confirm or deny these rumours. The more they go unaddressed the more it allows speculation to grow.

As it is we now know that he was being questioned over one allegation of sexual assault, nothing more. Would this be enough to cause one man to commit suicide? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think this question has yet been adequately addressed.


.

 

[Cutter]

You're right it hasn't but I don't think there is anything sinister in it. Maybe they know more or, notwithstanding Bolt's speculation, maybe they don't. Should they be reporting where there is an ongoing police investigation? Do the South African journalists feel the same loyalty? Are they also in on the conspiracy to withhold information from the public? Is it really a matter of public interest or is it just tabloid gossip at this point? Are you just speculating?

I don't think you and I will get any further with this conversation.

 

[barbarian]

Fair enough. I just think that if it was an actor or singer that this story would play out a bit differently.

 

[I like to watch]

yes it would be played out differently, as actors/singers are reported on by the paparazzi.
Kim Kardashian would definitely be treated differently by the media in similar circumstances. But she has made a living out of using the media for gain. Roebuck never did.
He was a good cricket analyst that I enjoyed reading/listening to.
I feel sorry that he thought things were so bad in his life that jumping out a window was his best option.
I don't want to read any speculation about his private life, let him rest in peace.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

But she has made a living out of using the media for gain. Roebuck never did.
.

For what I consider quite obvious reasons, I have to disagree with this....

Sounds like from what I've read Roebuck had no direct family, unfortunately in this world, that immediately arouses suspicion amongst the wider environment of pc family campaigners - which is a shame. People make choices for various reasons and its' up to them.

I have no problem with the cane thing - not totally unacceptable from various era's & perhaps poorly thought through, but doesn't make me suspicious of him. At the moment, all that is out there which is a bit off on his character, is this suggestion of sexual assaul from a 26 yr old zimbot. Now that doesn't sound good at all... but nothings proven anywhere.

The fact the majority of media seem to be staying relatively silent tells me that perhaps they don't read much into this accusation.

 

[Swat]

Okay, so I heard this from a less than reputable source but apparently Jim Maxwell got a call from Peter before he died asking if he new a good lawyer and asked Jim to come over to his hotel and apparently Peter was being questioned by an officer in his hotel room at the time of his death. It all sounds a little Dario Fo - Accidental Death of an Anarchist to me.

 

[barbarian]

Okay, so I heard this from a less than reputable source but apparently Jim Maxwell got a call from Peter before he died asking if he new a good lawyer and asked Jim to come over to his hotel and apparently Peter was being questioned by an officer in his hotel room at the time of his death. It all sounds a little Dario Fo - Accidental Death of an Anarchist to me.

That has been widely reported, and confirmed by Maxwell himself yesterday in the SMH.

 

[Swat]

Then why is everyone claiming it was suicide?

 

[cyclopath]

Then why is everyone claiming it was suicide?

Because he jumped to his death? Not sure what you're getting at?

 

[Swat]

If he was alone in the room with only one policeman, I'm less inclined to take it at face value.

 

[Jnor]

I was going to bring this up but it's been raised anyway. It's obviously unconfirmed but I think there have to be some questions asked as to how this happened while a police officer was in the room with him. I read somewhere about the type of windows in the hotel being very difficult to open - but I can't find it again so cannot confirm what I read.

 

[barbarian]

I think this SMH article sums up the debate pretty well, about Roebuck specifically but also celebrities in general:

Death in the public eye confronts taboos

The vast majority of us die in anonymity at the end of a long life. Yet a tiny minority is marked by fame or infamy to have our decease fall prey to the attentions, fears and hopes of the baying pack.

The tiny few of us who die in public have their deaths deliciously dissected. And that dissection occurs in ways that tell us more about our community's fears and denial of death than about the public life just lived and newly lost.

The vast majority of us die in anonymity at the end of a long life. Yet a tiny minority is marked by fame or infamy to have our decease fall prey to the attentions, fears and hopes of the baying pack.

Peter Roebuck has lived such a public death and his death is ricocheting between maudlin loss, frenzied acclamation and salacious speculation as we struggle to put this death into some perspective.

This question is one of justice. After death isn't it even more important to get the facts of life and death right? The dead are no longer here to defend themselves. The voice of the dead must be relayed by coroners, journalists, police, pathologists and gossip merchants. What are our duties to the dead and our duties to truth?

Whilst they are no longer here to care, the issue of legacy permeates the question of death. No one wants to die blameworthy and we all have relatives and friends concerned with our reputation.

By the same token, the dead are not immune from criticism. How far do we go in portraying a warts and all account of their life? When is it appropriate to take the gloves off and tell the real story? When controversy erupts upon a death, there is the convention that we are slow to speak ill of the dead. There is an unspoken convention of "a decent interval" that elapses before a reputation is attacked or trashed. How much time should elapse before we do so? And why does this convention even exist? To my mind the squeamishness we feel about attacking the dead comes in part from our own fear of death.

The public death is an arena where we play with our fear of death on a grand scale. One of the many taboos that death evokes is the taboo of criticism – hence the reluctance to confront controversial deaths. Denial of death leads us to avoid facing the grim reality of mortality and one of the ways we do that is in the veneration of the newly dead. And then in a trice, we turn from the gentility of taboo to the grim raunchy gallows humour where we show that we are so brave, so immune to fear, we can laugh in the face of death. Princess Di jokes exemplify how shocking jokes sit cheek by jowl with genuine grief.

Roebuck's death has performed to type as friends and former enemies of the man lauded his impeccable skills. But didn't the applause seem too frenzied as if the din of approval was trying to drown out the growing feeling of unease at the circumstances?

Now that initial artificial ovation threatens to turn and eat the memory of the man. The emotions around a public death ricochet with volatility that most of our deaths are spared.

The most famous hysteria about of recent public deaths were Elvis and Princess Diana's. In the former, the denial of death was palpable. To this day, over 30 years after his obese body rather unsurprisingly gave up the considerable burden of pumping blood around his corpulence, there are still some deniers. The fat, drug-taking sloth died an utterly ordinary death and yet the raging fires of denial still burn.

The hysteria surrounding the death of Diana had to be seen to be believed. The outpouring of public grief was unparalleled. More than one million bouquets were left at Kensington Palace. The hysteria was overwhelming. Mourning Diana became a public fetish. Of course within days there were the jokes. Grief and humour are strange bedfellows you might think? Both are evidence of our denial of death.

Peter Roebuck's death will not play out like Elvis and Diana but it will share the same contradictory notions of disavowal - respect versus jocularity; concern for the dead versus curiosity for the truth.

So in one sense the public death is no different to the private one. We construct our response to minimise reminders of our own demise. Sometimes we deny death by jaunty humour that fools no one. Sometimes we venerate the dead as if giving respect to them will be reciprocated for us. Sometimes we forget veneration and search for truth. Sometimes we deny death by hysterical mourning (Diana) and refusing to accept reality (Elvis).

What will happen to Peter Roebuck? Time will tell but my guess is that it won't be pretty.

Peter Roebuck has died. The public reaction will tell us much about fear of death, our adoration of celebrity, our duty to the truth and lust for gossip. The inquisition has just begun.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...onts-taboos-20111116-1ni6b.html#ixzz1dqKGtJrH

 

[light]

From what I read he asked to go to the bathroom and the cop waited outside the door for him. Whilst in the bathroom he opened the window and jumped, I originally thought foul play but Maxwell confirmed somewhere that the policeman was not in the bathroom when Peter jumped.

 

[barbarian]

A little bit more info here:

Roebuck groomed me: student

A student claims cricket writer Peter Roebuck "groomed" him on Facebook and sexually assaulted him in a South Africa hotel room, a British media report says.

Itai Gondo's claims were the subject of a South African police investigation that appeared to have sparked the suicide of Roebuck.

Mr Gondo, 26, said the former English cricketer spent days talking to him on the social networking site, The Sun reported today.

Advertisement: Story continues below Mr Gondo said he approached Roebuck through a university friend who knew one of 17 boys who lived in a 10-bedroom home called Sunrise in Pietermaritzburg, managed by the writer.

He alleged that, after a few online conversations, the pair met in a hotel suite and Mr Roebuck sexually assaulted him.

"I was in shock and told myself that it couldn't be happening," Mr Gondo told The Sun.

I do think by using the word 'student' in the title it makes it sound a bit worse than it might be, the guy was 26. Sexual assault is still sexual assault though, although he doesn't go into the extent of the assault- I mean, did PR just touch his leg or do something more forceful?

.

 

[Swat]

Can you groom a 26 year old?