Peter Roebuck Dies

[Inside Shoulder]

Can you groom a 26 year old?

You can give it a red hot go I guess

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Gerard Henderson makes a valid point:

Perhaps the media can be excused for giving Roebuck a second chance, so to speak, by employing him after his conviction for assault. However, there was no excuse for the outpouring of ambiguous and misleading sentiment which followed his death. Peter Roebuck never apologised for his behaviour while he lived. It is not clear why journalists should gloss over his behaviour in death, just because he was a gifted writer and broadcaster.

http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/media-watch-dog/

 

[Karl]

Anyone who canes boys on their bare bottoms and wants to see the welts is a deviant in any day or age and this type of deviant is known to be a recalcitrant re-offender. That might have been 10 or so years ago, but they just get better at evading detection. When that same man surrounds himself with boys in a Michael Jackson-esq Neverland where he is the "Daddy" (despite his clear avoidance of that role and it's attendant responsibilities in the real world), all under the auspices of helping orphans to provide a patina of legitimacy, and none of the apparently widely (if quietly) held misgivings of those closer to him are acted upon - well it's just enabling him and this is the inevitable result. This bloke and his "demons" were free to play in his self-created garden of vulnerable, disadvantaged youth. A gutless end seems quite appropriate.

 

[lincoln]

Anyone who canes boys on their bare bottoms and wants to see the welts is a deviant in any day or age and this type of deviant is known to be a recalcitrant re-offender. That might have been 10 or so years ago, but they just get better at evading detection. When that same man surrounds himself with boys in a Michael Jackson-esq Neverland where he is the "Daddy" (despite his clear avoidance of that role and it's attendant responsibilities in the real world), all under the auspices of helping orphans to provide a patina of legitimacy, and none of the apparently widely (if quietly) held misgivings of those closer to him are acted upon - well it's just enabling him and this is the inevitable result. This bloke and his "demons" were free to play in his self-created garden of vulnerable, disadvantaged youth. A gutless end seems quite appropriate.

Somewhat harsh but possibly fair. Living with demons is a life long labour - hopefully if anything good is to come out of this sad affair is even more focus on men's health. :-(

 

[val_b]

this is such a bad news..

 

[Cutter]

The most sensible analysis of the situation I've read...

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/17/roebucks-death-a-good-man-a-bad-man-or-something-in-between/

Roebuck’s death: a good man, a bad man or something in between?
by Geoff Lemon, a freelance writer
I was late to hear about Peter Roebuck’s death. Camping in a state forest near Narrandera, with New South Welsh clocks showing the early hours of Sunday, it was just one part of an outside world kept at bay. Come Monday evening, the news as fresh a shock as in any earlier iteration, I found myself tracing the story’s evolution back to its beginning.

The process has been desperately sad. As a fellow writer of sport, I held Roebuck above most others. As someone for whom cricket is about emotional resonance more than entertainment, Roebuck’s voice was part of my life, the soundscape of summer nostalgia as much as highway air past the car window or the shriek of seagulls.

At the same time, while bleakly, it has been instructive and fascinating to see how the various strands of media handle a case so complex and ambiguous. Roebuck has died leaving more question marks than the most enthusiastic YouTube commenter, and given the closed nature of South African policing, straight answers may never be forthcoming.

Reports through Sunday were brief, bare, and often wrong. Found dead in a hotel room. Fallen from a window. Police had spoken to him earlier that day. Were with him at the time. Visions of foul play circled thick and dark as evening bats.

On Monday came the obituaries. “Tragedy far greater than 47 all out has struck cricket, and this should be a Roebuck column. But it isn’t one, and can’t be one, and never will be one again, because the tragedy is Peter Roebuck. He is dead.” So wrote Greg Baum, in a front-page piece choked with emotion. Details were still hazy, but the final sentence of Baum’s quote was deemed the important part. Responses flowed accordingly — Neil Manthorpe, Vic Marks, Tim Lane all paid their respects.

As early as Monday night though, online reports were emerging, passed on in Tuesday’s papers. That Roebuck had been accused of sexual assault, that the visiting police were of the relevant ilk. That investigations were under way.

The eulogies, of course, have been heartfelt, mostly from colleagues and friends. In general coverage, though, the overwhelming sensation has been uneasiness, a media shifting awkwardly on its chair. As yet, they still don’t have a fix on this story. They want Roebuck to be a good man or a bad man. The prospect that someone might be both is too much to bear.

The stakes, given the conservative presentation of news, are high. No outlet wants to say nice things about someone who turns out to be bad, or ill about someone good. Early reports had more hedges than ever shared an advertising hoarding with Benson.

But ultimately, the lure of the lurid is strong. While Fairfax papers have stood by their man, others here and overseas have been sketching an unpleasant narrative, though one built sufficiently on insinuation and clever positioning that it can be backed away from at short notice.

Essentially, it is the suggestion of Roebuck as a long-term sexual exploiter of boys.

The main thing mentioned in each suggestive news piece, and embraced by vicious blogs as vindication, is the current accusation of assault. Apparently a reminder is due that allegations do not equal guilt, and that sexual impropriety is the easiest charge to make and the hardest to dispel. Just ask Anwar Ibrahim.

The accusation itself has been given little study. Various reports have it as an “attempted sexual assault”, a hazy concept if ever there were one. Attempting a nightclub kiss could be classed as such if the recipient were not amenable.

It is in keeping with the implied narrative that every report refers to the complainant specifically as a “young man”. The man was 26, not the youth implied. To suggest he lacked the capacity to deflect an advance is specious.

Then there’s the possibility of a set-up, which no report I’ve read has yet considered. There are two potential motivations. Sexual accusations are frequently used in blackmail, especially in poorer countries. A high-profile foreigner with a seemingly large supply of philanthropic dollars, Roebuck would have been an obvious target.

Or something bigger? Roebuck was the single most outspoken critic of Zimbabwean politics in the cricketing world. He knew a lot about the country, and castigated Zanu-PF politicians and Zimbabwe Cricket Board officials specifically and by name. Much of the diplomatic pressure on Zimbabwe comes from cricketing nations such as Australia and Britain, who are more often than others minded of its existence. Roebuck was a wicked acacia thorn in Mugabe’s side.

Trading on one infamous incident in Roebuck’s past, a sexual allegation would be a most effective means of discredit. That a Zimbabwean national should make the accusation within days of Roebuck’s arrival in Africa, after seeking him out online and arranging a hotel meeting, is worthy of note and investigation. Strange that no allegations were ever made in the many years Roebuck spent in Australia.

After the assault allegations, most reports have also touched on Roebuck’s charity house in Pietermaritzburg. Again, the emphasis is on age, citing “young men” and often “boys”. The “boys” in question are mostly in their mid-20s and going through university. The coaching of language gives a different impression.

Look, says the implication. Here is a young African man accusing Roebuck of assault. Here are other young African men under his care and control. Some of the internet’s fouler repositories have taken this to its furthest conclusion, painting Roebuck as a colonialist pervert creating stockpiles of the vulnerable to satisfy his rampant demand for flesh. They have even read sexual malice into some of his sponsored orphans calling him “dad”.

The suggestions are beyond obscene. Roebuck’s students past and present have greeted his death with shock and grief, and described him in glowing terms, as a generous man and a genuine father figure. Not one has suggested any impropriety on his part. Not one has been asked how they feel about his life’s best work being twisted into de facto evidence against him.

All this nudging, rustling, and whispering is essentially based on the one incident. In 1999, we’ve been told countless times in the past few days, Roebuck caned three white South African cricketers. This was well before his charity work started, when he was taking on aspiring players in England for a training regime.The cricketers are always described as “boys”, despite being 19, and perfectly old enough to have told him to go and jump if they had chosen. The only one contacted by the media this week said he bore Roebuck no ill will, and described him as “a brilliant mind”.

Yes, it’s an odd one, but the level of assumption is unsupportable. Every report has implied a sexual aspect to the caning, when Roebuck belonged to a generation that was routinely caned at school. Much has been made of the judge’s line about it being “done to satisfy some need in you”, without quoting the subsequent sentence in which he refers to establishing a position of power, not to getting one’s rocks off.

This doesn’t mean I’m here to make the case for caning. But presumptions about things that don’t involve you are easy to get wrong. The most prosaic intent can become sinister in the telling. In 2003, I was spotted breaking into a Carlton apartment and leaving with a bag of women’s underwear. As it happened, my girlfriend’s faulty front door latch sometimes needed to be popped with a credit card, and it was my turn to make the run to the laundromat. Cuff me.

Whatever happened in Roebuck’s case, the caning trial was an utter humiliation, and probably the lowest point of his life. He went to ground afterwards, and thought about staying down. Whether he did or didn’t have a case to answer in South Africa, it seems likely that his memory of that first case led to his fatal despair in contemplating fighting another.

It is a sad end. Alive, Roebuck could perhaps have cleared his name. Now, the investigation will likely trail off. Conjecture will continue. The nation’s news services will maintain their vacillation between respecting the revered writer and sniping at the potential villain. We probably won’t get an answer. Roebuck will neither become a comfortably good man nor an entirely bad one. Like the hypocritical mass of the rest of us, he’ll fall somewhere in between.

 

[barbarian]

Have to say I am missing Peter Roebuck's writing at the moment. I keep wondering what his take on the current situation would be. No offence to the current crop of journos, but no-one quite got me going like Roebuck...

 

[Lindommer]

For years I've thought something was amiss in Roebuck's life and the English caning episode was a glimpse of the real man. It would seem some of Peter's "boys" are now losing their reticence to talk about what really happened in his houses. Read here http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket...l-the-riddle-over-roebuck-20111231-1pghb.html

Peter Roebuck's "sons" were grateful for his generosity but have emerged to make allegations of sexual oppression and cruel beatings. Some friends of the cricket writer are sceptical about the claims – and the air of blackmail hangs over the saga – but even they admit they did not really know Roebuck. Adam Shand reports from Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.
The Shona people of Zimbabwe have a saying, "Rine manyanga hariputirwe", meaning the animal with horns cannot be wrapped. Beneath the jovial veneer of Peter Roebuck, the cricket writer, philanthropist, coach and mentor, there lived a secret that only his African "family" knew. The Zimbabwean students who Roebuck was supporting had protected their "loved Dad" as he had protected and nurtured his "loved sons". Unanswered questions hung in the air when the cricketing fraternity gathered in Sydney and Melbourne last week to remember a beloved colleague and to celebrate a legacy of philanthropy and social justice.

"This hurts. For those of us in the press and broadcasting boxes the hurt is acute," said Mike Coward, the president of the Cricket Media Association, in a speech at the Sydney Cricket Ground. "Of course, these questions will remain unanswered. How can you explain the inexplicable? ... But we do crave a more complete picture for we are deeply troubled by his death and the fact none of us could prevent it." Coward voiced what nearly every person who "knew" Roebuck felt, that at best they only knew what small part of himself he was willing to reveal, and in the main, they didn't really know him at all. The former Somerset captain, much admired for his forthright opinions on cricket, shared precious little of himself. Perhaps Roebuck feared that if he did, his friends might not understand. His reputation would suffer and that was more than he could bear. The self-loathing would be plain for all to see. That moment may well have arrived in a hotel room on November 12 in Cape Town, South Africa, when police were poised to arrest the 55-year-old on charges of indecently assaulting a 26-year-old male, Zimbabwean university student Itai Gondo. According to police reports, Roebuck had without warning jumped from the sixth-floor window to his death, despite being in the company of a police officer.

His first African "son", Psychology Maziwisa, was devastated, but not surprised, to learn of his former mentor's suicide. Maziwisa, now a lawyer thanks to Roebuck's generosity, knew a different side to the Peter Roebuck story. Six weeks after Roebuck's death, Maziwisa and some of Roebuck's "sons" – who initially defended his reputation as a loving father figure – have now described a disturbingly dysfunctional lifestyle within the walls of the houses they shared. They talk of sexual misconduct, Roebuck's repeated beatings of them on their bare buttocks and of the decision of some to blackmail him as he tried to protect his public reputation as a champion of education and social justice. Yet Maziwisa – one of his chief accusers – does not condemn him; rather, he describes Roebuck as "a special person" in his life. Roebuck was not a sexual predator, he says, but a flawed person who strove to express a genuine love through his generosity but who could not acknowledge his own complex sexuality – a tragedy that led to his downfall.

That fall had begun back in October 1999 at St Joseph's orphanage in Harare, Zimbabwe, which housed 55 boys, orphans or children from destitute families. Roebuck was visiting the boy who would become his first African son, a soon to be orphan. The 16-year old – Maziwisa – would also apparently become the love of his life. Two days earlier, Roebuck had met the boy at the Harare Sports Club where he was covering a match between Zimbabwe and Australia for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. Maziwisa was the captain of the St Joseph's marimba band that was entertaining the crowd during the breaks. They got talking and Roebuck was touched by the story that "Captain Psychology", as he dubbed Maziwisa, had told. Roebuck then visited St Joseph's and spent an hour talking with "Captain" and three of his friends. Maziwisa says Roebuck then asked the other boys to leave the room as he had some "private matters" to discuss with him. When they were alone, he says Roebuck stood up, pressed his back against the door and motioned for him to approach. When Roebuck embraced him, Maziwisa says he did not resist. "To be honest, I got my first hug from Peter [in] my whole entire life. In African culture, a handshake is enough. You seldom hug if at all. This was very special to me," says Maziwisa. So when Roebuck passionately kissed the boy, Maziwisa says he again did not resist, despite the confusion it stirred in him. Word of this closed-door encounter spread through the orphanage quickly, says Maziwisa, and staff members became immediately suspicious of Roebuck. "Matron said, 'Look I actually don't want to see this guy back here again, I think he just might corrupt our boys here'," says Maziwisa. For Maziwisa, a benefactor like Roebuck doesn't turn up every day. "I would actually cover things up. I said he's actually got a family, his wife [is] back in the UK. He's got three kids. Two are living with him in Australia, and one is with the wife, because people were convinced that Peter was gay. I stayed with that story throughout," says Maziwisa, acknowledging the lie. Maziwisa is not homosexual, but says he accepted Roebuck's affection and sexual interest because he "had to look at the big picture". His family was in ruins. His mother had died of an AIDS-related illness and his father would soon follow. Once a teacher, Maziwisa's father was begging on the streets for survival. He had placed his children in orphanages. In early 2001, Roebuck set up a bank account in Harare to cover Maziwisa's fees, so he could study for his A-levels. In April the following year when the then 19-year-old's father died, Roebuck paid for the coffin and the funeral expenses. In time, Roebuck would also "adopt" and educate dozens of other young men, including Maziwisa's two biological brothers – one of whom would allegedly blackmail him after claiming his new "father" had sexually abused him.

Meanwhile, Roebuck's life in England was in turmoil. In October 2001, he pleaded guilty in a Devon court to charges of common assault after admitting he had caned three young South African cricketers he was coaching. Roebuck accepted a four-month suspended jail sentence but was largely unrepentant. "Obviously I misjudged the mood and that was my mistake and my responsibility and I accept that," he told the court. He wrote in his autobiography Sometimes I Forgot to Laugh that he had to "pretend that consent was absent. Of course it was nonsense." Roebuck perhaps failed to understand the power imbalance between him and the impoverished young men whose lives he sought to lift. The damage to his reputation drove Roebuck out of England. Coward was among the friends who stood by him during this public humiliation. "I took him away after the court case and he said he never wanted to go through anything like that again," Coward recalls. He, like other colleagues of Roebuck, is surprised by the latest allegations that he abused the young men he was helping to educate, and is mindful that his long-term friend is not here to defend or explain himself. "He was so admired and respected ... We were unaware of any impropriety," says Coward. "This is what he obviously couldn't live with, all these very personal details being made public ... It's all just so desperately, desperately sad. The tragedy is we don't know who we knew. I mean, we thought he was estranged from his family, we thought his mother was dead ... yet now it seems he was probably in touch with them all these years. It's just staggering."[/QUOTE]

 

[Lindommer]

The ABC commentator Jim Maxwell says there would be many of Roebuck's past students from Sydney's elite Cranbrook School who would be shocked "by these claims ... and they would defend him to the hilt". Maxwell, who first met Roebuck 30 years ago, says he was "taken aback" when he gave his statement to police shortly after his friend's suicide. The second question they asked was, "Did you know he was a homosexual?" "I told the police that as far as I knew he wasn't. As to his defined sexual proclivity, what he felt ... he never expressed anything about that to me," Maxwell says. Roebuck became an Australian citizen in the 1990s, spending half the year living at Bondi Beach. Yet increasingly he was drawn to South Africa. Maziwisa says a poor man might accept corporal punishment as the price of an education yet it is not the same as giving consent. He says he had faced that dilemma when Roebuck had first abused him in 1999. "I said to myself, 'I cannot judge this man based on this incident. The future is a lot brighter, it's just one incident ... I think it's wise to keep this to myself. It worked out to my advantage, because Peter paid for tuition, my varsity education," says Maziwisa. "Peter told me: 'I grew up as a lonely guy. I didn't have much love around me and this is my way of reliving my past of making things right, making that childhood thing that I did not experience'." This alleged account of Roebuck's past will likely come as a cruel blow to his widowed mother and five remaining siblings, who have spoken of their great loss and their desire that he be remembered for his charity work. "Some lovely things have been written about Peter, but also some vile things. We want Peter's name to remain a good name," his sister Beatrice told journalists. Upon news of his death, the family sent a lawyer to South Africa to investigate because they do not believe he committed suicide. After the court case in England, Roebuck bought a block of land in South Africa, half an hour out of Pietermaritzburg in the province of KwaZulu-Natal where he had white friends from cricketing circles. The block, fringed by farms and game reserves, commanded a spectacular view of the Umgeni River where it spilled into Albert Falls Dam. He built a rambling homestead that he named Straw Hat, a place where he could reinvent himself with Maziwisa by his side. Though Roebuck had as many as 42 students under his wing at the time of his death, all his attention had at first been directed towards his "Captain". Coward, who met Maziwisa several years ago in the company of Roebuck, says he doesn't know if Captain Psychology was "the love of Peter's life" but concedes his life certainly changed after he met the young man. Cricket was a passion that took Roebuck around the world; Maziwisa gave him an anchor. By 2004, Roebuck was paying for Maziwisa to study law at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Pietermaritzburg and meeting all his living expenses. Early on, they shared the house with a white South African couple. It was a stimulating, intellectual atmosphere around the dinner table. Roebuck is thought to have considered Captain Psychology as someone who could be moulded into the perfect weapon of dissent, a protege in his fierce attacks on President Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe and the acolytes who ran cricket there.

Roebuck's interest in the boy was subtle, yet insistent, according to accounts by Maziwisa. "If you were taking a shower, he would come in and talk to you. You were taking a shower and he's busy assessing you and that kind of thing. That was a little bit odd," Maziwisa says. Then one day in 2005, he laid bare his feelings. "He sat me beside him on the bed. He looked me in the eye. He said, 'Are you OK?' I said, 'I'm fine.' He asked, 'Are you eating well?' By that time he had his hands in my pants, feeling my buttocks," remembers Maziwisa. "He said, "Look Captain, I have got something to tell you. I hope you are comfortable with it. I have been meaning to tell you I love you. He was hugging me and putting me by his chest, feeling me. I think that day he was ready to have sex with me, had I agreed, but I did not and told him so." Maziwisa rejected him, apologising for letting down his mentor. Roebuck was, according to Maziwisa, devastated and tears rolled down his face. "His expectation was that I would just say OK, in return for his favours, despite my straightness, let's just do this as a means of compensation ... I just left him in the room, crying," says Maziwisa.[/QUOTE]

 

[Lindommer]

Maziwisa was now 22 and had fallen in love with Thandeka, a pretty law student from university. But there were his brothers, the quaintly named Immigration and Integrity, back in Harare, Zimbabwe, to consider. He says he knew Roebuck would accept them into their "family" and take care of them if he asked, such was his influence over the older man. "I just said to myself, don't be selfish. Let me look at the bigger picture. As long as he is not compelling me to do anything with him, it's fine. I have told him, he has understood. Although he has cried, he will get over it." Soon Straw Hat was home to more than a dozen young Zimbabwean men ranging from 18 to 22 years, all of whom had Maziwisa to thank for their good fortune. "Always I would say to Peter don't do this for me, it's entirely up to you. I am recommending them to you because I feel I should assist them but I can't do this myself. I would invite people to come for a few days and they would end up staying for the duration," Maziwisa says.

In 2006, Roebuck was one of five founding directors of the LBW (Learning for a Better World) Trust, established to assist disadvantaged young people in developing countries to obtain a tertiary education. He retired as a director in 2008 but continued to support its initiatives. Separately, Roebuck was privately paying tuition and living expenses for 42 young Africans at the time of his death. The tuition costs of 262 tertiary students in six countries are being met by the trust, to which Fairfax Media, publisher of The Sun-Herald, recently donated $10,000 in Roebuck's honour. LBW Trust chairman Darshak Mehta said all money raised at memorials for Roebuck would be sent to Sport Skills for Life Skills, the organisation handling the continuing funding of Roebuck's "sons". "The Trust does not have any current students living in Peter's house, but it will seek to ensure that the students who have lost their benefactor and father figure are not forgotten," Mr Mehta said. In 2010, the family had moved from Straw Hat into a 10-bedroom house next to the university in suburban Pietermaritzburg. Seventeen students were living there at the time of Roebuck's death. On the last weekend before Christmas, the remaining 10 or so prepared to leave Pietermaritzburg, possibly for the last time. Since Roebuck's death five weeks earlier, the future had been clouded in uncertainty. There was no will or instructions setting out what would happen. Roebuck's few possessions were where he had left them. A crumpled straw hat perched on the piano in vigil as the students played pool nearby. On the mantlepiece, a pile of his favourite albums by Neil Young, Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen, gathered dust atop a yellowing copy of Charles Dickens's Hard Times. Roebuck's loyal dog Copperhead sat grimly by the swimming pool, which was turning lime green, watching the gate as if his master would return at any moment. "This might be the last 'Merry Saturday'," said Justice Hakata, another of Roebuck's "sons". He was referring to the occasional times when Roebuck would relax his rigorous regime and throw on a barbecue dinner and drinks for the students and their friends.

In the coming days many were heading to Harare to work out their next move. Some had not been home to Zimbabwe for five years. Roebuck encouraged them to think of themselves as exiles from a brutal regime. However, due to local employment rules, they could not work in South Africa despite their degrees, and they were reliant on their "loved Dad" for all their living expenses. Out of touch with Zimbabwe, they felt stateless and fearful of the future. A few, like Hakata, planned to stay at the house for as long as possible. "Once I get out of the gate, I have nothing and nowhere to go. This was my family and Peter was my father," he said, quietly. Roebuck had named the house Sunrise and painted it sky blue, hoping that this would be a fresh start. It wasn't. The power struggles and sexual politics that had poisoned the atmosphere at Straw Hat were brought into town. At first, the 10 students gathered at the house were reluctant to speak, but as the evening wore on several took me aside to talk. They had maintained the line that there had been no abuse and that Roebuck could not possibly have done what he was accused of, much less committed suicide. They feared that telling the truth might show ingratitude. But after reading the glowing tributes written by sportswriters who knew almost nothing of the other Peter Roebuck, they decided to break their silence. None could ever forget the savage beatings that Roebuck had delivered with a length of black plastic tubing upon their naked buttocks. Several explained how, adopting a code once used by colonial authorities in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), Roebuck would give miscreants a prescribed number of strokes for various offences to a maximum of 21. "These were very serious beatings," recalls "Trymore", another housemate who asks for anonymity. To add humiliation to injury, Roebuck would then insist on feeling the victim's buttocks to assess the damage. The young men said he often concluded the disturbing scene with a warm embrace.

When Roebuck was on cricket duty overseas, Maziwisa ran the house, controlling a debit card which gave him access to cash totalling 1500 South African rand ($182) per day. A privilege Maziwisa admits he sometimes abused by overspending. Roebuck would ask Maziwisa for reports of misbehaviour or slackness. A week before his return, Roebuck would send an email detailing whom he planned to beat and how many strokes were coming. From 2006, as the family rapidly grew, the beatings were more frequent, becoming part of the induction process at Straw Hat. "If you are going to be part of this family I am going to have to beat you first, he would tell new guys," according to Maziwisa. "And [he'd say] you are going to have to accept it. That tells me you want to stay in the family. If you are going to chicken out, I'm sorry I can't help you." Maziwisa says one of his favourite phrases was, "This is Africa. I'm raising lions not pussy cats." But Captain Psychology was treated differently, only ever receiving three strokes at a time, with his trousers on. "'Captain I have a lot of respect for you,' Roebuck would say. "All these other guys I cane them on their naked buttocks, but I'll not do that to you, I respect you. You are my number one, I started with you," says Maziwisa. In the eyes of Maziwisa, this was a precaution. "He knew that he had done stuff to me in 1999 and in 2005. If he was going to beat me on my naked buttocks he wasn't sure how I was going to take that ... so the best way to deal with that was to make me feel I was special," Maziwisa says. After Roebuck's rejection by Maziwisa, some in the house say the writer had turned his romantic attention to others. "He had carefully selected people, he had his people," says Trymore. "And the guys involved would keep it secret because it allowed them to get closer to Peter and that was an advantage when it came to money. But we would see certain guys coming out of Peter's room late at night. It created a lot of suspicion. "We would say as long as I'm OK, and things are going well, I will leave it as it is. After all, here was a father who was doing more for us than even our own biological fathers."[/QUOTE]

 

[Lindommer]

In 2007, Maziwisa left Straw Hat to live with Thandeka and their baby son. His brothers Immigration and Integrity had come down from Harare and were under Roebuck’s wing. The beatings and sexual harassment continued, even intensified, Maziwisa says, after his departure. ‘‘He was taking advantage of the situation, there’s no question. I sat down with him and said this whole thing has to stop, the beatings and the hugging etc because one day this whole thing might get messy,’’ says Maziwisa. But Maziwisa claims that Roebuck didn’t listen, suggesting that he was jealous. In 2009, Maziwisa says his brother Immigration wrote a letter accusing Roebuck of sexual assault. He drew up a list of 12 charges including allegations that Roebuck had molested him while he slept. Maziwisa says his brother also had photographic evidence of injuries Roebuck had inflicted during a 21-stroke hiding. Maziwisa says the wounds were so severe that he felt compelled to photograph them and had considered seeking medical help for his brother. He now claims he no longer has the photographs. Immigration threatened to take the letter to Roebuck’s employers, including The Sydney Morning Herald and the South-African Natal Witness newspaper. In a panic, Roebuck summoned Maziwisa to Straw Hat. He says Roebuck told him: ‘‘The moment he does that I am finished Captain. This thing will be big news in the papers tomorrow morning. As far as I can see there is no reason for me to live any more. If he wants to do it, let him do it. I will take myself to Albert Falls and throw myself off. He was red in the face and his hair was standing up.’’ Maziwisa promised to talk Immigration out of showing the letter but said his brother should have a small sum in compensation to leave quietly. Roebuck at first refused, asking Maziwisa whether he would remain loyal to him if police laid charges against him. ‘‘Should that day come, I am afraid I will testify against you,’’ Maziwisa says he told him. Roebuck was shattered by this declaration, Maziwisa says, and reluctantly agreed to what he describes as a payment of a ‘‘few thousand rand’’. Roebuck read the allegations to the rest of the family. He warned that if he went down, the rest of the family would suffer also. Under pressure from his peers, Immigration recanted but several housemates and a close friend and neighbour, Adrienne Anderson, confirm the payment was made nonetheless.

And in private, Immigration’s blackmailing did not cease, Trymore says. He estimates Roebuck paid Immigration a total of R75,000 in three amounts. Maziwisa dismisses this as a gross exaggeration. Whatever the sum of money, the power balance in the house had dramatically shifted. The four men and Ms Anderson also say that another housemate had extracted money from Roebuck to buy his silence in 2010. White friends in Pietermaritzburg were aware of the payments but refused to believe the allegations, according to Maziwisa. ‘‘Maybe they thought it was a black against white thing, that there was a history of black people wanting to take advantage of situations. They gave him the kind of advice he needed to hear,’’ he says. Anderson, a neighbour during the Straw Hat years and among Roebuck’s closest friends – but who admits ‘‘I didn’t really know him’’ – says she did question why Roebuck would pay Immigration if the allegations were false. ‘‘Peter told me, ‘He’s my son, how can I send him out on the street with nothing’,’’ says Anderson. She says Roebuck asked her to mediate a meeting between Maziwisa, Immigration and himself at which Roebuck claimed that Immigration’s assault allegations had come after a substantial amount of money had disappeared from his bank account over a three-year period. According to Anderson, Roebuck said ‘‘the abuse allegations had been used as a means of dissuading [Roebuck] from pursuing any action over the missing money’’. Anderson says Roebuck did not discuss personal matters with her, but did confide that he suspected Maziwisa had been ‘‘skimming off the top’’ amounts from his bank account for some time.

Roebuck also spoke to Jim Maxwell about his financial concerns. ‘‘He was always talking about how they were spending too much, that he was struggling to keep them under control ... he was very, very worried about it because he was absent for long periods and they had access to his accounts,’’ Maxwell recalls. ‘‘He certainly felt under pressure, but he never mentioned that he was being blackmailed.’’ Another South African friend of Roebuck’s, who declined to be named, questions Maziwisa’s motives in making the abuse allegations. ‘‘I am not aware of these rumours,’’ the friend says. ‘‘All I am aware of is that Psychology and Peter had a history of discord, especially after the former stole from Peter [over] a protracted period ... so I’ll take whatever [he has] got to offer with a pinch of salt.’’ Maziwisa denies that he stole from Roebuck but concedes that he did ‘‘get carried away’’ with the debit card in 2006 while his mentor was away. He also concedes that the man who had spent so much giving him and his ‘‘brothers’’ their greatest opportunity in life, had reached a critical decision last year.

Just months before his death, Maziwisa says Roebuck told him that he would rather take his own life than face further blackmail from his sons. ‘‘He told me, ‘I have made peace with my God,’’’ says Maziwisa. ‘‘I’m not going to let people do this to me. If people come to me seeking money from reliving the past I’m not going to have that. I can go any time.’’ The death knell for their relationship sounded when Maziwisa went to work for Mugabe’s regime in Harare as a political adviser. Roebuck despised the man who was responsible for the misery so many of his students had suffered. As Coward recalls, Roebuck was devastated by this betrayal. It sparked a dramatic falling out that left him bereft. ‘‘Nothing would have broken Roebuck’s heart quicker or harder than that,’’ Coward says. After the split, Roebuck would no longer have Maziwisa to guide him in the selection of new family members. Itai Gondo was not an orphan, nor a penniless refugee. He just wanted help with his tuition fees. At 26 he was beyond Roebuck’s age limit of accepting new men into the house. Sunrise housemate Petros Tani, 23, had introduced Gondo to Roebuck, suggesting in a Facebook message that the student drop his age. ‘‘Tell him that you are 21 and you are doing your first year ... if you tell him you are older than that you are out. Communicate with him as your father ..." ‘‘Your focus needs not to be on financial support but neediness as of a father and a family. The rest will then come,” Tani wrote. But Gondo refused to deceive Roebuck. ‘‘He has asked my age and honestly I feel I would rather be honest and transparent from the get-go with him about my age. As a man of faith I wouldn’t want that heavy on my conscience. Mr Roebuck is a father figure and deserves the respect expected to be given as a father figure as that stipulated in the Bible,’’ Gondo responded to Tani on Facebook. The following evening Roebuck met Gondo in his hotel room at the Southern Sun Hotel in Newlands, Cape Town. Gondo alleges that he and Roebuck had spent two hours talking before the conversation turned to sex. At some point, Roebuck went into the bathroom, allegedly emerging naked whereupon he pinned Gondo on the bed and sexually assaulted him.

 

[Lindommer]

The following day, Tani says Roebuck asked him on Facebook, in exchanges seen by this reporter, if there had been any word from Gondo, who had now removed his profile.
Tani: ‘‘Finally I spoke with Itai ... he said he is no longer interested in your assistance and that’s why he removed himself on Facebook.’’
Roebuck: ‘‘Oh well, not too sure what he said. He was a bit strange but he needs a lot of help. He needs to call me or other way round. Sometimes things go wrong the first time but you have got to fight back. He’s basically a good person. Am trying to put him in touch with Ruswa and think he can help him.’’
Tani: ‘‘Dad, do you have any idea why he does not need your help anymore?’’
Roebuck: ‘‘Not really, it was a strange meeting but am only here one more full day and he has many skills e.g. repairing laptops ... ’’
Tani: ‘‘Anyway Dad my advice would be to forget about him. We cannot force him because he doesn’t need anything to do with you or us. Worse off he doesn’t need any contact with anyone.’’
Roebuck: ‘‘Oh he’s depressed. Isn’t that dangerous? Think he needs to uplift his life. Sometimes I go a bit far in first meetings. I suppose outsiders not used to it but his life is important whereas our relationship is not. It’s his future.’’

The next evening, Gondo sent a message on Facebook to Roebuck. Gondo: ‘‘You have greatly humiliated me, and I feel very violated, disgusted with myself, your acts were of the purest, sickest kind.’’ Roebuck showed he was under pressure in a message to Tani: ‘‘Itai has sent me a nasty message and am sick about it. I will try to call him but not sure it’s any use. I’m upset, don’t tell anyone or they will worry.’’ About 9pm on November 12, Gondo rang Tani demanding to know where Roebuck was, declaring he would have him charged with sexual assault. Tani says he tried hard to talk Gondo out of it, saying they would all suffer. But Gondo wasn’t interested in the ‘‘bigger picture’’. A short time later, Roebuck apparently took his own life.

South African police spokesman Vish Naidoo says the body has been released to the family. The results of an inquest may not be known for up to two years, but Colonel Naidoo says police maintain there is no evidence of foul play. Earlier, Roebuck had posted a message on Facebook which underscored the tragedy. ‘‘We have a wonderful family and am proud of it,’’ he wrote. ‘‘Am not perfect but think the good outweighs the bad.’’[/QUOTE]

 

[Lindommer]

I'm putting this entire piece up here to ensure it's readable after the link dies. It gives me little joy to be proven right about Roebuck but certain episodes in my life, some of which I wasn't aware of at the time, resonated loudly and clearly when reading of Roebuck's past. After the court case in 2001 I wrote to both the ABC and the SMH opining Roebuck wasn't a suitable person to continue in their services; I received replies from both of them suggesting Roebuck was a good bloke and I was wrong. In fact the ABC stated as he was now an Aussie he must be OK. I didn't keep any of that correspondence, regrettably.

The amount of fawning over Roebuck by the media recently quite sickens me. He has been, and was quite recently, a sexual predator. And he was an appalling cricket commentator on the radio with his ability to get easily distracted over any pointless issue not connected with the game in front of him. But, for mine, he committed the unforgiveable sin in the media of talking down to his audience: he made a point of drifting over to a subject where he reckoned he knew more than us. Once I timed him for 10 overs when he didn't describe the play in front of him, and, of course, tell his audience the score. That was when I wrote to the ABC suggesting they dispense with his services due to his crap commentary and his criminal record. His writing wasn't much better, "McGrath's a splendid fellow", "Australians are a hardy lot", etc, etc. Rarely able to craft a piece of prose with connected clauses and phrases past a simple sentence. And always lecturing Australians on some subject he reckoned he knew better than us.

Coming from a conservative rural family with long squatting links I'm very familiar with the young Brit banished to the colonies for some misdemeanour, the "remittance man". Peter was a remittance man par excellence.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm putting this entire piece up here to ensure it's readable after the link dies. It gives me little joy to be proven right about Roebuck but certain episodes in my life, some of which I wasn't aware of at the time, resonated loudly and clearly when reading of Roebuck's past. After the court case in 2001 I wrote to both the ABC and the SMH opining Roebuck wasn't a suitable person to continue in their services; I received replies from both of them suggesting Roebuck was a good bloke and I was wrong. In fact the ABC stated as he was now an Aussie he must be OK. I didn't keep any of that correspondence, regrettably.

The amount of fawning over Roebuck by the media recently quite sickens me. He has been, and was quite recently, a sexual predator. And he was an appalling cricket commentator on the radio with his ability to get easily distracted over any pointless issue not connected with the game in front of him. But, for mine, he committed the unforgiveable sin in the media of talking down to his audience: he made a point of drifting over to a subject where he reckoned he knew more than us. Once I timed him for 10 overs when he didn't describe the play in front of him, and, of course, tell his audience the score. That was when I wrote to the ABC suggesting they dispense with his services due to his crap commentary and his criminal record. His writing wasn't much better, "McGrath's a splendid fellow", "Australians are a hardy lot", etc, etc. Rarely able to craft a piece of prose with connected clauses and phrases past a simple sentence. And always lecturing Australians on some subject he reckoned he knew better than us.

Coming from a conservative rural family with long squatting links I'm very familiar with the young Brit banished to the colonies for some misdemeanour, the "remittance man". Peter was a remittance man par excellence.

Well said - seems to be taking on another life today

 

[barbarian]

Can't say I agree with you Lindo, I liked his writing and commentry quite a lot.

But the article is very interesting reading. Clearly had plenty of issues, one would think his suicide was almost inevitable.

 

[cyclopath]

I found his radio commentary inoffensive, but hardly incisive. His writing was good at times, but his fawning, apologist stance over the whole Sydney Test v India debacle in 2008 deplorable. He sheeted all the blame home to Australia and disregarded any part in the unsavoury episode to India, then rehashed that column umpteen times over ensuing seasons as he pursued his vendetta against Ponting in particular. It was poor journalism.
From my perspective, he was not the shining light as eulogised by some of his colleagues.
Hardly was he the devil either. I don't doubt he was troubled by demons.

 

[barbarian]

Agree Cyclo, his stance after that India game really gave me the shits. I often disagreed with Roebuck, but I loved that he got people talking, which is a real rarity these days in sports journalism- cricket especially. His absence at the moment is very conspicuous IMO.

 

[Lindommer]

The 2008 incident after Harbhajan Singh's "monkey" taunt brought out an interesting side to Roebuck's style. I'm not sure if this was source of the quote "I don't do interviews" to his editor but the upshot was Roebuck didn't speak to any of the protaganists in this unsavoury episode. I read all the reports of this incident with great interest at the time and it became obvious Singh changed his story when the shit hit the fan: the "monkey" taunt was something he'd muttered in Hindi (or Punjabi?) and been misunderstood by the Australian fielders! Other journalists had the commonsense to speak to the Australian cricketers, especially Matthew Hayden who heard it quite clearly and admonished Singh immediately, but not Roebuck. His entire article critical of Australia and Ponting and subsequent justification of his crap piece wasn't based on first-hand evidence. He even had the gall to note "the great Sachin Tendulkar wouldn't mislead the investigators" when Tendulkar was at the bowler's end well out of earshot and with his back to Hayden and Singh when they were having their spat.

Unbelievably poor reporting.

 

[qwerty51]

Agree with the last 3 post immensely, really couldn't understand his point of view after that Sydney Test and stopped reading his articles.

 

[Cutter]

I'm putting this entire piece up here to ensure it's readable after the link dies. It gives me little joy to be proven right about Roebuck but certain episodes in my life, some of which I wasn't aware of at the time, resonated loudly and clearly when reading of Roebuck's past. After the court case in 2001 I wrote to both the ABC and the SMH opining Roebuck wasn't a suitable person to continue in their services; I received replies from both of them suggesting Roebuck was a good bloke and I was wrong. In fact the ABC stated as he was now an Aussie he must be OK. I didn't keep any of that correspondence, regrettably.

Lindo you seem to have a personal knowledge on this which distinguishes your posts and views from the rest of us. Can you explain?

For the record, I thought his writing to be, mostly, brilliant. Not always of course, but I don't like all of Dickens books either. He is widely regarded as a very good, even great, cricket writer.

I have no view on him as a commentator.

In terms of these reports, I'm not sure how much weight to give to the thoughts of a chap who is on the record as having lied (his first story or his second story or perhaps both). The article also mentions that he may have stolen from Roebuck and participated in blackmail. He sounds like the kind of fellow who will say what he needs to say to benefit himself. I'm not defending Roebuck or saying that he didn't do what he is being accused of, only that, based on what we know, as a witness he would not be regarded as being reliable.

Having said that, it appears there may be fire to this smoke which is sad for all concerned. If Roebuck was using his position in the way suggested then it is right that it should come out. If that is the case, it would make sense that there might be some Cranbrook stories to emerge too.