What kind of man was Peter Roebuck?

[Ian Dargie]

To anticipate the predictable charges – I don't pretend to know Roebuck, nor do I want to deal in gossip or conjecture. There are, however, enough disturbing facts to paint a pretty unflattering picture.

The circumstances surrounding his death are peculiar but do not amount to a smoking gun. The fact is that he hasn't been found guilty of sexual assault. Another fact, as has been reported anyway, is that he jumped to his death while being questioned by police investigating such a crime.

Separately, I would like to draw people's attention to the conviction Roebuck received 10 years ago. People may know the general story – he caned some lads and got in trouble – but perhaps they should take a second look at the detail: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1359991/Ex-Somerset-captain-caned-young-cricketers.html

Roebuck selected a cane from a rack of six which he kept in his converted garage for the purpose.

In a statement, the victim said Roebuck told him: "I'm going to cane you now. Then it will be over and I will forgive you and, if I don't cane you, I will feel differently about you."

Roebuck asked the boy to bend over and delivered three "forceful strokes" over his clothing.

Mr Fenny said: "Roebuck then pulled the boy towards him, in what appeared to be an act of affection. He then asked if he could look at the marks on the boy's buttocks, something which he in fact did."

The second boy, now living South Africa, said: "I did not consent to any assault but he is a dominant person who makes you feel that you must do as he says."

The "unusual and bizarre" treatment was discovered when he complained to a family friend, Richard Lines, secretary of nearby Bishop's Lydeard cricket club.

Mr Lines told police that he went to collect the boys and discovered the canes and a newspaper cutting on the wall showing prisoners chained together on their way to receive a public beating.

The judge said he did not accept the purity of Roebuck's motives.

He said: "It was not appropriate to administer corporal punishment to boys of this age in circumstances such as these. It seems so unusual that it must have been done to satisfy some need in you.

"These were talented young men with high ambitions. They were far from home, far from their families and were keen to come under the tutelage of a person like you, being highly respected and well-known in the cricket world.

He added: "So, not only were they in your care but you had power and influence over them and that power and influence was abused by you. You used your position to abuse these boys and humiliate them."

What kind of man do you think Roebuck was?

 

[CHIEF SMACKAHOE]

creepy

 

[mattymac]

i give this thread 10 mins