Jump to content

Sam Burgess again! He is on a downward spiral.


Recommended Posts

On 22/02/2021 at 09:21, Hela Wigmen said:

You can only help people that want to be helped. 

Burgess is a relatively young man who has gone through some pretty life altering experiences over the past couple of years with a retirement, the change in his personal circumstances and going to court and it being big news in Australia. 

Such a short time after his career ended abruptly whilst he was at the top of the tree, I see the signs of someone who clearly needs help, he needs a talking to by someone who has been on the edge before he hits the bottom of the tree and you only have to look as far as Terry Newton.

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • 4 weeks later...
35 minutes ago, Damien said:

Sounds fair enough. Hopefully this will help Burgess turn things around.

That's certainly my hope too. Just the one case to answer now I believe - seems he'll cop some kind of punishment for that but if it's relatively minor no reason he can't pick up his Bunnies/Fox work again you'd think? I just hope the changes that appear to be needed in his private life have already began to take affect. 

Edited by hunsletgreenandgold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Damien said:

Sounds fair enough. Hopefully this will help Burgess turn things around.

That seems a very low bar for quashing a conviction but, like you, I hope this is the start of things sorting out for Burgess.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

That seems a very low bar for quashing a conviction but, like you, I hope this is the start of things sorting out for Burgess.

I take your point but I'm always a little uneasy about convictions that are basically a result of his word against yours with no other evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Damien said:

I take your point but I'm always a little uneasy about convictions that are basically a result of his word against yours with no other evidence.

Don't disagree but given that that was the conviction and it doesn't look like anything new came up, it's odd that that is reason enough to overturn.

But this is a digression. Regardless of how the conviction stands, I still believe that what Burgess needs is proper support and not people throwing their hands up or walking away.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Don't disagree but given that that was the conviction and it doesn't look like anything new came up, it's odd that that is reason enough to overturn.

But this is a digression. Regardless of how the conviction stands, I still believe that what Burgess needs is proper support and not people throwing their hands up or walking away.

It might seem odd but as we all know, the onus is to prove guilt not innocence and there was plenty to support the fact the conviction didn't meet that. Also, there seems to be have been more considered about the statements Mr Hooke and his daughter gave to police - they alleged through fear they went 'straight' to the police but further probing into call logs shows they called both their family lawyer and had a 38 minute call with PR executive (spin doctor) from Sydney immediately after, which calls the credibility of their whole account into question. 

Edit: link to an article with more details https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-superstar-sam-burgess-has-intimidation-conviction-quashed/news-story/730396ec0fccd0086db99275aee5490f

Edited by hunsletgreenandgold
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

That seems a very low bar for quashing a conviction but, like you, I hope this is the start of things sorting out for Burgess.

Huh?

Like, there was no evidence? That kind of low bar!

One wonders how politicised the state courts are.  But I confess to being a bit jaundiced about Aussie sport and politics... So I may be a bit one eyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rupert Prince said:

So I may be a bit one eyed.

I hope he gets the help he clearly needs and rehabilitated, and you and I get to see it with our three eyes.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Have Fox officially axed him? 

I think the term both Fox and the Rabbitohs used was 'stood down' which seems to be used a lot in Aus when what is actually meant is 'we'll see what comes of <insert incident> and decide after that'. So with the charges regarding his DUI due to be heard in court early May, I reckon there's no change until after then at least. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Perhaps I'll try squint...🙄

No need, you don't want everyone knowing you're a ref!

Edited by Oxford
  • Haha 1

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

It might seem odd but as we all know, the onus is to prove guilt not innocence and there was plenty to support the fact the conviction didn't meet that. Also, there seems to be have been more considered about the statements Mr Hooke and his daughter gave to police - they alleged through fear they went 'straight' to the police but further probing into call logs shows they called both their family lawyer and had a 38 minute call with PR executive (spin doctor) from Sydney immediately after, which calls the credibility of their whole account into question. 

Edit: link to an article with more details https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-superstar-sam-burgess-has-intimidation-conviction-quashed/news-story/730396ec0fccd0086db99275aee5490f

I read somewhere that the original judge also has a personal relationship with old man Hooke, which he felt didn't constitute a conflict of interest. I think that's worth querying, particularly given how he ignored the lawyer/PR consultations that went on here (not to mention the fact they also leaked a separate police report to the media).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see nothing from the BBC on his conviction being quashed............yet I seem to remember it was one of their main stories as 'former Rugby League player'.

Regardless of the typical negative slant on RL by mainstream press, this is sadly typical of the press to sensationalise and villlify 'stars', yet if they get proven not guilty, it barely gets a footnote.

Sad state of society we live in

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/03/2021 at 14:05, hunsletgreenandgold said:

It might seem odd but as we all know, the onus is to prove guilt not innocence and there was plenty to support the fact the conviction didn't meet that. Also, there seems to be have been more considered about the statements Mr Hooke and his daughter gave to police - they alleged through fear they went 'straight' to the police but further probing into call logs shows they called both their family lawyer and had a 38 minute call with PR executive (spin doctor) from Sydney immediately after, which calls the credibility of their whole account into question. 

Edit: link to an article with more details https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-superstar-sam-burgess-has-intimidation-conviction-quashed/news-story/730396ec0fccd0086db99275aee5490f

Is it me or does his Ex missus and family sound like a right pack is #%!ts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/03/2021 at 12:39, gingerjon said:

That seems a very low bar for quashing a conviction but, like you, I hope this is the start of things sorting out for Burgess.

From a different conversation I had with a fried about matters:

”I see the district court said his explanation was a reasonable one (i.e. doubt) and therefore on basis it was one word against another (his v father in law’s) that it couldn’t stand. Seems like the Magistrate had fallen in trap of balance of civil probability analysis (as opposed to criminal - beyond reasonable doubt) . 

  • Like 2

030910105148.jpg

http://www.wiganstpats.org

Producing Players Since 1910

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/03/2021 at 14:55, DoubleD said:

I see nothing from the BBC on his conviction being quashed............yet I seem to remember it was one of their main stories as 'former Rugby League player'.

Regardless of the typical negative slant on RL by mainstream press, this is sadly typical of the press to sensationalise and villlify 'stars', yet if they get proven not guilty, it barely gets a footnote.

Sad state of society we live in

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-56452908

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...