Andrew Webster of the SMH - Souths PR campaign to save Burgess

[Lydon]

Burgearse press conference scheduled for 130pm

Apparantly just a scheduled interview all players have to face before the Prelim and he won’t be discussing the incident..That’s what was reported yesterday..

[Intercept]

To be fair I think Webster is just offering a different voice and some new facts on the incident to the very lopsided reporting elsewhere. If the player is saying he is innocent of the accusations being directed at him then he should be allowed to defend that stance until the evidence proves otherwise.

What we do seem to know from one of the Burgess boys admitting that his brother has made a big mistake in one of the English papers is that unfortunately it seems like a family man with kids has done this all behind his wifes back.

I think this is where Webster has missed the point, its not about whether its a legal, moral or other kind of issue. When it comes to these kinds of incidents the game punishes based on whether the game has been brought into disrepute and to what level.

The question that should be asked is has the player not already brought the game into disrepute regardless of whether the pictures were requested or not?

And that is where you can start to draw parallels to the Pearce incident, see Pearce wasn't punished for his actions but rather the perceived damage his actions, given his high profile did to the game.

His high profile in the game being key, the NRL was not setting a precedent for players who pretend to hump a dog just like they wouldnt be setting a precedent for players who cheat (assuming reports are true) but what they have done in the Pearce case is set a precedent on high profile players who bring the game into disrepute. This is the question that needs to be asked when assessing whether the player should have already been stood down.

Excellent and intelligent summation Rooster_6.

[johnnysekret]

1. The video chat was allegedly initiated by Burgess/players
2. In the case of Hurrell, it was consensual
3. Thanks for uniting all of us Rooster’s fans on this forum

1. The alleged victim contacted Burgess to alert him to an alleged false Tinder account
2. This situation is also consensual.
3. You're welcome, someone needs to unify you a little more though, I'd suggest bigger focus on your team and less on Burgess.

[johnnysekret]

1. The video chat was allegedly initiated by Burgess/players
2. In the case of Hurrell, it was consensual
3. Thanks for uniting all of us Rooster’s fans on this forum

1. The alleged victim contacted Burgess to alert him to an alleged false Tinder account
2. This situation is also consensual.
3. You're welcome, someone needs to unify you a little more though, I'd suggest bigger focus on your team and less on Burgess.

[JAF]

1. The alleged victim contacted Burgess to alert him to an alleged false Tinder account
2. This situation is also consensual.
3. You're welcome, someone needs to unify you a little more though, I'd suggest bigger focus on your team and less on Burgess.

1. The victim initiated the contact, but Burgess initiated the FaceTime. I’m surprised you don’t actually get your facts right before posting here
2. The victim allegedly in the email advised that this was not consensual. If confirmed after her interview, then Burgess can actually go to jail for up to 3 years for breaking the law!
3. We are just fine. Will be even better when we all celebrate together after a victory on Sat night!!

[johnnysekret]

Good morning Chooky friends.

Good news, the investigation is moving along well regarding the reprehensible accusations this footy groupie has made against the reputation of Sam Burgess.
With the assistance of the NRL much has been discovered in the last 24 hours.

It will come to the fore shortly and will implicate people who were involved in the set up.

The even better news is that it's 99% certain charges will be laid against this disgraceful person who attempted, with the support and help from others, to ruin a man's family and career.

To give yourselves a better understanding of the charges she will be facing, here is a link about how seriously revenge porn is considered and her possible penalties.
https://www.stacklaw.com.au/news/cri...-new-laws-nsw/

Now the NSW Crimes Amendment (Intimate Images) Act 2017 has become law, making it a crime to share or record intimate images or videos without consent. Penalties are severe – up to three years’ jail and fines of up to $11,000.

More to come, MUCH more, regarding those who got her to submit these alleged photos of Sam.

Have a great day guys.

[gragra]

In summary both parties have cases to answer. Revenge porn ie the victim of the porn, by disseminating is open to charges by the police. The exhibitors, under the NRL code of conduct are guilty under the NRL standards of bringing the game into disrepute, as imposed on Mitchell Pearce. The sentence imposed by the NRL is arbitrary as there are no official guidelines as to how severe the punishment should be. However public perception of consistency ought to be the yardstick as to the severity and timing of the sentence.

[Spirit of 66]

Good morning Chooky friends.

Good news, the investigation is moving along well regarding the reprehensible accusations this footy groupie has made against the reputation of Sam Burgess.
With the assistance of the NRL much has been discovered in the last 24 hours.

It will come to the fore shortly and will implicate people who were involved in the set up.

The even better news is that it's 99% certain charges will be laid against this disgraceful person who attempted, with the support and help from others, to ruin a man's family and career.

To give yourselves a better understanding of the charges she will be facing, here is a link about how seriously revenge porn is considered and her possible penalties.
https://www.stacklaw.com.au/news/cri...-new-laws-nsw/

Now the NSW Crimes Amendment (Intimate Images) Act 2017 has become law, making it a crime to share or record intimate images or videos without consent. Penalties are severe – up to three years’ jail and fines of up to $11,000.

More to come, MUCH more, regarding those who got her to submit these alleged photos of Sam.

Have a great day guys.

Wow. That really is big news and vindicates everything you, Andrew Webster and the rest of the Souths PR team have been telling us over the last few days. Hats off to you!

While I am understandably embarrassed about even suggesting that the Souths players had done anything wrong, I am consoled by the renewed confidence this case has given me in our justice system. Not only has it quickly got to the heart of this matter, but it has done so with optimal efficiency - no police resources have been used (just Souths officials) and there was no need to interview the complainant. I assume there will be no courts involved either and that Russel Crowe will personally collect her from the airport and take her directly to Long Bay.

[The Brain]

strange how the girl is suddenly on holidays-the rest staged by souffs ...quite clear .How is it revenge porn when the girl made an official complaint and was side stepped.?All I can say I hope the NRL is not corrupt or that stupid.
Sinister dealings to get the crumpet muncher off if you ask me.

[johnnysekret]

In summary both parties have cases to answer. Revenge porn ie the victim of the porn, by disseminating is open to charges by the police. The exhibitors, under the NRL code of conduct are guilty under the NRL standards of bringing the game into disrepute, as imposed on Mitchell Pearce. The sentence imposed by the NRL is arbitrary as there are no official guidelines as to how severe the punishment should be. However public perception of consistency ought to be the yardstick as to the severity and timing of the sentence.

No, at this stage Sam has nothing to answer for.

There is only so far an accusation from an anonymous alleged woman who we know initiated contact with Sam Burgess, a consensual contact obviously.
Sam has not sent anyone photos of anything, or videos.

The alleged victim has not supplied even one piece of evidence, not a single shot of Burgess.
Now, despite having stated how repulsed she was, albeit repulsed enough to stay connected and take screenshots, she suddenly and mysteriously refuses to talk to NRL investigators?

However we do know she has blatantly broken the revenge porn laws and could even face a stint inside if she has any priors.

Sam Burgess is livid about this and will not let it simply fade away, I am 99% sure he will follow this up legally with all those involved including the alleged victim.

[The Axe]

If truth to counter claims of revenge porn, feel for burgearse family. I also feel for the girl who will be ostracised and possibly face gaol..

if a legal approach to discredit her for burgearse and souffs benefit, I really feel sorry for the girl. She claimed in her first email, she wants no compensation only an apology. Now she is forced to defend herself. Shame on burgearse legal if true.

irrespective of above, nrl need to suspend burgearse for brand damage. Question is how large a fine and how many weeks suspension.

additionally, nrl need to act on souffs for their lack of urgency in resolving this since May. Given history, this should be large fine.

what will really happen? My fear is greenturd and nrl will apologise to Sammie boy and Souffs and wish them all the best for the weekend. Ch 9 will feature Sammie boy’s resilience and restate the propaganda that league is strong when souffs doing well

at a time when the nrl demands a statesman to lead, my fear is the nrl present a softcock approach

[Spirit of 66]

No, at this stage Sam has nothing to answer for.

There is only so far an accusation from an anonymous alleged woman...

The plot thickens! She is now only alleged to be a woman! Do you think it might have been Nick Politis in drag?

[johnnysekret]

strange how the girl is suddenly on holidays-the rest staged by souffs ...quite clear .How is it revenge porn when the girl made an official complaint and was side stepped.?All I can say I hope the NRL is not corrupt or that stupid.
Sinister dealings to get the crumpet muncher off if you ask me.

It's revenge porn because it is illegal to photograph or record someone in an alleged sexual situation and then share or distribute those images without that person's approval.

Why didn't she go to the Police?

If someone flashes their todger at me and I know where they work I don't take the evidence to their employer, I take it to the Police.
She contacts the club, his employer. Why?

Digging for a little gold possibly? Hey if I go to the Police there's no pay day involved, but Souths, hmmm there's an idea.

If this were directed at a Sydney player you'd be in total agreement because when you look at what has been provided as evidence it is the most flimsy and baseless accusation I have ever seen made against any footballer.

[johnnysekret]

The plot thickens! She is now only alleged to be a woman! Do you think it might have been Nick Politis in drag?

I wasn't aware Politis was into that, but I'll take your word for it.

[johnnysekret]

If truth to counter claims of revenge porn, feel for burgearse family. I also feel for the girl who will be ostracised and possibly face gaol..

if a legal approach to discredit her for burgearse and souffs benefit, I really feel sorry for the girl. She claimed in her first email, she wants no compensation only an apology. Now she is forced to defend herself. Shame on burgearse legal if true.

irrespective of above, nrl need to suspend burgearse for brand damage. Question is how large a fine and how many weeks suspension.

additionally, nrl need to act on souffs for their lack of urgency in resolving this since May. Given history, this should be large fine.

what will really happen? My fear is greenturd and nrl will apologise to Sammie boy and Souffs and wish them all the best for the weekend. Ch 9 will feature Sammie boy’s resilience and restate the propaganda that league is strong when souffs doing well

at a time when the nrl demands a statesman to lead, my fear is the nrl present a softcock approach

The trouble with that is the NRL can't suspend anyone without some proof, and at this stage there is none, zero and zip.

If you are deemed guilty based solely on an accusation, does this mean the Sydney Roosters are guilty of being involved with the sharing of these alleged pics? Because this has even been suggested in the mainstream media.

So what's the go, are you guilty based purely on an accusation or not?