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

[Lydon]

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.

So if it is illegal why was Mitchell Pearce suspended by the NRL for 12 weeks and handed a 125k fine?

Mitchell Pearce was recorded without his knowledge and the pictures were distributed without his approval?

So why did the NRL decide to step in and play God in that instance?

You can defend your Golden boy for as long as you want but the clear facts are the NRL set a precedent with the Mitchell Pearce incident and now they are nowhere to be found..Smells fishy to me though I am sure you will disagree lol

[Headless Chook]

I find it interesting that she spoke with the Souths CEO yesterday and now after having that conversation she is refusing to speak with the investigators

[thebrow]

You can defend your Golden boy for as long as you want but the clear facts are the NRL set a precedent with the Mitchell Pearce incident and now they are nowhere to be found..Smells fishy to me though I am sure you will disagree lol

the only precedent set that matches sharing of intimate pictures is the Konrad Hurrell case

Trying to link it to the Pearce case is just silly , it’s a completely different beast , pardon the pun.

[Lydon]

I find it interesting that she spoke with the Souths CEO yesterday and now after having that conversation she is refusing to speak with the investigators

The whole thing sounds fishy but that’s the way this Club operates and always has,nothing surprises me..

[johnnysekret]

So if it is illegal why was Mitchell Pearce suspended by the NRL for 12 weeks and handed a 125k fine?

Mitchell Pearce was recorded without his knowledge and the pictures were distributed without his approval?

So why did the NRL decide to step in and play God in that instance?

You can defend your Golden boy for as long as you want but the clear facts are the NRL set a precedent with the Mitchell Pearce incident and now they are nowhere to be found..Smells fishy to me though I am sure you will disagree lol

The easy answer is the Pearce incident was in 2016, the Revenge Porn Laws became legal legislation in early 2017, not applicable to Pearce.
The other legal aspect is you generally don't need any approval to video someone in your own home unless you use the shots for profit or commercial gain.

[Lydon]

the only precedent set that matches sharing of intimate pictures is the Konrad Hurrell case

Trying to link it to the Pearce case is just silly , it’s a completely different beast , pardon the pun.

Why is is silly?

The comment was made by johnnysekreet that illegal photos were distributed to the public without the players approval,that is the exact same thing that happened with Pearce?

You can’t pick and choose different parts of a story to suit your argument,Pearce and Burgess (apparantly) were filmed without their knowledge and pictures/videos were sent to the media without their knowledge..

So why did the NRL intervene and suspend Mitchell?

[johnnysekret]

Why is is silly?

The comment was made by johnnysekreet that illegal photos were distributed to the public without the players approval,that is the exact same thing that happened with Pearce?

You can’t pick and choose different parts of a story to suit your argument,Pearce and Burgess (apparantly) were filmed without their knowledge and pictures/videos were sent to the media without their knowledge..

So why did the NRL intervene and suspend Mitchell?

The easy answer is the Pearce incident was in 2016, the Revenge Porn Laws became legal legislation in early 2017, not applicable to Pearce.

[Lydon]

The easy answer is the Pearce incident was in 2016, the Revenge Porn Laws became legal legislation in early 2017, not applicable to Pearce.
The other legal aspect is you generally don't need any approval to video someone in your own home unless you use the shots for profit or commercial gain.

The person filming Pearce clearly sold the video for profit,so what’s your point?

Stop twisting stories to defend your boy,double standards are being set by the NRL and your Club is showing the unprofessionalism it is know for..

[Lydon]

The easy answer is the Pearce incident was in 2016, the Revenge Porn Laws became legal legislation in early 2017, not applicable to Pearce.

Yeh that’s the easy answer,go and argue with the 4 walls you currently sit in as you clearly believe your own garbage..

[johnnysekret]

Once again for those who missed it and keep comparing the Pearce incident to this very spurious accusation:

Pearce: Serial offender, visibly drunk on a video in which he is clearly identifiable.
Forces a kiss on a woman, is asked to leave the premises and doesn't, mimics sex with her dog, all while captain of a high profile "glamour club". Video supplied by someone present.

Burgess: Accused of exposing his naughty bits in a video chat initiated by a woman unknown to him. No photos, videos or even audio identifying him as the accused. He is not captain of the club and has a clean off field record.

There are no double standards because the two instances are not even remotely comparable.

If Burgess is guilty, then his alleged offence is more in line with that of Konrad Hurrell who received a 5k fine and no suspension.

If Burgess IS found guilty and you want consistency then he should receive a small fine like Hurrell did.
Albeit Hurrell was clearly identifiable in his video so perhaps Burgess' fine should be smaller to be consistent with the Hurrell precedent.

[johnnysekret]

The person filming Pearce clearly sold the video for profit,so what’s your point?

Stop twisting stories to defend your boy,double standards are being set by the NRL and your Club is showing the unprofessionalism it is know for..

If you have proof she sold them for profit I would inform the Police and the NRL because that's the wrong thing to do and it's illegal.

And honestly, I am not sure what part of the date of the legislation for Revenge Porn you don't get.

Those laws were NOT IN PLACE at the time of the Pearce incident.

[The Skeez]

I am really enjoying Sam wasting his energy on this situation. His teammates must really appreciate it too. All round good guy.

[The Axe]

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?

Already I regret replying to you but will do so in spite of better judgement.

the evidence is the photos. If you cannot see this then fine. The watch, the toned physiques, the alabaster skin. The brown eye could be anyone granted. What photos are still outstanding? Who knows
if souffs players hide behind legal representation and won’t step forward, then shame on them.

[ism22]

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.

I don't know or care what happened really. Sam Burgess is a Souffs forward and I have no doubt he will play this Saturday (probably be all fired up and play better as a result).

The police can do their job if they are called in. I'm not aware of any carrent charges being laid.

The issue seems to be that Burgess (a married man) sent some chick a dick pic. She informed Souths and the NRL. When Souffs called her asking to interview her, she refused. This could be for any reason, including that (for example) she doesn't want to jeopardise other investigations.

My opinion is that even if she consented and made a malicious complaint, this is a bad look. Like it or not a lot of people will see the media circus and find the act of cheating on your wife by sending a young lady a dick pic (amongst other things) a disgrace. He shoulda known better and I reckon the NRL should treat this seriously.

Should Burgess be stood down? My thoughts...
1. If charged by police then ironically no (presumption of innocence and stuff).
2. If not charged by the cops, it's purely an integrity matter. Like it or not, with the NRL trying its best to promote a female and family friendly product. Instead of anticipating a big women's game followed by an intense preliminary final, fans have been shown a picture of Burgess' todger and him (plus Souffs PR/managment) crying the victim. Fact is he cheated on his wife and NOBODY has claimed there was no consent (that we no of, yet). All they have said is hey... a married celebrity cheated on his wife. Burgess then saying he is the victim because they have sat on their hands and filed a complaint before an important game side-steps the issue. If I were NRL management I would ask him mate... are you married? Are you commited to our women/kids/family friendly policies? Have you attended thousands of PR sessions where we have warned you about not doing stupid shit that could tarnish our image? Mate this is about OUR image and SELLING FARKING TICKETS + EXPENSIVE ADVERTISEMENTS!!! Would you agree that what should be a bottler of a game and a complete sell-out with companies lining up for the advertising opportunity has received nothing but negative coverage thanks to you sharing a picture of your fukking todger? I don't wanna make a decision about this because I will attract media attention by doing so, but you have forced me to do it mate because if I do nothing, we will cop more media criticism at a time where we should be the angels of Fox + Channel 9!!! $400k fine (to be donated to a women's DV shelter) and 160 minutes in the bin for you this season Sonny Jim. NOW GO... OUT OF MY OFFICE YOU PIECE OF SHYTE... SPEND THE OFF-SEASON LIVING IN A MONESTARY OR SOMETHING...

End of the day I would be sacked if I did this and would probably be deregistered from my profession (my workplace values professionalism at all times and provides compulsory social media/security briefings on a regular basis... cheating on my wife would also be a significant strike against my name in relation to honesty/trustworthyness). Burgess makes a lot more than me and is a far more public figure. He will play and the Roosters should just get on with their prep as usual because it will be a fukker of a challenge to win this weekend. However, I think the NRL is full of shyte if they decide to take no further action and allow him to play the victim.

If the NRL (which openly adjusts the weighting of on-field incidents downwards during finals time in order to maintain the competition) is more concerned about an accidental high tackle worth like ~50 points than a bloke cheating on his wife then blaming the woman on the other end for everything then they have their priorities all wrong. When it comes to selling tickets:
- EVERYBODY wants to see Latrell play!!!
- Nobody wants to see Burgess' todger.

I wonder. Do the NRL expect us to win? If so, is this a protectionary measure so that Latrell is not suspended for the GF? Let controversy give this game more attention than it would otherwise get (maybe the NRL pulled it out strategically?) then let Latrell sell GF tickets + a heart-throbbing rags to riches story. Will it be the old guard or the rags to riches, exciting new generation? Man I wish somebody paid me to invent conspiracy theories!

[The Brain]

I don't know or care what happened really. Sam Burgess is a Souffs forward and I have no doubt he will play this Saturday (probably be all fired up and play better as a result).

The police can do their job if they are called in. I'm not aware of any carrent charges being laid.

The issue seems to be that Burgess (a married man) sent some chick a dick pic. She informed Souths and the NRL. When Souffs called her asking to interview her, she refused. This could be for any reason, including that (for example) she doesn't want to jeopardise other investigations.

My opinion is that even if she consented and made a malicious complaint, this is a bad look. Like it or not a lot of people will see the media circus and find the act of cheating on your wife by sending a young lady a dick pic (amongst other things) a disgrace. He shoulda known better and I reckon the NRL should treat this seriously.

Should Burgess be stood down? My thoughts...
1. If charged by police then ironically no (presumption of innocence and stuff).
2. If not charged by the cops, it's purely an integrity matter. Like it or not, with the NRL trying its best to promote a female and family friendly product. Instead of anticipating a big women's game followed by an intense preliminary final, fans have been shown a picture of Burgess' todger and him (plus Souffs PR/managment) crying the victim. Fact is he cheated on his wife and NOBODY has claimed there was no consent (that we no of, yet). All they have said is hey... a married celebrity cheated on his wife. Burgess then saying he is the victim because they have sat on their hands and filed a complaint before an important game side-steps the issue. If I were NRL management I would ask him mate... are you married? Are you commited to our women/kids/family friendly policies? Have you attended thousands of PR sessions where we have warned you about not doing stupid shit that could tarnish our image? Mate this is about OUR image and SELLING FARKING TICKETS + EXPENSIVE ADVERTISEMENTS!!! Would you agree that what should be a bottler of a game and a complete sell-out with companies lining up for the advertising opportunity has received nothing but negative coverage thanks to you sharing a picture of your fukking todger? I don't wanna make a decision about this because I will attract media attention by doing so but you have forced me to do it mate!!! $400k fine and 160 minutes in the bin for this season. GO YOU PIECE OF SHYTE...

End of the day I would be sacked if I did this and would probably be deregistered from my profession. Burgess makes a lot more than me and is a far more public figure. He will play and the Roosters should just get on with their prep as usual because it will be a fukker of a challenge to win this weekend. However, I think the NRL is full of shyte if they decide to take no further action and allow him to play the victim.

what or these fools have failed to realise...as of now there is no vid ..right just screen shots of the encounter ..right? Any type Top It bloke in Facebook can retrieve the video .Simple solves all cast doubts etc.