Apology from Andrew Webster being offered to Bulldogs Club any day now

Status
Not open for further replies.

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
24,741
Reaction score
27,950
Still waiting for our apology Andrew. You gave us the fairest write up about Mad Monday but still bagged Hill, Pay and our club's professionalism in your follow up article comparing us poorly to Souths.



In just one week, Souths show Bulldogs how to be a professional footy club

"On Wednesday, at the media conference announcing that international forward Sam Burgess had re-signed for another four years, Souths outlined their future plans, making the ambitious claim they're now “the club of choice” in the NRL.
Rival clubs might roll their eyes but it’s hard to argue otherwise".

And all the time they knew he had allegedly exposed himself on his phone to an innocent 23 year old who had registered a complaint with management.

Souths don't post negative headlines after all?

No because they send female complaints to their Junk File.
 

Spoonman84

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Messages
17,736
Reaction score
31,795
To be fair he did write this last night in his report over the Souths stuff.


Just a week ago, this column praised Souths for their professionalism and the standard they had set for themselves in the last two years under their charter “The Rabbitoh Way”.

They were apparently everything the Bulldogs were not in the wake of that club’s Mad Monday shenanigans.

Now, Souths stand accused of something worse: that players flashed a young woman during a FaceTime conversation.

For their part, Souths are comfortable with how they have handled the matter.

They say they had no idea who the woman was, or which players were involved, until this week.

An anonymous email, from a Gmail account, hit the club’s general enquires inbox in late May from a woman claiming she had been in a conversation with several members of the team after making initial contact with a senior player via his Instagram account.

The woman alleges she later received several unwanted calls from the senior player, who allegedly flashed his penis before another player then flashed his backside. The woman took screenshots.

er first email to Souths was forwarded on to football operations manager Brock Schaefer, who called a Japanese number she had provided but it went unanswered.

“Our Club Code of Conduct is one of the strongest in the game and we put significant effort and resources into helping develop good people as well as good athletes,” he replied in an email. “At this stage, it’s difficult from your email to assess the nature of the incident described however we certainly take your email seriously and will work to understand what has occurred.”

he club claims that her two subsequent emails, which were also anonymous, dropped into Schaefer’s junk mail folder and that’s why the matter was never followed up – because he didn’t know they were there.

There’s an old saying that the cover-up is often worse than the crime. But Souths’ excuse is entirely plausible even if it sounds convenient.

The NRL dished out a record $250,000 fine to the Bulldogs for trashing the game’s image in the first week of the finals for poor player behaviour that only came to light because a private function was strategically photographed by a media outlet. It also attracted not a single complaint from the public.

The allegations levelled at Souths are murky but could be seen as troubling: that players sent nude images to a woman who didn’t want to see them – and then the club failed to address her complaints.

With $250,000 the new benchmark, where will that leave Souths if any of this is proven?


https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/so...on-t-derail-their-season-20180914-p503un.html
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
24,741
Reaction score
27,950
Well said.. The cover ups are sometimes worse than the crimes.
I beg to differ. The cover up is a symptom of the alleged crime of Burgess exposing himself and allegedly continually harassing the woman with calls or messages. I'm thinkin the woman believes the initial crime is worse. Ask your wife, sister or mum what they think.

Obviously she didn't want to face the initial media frenzy so attempted to disguish her identity until she could ascertain Souths response.

Similar to the Barnaby Joyce situation. The female is often in a no win situation. Expose the perpetrator and it's swept under the carpet and the blameless female nears the brunt of the outfall and media scrutiny.
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
24,741
Reaction score
27,950
I love how you read an article and they throw this nugget it... just because we need to report things and don’t want to make a big deal out of it. Found it hidden in another Burgess article:

South Sydney also confirmed that police have laid multiple charges on prop Zane Musgrove over a domestic assault matter.

Article: https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...l/news-story/979f7b90f6853f7123b627b4c251b248
Yes I got my magnifying glass out and found that gem at the bottom of the article.

The stark difference in the reporting of incidences is very telling and only confirms what most of us Bulldogs fans already knew...and some people laugh us off as conspiracy theorists...it's bloody true!
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
To be fair he did write this last night in his report over the Souths stuff.


Just a week ago, this column praised Souths for their professionalism and the standard they had set for themselves in the last two years under their charter “The Rabbitoh Way”.

They were apparently everything the Bulldogs were not in the wake of that club’s Mad Monday shenanigans.

Now, Souths stand accused of something worse: that players flashed a young woman during a FaceTime conversation.

For their part, Souths are comfortable with how they have handled the matter.

They say they had no idea who the woman was, or which players were involved, until this week.

An anonymous email, from a Gmail account, hit the club’s general enquires inbox in late May from a woman claiming she had been in a conversation with several members of the team after making initial contact with a senior player via his Instagram account.

The woman alleges she later received several unwanted calls from the senior player, who allegedly flashed his penis before another player then flashed his backside. The woman took screenshots.

er first email to Souths was forwarded on to football operations manager Brock Schaefer, who called a Japanese number she had provided but it went unanswered.

“Our Club Code of Conduct is one of the strongest in the game and we put significant effort and resources into helping develop good people as well as good athletes,” he replied in an email. “At this stage, it’s difficult from your email to assess the nature of the incident described however we certainly take your email seriously and will work to understand what has occurred.”

he club claims that her two subsequent emails, which were also anonymous, dropped into Schaefer’s junk mail folder and that’s why the matter was never followed up – because he didn’t know they were there.

There’s an old saying that the cover-up is often worse than the crime. But Souths’ excuse is entirely plausible even if it sounds convenient.

The NRL dished out a record $250,000 fine to the Bulldogs for trashing the game’s image in the first week of the finals for poor player behaviour that only came to light because a private function was strategically photographed by a media outlet. It also attracted not a single complaint from the public.

The allegations levelled at Souths are murky but could be seen as troubling: that players sent nude images to a woman who didn’t want to see them – and then the club failed to address her complaints.

With $250,000 the new benchmark, where will that leave Souths if any of this is proven?


https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/so...on-t-derail-their-season-20180914-p503un.html
I really didn’t like that column, but at least he’s honest enough to put his hand up and admit it when something comes out suggesting he may have been wrong.
 

chisdog

Kennel Legend
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
8,165
Reaction score
7,811
To be fair he did write this last night in his report over the Souths stuff.


Just a week ago, this column praised Souths for their professionalism and the standard they had set for themselves in the last two years under their charter “The Rabbitoh Way”.

They were apparently everything the Bulldogs were not in the wake of that club’s Mad Monday shenanigans.

Now, Souths stand accused of something worse: that players flashed a young woman during a FaceTime conversation.

For their part, Souths are comfortable with how they have handled the matter.

They say they had no idea who the woman was, or which players were involved, until this week.

An anonymous email, from a Gmail account, hit the club’s general enquires inbox in late May from a woman claiming she had been in a conversation with several members of the team after making initial contact with a senior player via his Instagram account.

The woman alleges she later received several unwanted calls from the senior player, who allegedly flashed his penis before another player then flashed his backside. The woman took screenshots.

er first email to Souths was forwarded on to football operations manager Brock Schaefer, who called a Japanese number she had provided but it went unanswered.

“Our Club Code of Conduct is one of the strongest in the game and we put significant effort and resources into helping develop good people as well as good athletes,” he replied in an email. “At this stage, it’s difficult from your email to assess the nature of the incident described however we certainly take your email seriously and will work to understand what has occurred.”

he club claims that her two subsequent emails, which were also anonymous, dropped into Schaefer’s junk mail folder and that’s why the matter was never followed up – because he didn’t know they were there.

There’s an old saying that the cover-up is often worse than the crime. But Souths’ excuse is entirely plausible even if it sounds convenient.

The NRL dished out a record $250,000 fine to the Bulldogs for trashing the game’s image in the first week of the finals for poor player behaviour that only came to light because a private function was strategically photographed by a media outlet. It also attracted not a single complaint from the public.

The allegations levelled at Souths are murky but could be seen as troubling: that players sent nude images to a woman who didn’t want to see them – and then the club failed to address her complaints.

With $250,000 the new benchmark, where will that leave Souths if any of this is proven?


https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/so...on-t-derail-their-season-20180914-p503un.html
What about Zane Musgrave too?
 

Spoonman84

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Messages
17,736
Reaction score
31,795
I really didn’t like that column, but at least he’s honest enough to put his hand up and admit it when something comes out suggesting he may have been wrong.
Least he acknowledged it, it’s more then most journalists would do.
 

Matilida

Kennel Participant
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
201
Reaction score
207
Andrew Webster should publicy apolgise the way he publicly splashed us over the papers.
 

dogluva

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
17,562
Reaction score
8,150
Might I add according to reports there were SEVEN unwanted and terminated calls from the said player. Now it begs the question.... why did he call seven times.... was it to apologize or was it to seek assurances the incident would not be reported....
 

Blue&whiteAxe

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2018
Messages
1,799
Reaction score
1,195
Still waiting for our apology Andrew. You gave us the fairest write up about Mad Monday but still bagged Hill, Pay and our club's professionalism in your follow up article comparing us poorly to Souths.



In just one week, Souths show Bulldogs how to be a professional footy club

"On Wednesday, at the media conference announcing that international forward Sam Burgess had re-signed for another four years, Souths outlined their future plans, making the ambitious claim they're now “the club of choice” in the NRL.
Rival clubs might roll their eyes but it’s hard to argue otherwise".

And all the time they knew he had allegedly exposed himself on his phone to an innocent 23 year old who had registered a complaint with management.

Souths don't post negative headlines after all?

No because they send female complaints to their Junk File.
Mr Webster when you issue the apology, please ensure you read below to understand he seariousness of the allegations made against your mate Mr Sam Burges....

Please also pass onto Mr Greenberg and all other media amateurs (reporters) so they too can report with a small level of knowledge (for a change).
CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 61N
Act of indecency
61N Act of indecency

person who commits an act of indecency with or towards a person under the age of 16 years, or incites a person under that age to an act of indecency with or towards that or another person, is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) Any person who commits an act of indecency with or towards a person of the age of 16 years or above, or incites a person of the age of 16 years or above to an act of indecency with or towards that or another person, is liable to imprisonment for 18 months.
 

Mr Invisible

Banned
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
0
Reaction score
47
Mr Webster when you issue the apology, please ensure you read below to understand he seariousness of the allegations made against your mate Mr Sam Burges....

Please also pass onto Mr Greenberg and all other media amateurs (reporters) so they too can report with a small level of knowledge (for a change).
CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 61N
Act of indecency
61N Act of indecency

person who commits an act of indecency with or towards a person under the age of 16 years, or incites a person under that age to an act of indecency with or towards that or another person, is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) Any person who commits an act of indecency with or towards a person of the age of 16 years or above, or incites a person of the age of 16 years or above to an act of indecency with or towards that or another person, is liable to imprisonment for 18 months.
Doubt it would apply.

Act of indecency applies to public, and is generally if you whip it out and have a wank in public view or towards someone.

In comfort of their home, maybe indecent images law may come into play but who knows.
 

Blue&whiteAxe

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2018
Messages
1,799
Reaction score
1,195
Doubt it would apply.

Act of indecency applies to public, and is generally if you whip it out and have a wank in public view or towards someone.

In comfort of their home, maybe indecent images law may come into play but who knows.
Doesn’t only apply in public. Applies in general. Interpret it as it reads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top