PDA

View Full Version : David Hookes



Garvinator
19-01-2004, 07:02 AM
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Sport/story_54472.asp

chesslover
19-01-2004, 07:20 PM
David Hookes dies after his family made the decision to switch off his life support :( :( :( :(

All david did was to prevent a fight between some over zealous bounces and the wives and girlfriends of the victorian cricket team.

It is a senseless killing, and makes everyone weap. It also tells you how fragile life is, and how death can come at any moment

People should spend every day doing what your heart tells you to - life is too short and precious to be wasted. Smile at the morning sun, marvel at the birds that fly, look with wonder at the flowers that blooom, the green grass, for tommorrow ...well there may not be another tomorrow

Tell your loved ones how much you love, them, care for them and how every day they make you feel like a better person. Hold the person you love close yto you, and kiss them, and appereciate them, for there may not be another tomorrow

I am sad at the senseless killing of davdi Hookes :( :( :(

RIP David Hookes

Garvinator
19-01-2004, 08:15 PM
I am sad at the senseless killing of davdi Hookes :( :( :(

RIP David Hookes

echoing same thoughts :(

chesslover
19-01-2004, 08:29 PM
I am sad at the senseless killing of davdi Hookes :( :( :(

RIP David Hookes

echoing same thoughts :(

I hope in addition the crime charges, that the bouncer will face, the family of david Hookes brings a civil suit against the bouncer and the club.

By hitting the club in the financial hip pocket, it will serve warning to other clubs that employ bouncers that they MUST ensure that bouncers do not use unreasonable force

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 10:13 PM
Yes shocking news and turn of events. A personal and national tragedy. A loss all the greater for its untimeliness.

chesslover
19-01-2004, 10:42 PM
Yes shocking news and turn of events. A personal and national tragedy. A loss all the greater for its untimeliness.

I felt very sad, as I only knew David died and the family were forced to turn off life support after the bashing coma, when I came home from work.

And what makes it even more upsetting, is that David did not provoke the fight or behave badly. Everyone stated that he was not a fighter, and as Victorian coach, all he did was try to stop a fight between some bouncers and the partners of the victorian cricket team

Ponting, waugh et al have all expressed their shock and sadness..

Cat
19-01-2004, 11:49 PM
This was an absolute tragedy, an abhorrent, vile act of enormous stupidity. Although acts of despicable violence are not new in Western Society, the senseless detached cruelty and brutality with which these acts are being carried out in recent times is shocking.

It difficult to generalise because mankind has a terrible history of violence, but generally this has been a consequence of either tribal feuding or madness. Obviously of wars, genocide and ethnic cleansing have a long history and the brutality of the Romans and Greeks has rarely been surpassed. But if we look to our own times, these acts are part of a newer phenomenon.

In the 1960's I remember witnessing terrible acts of violence between Mod's and Rockers, or Skinheads and Greaser's, but again the acts were conducted within the arena of mindless tribalism. What's unique about this is that it seems the consequence of unbridled personal anger, where all natural restraint has been discarded. There are no flimsy political explanations, no tribal hubris, even the most brutal kings of history used to despatch their minions to perform their dirty deeds.

This act was the consequence of an appalling loss of personal control and I suggest there are relatively new forces at work inspiring this behaviour;

Firstly, the trivialisation and glamorisation of violence, predominantly a Hollywood export, today depicted with such graphic realism that our senses become immune to the horror. The similarities to the populaces' lust for gore during Roman Gladatorial combat is striking.

Secondly, and I know I am prejudging the facts, but the reckless abuse of anabolic steroids fueled by a crisis of male sexual identity has produced a humanoid and terminator unrecognisable to the homo sapien genus.

I have had the good fortune to live in a space and time occupied generally by generosity and kindness, a precious and rare period of peace almost unique in the chronicled history of humanity. I suggest a terror lurks within our community of far greater threat than we face from overseas. I hope the repugnance expressed to this dreadful news generates a desire ask the question America overlooked on Sept 12th, 'how could this have happened?'

chesslover
19-01-2004, 11:58 PM
This was an absolute tragedy, an abhorrent, vile act of enormous stupidity. Although acts of despicable violence are not new in Western Society, the senseless detached cruelty and brutality with which these acts are being carried out in recent times is shocking.

This act was the consequence of an appalling loss of personal control and I suggest there are relatively new forces at work inspiring this behaviour;

Firstly, the trivialisation and glamorisation of violence, predominantly a Hollywood export, today depicted with such graphic realism that our senses become immune to the horror. The similarities to the populaces' lust for gore during Roman Gladatorial combat is striking.

Secondly, and I know I am prejudging the facts, but the reckless abuse of anabolic steroids fueled by a crisis of male sexual identity has produced a humanoid and terminator unrecognisable to the homo sapien genus.


I also think that there is a "glamour" associated with being part of the the security industry, and that feeds the macho image of many bouncers. It is no longer enough to hold someone down, you have to hit them, kick them, and beat them senseless. The more you do that, the more you can boast to your mates, about how tough you were, and be a hero (for beating up people who are physically inferior to you :x )

Also many night club owners encourage these attitides on the security guards that they employ. Instead of letting them deal with violence with restraints annd appropriate force, over the top violence is encouraged by most owners.

Indeed perhaps the greatest dangers to patrons at night clubs are probably being caught in the wrong place by an over zelaous bouncer, and being bashed senseless.

The rise in private security forces, have happened as they have filled the void caused by teh shortage in police, and the short sighted "user pays" policy of governments.

If the Police were to behave and act like these cowboy private guards, we we would have heads rolling all over the Police Departments

chesslover
22-01-2004, 05:33 PM
The bouncer has been charged with manslaughter

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/22/1074360865544.html

The hotel where Hookes was kiled has had it's windows smashed and staff have been threatened.

The bouncer has had hate mails and death threat and he and his family have been harrassed

Sometimes people will take the law into their own hands if justice is not seen to be done

They are paying a tribute to Hookes after the cricket tonight

Bob1
22-01-2004, 07:47 PM
Emotions aside ...
It will be interesting to see how the police and the courts handle all this - and to see the final chapter.

I think the media do a good job identifying the actual event - but their presentation of events is a little short of facts.

chesslover
23-01-2004, 04:53 PM
Emotions aside ...
It will be interesting to see how the police and the courts handle all this - and to see the final chapter.

I think the media do a good job identifying the actual event - but their presentation of events is a little short of facts.

Good point Bob

Even the judge of the trial, asked the media to be careful in reporting it's facts.

I guess it is going to be hard to find a jury that has not made up it's mind, given the publicity that the trial has got

Rahul
26-01-2004, 11:19 PM
david hookes was a great personality that will be sadly missed by the cricketing world.

i saw his 34 ball century on his tribute. one heck of an innings. you wont see that from an average jo blow, which he certainly wasnt.

chesslover
27-01-2004, 05:45 PM
david hookes was a great personality that will be sadly missed by the cricketing world.

i saw his 34 ball century on his tribute. one heck of an innings. you wont see that from an average jo blow, which he certainly wasnt.

i liked the 20 runs he scored off Greig, and the way he sledged Tony Grieg back - at least I played for the country I was born in!! :)

The Primiers of SA and Vicotria both attended his funreal

arosar
02-02-2004, 11:15 AM
Any1 got any view on Hinch? Personally, I don't see a problem. I say, onya Hinch!

AR

Kevin Bonham
02-02-2004, 01:01 PM
Any1 got any view on Hinch? Personally, I don't see a problem. I say, onya Hinch!

It had to come out eventually lest a myth be enshrined as biography but Hinch's timing was insensitive.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 02:18 PM
It had to come out eventually lest a myth be enshrined as biography but Hinch's timing was insensitive.

it seems that it was an open secret to those in the know, and Daily Tele stated that 3 women had put cryptic farewell messages in the Melbourne paper after Hookes death

but really what point does this mudraking serve. He is dead...leave him be I say...

PHAT
02-02-2004, 03:06 PM
Who is the biggest scumbag?

A man who leaves his wife and children,
or
A man who exposes hypocrasy at a sensitive time.

Hooks may have been a good cricket player, but, if there was such a thing as karma, he got it.

Rincewind
02-02-2004, 03:48 PM
Hooks may have been a good cricket player, but, if there was such a thing as karma, he got it.

:eek:

chesslover
02-02-2004, 04:05 PM
Who is the biggest scumbag?

A man who leaves his wife and children,
or
A man who exposes hypocrasy at a sensitive time.

Hooks may have been a good cricket player, but, if there was such a thing as karma, he got it.

I would have thought that your marriage and honeymoon would have made you more mellow and thoughtful

Obviously not :wall:

Just because he left his wife, it okay that he be killed? :mad:

So if you leave your just married wife, it is okay to kill you? :hmm:

How do you know why hookes left his wife? For all we know it could be her fault, not his, and Hookes left her because of that as a last resort. We do not know, and he is dead anyway

Why does Hinch rake this rake it up (R-A-T-I-N-G-S).

Shame Hinch Shame

PHAT
02-02-2004, 07:07 PM
Just because he left his wife, it okay that he be killed? :mad:

How do you know why hookes left his wife? For all we know it could be her fault, not his, and Hookes left her because of that as a last resort.


I did not say that it was "OK" for him to be killed for deserting his family. I said it could be thought of as karma.

There are only two acceptable reasons for reasons for leaving:
1. Your spouse is doing great harm to your children. In such a case, you would have custody.
2. You are in mortal danger from your spouse. Again, you would have custody.

Since Hooks did not have custody, he has no excuse. He was a good cricket player and a scumbag - a scumbag just like Don Bradman.

skip to my lou
02-02-2004, 07:13 PM
Bradman was a scumbag?

:hmm:

chesslover
02-02-2004, 07:46 PM
There are only two acceptable reasons for reasons for leaving:
1. Your spouse is doing great harm to your children. In such a case, you would have custody.
2. You are in mortal danger from your spouse. Again, you would have custody.



rubbish

what if your spouse is unfaithful and is having sex with someone else?

what if you and she no longer have anything in common, and you are incomaptiable?

to say the only 2 reasons for leaving your wife is those 2 you mentioned is silly my just married friend

PHAT
02-02-2004, 07:47 PM
Bradman was a scumbag?

:hmm:

http://host.techne-ventures.com/Bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/0/4a09f01276eedd8fca256ca70000b882?OpenDocument

skip to my lou
02-02-2004, 07:54 PM
I dont have time to read that all right now, though it seems interesting. Thanks for the link.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 07:57 PM
bradman was the greatest cricketer who ever lived, and nothing that jealous people say to drag him down will later that fact...

instead of being inspired by Bradman, all these little tiny people do is to destroy the legend that is bradman

Hinch would be so proud of you Matt :mad:

PHAT
02-02-2004, 08:00 PM
rubbish

what if your spouse is unfaithful and is having sex with someone else?

what if you and she no longer have anything in common, and you are incomaptiable?


Why are they "straying" ? - because you must not be a good enough spouse/friend/lover. ie a turd. Swallow your pride and resolve to do better.

If you nolonger have anything in common, then you have allowed the gap to grow and done nothing about it. ie a selfish wanker. Get something in common, join their life.

If you are or have become incompatable, then you were never compatable in the first place and should not have got married. ie an arrogant fool. If you have children, just get over it and be partners in parenting. If you have got children, you are not realy married. You are just shacked-up f...ers with a piece of paper.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 08:09 PM
Why are they "straying" ? - because you must not be a good enough spouse/friend/lover. ie a turd. Swallow your pride and resolve to do better.

If you nolonger have anything in common, then you have allowed the gap to grow and done nothing about it. ie a selfish wanker. Get something in common, join their life.

If you are or have become incompatable, then you were never compatable in the first place and should not have got married. ie an arrogant fool. If you have children, just get over it and be partners in parenting. If you have got children, you are not realy married. You are just shacked-up f...ers with a piece of paper.

1. That is just STUPID you idiot

If she is f#$%ing someone other than you- the sacred trust of marriage is broken, and that is it.

Just because someone is lousy in bed does not mean that you go and sleep with another person. You work it out together - not go and try to find someone else to sleep with

If you do, then that is it for marriage

2. You are very immature. You may have started out compatiable, but over time people's perspective and views change. The person you married 10 years ago may not be the same person now, and it may be best for that person and you, that you make a fresh start.

It is better to be single and find someone who is your soul mate than to be in a loveless marriage

skip to my lou
02-02-2004, 08:14 PM
tone it down a bit matt

CL.. a tip.. always be open to any suggestion. You always talk like you are brainwashed.

Were you there next to bradman every minute of his life to know who he is or what he did? I think not, I dont think you were even born when he was playing.. or were you? :eek:

skip to my lou
02-02-2004, 08:15 PM
Ok, now maybe you guys should give it a rest and post tommorow.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 08:32 PM
tone it down a bit matt

Were you there next to bradman every minute of his life to know who he is or what he did? I think not, I dont think you were even born when he was playing.. or were you? :eek:

1. Yes Matt should indeed tone it down, and well done Jeo on picking up on that. Keep on with your fine Super Admin work!

2. My point is that Bradman was a cricketer, and his personal life is irrelevent to the issue. It does not detract from his cricket career or his immense achievements

Also Bradman is dead now, and cannot defend himself...

skip to my lou
02-02-2004, 08:34 PM
I dont think he would care what we think of him anyway.

And that goes to you too, tone it down CL.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 08:44 PM
I dont think he would care what we think of him anyway.

And that goes to you too, tone it down CL.

1. Okay, I will tone it down. apologies if any offense was caused.

2. That brings a good point - does the private life of cricketers have any bearing on their cricketing career? To me it does not, for as long as they play good cricket that should be the only basis for their being chosen/ not chosen into the side.

Cricket Australia obviously does as seen by it's suspension of Ponting a couple of years ago, and the way they treated Shane Warne over the tawdry allegations made against him by women...

But what if the cricket admin were forced to live by the same laws they apply yo the cricketers - where their every misbehaviour and sexual misconduct was disciplined?

This obsession with the private life of cricketers is just not good

skip to my lou
02-02-2004, 08:49 PM
Actually some admins do go through the same trouble, its just not as publicised.

If you are representing any country, there is no doubt you will go under the microscope.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 09:03 PM
If you are representing any country, there is no doubt you will go under the microscope.

True, but the fact that this happens does not make it right - for cricketers and admin

If for example you were someone who was a priest/ politician preaching moral values then yes, then your private live is the business of the public, but otherwise the private life of an individual should be exactly that - private

skip to my lou
02-02-2004, 09:14 PM
Well theres nothing you can do to change it. Media companies need news and gossip. They will also pay top dollar for it.

PHAT
02-02-2004, 09:51 PM
True, but the fact that this happens does not make it right - for cricketers and admin

If for example you were someone who was a priest/ politician preaching moral values then yes, then your private live is the business of the public, but otherwise the private life of an individual should be exactly that - private

If you are making money out of being a public entertainer/celebrity - in this case by sport - you are the property of the public. You are then a public person. You have no right to privacy because you sold your self to the public for money.

skip to my lou
02-02-2004, 09:58 PM
If you are making money out of being a public entertainer/celebrity - in this case by sport - you are the property of the public. You are then a public person. You have no right to privacy because you sold your self to the public for money.
By law, I dont think that is true :eh:

In reality, it is very true. :)

chesslover
02-02-2004, 10:06 PM
If you are making money out of being a public entertainer/celebrity - in this case by sport - you are the property of the public. You are then a public person. You have no right to privacy because you sold your self to the public for money.

so if you are representing Australia, then you are a public person, and deserve no right to privacy?

Does this mean that any of the players who represent Australia in the Olypiad are public persons, and that it is fine for us to reveal their private sex lives?

come on, get real

skip to my lou
02-02-2004, 10:07 PM
"public entertainer/celebrity" - Sweeney.

I highly doubt players that participate in the Olympiad are entertainers/celebrities

Rincewind
02-02-2004, 10:24 PM
"public entertainer/celebrity" - Sweeney.

I highly doubt players that participate in the Olympiad are entertainers/celebrities

Chess is not really a professional sport in Australia so you could not classify olympiad team members as public people.

However, most sports this is not true. Cricket, tennis, soccer, football, etc, players make a mint from endorsements and so come under the public eye.

Bill Gletsos
02-02-2004, 10:44 PM
12. That brings a good point - does the private life of cricketers have any bearing on their cricketing career? To me it does not, for as long as they play good cricket that should be the only basis for their being chosen/ not chosen into the side.
If your a member of the Australian Cricket team then you are representing Australia.

As such it is understandable that you would want to present the members of the team in a good light.

Warne clearly failed in this regard. That is why he isnt Vice Captain and will never be Captain.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 10:51 PM
If your a member of the Australian Cricket team then you are representing Australia.

As such it is understandable that you would want to present the members of the team in a good light.

Warne clearly failed in this regard. That is why he isnt Vice Captain and will never be Captain.

so you would agree then that the same logic that applies to the cricket team that represents Australia, applies to the chess team that represents Australia?

this means of course that if like warne and hookes, there were sex scandals, the media would be entitled to report on any member of the chess team that represented Australia?

that is just wrong. what on earth has private lives of chess players and cricketers got to do with them playing cricket or chess? it may be good gossip and fun for the public, but should not be a factor in them making or not making their team - as their selection should be determeined by onfield activity not off field activities

Bill Gletsos
02-02-2004, 11:06 PM
so you would agree then that the same logic that applies to the cricket team that represents Australia, applies to the chess team that represents Australia?

this means of course that if like warne and hookes, there were sex scandals, the media would be entitled to report on any member of the chess team that represented Australia?
I doubt the media would worry about chess players because they are not household names.


that is just wrong. what on earth has private lives of chess players and cricketers got to do with them playing cricket or chess? it may be good gossip and fun for the public, but should not be a factor in them making or not making their team - as their selection should be determeined by onfield activity not off field activities
Warne's behaviour that got him into trouble occurred when he was overseas REPRESENTING Australia.

PHAT
02-02-2004, 11:11 PM
what on earth has private lives of chess players and cricketers got to do with them playing cricket or chess? it may be good gossip and fun for the public, but should not be a factor in them making or not making their team - as their selection should be determeined by onfield activity not off field activities

You are missing the point. These cricket-heads are entertainers/celebs -they happen to do their job by playing/talking cricket. As such, thier livelihood and the livelihoods of their group depend on their reputation/marketability. They accept money for being public persons, and as public persons they have no privacy. That is the social quid pro quo.

For example: Don Bradman was wealthy due to his professional sporting life. He was the greatest batsman who has or ever will live. He was also a crook and a personal scumbag. So what? The truth has no favorites. The only rreason he remains a hero to some, is that his post-cricket life was never discussed. Why? Too many people were making too much money out of "Don Bradman Inc." to risk killing the goose that paid the golden duck.

Kevin Bonham
02-02-2004, 11:51 PM
chesslover: Yes, I've seen the three cryptic funeral notices from mystery women. The one from the woman he was with when the incident occurred is the most cryptic of the lot. It's interesting that those flatly opposed to the release of the material at any time say "what about his family?" But this woman, and perhaps the other two, were also people in his life, he may have been very important to them. And if it is all whitewashed in history and he is remembered as a family man and no more, then the history of his life is treating these people as if they didn't exist for the sake of his family's feelings. Not really fair on them, is it, unless they want it that way?

I don't think less of Hookes for what has come out, because I do not know the full details of why he left his wife and so on, so I give him the presumption of innocence. I have some sympathy with Matthew's stress on keeping families together where there are children involved but I don't think you can catalogue and limit the valid reasons for leaving someone, nor can you be sure of knowing someone well enough in advance that it is automatically your fault if it goes wrong.

Matthew wrote:

For example: Don Bradman was wealthy due to his professional sporting life. He was the greatest batsman who has or ever will live. He was also a crook and a personal scumbag. So what? The truth has no favorites. The only rreason he remains a hero to some, is that his post-cricket life was never discussed. Why? Too many people were making too much money out of "Don Bradman Inc." to risk killing the goose that paid the golden duck.

Last bit's true enough. Do people really look that hard for absolute ethical perfection in their heroes, or do they look more to the positives than the negatives? I wouldn't know, I don't really have any.

ursogr8
03-02-2004, 07:03 AM
If your a member of the Australian Cricket team then you are representing Australia.

As such it is understandable that you would want to present the members of the team in a good light.

Warne clearly failed in this regard. That is why he isnt Vice Captain and will never be Captain.

Bill, Bill
Warney failed two earlier criteria.
1 He is a bowler
2 He does not come from NSW.
starter

Rincewind
03-02-2004, 09:08 AM
1 He is a bowler
2 He does not come from NSW.

We can't help being a breeding ground for good batsmen. :eek: :lol:

Alan Shore
03-02-2004, 09:28 AM
Warney failed two earlier criteria.
1 He is a bowler
2 He does not come from NSW.
starter


I don't know about #2.. the last few captains of Australia, Ponting (TAS), Gilchrist (WA), Waugh (NSW), Taylor (NSW), Border (QLD) and back further than that Chappells (SA), Lawry (VIC) seems a pretty even spread. But as for #1.. I'm struggling to remember many bowling captains.. perhaps the last one was Richie Benaud! (and we all know he only got all those wickets from putting himself on to bowl) :)

Rincewind
03-02-2004, 12:21 PM
To be fair Gilly has not really been a test captain (despite deputising in two tests). Although this is more than made up for by you forgetting about Kim Hughes who was also a Western Australian. (Gilly is actually born and bred in NSW but for these purposes I think you can claim him as a WA provided we can count Katich).

Anyway, I think it is fairer to look at Australian captains of more than 25 tests (all are post-war except for Woodfull) and then compare number of tests under particular state captains.

93 Border (QLD)
57 Waugh (NSW)
50 Taylor (NSW)
48 Chappell, G (SA)
39 Simpson (NSW)
30 Chappell, I (SA)
28 Benaud (NSW)
28 Hughes (WA)
25 Lawry (Vic)
25 Woodfull (Vic)

Broken down by state you have the following...

NSW 174
QLD 93
SA 78
VIC 50
WA 28

NB both Vics only just make the 25 test cut-off.