Play Nice Still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking

[Theo X]

Thre

being made aware of contractual responsibilities isn't coersion

only needs to be enough consistancy to make the AFL happy - this isnt a court

Threatening people's jobs/futures is coercion. The AFL needs 'sufficient evidence', and it doesn't look like they have it otherwise charges wouldv'r been laid as in Adelaide's case.

 

[Baldur]

Thre

Threatening people's jobs/futures is coercion. The AFL needs 'sufficient evidence', and it doesn't look like they have it otherwise charges wouldv'r been laid as in Adelaide's case.

Making sure somebody understands the consequences of their answers or failure to answer is called "natural justice" It is what Melbourne demanded.

 

[Higgs Boson]

Making sure somebody understands the consequences of their answers or failure to answer is called "natural justice" It is what Melbourne demanded.

No it's not.

 

[ziad]

No it's not.

a laughable rabble to the end

 

[Higgs Boson]

What does that even mean?

 

[Theo X]

Making sure somebody understands the consequences of their answers or failure to answer is called "natural justice" It is what Melbourne demanded.

Using threats and intimidation is not part of natural justice. Turning official interview tapes off when threatening and intimidating interviewees is not part of natural justice.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Using threats and intimidation is not part of natural justice. Turning official interview tapes off when threatening and intimidating interviewees is not part of natural justice.

you think when cops interrogate a suspect they do it over a port and cigars? Cops threaten you with jail, getting r*ped in remand, losing your job/missus if you refuse to co-operate and tell them the truth. How is this any different to making these guys realize that if they lie and/or refuse to co-operate banishment from the AFL is the very likely consequence, and if they want to have any chance of an ongoing footy career they should speak the truth?

Some people have had a VERY sheltered life if they think interrogation is:

a: did you tank?

b: no

a: are you sure?

b: yes

a: fair enough then..........

 

[royals1922]

Using threats and intimidation is not part of natural justice. Turning official interview tapes off when threatening and intimidating interviewees is not part of natural justice.

One person's threats and intimidation is another person's blunt words.

To use the Melbourne line of defence in this thread - do you know threatening words or intimidatory behaviour occurred.

So how do you know if they were indeed threats or intimidation....

 

[Theo X]

you think when cops interrogate a suspect they do it over a port and cigars? Cops threaten you with jail, getting r*ped in remand, losing your job/missus if you refuse to co-operate and tell them the truth. How is this any different to making these guys realize that if they lie and/or refuse to co-operate banishment from the AFL is the very likely consequence, and if they want to have any chance of an ongoing footy career they should speak the truth?

Some people have had a VERY sheltered life if they think interrogation is:

a: did you tank?

b: no

a: are you sure?

b: yes

a: fair enough then..........

Sorry if i've never been arrested and don't watch rubbish TV shows

 

[Theo X]

One person's threats and intimidation is another person's blunt words.

To use the Melbourne line of defence in this thread - do you know threatening words or intimidatory behaviour occurred.

So how do you know if they were indeed threats or intimidation....

They're coming from the same sources that people like you are claiming as proof of tanking.

 

[royals1922]

They're coming from the same sources that people like you are claiming as proof of tanking.

So you are therefore admitting that these sources, insofar as they are claiming that Melbourne tanked, are correct.......

 

[Forward Press]

Using threats and intimidation is not part of natural justice. Turning official interview tapes off when threatening and intimidating interviewees is not part of natural justice.

Not really.

Natural justice is akin to being given 'a fair go'. It does not necessarily preclude threats of de-registration by an interrogator or the things you mentioned. It means that Melbourne has the right to air their side of the case and to know of and defend against (if they so choose) accusations levelled at them by the AFL.

Again, some Melbourne fans are conflating issues.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Sorry if i've never been arrested and don't watch rubbish TV shows

use some common sense though, you dont think cops don't threaten suspects?

BTW you don't need to be arrested to "assist the police with their inquiries"

 

[Baldur]

No it's not.

Yes it is or at least a part of it. A person who potentially could be affected has the right to know what is at stake. Any person who is asked a question and does not understand the import of that question may be entitled to have their answer disregarded.

 

[Baldur]

Using threats and intimidation is not part of natural justice. Turning official interview tapes off when threatening and intimidating interviewees is not part of natural justice.

Neitheir is prima facie a breach of natural justice. But that being said it is a matter of proportion & content.

Turning tapes off so a person can discuss the possable conseqences of a certain answer without being held to have given that answer is fine. Turning a tape off so you can threaten them with illegal conseqences is not ok.

Advising a person that a certain answer would be an admission of guilt and the possable punishment, but also reminding them that lying can also be punished is not only not a breach of natural justice but a part of the requirements of natural justice.

The truth is neitheir of us know what happened in that interview room. The newspaper will sensualise the report.

 

[Bluelegs]

you think when cops interrogate a suspect they do it over a port and cigars? Cops threaten you with jail, getting r*ped in remand, losing your job/missus if you refuse to co-operate and tell them the truth. How is this any different to making these guys realize that if they lie and/or refuse to co-operate banishment from the AFL is the very likely consequence, and if they want to have any chance of an ongoing footy career they should speak the truth?

Some people have had a VERY sheltered life if they think interrogation is:

a: did you tank?

b: no

a: are you sure?

b: yes

a: fair enough then..........

Threatening witnesses into give false evidence however is not the same

Arthur Dexter Bradley testified against Rubin Carter after being threatened with jail.

People lie to cover their own arses. The thing is we don't actually know much about the investigation and the details of the accusation from Melbourne regarding intimidation tactics were very vague. Sure it could be nothing. But if the investigation is being handled to get false testimonials out of witnesses then that is compromised.

 

[Bully187]

The AFL already have their results of the investigation they are just conveniently pushing it out so that Melbourne can still have their wonder draft this year and won't be sanctioned making them shit for another decade. Unfair to the rest of the comp yeah because if were anyone else the investigation would of been done and dusted by now. That being said, I actually don't mind it because I'm sick of putting up with Melbourne just being so shit for so long, they are a blight on the competition.
What's the bet they will make their sanctions for the next draft or two, which really won't be of that much relevance anyway after this yr they will of have a truckload of young talent come into the club (which they will probably stuff up too actually).

 

[Forward Press]

Yes I agree in that threatening potential witnesses would compromise the integrity of an investigation. However, there can be a fine line between reminders about the consequences of not being co-operative, and possibly unethical or even illegal threats.

I'm sure if the investigators were being unreasonable in their actions that Melbourne would leap onto it. As it stands, like many other Caro articles, it's mere unsubstantiated fluff at the moment. We only know for certain that there is an AFL investigation into alleged tanking by Melbourne in 2009. That's it.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Threatening witnesses to give false evidence however is not the same

Arthur Dexter Bradley testified against Rubin Carter after being threatened with jail.

People lie to cover their own arses. The thing is we don't actually know much about the investigation and the details of the accusation from Melbourne regarding intimidation tactics were very vague. Sure it could be nothing. But if the investigation is being handled to get false testimonials out of witnesses then that is compromised.

where has it been said they are being asked to give false evidence (I agree that is highly illegal)?

From the bits that have been said in the media, it sounds like they have convinced 1-2 to spill, and have then used that to break down the others (i.e. "we already know about the meeting, we know this was said, and we know you were there. you can either continue denying it, and say bye bye to your AFL career when this is done, or you can help us out and tell us your version").

Having a cop doing this, I'd be confident he knows the rules of interrogation well. 100% agree though if anyone is forced/induced to say something false, the book should be thrown at those who did it (days of cops working you over with phone books and fitting people up are supposed to be over, and there is definitely no place for it in AFL - its only footy FFS)

 

[Sprout]

Cuz had a year off

WC had to undertake major changes that were so significant they cost two seasons - in responding to the charge. melistan is well and truely much further up disrepure creek

inreality it is a concept of the modern era so history is probably silent - unlike the squeelers inside melistan

Why do you keep referring to the club as "melistan"? This isn't the Bay, idiot.

How about providing an adult contribution to the discussion? It would be a refreshing change from most of what you've contributed thus far.

 

[Theo X]

The AFL already have their results of the investigation they are just conveniently pushing it out so that Melbourne can still have their wonder draft this year and won't be sanctioned making them shit for another decade. Unfair to the rest of the comp yeah because if were anyone else the investigation would of been done and dusted by now. That being said, I actually don't mind it because I'm sick of putting up with Melbourne just being so shit for so long, they are a blight on the competition.
What's the bet they will make their sanctions for the next draft or two, which really won't be of that much relevance anyway after this yr they will of have a truckload of young talent come into the club (which they will probably stuff up too actually).

You must be sick of losing to us all the time too then despite us being so unbelievably shit

 

[ziad]

Yes I agree in that threatening potential witnesses would compromise the integrity of an investigation. However, there can be a fine line between reminders about the consequences of not being co-operative, and possibly unethical or even illegal threats.

I'm sure if the investigators were being unreasonable in their actions that Melbourne would leap onto it. As it stands, like many other Caro articles, it's mere unsubstantiated fluff at the moment. We only know for certain that there is an AFL investigation into alleged tanking by Melbourne in 2009. That's it.

if a condition of employment contract states that failute to coorperate etc will or can lead to de registration then restating it is justice in action, ensuring the spud knows their rights and responsibilities.

melistan can surely do better than this

(Melistan - the creative melding of the two most noted match fixing organisations known to this senior citizen). Suck it up princess

 

[Sprout]

if a condition of employment contract states that failute to coorperate etc will or can lead to de registration then restating it is justice in action, ensuring the spud knows their rights and responsibilities.

melistan can surely do better than this

(Melistan - the creative melding of the two most noted match fixing organisations known to this senior citizen). Suck it up princess

Right, so you're a double threat: immature and incredibly stupid.

Only a complete idiot would not be able to discern the difference between reminding a witness of their rights and responsibilities, and coercion or actually threatening the witness. The reported allegation is that interview tapes were turned on and off - this is generally not practiced if what they are saying is all above board. Likewise I would not think it is customary in an AFL investigation to attempt to draw a confession by claiming that others had incriminated you. If these allegations are true then it is a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. It destroys the integrity of the entire investigation.

Anyhow, you continue to use the term "melistan" cause it obviously makes you feel clever. I'll continue to assume you have nothing of value to add.

 

[Bluelegs]

where has it been said they are being asked to give false evidence (I agree that is highly illegal)?

From the bits that have been said in the media, it sounds like they have convinced 1-2 to spill, and have then used that to break down the others (i.e. "we already know about the meeting, we know this was said, and we know you were there. you can either continue denying it, and say bye bye to your AFL career when this is done, or you can help us out and tell us your version").

Having a cop doing this, I'd be confident he knows the rules of interrogation well. 100% agree though if anyone is forced/induced to say something false, the book should be thrown at those who did it (days of cops working you over with phone books and fitting people up are supposed to be over, and there is definitely no place for it in AFL - its only footy FFS)

I never said that anyone was asked to give false evidence, the only thing that has been said is that Melbourne are upset with alleged threatening interrogations. I was just making a point about how these threats could be illegal or compromise the investigation. If the interrogators have just been doing the standard law and order grilling then it's hardly worth noting.

 

[Forward Press]

The reported allegation is that interview tapes were turned on and off - this is generally not practiced if what they are saying is all above board. Likewise I would not think it is customary in an AFL investigation to attempt to draw a confession by claiming that others had incriminated you. If these allegations are true then it is a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. It destroys the integrity of the entire investigation.

That's not exactly pointing to illegal conduct by the investigators. What if the interviewee wanted to say something 'off the record'?

Any questions of integrity would be answered later after any investigation findings. We're not exactly privy as to what's going on inside the investigation at the moment.