NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

[Wosh]

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread.
Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the report button, please and thank you.

If you feel upset or need to talk you can call either Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636 or Lifeline on 13 11 14 at any time.

- Crisis support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 13YARN (13 92 76) 13YARN - Call 13 92 76 | 24 /7

This is a serious topic, please treat it as such.

Videos, statements etc in the OP here:

NO TROLLS - Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread. Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the...

www.bigfooty.com

Link to Hawthorn Statement. - Link to ABC Sports article. - Leaked Report

 

[JyeDye]

All this talk about legalities, corroboration and defamation is interesting but let's not forget that there are people at the centre of this and these people are hurting.

I do think with hindsight, it may have been better for the article to be posted without naming the Hawthorn perpetrators. It's gone way off with people attacking all different kinds of people because of it.

 

[Del191229]

And the assistant that remembers it like the Russian Mafia and dreading the day they would be called to account for it?

What about all the other assistants, who went on to long and successful careers?

 

[JyeDye]

What about all the other assistants, who went on to long and successful careers?

They possibly witnessed it as well but simply haven't spoken up? Not really a valid point at all.

 

[mcnulty]

The victims chose to speak with Jackson and put it in the public domain.

I’m not saying otherwise. But it also appears they wish to remain anonymous. You would hope they were advised that going public the way they did would make that more problematic. Perhaps they were.

 

[sr36]

Yeah, I get that. But who cares about defamation in terms of its non-legal definition?

Under the non-legal definition, people are defamed on a daily basis in all walks of life.

The legal definition is the formal definition that I'm discussing. That's my understanding anyway. It's significant to know that it is defamation, legally. The question is whether or not it was legally ok to defame Clarko, which comes down to truth. So like this whole thread, it all comes back to whether or not this stuff happened.

 

[Stars align]

Use

Welcome to nginx 98c763ea26ab5ee112bb713bfa30ba6e!35.161.83.9

Article don't add anything much apart from this

Is there anything from the ABC as they were quick to jump in on Jackson’s offer of a right of reply to Clarkson and Fagan
As an aside how is it possible that the legal teams Clarkson and Fagan have yet to be sent a copy of Egans report

 

[mcnulty]

They possibly witnessed it as well but simply haven't spoken up? Not really a valid point at all.

Hardwick’s his best mate isn’t he? It’s really not hard to find disgruntled ex-employees. Anywhere, but especially footy.

 

[Makeshift Park]

I do think with hindsight, it may have been better for the article to be posted without naming the Hawthorn perpetrators. It's gone way off with people attacking all different kinds of people because of it.

I tend to agree.
Unless there is further corroborating evidence the justifies naming Clarkson and Fagan, in which case that should have been made clear in the copy.

 

[Ricketz]

Of course there isn't a law that demands corroborating evidence is presented prior to publication, the corroborating evidence only becomes important after Clarkson and Fagans of the world decide to sue.
And thrilling as the prospect of unpacking the commonwealth evidence act with you might be, its clear you're trolling at this point, so I'll leave it at that.

Wow, that took a long time to get around to you admitting.

I'm not trolling. I am actively opposing your clearly untruthful claim. It's not my fault you were wrong.

 

[Del191229]

I do think with hindsight, it may have been better for the article to be posted without naming the Hawthorn perpetrators. It's gone way off with people attacking all different kinds of people because of it.

Could not agree more.

 

[Ricketz]

I tend to agree.
Unless there is further corroborating evidence the justifies naming Clarkson and Fagan, in which case that should have been made clear in the copy.

Why?

 

[RichLeMonde]

Is all supporting evidence viewed as corroboration - eg. patterned behaviour. Or is the term only used to describe evidence that directly supports an individual claim?

The latter

 

[Ricketz]

These passages only reconfirm that the notion of “corroboration” has an extremely important, technical definition in law. The incidents in the article are not corroborated. If you read the article carefully, it’s actually quite striking that the indigenous player - and his then partner who had an abortion - do not actually directly corroborate each other’s reports; rather, they talk about different things

They also talk about the same things.

There is still no requirement to show proof of corroborating evidence in a published article.

There has been no defamation that I can see - the author clearly states "alleged".

 

[Ricketz]

He's certainly acting like it, with his hysterical attacks on anyone he deems is not accepting it all as proven fact.

Which attacks? And against who?

 

[Makeshift Park]

I am actively opposing your clearly untruthful claim. It's not my fault you were wrong.

You’ve got one post to identify which post was untruthful and explain what your issue is with it.

If you can’t do that without obfuscating, you’re going on ignore.

 

[Area51]

Shifting goal posts again. Where is it law that you have to show you have corroborating evidence before publishing, please. Or any law that says you must corroborate evidence.

This cites a lack of evidence that could corroborate Nevin's claims as to why her testimony was unreliable, but cites the contradictory evidence that was reliable as the reason for the judgement.

Yes it seems that the relative reliability of the witnesses and their differing accounts was key in the Rush case.

 

[Ricketz]

You’ve got one post to identify which post was untruthful and explain what your issue is with it.

If you can’t do that without obfuscating, you’re going on ignore.

Not that I mind if you put me on ignore, I will still respond to any false claims you make, but here you go:

You'll find you're alone in your tenuous interpretation that the partners of the players are present throughout all of the accounts provided.

They aren't my standards. I'm not saying "this is what I would have preferred Russell Jackson did". I'm saying this is the law.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I’m not saying otherwise. But it also appears they wish to remain anonymous. You would hope they were advised that going public the way they did would make that more problematic. Perhaps they were.

If they did not go public , no one would know, no one would care. They would be getting fobbed off by the HFC After they and the AFL bury the report.

By going public they now have some leverage to ensure the report is not responded to with some trite words but some action and recompense.

The facts are there were years of inaction, going public has giving it the impetus to get a result that suits the Victims.

 

[hawkman]

I do think with hindsight, it may have been better for the article to be posted without naming the Hawthorn perpetrators. It's gone way off with people attacking all different kinds of people because of it.

There are only a limited amount of coaches. From the allegations, everyone would have assumed Clarkson was one of them which probably makes it more awkward for everyone. It would also have put the coaches at 3(down to 2 with Ratten gone) other clubs under suspicion and copping questions

 

[Engimal v3]

I defend Clarkson because I want him to make my football team good

 

[Makeshift Park]

Not that I mind if you put me on ignore, I will still respond to any false claims you make, but here you go:

That comment was made regarding the defences available to defamation complaints, ie what we were talking about.

 

[Le Grille]

If they did not go public , no one would know, no one would care. They would be getting fobbed off by the HFC After they and the AFL bury the report.

By going public they now have some leverage to ensure the report is not responded to with some trite words but some action and recompense.

The facts are there were years of inaction, going public has giving it the impetus to get a result that suits the Victims.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I want a flawless investigation, if clarko can get through that then im relieved.

I do think the emails to newbold are a concern. He sat on them for ten years. If i was the complainant I would be going public too.

 

[mcnulty]

The facts are there were years of inaction, going public has giving it the impetus to get a result that suits the Victims

That’s not strictly true. The report was the impetus, and it was only very new when ABC broke the story. It might have been better to wait to see what the response from Hawthorn and the AFL (again, the AFL still don’t know who they are) was before getting the media involved. Because it’s an unholy mess now.

 

[sr36]

There are only a limited amount of coaches. From the allegations, everyone would have assumed Clarkson was one of them which probably makes it more awkward for everyone. It would also have put the coaches at 3(down to 2 with Ratten gone) other clubs under suspicion and copping questions

A few more than 2. You're only looking at current senior coaches. Burt wasn't a coach, so it'd be worded to include the entire football department staff. Pies have a couple who were in that footy department at the time. So do a few other clubs. Personally, I expect a couple of other names to be part of the investigation.

 

[Del191229]

They possibly witnessed it as well but simply haven't spoken up? Not really a valid point at all.

That's possible re witnessed it.

Or ...