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

 

[Del191229]

All we know is that there was enough evidence to satisfy the journalist, his editors and the ABC lawyers.

There was enough evidence to do that for stories on Chau Chak Wing and Andrew Laming too.

 

[sr36]

No, they may later be proven to be facts. Right now they're allegations.

The entire justice system is built on this proposition and has been around for 800 years or so.

Nah. The courts don't make facts. Things occuring make facts. A criminal court decides if it a fact beyond reasonable doubt. A civil court decides if it is probably a fact.

 

[Makeshift Park]

I've gotten that all along.

It's people on your side of the conversation who seem to think this article was supposed to be the be all and end all of the story.

It's purely and simply an account of some recruits perceptions of their time at Hawthorn, which focussed on some pretty terrible things that they believe occured.

I can't believe there are people who think that story is one that shouldn't be told and are attacking the journalist for telling it.

SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay is obviously a big boy and he can defend himself, but I suggest that he's talking about how the standard of the journalism was inadequate given the decision to name Clarkson, Fagan and Burt. Which might well be the case.

Because yes, the article did require extraordinary levels of corroboration to justify that decision. It might not have been the "be all and end all", but it needed to be mighty close. We don't know the extent to which Jackson used anything aside from the allegations themselves.

That burden of proof would not be required if the article hadn't set out to name the coaches.

 

[Del191229]

Nah. The courts don't make facts. Things occuring make facts. A criminal court decides if it a fact beyond reasonable doubt. A civil court decides if it is probably a fact.

"Things occurring make facts".

 

[Maddo11]

Who says it has to be one article?

Good journos like Nick McKenzie, Adele Ferguston and Kate McClymont spread their stuff over days, weeks and months.

McKenzie will usually do a big 60 Minutes on his yarns, along with the Age/SMH stuff.

Where's Rusty's 4 Corners?

Where's his follow ups?

Its one and done for a reason - he didn't do the work.

Or ... maybe he did and found stuff that didn't suit his narrative.

Objection: speculative.

"But muh natural justice" while disparaging an investigative journalist because he said a mean thing about your CEO

You aren't fooling anyone you cooker

 

[sr36]

There was enough evidence to do that for stories on Chau Chak Wing and Andrew Laming too.

They do a risk assessment based on evidence. There'd be no newspapers if they went with zero risk and were thus never open to litigation. The point is you don't have as much evidence as them to make an assessment, yet you seem to think you do, based solely on the article and not the supporting evidence that they would have asked for.

 

[sr36]

SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay is obviously a big boy and he can defend himself, but I suggest that he's talking about how the standard of the journalism was inadequate given the decision to name Clarkson, Fagan and Burt. Which might well be the case.

Because yes, the article did require extraordinary levels of corroboration to justify that decision. It might not have been the "be all and end all", but it needed to be mighty close. We don't know the extent to which Jackson used anything aside from the allegations themselves.

That burden of proof would not be required if the article hadn't set out to name the coaches.

There's nothing wrong with your point - particularly, "which might well be the case."

But to be asserting that it was a shit, rushed article, when you haven't got access to everything that would have resulted in it getting ticked off, is ridiculous, subjective, unsubstantiated, biased rubbish.

 

[Engimal v3]

I wonder what the North supporters thoughts on Clarkson's predicament would be if he'd taken the Essendon job.

The allegations would be true if he went to the Bombers.

 

[Del191229]

They do a risk assessment based on evidence. There'd be no newspapers if they went with zero risk and were thus never open to litigation. The point is you don't have as much evidence as them to make an assessment, yet you seem to think you do, based solely on the article and not the supporting evidence that they would have asked for.

I know how media law works.

I also find it interesting that Jackson is a print journalist at a broadcaster.

 

[sr36]

I know how media law works.

Then why are you consistently suggesting that the printed and printable evidence is the only evidence used to justify printing the story? And why are suggesting that losing a couple of defamation cases is significant?

 

[Del191229]

Then why are you consistently suggesting that the printed and printable evidence is the only evidence used to justify printing the story?

Sorry, I don't understand this.

 

[Stars align]

"Recommendations as to whether any persons who engaged in, were involved in and/or were aware of any inappropriate conduct should, in the view of the investigation panel, be subject to disciplinary action which would be undertaken pursuant to a separate process under AFL Rules“

From AFL.com.au—emphasis mine. If I were a cynic I might suggest that we have found their escape clause cloaked in disciplinary language.

If the panel is independent—and if that is an important mechanism for natural justice—I would have thought those deciding any possible punishments ought to be independent. I really don’t know.

How can an outcome be arrived at if people now outside the AFL environment choose not to attend? If they do choose to attend they along with those that are compelled to attend are only going to present theirs recollections and not be subjected to questioning of their version of events.
Is this how the process is going to run or is my comprehension flawed?

 

[Del191229]

Senator Thorpe has confirmed to the ABC she "briefly dated" the ex-president of the Rebels in Victoria, Dean Martin.

"We met through Blak activism and briefly dated in early 2021," she told the ABC.

"We remain friends and have collaborated on our shared interests advocating for the rights of First Nations peoples."

This is actually interesting given who one of the complainants is alleged to be.

Greens senator Lidia Thorpe admits to undisclosed relationship with ex-bikie boss while on law enforcement committee

Staffers to Greens senator Lidia Thorpe were concerned her undisclosed relationship with a former outlaw motorcycle gang president while she served on parliament's law enforcement committee posed a perceived conflict of interest.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Del191229]

"Recommendations as to whether any persons who engaged in, were involved in and/or were aware of any inappropriate conduct should, in the view of the investigation panel, be subject to disciplinary action which would be undertaken pursuant to a separate process under AFL Rules“

From AFL.com.au—emphasis mine. If I were a cynic I might suggest that we have found their escape clause cloaked in disciplinary language.

If the panel is independent—and if that is an important mechanism for natural justice—I would have thought those deciding any possible punishments ought to be independent. I really don’t know.

The AFL isn't keen on non AFL bodies handing out punishments to AFL employees.

Is why the Essendon thing was so funny, because WADA could and did come in - ooga booga - over the top and hand out legally binding suspensions.

 

[sr36]

Sorry, I don't understand this.

You've regularly claimed it was a shit rushed article without enough supporting evidence to justify publication, yet you know that what was printed wouldn't have been the entire evidence used to justify publication.

How can you make the first claim, if you know the second point to be true?

 

[Del191229]

You've regularly claimed it was a s**t rushed article without enough supporting evidence to justify publication, yet you know that what was printed wouldn't have been the entire evidence used to justify publication.

How can you make the first claim, if you know the second point to be true?

I've always said it could have been published without naming the individuals.

 

[RichLeMonde]

This is actually interesting given who one of the complainants is alleged to be.

Greens senator Lidia Thorpe admits to undisclosed relationship with ex-bikie boss while on law enforcement committee

Staffers to Greens senator Lidia Thorpe were concerned her undisclosed relationship with a former outlaw motorcycle gang president while she served on parliament's law enforcement committee posed a perceived conflict of interest.

www.abc.net.au

Who is the alleged complainant?

 

[carloss]

I've been consistant in saying I believe the contents of the report. That's not garbage.

Have you read the report?

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Have you read the report?

Yes I have and it's hard to read.

 

[Laphroaig]

You JUST mentioned them.

I'm a courageous rebel.

When I was speaking of getting out on the ground instead of self agrandising on social media, there's a certain type of person I was referring to.

 

[Del191229]

Who is the alleged complainant?

A Frist Nations player who isn't Aboriginal.

 

[Del191229]

Yes I have and it's hard to read.

Tell me about it, all those different fonts

 

[Chief]

The report isn't fact either. Egan didn't put any of the allegations he heard to those accused. To be fair, he wasn't asked to.

The report is also composed of unverified anonymous allegations.

Those are facts.

But if the report matched what he wrote, then what is the problem?

That the report contained allegations is factual.

 

[Xtreme]

Most of the stuff written by you and other Nrth supporters has frankly been disgusting. You're clearly trying to keep your coach and stuff everyone else.
Have you read the report? Which post of mine was 'garbage'?

IF Clarko and co are found to have done nothing wrong, who's going down for the witchhunt ?

 

[Chief]

I'm a courageous rebel.

When I was speaking of getting out on the ground instead of self agrandising on social media, there's a certain type of person I was referring to.

Oh you mean the black people.

And to be clear, by on the ground I do not mean marching up and down metropolitan streets screeching slogans borrowed from a culture and racial divide massively different to our own. Which serves only to produce masses of noise and drown out conversation of the reality.

You haven't come to terms with the idea that there is some solidarity among and recognition of similarities and differences between the Australian and US experience?

Aboriginal groups taking up the BLM motto had a local context into which this fit quite well. Deaths from police negligence, brutality and so on aren't confined to US cities. But we've had this conversation before, and it is straying off topic.