News The Hawthorn Allegations

[jonbe54]

Cancel culture sucks. I have no doubt that some innocent people have had or will have their life destroyed by it. But the reality is we have a justice system heavily weighted towards money and power. Before it, we had the rich and powerful getting away with enormous abuses of power. The rich and powerful when accused used to smear accusers before and in court, to the point where enormous amounts of incidents went unreported and then when brave victims did put up with the smearing, a large payout often protected the abuser. Cancel culture has brought down some hideous abusers and thus dramatically changed the power imbalance regarding the accused and the accuser in cases of abuses of power. Would Epstein still be doing his s*t? How many other Epsteins have been stopped by this now powerful force? How many less cops are willing to pull the trigger on that dodgy looking black kid. How many victims saved versus the few innocent who have become victims of cancel culture? So whilst cancel culture sucks, until we have a justice system that isn't heavily weighted towards money and power, perhaps we ****** need it.

Mum was a court recorder - in that she took down the proceedings (in long hand no less) - and always instilled in me the unwritten assumption that a barrister is an officer of the court in that they are there to serve justice and the law first before client.

It's a pretty concept but has never truly applied and it led me to believe that any lawyer/barrister etc. that is on a retainer must be suspect as that retainer undermines their service to justice and the court.

 

[Gone Critical]

Mum was a court recorder - in that she took down the proceedings (in long hand no less) - and always instilled in me the unwritten assumption that a barrister is an officer of the court in that they are there to serve justice and the law first before client.

It's a pretty concept but has never truly applied and it led me to believe that any lawyer/barrister etc. that is on a retainer must be suspect as that retainer undermines their service to justice and the court.

So the only lawyer /barrister we can trust is the pro bono case?

Jon their role in the justice system is to represent their client and ensure they get a fair hearing in a court. That is how they serve the justice system. Being paid doesnt invalidate that.

 

[jonbe54]

So the only lawyer /barrister we can trust is the pro bono case?

Jon their role in the justice system is to represent their client and ensure they get a fair hearing in a court. That is how they serve the justice system. Being paid doesnt invalidate that.

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it.

By the way did you make the connection to legal counsel being on a retainer ? As in a leashed attack dog???

You seem intent on picking fault today without actually reading my posts.

Every professional is entitled to be paid for their services - but selling your services exclusively to one person or a corporate entity is an entirely different matter altogether.

 

[JB1975]

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it.

By the way did you make the connection to legal counsel being on a retainer ? As in a leashed attack dog???

You seem intent on picking fault today without actually reading my posts.

Every professional is entitled to be paid for their services - but selling your services exclusively to one person or a corporate entity is an entirely different matter altogether.

GC's post wasn't 'opinion'. It's a fact and tenet of the justice system.

Another fact is that your opinions border upon lunacy

 

[domus]

I suggested that cross-examination isn't an ideal path for many people to tell their experience, that 'lies' are often things misspoken or misremembered under the heat of the examination itself.

Somehow you interpreted this observation as opposition to cross-examination in a court of law. How do you make such fantastic leaps?

Some kind of superpower, I guess. I am in awe.

Cross examination is the best approach we have when someone alleges something as serious as rape, assault or any form of abuse as it these allegations which often destroy the lives of those accused even when they are found not guilty. I'm sure you would appreciate the cross examination of your accuser.

Most jurists forgive misremembered moments or misspeaking under pressure. That isn't what changes outcomes. It is outright lies. A says I never wore those trousers again after the alleged incident or I never texted the accused B after the incident only to have photos emerge with A wearing the trousers at public events after the incident and evidence emerges showing A sending multiple texts to the accused after the alleged incident.

These are not things you would forget or confuse. Either you did or didn't. Once these contradictions are revealed the jury has every right to doubt the words of A.

 

[domus]

Cancel culture sucks. I have no doubt that some innocent people have had or will have their life destroyed by it. But the reality is we have a justice system heavily weighted towards money and power. Before it, we had the rich and powerful getting away with enormous abuses of power. The rich and powerful when accused used to smear accusers before and in court, to the point where enormous amounts of incidents went unreported and then when brave victims did put up with the smearing, a large payout often protected the abuser. Cancel culture has brought down some hideous abusers and thus dramatically changed the power imbalance regarding the accused and the accuser in cases of abuses of power. Would Epstein still be doing his s*t? How many other Epsteins have been stopped by this now powerful force? How many less cops are willing to pull the trigger on that dodgy looking black kid. How many victims saved versus the few innocent who have become victims of cancel culture? So whilst cancel culture sucks, until we have a justice system that isn't heavily weighted towards money and power, perhaps we ****** need it.

Most cancel culture has absolutely nothing to do with crimes of a sexual nature. Simply having a different opinion has seen university professors sacked, journalists sacked and average Joes banned from online platforms. The Ayatollah of Iran and the President of the Chinese dictatorship along with the Taliban all have a presence on Facebook while a former US President was given a permanent ban. This is objectively ridiculous regardless of the unhinged hatred so many feel for that president. He has not overseen slave labour camps and the torture of his citizens or openly advocated the utter destruction of a country and its people yet those who have done this and continue to do this have a platform. This shows the inherent dangers in leaving the judgement of such matters (and the power) in the hands of hardline political activists

It's ironic to see the supporters of this cancel culture include all of the Big Tech platforms run by multi billionaires, governments around the world, most of the elite in our media and entertainment industry and our education system. Hardly sounds like a grassroots movement pushing back against
The Man, does it? Could it be a useful tool for shutting down any voices opposing whatever the narrative of the day might be?

When people are afraid to discuss certain topics in a public forum or at a social gathering you know you are entering dangerous waters. Don't confuse this fear with the change in attitudes toward crude racism or bigotry. I'm referring to questioning government narratives or societal trends where once you could state your view or say you disagree without being shunned or worse, turned on and branded one of the countless pejoratives used today to shut down discussion and "other" the person who dared to voice an unpopular opinion.

Cancel culture is an insidious cancer in our society. Using the argument that nailing a few corrupt scum justifies the destruction of innocent people's livelihoods and reputations by online lynch mobs is not something I could ever be willing to accept.

 

[jmac70]

Oh god

 

[noideaatall]

Oh god

Yes?

 

[KrispyKremePie]

Yes?

On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Maggie5]

Cross examination is the best approach we have when someone alleges something as serious as rape, assault or any form of abuse as it these allegations which often destroy the lives of those accused even when they are found not guilty. I'm sure you would appreciate the cross examination of your accuser.

Most jurists forgive misremembered moments or misspeaking under pressure. That isn't what changes outcomes. It is outright lies. A says I never wore those trousers again after the alleged incident or I never texted the accused B after the incident only to have photos emerge with A wearing the trousers at public events after the incident and evidence emerges showing A sending multiple texts to the accused after the alleged incident.

These are not things you would forget or confuse. Either you did or didn't. Once these contradictions are revealed the jury has every right to doubt the words of A.

In your opinion?

 

[sideswipe]

Cross examination is the best approach we have when someone alleges something as serious as rape, assault or any form of abuse as it these allegations which often destroy the lives of those accused even when they are found not guilty. I'm sure you would appreciate the cross examination of your accuser.

Most jurists forgive misremembered moments or misspeaking under pressure. That isn't what changes outcomes. It is outright lies. A says I never wore those trousers again after the alleged incident or I never texted the accused B after the incident only to have photos emerge with A wearing the trousers at public events after the incident and evidence emerges showing A sending multiple texts to the accused after the alleged incident.

These are not things you would forget or confuse. Either you did or didn't. Once these contradictions are revealed the jury has every right to doubt the words of A.

Jurist doesn’t have the meaning you think it does.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[noideaatall]

In your opinion?

Maggie, unfortunately we are going to have to disqualify this discussion. Dommie dropped a theoretical paper on what jurors remember. May have influenced everyone's views.

 

[Maggie5]

Maggie, unfortunately we are going to have to disqualify this discussion. Dommie dropped a theoretical paper on what jurors remember. May have influenced everyone's views.

Think we all need to have a look at thread title and try and stick to topic and would love to never see words like 'woke' or 'cancel culture' being mentioned.

 

[noideaatall]

Think we all need to have a look at thread title and try and stick to topic and would love to never see words like 'woke' or 'cancel culture' being mentioned.

Yes, you are right. God forbid, given the daily developments it would be appalling to see this discussion disintegrate into a trivial social media discussion about law and courts. I am sorry.

 

[sr36]

Most cancel culture has absolutely nothing to do with crimes of a sexual nature. Simply having a different opinion has seen university professors sacked, journalists sacked and average Joes banned from online platforms. The Ayatollah of Iran and the President of the Chinese dictatorship along with the Taliban all have a presence on Facebook while a former US President was given a permanent ban. This is objectively ridiculous regardless of the unhinged hatred so many feel for that president. He has not overseen slave labour camps and the torture of his citizens or openly advocated the utter destruction of a country and its people yet those who have done this and continue to do this have a platform. This shows the inherent dangers in leaving the judgement of such matters (and the power) in the hands of hardline political activists

Much of what you're referring to is nothing new and doesn't fit my definition of cancel culture, you've expanded the definition to include things that have been occurring for centuries but you're highlighting because the world's values have shifted.

I've been a sub in a Catholic school this week. Do you think I could walk into that school and espouse liberal attitudes towards non-marital sex, or abortion. Like your university professor, I'd be out on my ear quick smart for "simply having a different opinion". You've always put your job in jeopardy if you spoke against the values of the institution that employs you. It's the changed values that you're labelling as cancel culture. It's always gotten people sacked.

I'm not going into the incredible thorny area of whether tech giants are publishers with censorship rights or the right to control what gets posted on their platform. Except to once again say that censorship is nothing new and has been going on for thousands of years. Once again your real complaint is what is censored.

And in many ways the cancel culture that I'm talking about is nothing new either. For centuries people have had their reputations smeared through the media before receiving a trial. But it used to be the smearing of the accuser, with the accused not being judged until trial, and it's shifted to the smearing of the accused, with the accuser not being judged until the trial.

So I was wrong, this isn't a new movement. It's really just the same thing with the pre-trial smearing shifting to a different party. It's really just changed values that we all label as cancel culture.

 

[noideaatall]

Much of what you're referring to is nothing new and doesn't fit my definition of cancel culture, you've expanded the definition to include things that have been occurring for centuries but you're highlighting because the world's values have shifted.

I've been a sub in a Catholic school this week. Do you think I could walk into that school and espouse liberal attitudes towards non-marital sex, or abortion. Like your university professor, I'd be out on my ear quick smart for "simply having a different opinion". You've always put your job in jeopardy if you spoke against the values of the institution that employs you. It's the changed values that you're labelling as cancel culture. It's always gotten people sacked.

I'm not going into the incredible thorny area of whether tech giants are publishers with censorship rights or the right to control what gets posted on their platform. Except to once again say that censorship is nothing new and has been going on for thousands of years. Once again your real complaint is what is censored.

And in many ways the cancel culture that I'm talking about is nothing new either. For centuries people have had their reputations smeared through the media before receiving a trial. But it used to be the smearing of the accuser, with the accused not being judged until trial, and it's shifted to the smearing of the accused, with the accuser not being judged until the trial.

So I was wrong, this isn't a new movement. It's really just the same thing with the pre-trial smearing shifting to a different party. It's really just changed values that we all label as cancel culture.

I claim copyright. Long story, took me way less words.

 

[noideaatall]

View attachment 1546675



On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

I seriously wish you hadn't posted that gif. Meg Ryan completed me, that 90's perm, pants to armpits. I am going to watch reruns of you've got mail tonight & not in a jb1975 pj's way.

 

[jonbe54]

There can be little doubt that this whole circus will be a sham played through for the AFL and their backers.

The only justice will come if the state government or workcare gets involved.

 

[manicpie]

There can be little doubt that this whole circus will be a sham played through for the AFL and their backers.

The only justice will come if the state government or workcare gets involved.

I just don't think the AFL are as evil as you say, if they are then the future of AFL doesn't look good

 

[TW Sherrin]

So the only lawyer /barrister we can trust is the pro bono case?

Jon their role in the justice system is to represent their client and ensure they get a fair hearing in a court. That is how they serve the justice system. Being paid doesnt invalidate that.

from first hand experience I'd argue some are there to fill their own pockets.

 

[sideswipe]

from first hand experience I'd argue some are there to fill their own pockets.

There are probably evil carpenters too.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Black_White]

Hard to argue against this.

Indigenous woman says probe would be ‘unsafe’, Clarkson’s ‘really strong’ defence, AFL acknowledges ‘trauma’

An Indigenous woman who alleges the Hawthorn Football Club subjected her to appalling mistreatment won’t take part in the “unsafe” AFL investigation, sparking an AFL response. This statement came as Alastair Clarkson, clocking on as North Melbourne coach, said he was ready to defend himself.

www.theage.com.au

“The scene is set to discredit the findings of the Hawthorn cultural safety review and dismiss or downplay the testimonies of First Nations players and their families.

Absolutely no doubt that this is a sham investigation pushed to complete before the end of the year to give season 2023 clear air.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Hard to argue against this.

Indigenous woman says probe would be ‘unsafe’, Clarkson’s ‘really strong’ defence, AFL acknowledges ‘trauma’

An Indigenous woman who alleges the Hawthorn Football Club subjected her to appalling mistreatment won’t take part in the “unsafe” AFL investigation, sparking an AFL response. This statement came as Alastair Clarkson, clocking on as North Melbourne coach, said he was ready to defend himself.

www.theage.com.au

Absolutely no doubt that this is a sham investigation pushed to complete before the end of the year to give season 2023 clear air.

She’s guaranteed that now.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Cancel culture lol. The Stolen Generation know the true meaning of being cancelled.

 

[TW Sherrin]

There are probably evil carpenters too.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I've found them too. 16 months to build a house....