NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed. Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
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:



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

Process Plan - https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...erms-of-Reference-and-Process-Plan-FINAL-.pdf


DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS
 
Last edited:
Nope, not for what the report was set up for. I think it gives aggrieved parties something to complain about, sure.

But for the context of the original report, not at all.

That's the thing about conflict of interest, it is all about perception.
 
#StandbyClarkson

Honestly: The PR campaign in here is interesting. You give it away with the obtuse mis-quoting, among other things.

The day that Chief posted the same stuff Tef used to, I'm glad I was here for it.

The BigFooty singularity has been achieved. The alpha and the omega.
 
The day that Chief posted the same stuff Tef used to, I'm glad I was here for it.

The BigFooty singularity has been achieved. The alpha and the omega.
Amy's lawyer says the process is not as culturally safe as she was lead to believe.

vs

"Amy said it was unsafe!"

Do you see the distinction that a few North supporters are deliberately ignoring in order to chip in their bit to the PR campaign?

Of course you do.
 
Oct 4, 2006
15,813
33,666
The hood
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Amy's lawyer says the process is not as culturally safe as she was lead to believe.

vs

"Amy said it was unsafe!"

Do you see the distinction that a few North supporters are deliberately ignoring in order to chip in their bit to the PR campaign?

Of course you do.

I said the lawyer said it was culturally unsafe and the sr36 said he never said “culturally” unsafe, he just said unsafe.

Geez talk about desperate to misdirect etc.

One of the main participants in the hawthorn review said it was unsafe.

FACT

Get over it.
 
There it is:

1669357504337.png


If I've got it wrong and you aren't saying that she said the initial Egan/Binmada process was unsafe, my apologies and I take it all back.

If you're trying to say it's Egan wot dun it, you're wrong and bad.

I can see perfectly well how the AFL investigation is sub-par.
 
Oct 4, 2006
15,813
33,666
The hood
AFL Club
North Melbourne
There it is:

View attachment 1560744

If I've got it wrong and you aren't saying that she said the initial Egan/Binmada process was unsafe, my apologies and I take it all back.

If you're trying to say it's Egan wot dun it, you're wrong and bad.

I can see perfectly well how the AFL investigation is sub-par.

I’m referring to an interview on SEN’s Gerard Wheatley’s show with Amy’s lawyer
 
There it is:

View attachment 1560744

If I've got it wrong and you aren't saying that she said the initial Egan/Binmada process was unsafe, my apologies and I take it all back.

If you're trying to say it's Egan wot dun it, you're wrong and bad.

I can see perfectly well how the AFL investigation is sub-par.
Her lawyer said it was unsafe, but didn't say it was culturally unsafe. Was referring to anonymity and having repeated requests to retell and relive her grief.
 
Oct 4, 2006
15,813
33,666
The hood
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Sounds like crossed wires here - do you have a link?

I don not. But I’m pretty sure links were posted on this thread, I’m descriptor interview as a train wreck.

But you can rest assured he said the hawthorn report had not turned out to be safe as Amy initially thought. I can’t honestly say if the word “culturally” came before safe or not.

Burn means the same thing
 
Oct 4, 2006
15,813
33,666
The hood
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Her lawyer said it was unsafe, but didn't say it was culturally unsafe. Was referring to anonymity and having repeated requests to retell and relive her grief.

Which is the thing that gives me a laugh

It turns out speaking to the hawthorn investigation wasn’t safe, but having your story go viral worldwide with a tell all interview, that was all good.
 
So you're PR'ing about something you can't remember?

I am happy to read or listen to it when someone finds a link. I cannot find anything after a few searches but maybe my keywords are not right.
It was linked in here if you could be bothered scrolling back. Find the date that Amy published her statement with paintings and then a day or two after that.
 
Which is the thing that gives me a laugh

It turns out speaking to the hawthorn investigation wasn’t safe, but having your story go viral worldwide with a tell all interview, that was all good.
I interpreted it as referring to speaking about Jacksons article as well. But would need to re-listen.
 
Amy's lawyer says the process is not as culturally safe as she was lead to believe.

vs

"Amy said it was unsafe!"

Do you see the distinction that a few North supporters are deliberately ignoring in order to chip in their bit to the PR campaign?

Of course you do.

What PR campaign mate? I love this site, have made lots of friends here, but the idea what we're blethering on about here is going to have any impact on how this plays out is a bit silly.

The reality is the criticisms North supporters have had about how this has been handled have been largely vindicated as it has played out.

And the inescapable fact is that if the forced abortions claim cannot be stood up beyond two anonymous people having made it and refusing to back it up, let alone if it is disproven in the investigation, then there is going to be a serious reckoning for those who publicised that claim.
 
What PR campaign mate? I love this site, have made lots of friends here, but the idea what we're blethering on about here is going to have any impact on how this plays out is a bit silly.

The reality is the criticisms North supporters have had about how this has been handled have been largely vindicated as it has played out.

And the inescapable fact is that if the forced abortions claim cannot be stood up beyond two anonymous people having made it and refusing to back it up, let alone if it is disproven in the investigation, then there is going to be a serious reckoning for those who publicised that claim.
How has it been vindicated?

There won't be a reckoning. The coaches are really unlikely to take it to court.
 
Starts just after 33:00

I am hearing from that interview that it was a difficult choice to participate in the initial review.

That interview is all about the AFL investigation.

The cultural safety of the Egan/Binmada review is mentioned in passing with an offhand "it didn't turn out to be that safe either". I can see what he means given what happened after it was leaked and that her and her partner's identity have been passed around various gossip channels - I wouldn't be surprised if the spread of this information originated within the North Melbourne organisation. That's obviously what that was about. Obviously.

The interview is about the AFL investigation. She doesn't want to go through an adversarial process that doesn't benefit her. Any of the NM/AFL suits would do exactly the same in her situation and they are lying if they say otherwise. No upside, all downside given the behaviour of the AFL.

It's a perfectly rational decision to say you have my statement, I won't be showing up to your internal review and I have given my reasons for this.

Trying to make it all about the initial Hawthorn review is just North supporters chipping in to the PR campaign.

This interview doesn't change my belief in that regard.


Also I recall now that at the time people panned the lawyer's performance. This looks like more PR. I'm not sure what the issue was with the lawyer's delivery apart from too many "umm"s. He's not an entertainer. He seems to have a sound grasp of the law and the facts, with reasoned arguments and claims.
 
the idea what we're blethering on about here is going to have any impact on how this plays out is a bit silly.
Which makes me wonder why people are doing it. It seems a bit of a parasocial relationship between fans and the North PR department.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back