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

[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

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


DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[sr36]

Yes. The media will make up their own minds. As will the punters.

Gedddittttt?

No. I don't get it. I don't get how claiming a few times that Dusty threatened her with chopsticks and then linking articles that state that he threatened her with chopsticks is making the point that he probably didn't threaten her with chopsticks.

 

[mcnulty]

No. I don't get how claiming a few times that Dusty threatened her with chopsticks and then linking articles that state that he threatened her with chopsticks is making the point that he probably didn't threaten her with chopsticks.

FFS man…just coz it’s reported that he did it doesn’t make it necessarily ****ing so. If you can’t see the point here…

Jesus mate…

 

[sr36]

FFS man…just coz it’s reported that he did it doesn’t make it necessarily ******* so. If you can’t see the point here…

Jesus mate…

I can see that point, but I can't see how you were making that point. Most people think Dusty threatened her with chopsticks, so you saying he threatened her with chopsticks and posting links saying he threatened her with chopsticks is making a very different point to what you say you were making.

 

[mcnulty]

I can see that point, but I can't see how you were making that point. Most people think Dusty threatened her with chopsticks, so you saying he threatened her with chopsticks and posting links saying he threatened her with chopsticks is making a very different point to what you say you were making.

You’re not this dumb mate…I’ll try and surmise. What the media says and what people think inevitably doesn’t matter. There are processes in place to determine guilt or innocence. People in this thread have had Clarkson guilty from day one. Some right up until now want him out of the game prior to the outcome of an investigation.

The police decided not to prosecute Martin and his club (rightly in my opinion) stood by him. He had since established himself as one of the greats of the game. And it has pretty much blown over. I really can’t make it simpler than that.

 

[sr36]

You’re not this dumb mate…I’ll try and surmise. What the media says and what people think inevitably doesn’t matter. There are processes in place to determine guilt or innocence. People in this thread have had Clarkson guilty from day one. Some right up until now want him out of the game prior to the outcome of an investigation.

The police decided not to prosecute Martin and his club (rightly in my opinion) stood by him. He had since established himself as one of the greats of the game. And it has pretty much blown over. I really can’t make it simpler than that.

I get all that. You just didn't frame your point like that. You framed your point as Martin threatened someone with chopsticks, so don't carry on about Clarkson, which is why it was viewed as a deflection.

You might have been thinking all that. But you basically just said, "yeah, but Martin threatened someone with chopsticks."

 

[TennisFan76]

How’s that a deflection? Apparently Dusty threatened to stab a woman with a chopstick. It’s ok of course, without him you might not have won 3 GFs. Surely that’s pertinent to the discussion. What level of bad behaviour is considered TOO MUCH.

Throwing this one out there…

Leave Dusty out of this, he’s worked hard to battle his demons and as a result has evolved in to a well mannered fine young man.

 

[Chief]

Again “I did not behave in the manner claimed” is a clear rejection the allegations.

He thinks he said it a lot more nicely than the article suggests? It's not "that never happened" is it?

It's an equivocal statement.

 

[mcnulty]

It's an equivocal statement.

Lol no it’s not.

 

[DanA]

You’re not this dumb mate…I’ll try and surmise. What the media says and what people think inevitably doesn’t matter. There are processes in place to determine guilt or innocence. People in this thread have had Clarkson guilty from day one. Some right up until now want him out of the game prior to the outcome of an investigation.

The police decided not to prosecute Martin and his club (rightly in my opinion) stood by him. He had since established himself as one of the greats of the game. And it has pretty much blown over. I really can’t make it simpler than that.

I thought this all came out from an independent investigation. Did that not happen?

Or are you saying we need to wait for the outcome of an investigation of the investigation to determine the facts.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I thought this all came out from an independent investigation. Did that not happen?

Or are you saying we need to wait for the outcome of an investigation of the investigation to determine the facts.

No it didn't actually - I don't understand why so many people still struggle to understand that.

A select group of former Hawthorn players, partners, and ex-partners were invited to share their stories in a private, anonymous setting without any fear of review or publicity. There was no questioning of their story, no checking with others to verify, with the accused to defend - no (public) review of documentation - indeed no investigation at all.

The investigation into the content of those stories is only underway now via the independent tribunal (and for the moment at least, kept private as it always should have been). This tribunal were hand-selected to provide the most supportive position for the ex-players partners and ex-partners. They are all leaders in their field, and undoubtedly will provide a fair and honest investigation - but they were chosen for their background and status in the indigenous community.

There are no "facts" that have been decided yet. The "evidence" (word documents of copy-pasted versions of the alleged emails and texts) used in the article has not been tested (at least publicly) for legitimacy. There are accusations and allegations which will be investigated (at least the ones that haven't been withdrawn already).

My view hasn't changed since day 1 - they are horrific stories, I hope they aren't true. If they are, Clarkson will never coach again and the ex-players, partners and ex-partners should be entitled to some form of compensation.

 

[boncer34]

No it didn't actually - I don't understand why so many people still struggle to understand that.

A select group of former Hawthorn players, partners, and ex-partners were invited to share their stories in a private, anonymous setting without any fear of review or publicity. There was no questioning of their story, no checking with others to verify, with the accused to defend - no (public) review of documentation - indeed no investigation at all.

The investigation into the content of those stories is only underway now via the independent tribunal (and for the moment at least, kept private as it always should have been). This tribunal were hand-selected to provide the most supportive position for the ex-players partners and ex-partners. They are all leaders in their field, and undoubtedly will provide a fair and honest investigation - but they were chosen for their background and status in the indigenous community.

There are no "facts" that have been decided yet. The "evidence" (word documents of copy-pasted versions of the alleged emails and texts) used in the article has not been tested (at least publicly) for legitimacy. There are accusations and allegations which will be investigated (at least the ones that haven't been withdrawn already).

My view hasn't changed since day 1 - they are horrific stories, I hope they aren't true. If they are, Clarkson will never coach again and the ex-players, partners and ex-partners should be entitled to some form of compensation.

Could've sworn they offered to hold publishing to give Clarko a chance to respond.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Could've sworn they offered to hold publishing to give Clarko a chance to respond.

No, that was the ABC article "about" the report, not the Egan "report".

And my understanding from the 50-odd pages of discussion about proper journalistic procedure was that Clarkson et al were invited to offer comments for the story, without being provided any knowledge of the actual content of the allegations.

 

[boncer34]

No, that was the ABC article "about" the report, not the Egan "report".

And my understanding from the 50-odd pages of discussion about proper journalistic procedure was that Clarkson et al were invited to offer comments for the story, without being provided any knowledge of the actual content of the allegations.

Oh so they were given a chance to respond to the story?

 

[Forward Press]

Has the narrative shifted again?

Why on earth would a journalist contacting someone asking for comment due to an impending article not actually tell them what was in the aforementioned article? If that was the case, surely Clarkson et al would have immediately stated that was what happened and the lawsuits start to fly.

"Hi, I'm a journalist and I am going to release a damaging article about you. Care to comment?"
"What are you intending to write?"
"Cannot say that mate, now respond or I will run with the article"
"..."

 

[sr36]

And my understanding from the 50-odd pages of discussion about proper journalistic procedure was that Clarkson et al were invited to offer comments for the story, without being provided any knowledge of the actual content of the allegations.

In terms of journalistic procedure, this article contains some pretty clear statements about attempts to get a response:

‘Accurate, fair and ethical’: ABC rejects ‘misleading’ claims about handling of Hawks racism report

‘Accurate, fair and ethical’: ABC rejects ‘misleading’ claims about handling of Hawks racism report

www.foxsports.com.au

On Friday, the ABC addressed “misleading public commentary” surrounding the report.

“It has been stated or implied that the three former Hawthorn employees named in the story were denied a fair opportunity to properly respond to the ABC’s reporting,” a statement read.

On Monday 19 September and into the following day all three were contacted multiple times by the ABC, via email, phone call and text message. Also contacted were the media teams at Hawthorn and the Brisbane Lions and the personal management of one of the individuals.

“They were provided with all relevant information about the allegations. They were asked detailed and open-ended questions that gave them the opportunity to fully respond to all the allegations.

“After initially receiving no response, the ABC contacted all the parties again and offered them more time in which to respond. We again received no response to the questions.

 

[Forward Press]

In terms of journalistic procedure, this article contains some pretty clear statements about attempts to get a response:

‘Accurate, fair and ethical’: ABC rejects ‘misleading’ claims about handling of Hawks racism report

‘Accurate, fair and ethical’: ABC rejects ‘misleading’ claims about handling of Hawks racism report

www.foxsports.com.au

On Friday, the ABC addressed “misleading public commentary” surrounding the report.

“It has been stated or implied that the three former Hawthorn employees named in the story were denied a fair opportunity to properly respond to the ABC’s reporting,” a statement read.

On Monday 19 September and into the following day all three were contacted multiple times by the ABC, via email, phone call and text message. Also contacted were the media teams at Hawthorn and the Brisbane Lions and the personal management of one of the individuals.

“They were provided with all relevant information about the allegations. They were asked detailed and open-ended questions that gave them the opportunity to fully respond to all the allegations.

“After initially receiving no response, the ABC contacted all the parties again and offered them more time in which to respond. We again received no response to the questions.

Exactly this. So I have no f***ing idea why Simon Nesbit and blackshadow are running with the narrative that Clarkson, Fagan and Burt weren't aware of anything until the article was published. Has enough time passed that people are revising actual history now?

 

[yodellinhank]

Exactly this. So I have no f***ing idea why Simon Nesbit and blackshadow are running with the narrative that Clarkson, Fagan and Burt weren't aware of anything until the article was published. Has enough time passed that people are revising actual history now?

History didn't happen in the way that it has been described.

 

[Forward Press]

History didn't happen in the way that it has been described.

This thread in a nutshell:

 

[mcnulty]

If that was the case, surely Clarkson et al would have immediately stated that was what happened and the lawsuits start to fly

Well the media has completely clammed up. I mean from full throttle to crickets. And this happened pretty much overnight. Maybe this is because of the media’s inherent concern with procedural fairness.

 

[Forward Press]

Well the media has completely clammed up. I mean from full throttle to crickets. And this happened pretty much overnight. Maybe this is because of the media’s inherent concern with procedural fairness.

It's because there is nothing to report since the AFL and armies of lawyers are now dealing with it and for obvious reasons all parties want to keep it hush. There's only so much you can do with rumours and innuendo, hence the vast majority of those posting since shortly after the story broke are people who are guessing, speculating and theorising and arguing with those who didn't guess, speculate or theorise the same way as them.

It does not permit you and others to engage in historical revisionism, however.

 

[sr36]

Well the media has completely clammed up. I mean from full throttle to crickets. And this happened pretty much overnight. Maybe this is because of the media’s inherent concern with procedural fairness.

We've got some innuendo from Eddie and a very hypothetical "maybe" from you versus a very clear account of multiple attempts to make contact by the ABC.

 

[mcnulty]

for obvious reasons all parties want to keep it hush.

Umm..you missed the Jackson article? And the subsequent leak to Newscorp a few days later? But now they want to keep it quiet?

 

[mcnulty]

We've got some innuendo from Eddie and a very hypothetical "maybe" from you versus a very clear account of multiple attempts to make contact by the ABC.

I’m not talking about that mate.

 

[sr36]

I’m not talking about that mate.

Did you mean that the media might have clammed up due to respecting the procedural fairness of an investigation?

If a leak comes they'll giddily and gleefully print it.

 

[Forward Press]

Umm..you missed the Jackson article? And the subsequent leak to Newscorp a few days later? But now they want to keep it quiet?

I meant the AFL investigation now happening as a result of the allegations. For obvious reasons, the media and us aren't privy to what is happening behind closed doors. Anyway, off to unwatch this thread, because no point discussing anything more until actual stuff happens, just wanted to weigh in on posters perpetuating misinformation about the initial reporting of the Egan investigation.