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

Remove this Banner Ad

Wosh

Admin
May 27, 2007
91,073
172,450
Bluestone Station
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Roy!
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
 
Last edited:

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
37,059
52,235
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
Her lawyer stated on radio that the hawthorn review did not turn out to be as culturally safe as she was lead to believe it would
Did he say "culturally" unsafe. My recollection is that he was talking about anonymity and pressure to retell and defend her story. And obviously talking to Egan has put her anonymity at risk and pressured her to participate in further inquiries where she would be retelling her grief and also be challenged. It's opened her up to wellbeing risks. That was my take on what he was saying about safety, as opposed to the dog whistle of "culturally unsafe" that seems to have been inserted into this thread .
 
Last edited:

the big lebowski

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 4, 2006
13,022
26,028
The hood
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Did he say "culturally" unsafe. My recollection is that he was talking about anonymity and pressure to retell and defend her story. And obviously talking to Egan has put her anonymity at risk and pressured her to participate in further inquiries where she would be retelling her grief and also be challenged. It's opened her up to wellbeing risks. That was my take on what he was saying about safety, as opposed to the dog whistle of "culturally unsafe" that seems to have been inserted into this thread .
I’m not really sure why you feel the need to second guess what he said but the comment was made in relation to why Amy was not taking part in the afl investigation.

Her lawyer volunteered a parallel between the hawthorn investigation “not Turing out to be safe” and the afl investigation.

You’re coming across as the opposite of these north supporters you claim are trying to muddy the waters by speaking ill of the hawthorn report and the abc article, by employing a dogged defence of both despite even an actual participant speaking negative of the hawthorn report.

Almost like you have an unswayable view that won’t be changed no matter what anyone says.

Odd

For the record, despite the terms of reference specifically naming the hawthorn report as a matter for investigation, a key participant complaint about it, and potential leaks from the company that conducted it, the allegations against Clarkson are still being investigated.

It’s ok to question the process but still hold a single minded view that Clarkson be stripped of his livelihood as you so desperately seem to want.
 

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
37,059
52,235
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
I’m not really sure why you feel the need to second guess what he said but the comment was made in relation to why Amy was not taking part in the afl investigation.

Her lawyer volunteered a parallel between the hawthorn investigation “not Turing out to be safe” and the afl investigation.

You’re coming across as the opposite of these north supporters you claim are trying to muddy the waters by speaking ill of the hawthorn report and the abc article, by employing a dogged defence of both despite even an actual participant speaking negative of the hawthorn report.

Almost like you have an unswayable view that won’t be changed no matter what anyone says.

Odd

For the record, despite the terms of reference specifically naming the hawthorn report as a matter for investigation, a key participant complaint about it, and potential leaks from the company that conducted it, the allegations against Clarkson are still being investigated.

It’s ok to question the process but still hold a single minded view that Clarkson be stripped of his livelihood as you so desperately seem to want.

I wasn't defending the review (which I think was substandard) or the article . I'm just pointing out that he didn't say "culturally unsafe." It's been added into this conversation disingenuously, and is being treated as a truth.

I don't want Clarkson to be stripped of his livelihood. I'm merely pointing out another disingenuous little trick. It may end up being that Alastair didn't do anything much wrong - that'd be great, but rhetorical deciept is still embedded right through this thread.

The review and article are now pretty irrelevant, it's about the allegations that the review uncovered and the article reported on. That's what I'm unbendable about.without players making accusations - there is no story. Someone can try to shift the focus to all these other things which only exist because of the accusations, but the accusations are still the story and whether or not they're truthful, mitigatable or provable.

So feel free to get tricked into focussing on a whole lot of irrelevant crap, but I'll point out the trickery when I see it.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Osho

Literally
Jul 9, 2021
2,613
2,652
AFL Club
GWS
Origins of culturally unsafe terminilogy...

Amy's legal rep mentions it several times here.

Looks too like the Egan review (actually called a "Hawthorn cultural safety review") is seen as opening Amy up to an AFL process that will be unsafe if she is involved.
 

owen87

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
23,726
31,383
AFL Club
Essendon
I’m not really sure why you feel the need to second guess what he said but the comment was made in relation to why Amy was not taking part in the afl investigation.

Her lawyer volunteered a parallel between the hawthorn investigation “not Turing out to be safe” and the afl investigation.

You’re coming across as the opposite of these north supporters you claim are trying to muddy the waters by speaking ill of the hawthorn report and the abc article, by employing a dogged defence of both despite even an actual participant speaking negative of the hawthorn report.

Almost like you have an unswayable view that won’t be changed no matter what anyone says.

Odd

For the record, despite the terms of reference specifically naming the hawthorn report as a matter for investigation, a key participant complaint about it, and potential leaks from the company that conducted it, the allegations against Clarkson are still being investigated.

It’s ok to question the process but still hold a single minded view that Clarkson be stripped of his livelihood as you so desperately seem to want.

None of what you wrote really addressed what sr36 wrote.

Some people seem to be implying that Amy (via her lawyer) is claiming the report is now incorrect or somehow to be ignored, despite her lawyer's comments appearing to be much more in line with sr36's interpretation of it.

My recollection is that he was talking about anonymity and pressure to retell and defend her story. And obviously talking to Egan has put her anonymity at risk and pressured her to participate in further inquiries where she would be retelling her grief and also be challenged. It's opened her up to wellbeing risks.

Past players and their families were asked to anonymously participate in Egan's report process, to be given to Hawthorn. That was what they signed up for.

They're now being asked to go before a panel of legal people, in a very high profile AFL commissioned investigation.
 

the big lebowski

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 4, 2006
13,022
26,028
The hood
AFL Club
North Melbourne
None of what you wrote really addressed what sr36 wrote.

Some people seem to be implying that Amy (via her lawyer) is claiming the report is now incorrect or somehow to be ignored, despite her lawyer's comments appearing to be much more in line with sr36's interpretation of it.



Past players and their families were asked to anonymously participate in Egan's report process, to be given to Hawthorn. That was what they signed up for.

They're now being asked to go before a panel of legal people, in a very high profile AFL commissioned investigation.

“People (north supporters) insinuating the report was incorrect or should be ignored”

Just another misrepresentation to add to the pile
 

the big lebowski

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 4, 2006
13,022
26,028
The hood
AFL Club
North Melbourne
It's part of the process of devaluing the report so Clarkson gets away with any bad behaviour.

And yet it’s not.

It’s a legitimate discussion point based on a terms of reference set to investigate it and a participant calling it unsafe.

Yet you and others see fit to silence anyone (as long as they are a north supporter) even discussing it in a thread called “hawthorn racism review”.

And we also get to be comply misrepresented and misquoted.

Even if we agree that Clarksons actions need to be, and are being investigated.

Amazing
 

owen87

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
23,726
31,383
AFL Club
Essendon
Just another misrepresentation to add to the pile

It’s a legitimate discussion point based on a terms of reference set to investigate it and a participant calling it unsafe.

There it is again.

That nice little wordplay to make it seem much more nefarious than it is, to discredit the report.

Has Amy (or her lawyer) said that any comment she's made about her experiences were untrue?

Are you deliberately using the word 'unsafe' in the way you are to imply it means something different to how it's intended?

Is Amy feeling unsafe because people are attacking her credibility and story of her experience in defense of Clarkson, after she only agreed to speak on terms of confidential anonymity, but she's now been thrust in to an AFL tabled panel, where she'll lose that anonymity (at least partially) and be exposed to something beyond simply being asked to tell her story?
 

the big lebowski

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 4, 2006
13,022
26,028
The hood
AFL Club
North Melbourne
There it is again.

That nice little wordplay to make it seem much more nefarious than it is, to discredit the report.

Has Amy (or her lawyer) said that any comment she's made about her experiences were untrue?

Are you deliberately using the word 'unsafe' in the way you are to imply it means something different to how it's intended?

Is Amy feeling unsafe because people are attacking her credibility and story of her experience in defense of Clarkson, after she only agreed to speak on terms of confidential anonymity, but she's now been thrust in to an AFL tabled panel, where she'll lose that anonymity (at least partially) and be exposed to something beyond simply being asked to tell her story?

I’m discussing the report mate. Just like the thread title. And I’m using the words her lawyer said on Amy’s behalf.

I’m sorry that’s not ok with you given the only aspect of this broad issue you are ok discussing is how bad Clarkson is.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

owen87

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
23,726
31,383
AFL Club
Essendon
lol im using the words in a specific way?

Sorry for your troubles

Yes.

Using the word unsafe the way you are changes the meaning of it, and implies the report is in some way compromised by it, when it has little-to-nothing to do with the actual contents of the report.
 

the big lebowski

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 4, 2006
13,022
26,028
The hood
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Yes.

Using the word unsafe the way you are changes the meaning of it, and implies the report is in some way compromised by it, when it has little-to-nothing to do with the actual contents of the report.

Given I don’t believe that, it’s odd that I would say that.

But you obviously know more about my opinion than me
 

owen87

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
23,726
31,383
AFL Club
Essendon
Given I don’t believe that, it’s odd that I would say that.

But you obviously know more about my opinion than me

Perhaps stop writing things in such a way as to imply things you don't mean then.

Sounds to me a lot like Amy is taking issue with the AFL lead process and how it's going against things they were promised at point of requesting their participation in Egan's investigation.

For example the below are some quotes from the Marque Lawyers statement;


"In refusing to participate in this unsafe process (the AFL Investigation), Amy is refusing to consent to the silencing tactics of the AFL."

It is not culturally safe

A core tenet of cultural safety is that it is determined by the recipients of care, rather than its providers.

The AFL does not have the appropriate appetite, expertise or strategy to effectively address the matters raised in the Hawthorn Cultural Safety Review

The very first step taken by the AFL in the investigation has been to demand production of all personal information, including medical records, held by Hawthorn in relation to the players and their families. There is no safety in this; no regard to or respect for privacy, no cultural sensitivity, only brutal intrusion upon the most intimate and traumatic experiences in the lives of the victims of Hawthorn’s mistreatment.

The players and their families were promised anonymity by Hawthorn; now the club is asking them to consent to the disclosure of their personal information and doing nothing to protect them
 

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
37,059
52,235
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
And yet it’s not.

It’s a legitimate discussion point based on a terms of reference set to investigate it and a participant calling it unsafe.

Yet you and others see fit to silence anyone (as long as they are a north supporter) even discussing it in a thread called “hawthorn racism review”.

And we also get to be comply misrepresented and misquoted.

Even if we agree that Clarksons actions need to be, and are being investigated.

Amazing

Too much is being made of this. The AFL don't have the powers to investigate non-AFL things. They'll investigate the reviews ToR and whether they think it was an appropriate review to commission and whether it was broad enough to able to make findings on the requested things - and I'm pretty confident that the commissioning of that report will be viewed poorly. But they don't have the scope to investigate Egan's conduct - he's not part of the AFL. I don't think anyone disbelieves that these accusations were made both to Egan and Jackson. The Inquiry is about the accusations.
 
Last edited:

blackshadow

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 24, 2007
28,995
48,954
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Team WADA
Perhaps stop writing things in such a way as to imply things you don't mean then.

Sounds to me a lot like Amy is taking issue with the AFL lead process and how it's going against things they were promised at point of requesting their participation in Egan's investigation.

For example the below are some quotes from the Marque Lawyers statement;


So they spat the dummy because the terms of reference weren’t exactly what they wanted?

I doubt any party including the AFL got everything they wanted in the terms of reference.
 

blackshadow

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 24, 2007
28,995
48,954
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Team WADA
giphy.gif
 

Remove this Banner Ad