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DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[Osho]

I will say Hardwick seems a good bloke that will defend his friends when he’s not trading in his wife for a younger model or abusing vfl players

“Alastair Clarkson’s treatment has been labelled “incredibly disheartening” and a “bit distasteful” by fellow AFL coach Damien Hardwick amid growing support for the embattled ex-Hawks mentor.”

Be more like Hardwick AP

Hey, Dimma's a Richmond man.

If you live next door to one, lock your doors and windows, and buy a dog!

 

[ferball]

Who cares that's personal . A bit different from what could be inferred as a death threat to a journalist.

You're saying Clarkson is likely to act like Mahindra Rajapaksa, Vladimir Putin and El Chapo (among others) all of whom have threatened journalists then had them killed.

And you're expecting us to think that what he said to Moss is comparable to what they said (and then did.)

There were nearly 70 journalists killed last year because they were doing journalism and your comment is basically pissing on their graves.

 

[Chief]

You're saying Clarkson is likely to act like Mahindra Rajapaksa, Vladimir Putin and El Chapo (among others) all of whom have threatened journalists then had them killed.

He's really not.

 

[domin8]

You're saying Clarkson is likely to act like Mahindra Rajapaksa, Vladimir Putin and El Chapo (among others) all of whom have threatened journalists then had them killed.

And you're expecting us to think that what he said to Moss is comparable to what they said (and then did.)

There were nearly 70 journalists killed last year because they were doing journalism and your comment is basically pissing on their graves.

That’s a massive stretch

 

[domin8]

Misogynistic abusive behaviour is ok as long as no one gets physically hurt? Coercive Control in a nutshell

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

You're saying Clarkson is likely to act like Mahindra Rajapaksa, Vladimir Putin and El Chapo (among others) all of whom have threatened journalists then had them killed.

And you're expecting us to think that what he said to Moss is comparable to what they said (and then did.)

There were nearly 70 journalists killed last year because they were doing journalism and your comment is basically pissing on their graves.

Another divergent, distracting irrelevant post.It's almost like you don't want to ever talk about what Clarkson has done. Time to address the issues mate.
Best to sack him, North deserve better than him.

 

[FlyHigh18]

Misogynistic abusive behaviour is ok as long as no one gets physically hurt? Coercive Control in a nutshell

Massive stretch with "misogynistic" and "abusive".

It was unprofessional and someone took offense.

 

[faible]

This is one of the most deranged and ill-informed posts in this thread. Well done.

Well this was false.

You keep claiming North supporters are 'trying to downplay the seriousness of the accusations', this has never happened. We are waiting to see what the AFL investigation finds before hanging anyone whilst vipers like you bay for Clarkson's blood.

Untrue. I've said some North supporters. Like old banned mate Simpkin did, for hundreds of posts.

I get it, he's the coach you hope will drag the club out of a shitty few years. It sucks. Doesn't mean to need to spend page upon page defending him for things he's accused of doing elsewhere. Meanwhile Hawks supporters have been pretty scathing about it.

As for the bit about the ABC article not being based on Egan's report, wtf? Jackson may or may not have been leaked the report, but the whole article is about it and based on re-interviewing a few players and their partners who took part in it. He doesn't seem to have done any investigation beyond what is contained in the report.

Read the article some time. The majority of the article, and all the accusations, are based upon interviews with past players and their families. He certainly wasn't repeating what was in the report.

Yet again though, trying to obfuscate, exactly what I've said you've been doing. Distract and downplay. Clarkson isn't wrong, the report is wrong. Clarkson isn't wrong, the ABC article is wrong. Clarkson isn't wrong - oh look over there Buckley, Lyon, <anyone>.

 

[faible]

I've said repeatedly on this thread and others where I draw the line on this situation and you're happy to ignore that. I don't consider those allegations anything more than allegations at this point, and I can see how someone who didn't intend to pressure someone else to end a relationship or end a pregnancy could come across as doing that, especially in this situation.

Oh well if he didn't mean to bully someone in to an abortion it's ok then I guess.

But for that to be as bad as you are making out there has to be intent there and if there isn't that intent then its not as bad as you are making out. We're not talking about 2023 and the standards we apply here and now, we're talking about events that happened before most people had even heard of BLM. We're talking about a club where Jeff Kennett is a major powerbroker yet the guy we're criticising recruited more blackfellas than the whole club in the previous 50 years.

Yeah, great guy Clarko. Brought in more Indigenous players than a club that had never recruited any under some extremely dubious (and likely racist) recruitment policies. Therefore he can't be a bad guy. Also 10 years ago isn't exactly a lifetime ago....

You're also making comments like "I'm more upset with this person than that" when I'm not upset at all. Just pointing out obvious contexts and parallels that seem to be ignored. I'm explaining why I don't trust alot of peoples continued crap about this.

You seem to be placing a lot more trust in Clarkson's denials than you are the accounts of the Indigenous past players and their families.

Alot of people bang on about concern for indigenous people but a poster who is a member of the stoilen generation put up a link to a footy team in the NT to get donations. People on this thread and the North board donated money but alot more people are putting the boots in here than donated there. Cos I checked to the best of my ability. Again if more people from this thread had donated more money maybe I wouldn't be as scornful in general (btw thanks to the people who did chuck in, even if it was 10 bucks. Including you Owen if you did.)

I don't read every page, I hadn't seen this. Happy to donate if they still need it and you've got the link though, probably best thrown in a main-board thread instead of buried in one that's on Part 2 with > 200 pages though.

Just for one little bit of context, my wife and I were together for nearly 20 years before we conceived our first kid. She was by then on a medication that has some known and other potential effects and risks in pregnancy. Our doctor advised us to get an abortion. I was annoyed at that at first but realised he didn't understand our situation and was recommending that on his understanding oif medicine etc, not because he didn't want us having kids.

The bolded is the point though, a medical professional was providing medical advice. There is settings where such advice is appropriate and relevant. Coming from a senior coach concerned about how good someone might be able to football is neither appropriate or relevant. And if it comes out that he only ever did it to Indigenous players, well, that's even worse.

 

[perplexed]

Read the article some time. The majority of the article, and all the accusations, are based upon interviews with past players and their families. He certainly wasn't repeating what was in the report.

Yet again though, trying to obfuscate, exactly what I've said you've been doing. Distract and downplay. Clarkson isn't wrong, the report is wrong. Clarkson isn't wrong, the ABC article is wrong. Clarkson isn't wrong - oh look over there Buckley, Lyon, <anyone>.

You might want to compare the article and the report again. It is the same people saying the same things. Some quotes are almost word for word.

What planet are you on where talking about the review is obfuscation but speculating on what a coach said to a reporter about something else is relevant?

 

[faible]

You might want to compare the article and the report again. It is the same people saying the same things. Some quotes are almost word for word.

What planet are you on where talking about the review is obfuscation but speculating on what a coach said to a reporter about something else is relevant?

How surprising that people being interviewed about the same topic would say the same thing...

You're trying to redirect the discussion to anything but the contents of the article or the report.

Jackson may or may not have been leaked the report

Irrelevant.

the whole article is about it

Except as discussed, most of the article is about the interviews, not the report.

He doesn't seem to have done any investigation

Except you even admitted he did do investigation by;

re-interviewing a few players and their partners

 

[perplexed]

How surprising that people being interviewed about the same topic would say the same thing...

You're trying to redirect the discussion to anything but the contents of the article or the report.



Irrelevant.



Except as discussed, most of the article is about the interviews, not the report.



Except you even admitted he did do investigation by;

Are you okay?

Chopping up and misrepresenting my words isn't clever. The article is about the report. How you could think otherwise is beyond me.

 

[faible]

Are you okay?

Chopping up and misrepresenting my words isn't clever. The article is about the report. How you could think otherwise is beyond me.

Except for the whole bit where he interviews past players and their families about their experiences at Hawthorn?

Keep trying. Are they paying you yet?

 

[perplexed]

Except for the whole bit where he interviews past players and their families about their experiences at Hawthorn?

Keep trying. Are they paying you yet?

Oh ffs. They are the same families as in the report. Jackson even says that in the article

Three families at the centre of the investigation have told ABC Sport about the grief and trauma caused by their experiences.

I don't get why you are questioning this. Anyway, I've wasted enough of my time on you.

 

[Rich01]

I will say Hardwick seems a good bloke that will defend his friends when he’s not trading in his wife for a younger model or abusing vfl players

“Alastair Clarkson’s treatment has been labelled “incredibly disheartening” and a “bit distasteful” by fellow AFL coach Damien Hardwick amid growing support for the embattled ex-Hawks mentor.”

Be more like Hardwick AP

Deflect

 

[faible]

Oh ffs. They are the same families as in the report. Jackson even says that in the article

Three families at the centre of the investigation have told ABC Sport about the grief and trauma caused by their experiences.

I don't get why you are questioning this. Anyway, I've wasted enough of my time on you.

So the article isn’t about the report but about;

Three families at the centre of the investigation have told ABC Sport about the grief and trauma caused by their experiences.

But keep on attempting to somehow distract from it by bringing up all kinds of irrelevant things.

 

[Square Peg]

Oh ffs. They are the same families as in the report. Jackson even says that in the article

Three families at the centre of the investigation have told ABC Sport about the grief and trauma caused by their experiences.

I don't get why you are questioning this. Anyway, I've wasted enough of my time on you.

Mate you are repeatedly copping unfair attacks on this thread. There are a number of people placing their zeal for hangings over everything else, and who fail or deliberately refuse to recognise that the whole edifice that launched this, from Egan to Jackson, is a dog's breakfast of due process. One that will (I predict) fail to produce the hangings of individuals they're calling for and most likely lead to an apology from the ABC to avoid defamation proceedings, even though I am sure these coaches are bullies that behaved poorly.
For pointing this obvious fact out, you're apparently a paid North stooge because of the club you support. Obviously you have skin in the game, but I think your posts have in the main been fine and worth reading.

 

[Chief]

deliberately refuse to recognise that the whole edifice that launched this, from Egan to Jackson, is a dog's breakfast of due process.

Whatever the process, these people have real stories.

The formal investigation - which the report called for - should be more thorough.

The report wasn't a full and formal investigation. It was a report for the club and the club only.

The person behind the report doesn't change the stories of the people affected.

 

[Square Peg]

Whatever the process, these people have real stories.

The formal investigation - which the report called for - should be more thorough.

The report wasn't a full and formal investigation. It was a report for the club and the club only.

The person behind the report doesn't change the stories of the people affected.

Indeed, it was a report for club and club only, conducted without due process and duly leaked (most likely by its author) to the ABC to weaponise. The stories are harrowing. Not sure that in any way excuses a lack of fair process.

 

[sr36]

Indeed, it was a report for club and club only, conducted without due process and duly leaked (most likely by it's author) to the ABC to weaponise. The stories are harrowing. Not sure that in any way excuses a lack of fair process.

Doesn't excuse a lack fair process and there doesn't appear to be a lack in the investigation. The leaking of the report also doesn't undermine the claimant's claims. Who cares how the claims came to light. They're rightly being investigated.

 

[Square Peg]

Doesn't excuse a lack fair process and there doesn't appear to be a lack. The leaking of the report also doesn't undermine the claimant's claims.

I would suggest refusing to repeat those claims to the full and formal investigation undermines those claims

 

[sr36]

I would suggest refusing to repeat those claims to the full and formal investigation undermines those claims

Nah. It makes it less likely that their will be a negative finding. But says nothing about the claims themselves.

 

[Square Peg]

Nah. It makes it less likely that their will be a negative finding. But says nothing about the claims themselves.

Agreed, your wording is better. Clearly there was some interaction and bullying that left the affected parties feeling very aggrieved. Fortunately from my perspective, unfortunately from the perspective of some others in this thread, we don't live in a star chamber

 

[czero]

Nah. It makes it less likely that their will be a negative finding. But says nothing about the claims themselves.

Huh? It's impossible to have a negative finding against someone that has no case put against them - well at least I would of thought its impossible!

Perhaps you mean it doesn't undermine the other claims.

 

[sr36]

Huh? It's impossible to have a negative finding against someone that has no case put against them - well at least I would of thought its impossible!

Perhaps you mean it doesn't undermine the other claims.

I didn't say no case put against them. I'm pretty confident that no victim has ever testified in a murder trial, yet there are people in jail for murder. Obviously it would be easier to try people for murder if the victims did testify, but who knows what evidence there is or isn't or whether anyone else is willing to testify, etc ..