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DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[TallyHawk]

Yep, she pins it on Hawthorn again. "The HFC shamefully shirked that responsibility by relinquishing it to the AFL to fix. But 'fixed' it is not. Battle lines have been entrenched.

"Too many peoples' lives have been turned upside down, including my clients, and there is no end in sight. What could have been a restorative and healing process underpinned by the truth, has been seriously corrupted."

Clarko and Courtin agree that Hawthorns actions were shameful.

Hawthorn didn’t shamefully shirk the issue to the AFL they were mandated to forward the content to the AFL.

It would appear however Hawthorn have historically shamefully turned a blind eye to senior officials over reaching with this distasteful level of intervention into players personal lives. Perhaps in less volatile ways with non-indigenous players.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ferball]

Here’s the quick definition for you, seeing as you think it’s “just emotive nonsense”.

Psychologists use the term “gaslighting” to refer to a specific type of manipulation where the manipulator is trying to get someone else (or a group of people) to question their own reality, memory or perceptions.

This draws very real parallels to Burt’s comments regarding the players and how they perceived or felt about what took place and if you can’t see that you’re blind.

So if he or anyone else put forward their view of events when questioned that is gaslighting? This is a situation where he is responding to an accusation in public with potential serious ramifications for him.

He isn't in an abusive relationship (beyond the relationship Australia has with indigenous people) with the players/families now.

Right now this is a public disagreement about what happened. Not gaslighting.

Its a dodgy saying anyway except in very specific situations because nobody has a perfect memory - everyone remembers things differently and there is no perfect record of events to compare memories to.

 

[ferball]

The Zac and Kylie account was an interesting response. He didn't dispute their main claims. He didn't dispute that Zac was pulled into a meeting with the 3 Hawks and told he had to leave his pregnant fiance. He cuts straight from a discussion with Zac to the three Hawks managers rocking up to the house to help enact a break up. Doesn't mention what happened in between and how the coaches became involved. Didn't say that Zac agreed to these bizarre measures. He left it very open for Zac's story to be accurate. He didn't dispute it. Just mentions a discussion which would give motive to the coaches to behave inappropriately. Didn't do them any favours in terms of getting their story out there - if they actually did no wrong

Its always been possible that this situation involved Zac claiming he wanted to leave and then not doing it. Its possible that the documents Clarkson and fagan are chasing shop a paper trail of discussions where Zac commits to leaving but says he is intimidated and doesn't want to.

 

[Chief]

He isn't in an abusive relationship

This isn't a prerequisite.

 

[sr36]

Its always been possible that this situation involved Zac claiming he wanted to leave and then not doing it. Its possible that the documents Clarkson and fagan are chasing shop a paper trail of discussions where Zac commits to leaving but says he is intimidated and doesn't want to.

If you were Burt and telling your version of events where you're claiming you have nothing to apologize for, would you leave out this sort of stuff? It could have been really badly reported, but his version of events, as reported, didn't sound good.

 

[HairyO]

Hawthorn didn’t shamefully shirk the issue to the AFL they were mandated to forward the content to the AFL.

It would appear however Hawthorn have historically shamefully turned a blind eye to senior officials over reaching with this distasteful level of intervention into players personal lives. Perhaps in less volatile ways with non-indigenous players.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Or perhaps in identical ways even with Indigenous players where it worked.

 

[TallyHawk]

Or perhaps in identical ways even with Indigenous players where it worked.

Perhaps it may work in some instances but these scenarios clearly crossed the line. It clearly goes further than buying a player a dog or putting them up in accommodation so their twins don’t keep them up all night.

I think initially it’s done with good intentions to support players doing it tough/ maximise performance but you need to understand boundaries and use available resources better suited to deal with these matters ie professional help or Egan in this instance.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Osho]

Sir Humphrey Appleby would have advised informal, unrecorded chats with existing players, testing the water first, if all clear carry out a limited "review" on said players. Making the "review" historical was entering a mine field, with eyes closed at night-time. HFC was extremely naive and or arrogant about their treatment of players. They thought everything was rosy.

I have wondered about 2 things:
-if HFC kept proper HR records then it would have been a matter of checking the records to know something of the problems. Does the AFL apply HR - player governance protocols for its clubs? It would be ironic if not given their marketing of care to players including Aborigines. Even more so with Kennet always banging on about governance. Windbag.
-if HFC had not torn off the unhealed scab of mistreatment of players, would the explayers have let it be and endured in silence, or would they have taken some action in any case? I assume I know the answer to this question, but assumptions are dodgy things.

 

[HairyO]

Perhaps it may work in some instances but these scenarios clearly crossed the line. It clearly goes further than buying a player a dog or putting them up in accommodation so their twins don’t keep them up all night.

I think initially it’s done with good intentions to support players doing it tough/ maximise performance but you need to understand boundaries and use available resources better suited to deal with these matters ie professional help or Egan in this instance.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Clearly? Maybe "clearly to the former players and their families..." but we still dont even know the specifics. And we may never know.

There is a lot of bluster particularly from the lawyer of one of the ex players who isnt even a part of the AFL's investigation.

What are they waiting for? Why wouldnt they just go straight to the HRC?

 

[ferball]

If you were Burt and telling your version of events where you're claiming you have nothing to apologize for, would you leave out this sort of stuff? It could have been really badly reported, but his version of events, as reported, didn't sound good.

It seems like a chuink has just been edited out but time will tell on that.

Kennett's comments the other day and these do seem to be throwing fuel on the fire tho.

 

[Elixuh]

I’m just profiling you by your responses.

You have an issue with gaslighting being defined as… gaslighting, and you had a bit of a tizz that it could even be perceived that way because you seemingly don’t like poor behavior to be defined as such.

Here’s what Courtin and her client said.

Jason Burt has come out in today’s Age and provided his version of events in relation to my clients.

Whilst our clients are grateful to Jason Burt for acknowledging some elements of the past events, they are disgusted at how they are being downplayed, and in some instances, entirely misrepresented.

What you’re missing is the use of words in proper context.

Responding to allegations is not gaslighting in context.

Using the response from the complainants lawyer as a way to demonstrate gaslighting is not persuasive in context, ie she is engaged by the complainants to advocate on their behalf and of course that will be the response in the circumstances.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

So if he or anyone else put forward their view of events when questioned that is gaslighting? This is a situation where he is responding to an accusation in public with potential serious ramifications for him.

He isn't in an abusive relationship (beyond the relationship Australia has with indigenous people) with the players/families now.

Right now this is a public disagreement about what happened. Not gaslighting.

Its a dodgy saying anyway except in very specific situations because nobody has a perfect memory - everyone remembers things differently and there is no perfect record of events to compare memories to.

When he says “yeah it happened, and I feel uncomfortable about it, but you’re wrong to feel like I should say sorry, it made you a better person” it’s gaslighting.

 

[Elixuh]

Hawthorn didn’t shamefully shirk the issue to the AFL they were mandated to forward the content to the AFL.

It would appear however Hawthorn have historically shamefully turned a blind eye to senior officials over reaching with this distasteful level of intervention into players personal lives. Perhaps in less volatile ways with non-indigenous players.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I wonder if the complainants were made aware that any information they might share would be disclosed to other parties such as the AFL. My guess is no.

My biggest concern out of this entire saga is that Hawthorn has severely compromised pathways for players (especially First Nations players) to speak up and share their stories. Who would be encouraged to do so seeing what has happened?

 

[sr36]

When he says “yeah it happened, and I feel uncomfortable about it, but you’re wrong to feel like I should say sorry, it made you a better person” it’s gaslighting.

You've quoted things he didn't say. He wasn't talking to Zac at all.

Gaslighting has become an emotive buzz word. But it isn't simply disagreeing with someone's version or interpretation of events - otehrwise any disputed claim would involve gaslighting. It's a psychological term used to describe patterned behaviour in an abusive relationship - manipulative behaviour that results in someone questioning their reality to make them more exploitable.

Burt wasn't talking to or for Zac - he wasn't gaslighting him. He was trying to convince the general public of his own version of events and he was trying to convince the general public that he hadn't done anything wrong (very unconvincingly).

 

[ferball]

You've quoted things he didn't say. He wasn't talking to Zac at all.

Gaslighting has become an emotive buzz word. But it isn't simply disagreeing with someone's version or interpretation of events - otehrwise any disputed claim would involve gaslighting. It's a psychological term used to describe patterned behaviour in an abusive relationship - manipulative behaviour that results in someone questioning their reality to make them more exploitable.

Burt wasn't talking to or for Zac - he wasn't gaslighting him. He was trying to convince the general public of his own version of events and he was trying to convince the general public that he hadn't done anything wrong (very unconvincingly).

You saved me the trouble of saying this.

 

[Devington]

Additionally there's some pretty key differences with the actual facts presented, specifically Clarko forcing the separation vs Zac wanting it. It completely changes the context.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

You've quoted things he didn't say. He wasn't talking to Zac at all.

Gaslighting has become an emotive buzz word. But it isn't simply disagreeing with someone's version or interpretation of events - otehrwise any disputed claim would involve gaslighting. It's a psychological term used to describe patterned behaviour in an abusive relationship - manipulative behaviour that results in someone questioning their reality to make them more exploitable.

Burt wasn't talking to or for Zac - he wasn't gaslighting him. He was trying to convince the general public of his own version of events and he was trying to convince the general public that he hadn't done anything wrong (very unconvincingly).

He didn’t “simply disagree”. That’s exactly the point.

 

[Sentinel]

 

[sr36]

He didn’t “simply disagree”. That’s exactly the point.

You're using gaslighting incorrectly, which is standard at the moment as the Trumpeters jumped on the term in their claims of victimhood. Just research the term, rather than digging in - and you'll get it

But he didn't even really disagree. As he left out everything in between the player saying he had some concerns, and a posse of Hawks arriving at his doorstep. It's the in-between where the Zac version would have occurred - if it did occur.

 

[Rod Stroker]

The farce is over.

See you soon Clarko.

 

[Bluelegs]

Will the AFL be announcing how much they paid in hush money?

 

[Rod Stroker]

"No findings against Hawthorn trio"

How can they reach that conclusion when the trio haven't even been interviewed as part of the process?

What a debacle.

 

[CarnTheScray]

Wow. Who saw this coming guys.

 

[Bluelegs]

"No findings against Hawthorn trio"

How can they reach that conclusion when the trio haven't even been interviewed as part of the process?

What a debacle.

"We tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."

 

[The Nostradamus]

The farce is over.

See you soon Clarko.

it aint over its just now clarkos turn to get on the attack

his reputation has been unfairly tarnished, takes abc to the courts for defamation

hawks should get some sort of penalty for the farce of the review also