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DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[South of the Yarra]

​

Some people may need to familiarise themselves with the Human Rights document below.

https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/declaration_poster.pdf

 

[Del191229]

The journalism that I like, that's journalism! Investigative journalism that hurts my club, that's poor journalism!

Clarkson is starting on his contracted date.

 

[Makeshift Park]

If people could stop assuming that the ABC would just print something outrageously defamatory without basic checking, that would be great

TBH, its probably best for this whole discussion if people accepted that there's a good reason why the ABC is the most trusted news organisation in Australia; but that doesn't mean it gets everything right and wins every defamation case against it and its reporters.

 

[sr36]

TBH, its probably best for this whole discussion if people accepted that there's a good reason why the ABC is the most trusted news organisation in Australia; but that doesn't mean it gets everything right and wins every defamation case against it and its reporters.

Judging by what you've taught me about defamation laws, there's got to be risk attached every time they publish a story of an allegation.

 

[Gralin]

Why didn't Jackson talk to Cyril Rioli, given his experiences kicked the whole review and story off?

Maybe Rioli would have told him stuff that didn't suit his pre-determined narrative?

still shooting the messenger while claiming to believe the people I see

this is your predetermined narrative

 

[Gralin]

Like we're well past the original article now SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay and you keep complaining that people aren't past that but you won't let your narrative that the article is bad go either

 

[Del191229]

still shooting the messenger while claiming to believe the people I see

this is your predetermined narrative

Mate you don't even know what Victoria's newly empowered indigenous truth telling commission which has offered to handle this matter is or does.

You're not seriously engaged in this particular issue, nor do you know the first thing about the wider issue.

Please stop replying to me with your trolling. I can't put you on ignore as I have many others in this thread

 

[gouki88]

Mate you don't even know what Victoria's newly empowered indigenous truth telling communion which has offered to handle this matter is or does.

You're not seriously engaged in this particular issue, nor do you know the first thing about the wider issue.

Please stop replying to me with your trolling

You're not seriously engaged either. You got very in your feelings about Jackson lashing out at your bestie, and stooped as low as to call it misogynistic, based on nothing.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Judging by what you've taught me about defamation laws, there's got to be risk attached every time they publish a story of an allegation.

I'm not an expert but I do have an ok practical understanding of this area.

Fair and accurate reports of allegations made in parliaments and courts don't generally carry any risk.
When the report concerns someone with a criminal history, the risk is generally pretty small, because that person isn't seen to have a good reputation to lose.
On the other hand, in a practical sense, the risk goes up if the complainant has an unblemished record, and if they're capable of financing an expensive defo action against the publisher, and if they can point to how the report resulted in them losing business opportunities.

I would have thought the article presented pretty high levels of defo risk from Clarkson and Fagan, which makes the decision to include the most egregious incident (the "he told me to kill my unborn kid" episode) so interesting, given the coaches and "Ian", in Jackson's own telling, were the only people with first hand knowledge of the incident.

 

[Gralin]

Mate you don't even know what Victoria's newly empowered indigenous truth telling commission which has offered to handle this matter is or does.

I know who the Yoorrook Justice Commission are, just because I hadn't read an age article doesn't mean anything more than that.

You're not seriously engaged in this particular issue, nor do you know the first thing about the wider issue.

I'm not engaged on the impact to the AFL or the clubs, I couldn't give less of a shit about sport

shut the whole thing down and I wouldn't care

Please stop replying to me with your trolling. I can't put you on ignore as I have many others in this thread

please stop banging on about Jackson and who you like better as a journalist then

because all you do is shit on absolutely everything written and said that might be bad for North then say you want it investigated by the Yoorrook Justice commission when called on your shit

if you actually cared you'd not be spending all your time complaining about one ****ing article

 

[perplexed]

There are people on this thread that should work o


'They', 'they', 'Their', 'Their', 'Their'. 'Their', 'Them'
Nice persuasive technique of exclusive language to position the reader.

Those words are called pronouns. You use them in place of a third person's name when talking about them. I was responding to post which identified who we were talking about and used the same pronouns a similar number of times but didn't attract your ire, I then further identified 'them' by referring to 'them' as 'the players'. I'm sure if I could be bothered I could go back and find that you have used the same pronouns to identify the same people in this thread.

If you have issues with what I was saying, let's hear it. But this sort of nonsense, really?

 

[Forward Press]

You're not seriously engaged either. You got very in your feelings about Jackson lashing out at your bestie, and stooped as low as to call it misogynistic, based on nothing.

Love how he has admitted he has put multiple people on 'ignore' - he doesn't like how this place isn't the North board and we actually want to discuss the merits of what has been reported instead of shooting the messenger without cause.

 

[Del191229]

I'm not engaged on the impact to the AFL or the clubs, I couldn't give less of a s**t about sport

shut the whole thing down and I wouldn't care

Why are you here then?

Genuine, serious question l.

 

[sr36]

I'm not an expert but I do have an ok practical understanding of this area.

Fair and accurate reports of allegations made in parliaments and courts don't generally carry any risk.
When the report concerns someone with a criminal history, the risk is generally pretty small, because that person isn't seen to have a good reputation to lose.
On the other hand, in a practical sense, the risk goes up if the complainant has an unblemished record, and if they're capable of financing an expensive defo action against the publisher, and if they can point to how the report resulted in them losing business opportunities.

I would have thought the article presented pretty high levels of defo risk from Clarkson and Fagan, which makes the decision to include the most egregious incident (the "he told me to kill my unborn kid" episode) so interesting, given the coaches and "Ian", in Jackson's own telling, were the only people with first hand knowledge of the incident.

Do cases often happen many years later? - At this stage there wouldn't be any damages in the form of lost earnings. And direct short term coaching damages, if they occur, won't be from the article, they'll be from the Review and the AFL inquiry.

 

[Curly5]

Culturally sensitive? This is not close to be culturally sensitive. The problem starts when hierarchies and power is involved. Many Aboriginal people have a mistrust of the system. Either they, their parents or Grandparents have been burnt by authorities, police, judges, wardens, governments teachers, ministers, barristers etc. The moment it is deemed a power imbalance many Aboriginal people will revert into a shell where if I close my mouth and not say anything I am a better chance of not being humiliated, belittled or in some cases dehumanised. Hold the meeting on a riverbank or beach with elders and you will find everything yu need to know.
Aboriginal people will not get a voice until we change the way systems are structured.

Have you any ideas about how you’d like systems to be restructured?

 

[Curly5]

4 out of 5 complainants, that were anonymous to one another all settled on the same lawyer 4 days after the article broke.

Is someone directing them behind the scenes?

 

[Del191229]

Love how he has admitted he has put multiple people on 'ignore' - he doesn't like how this place isn't the North board and we actually want to discuss the merits of what has been reported instead of shooting the messenger without cause.

If you do want to discuss the merits of what's been reported, why do you immediately have a giant sook about sHoOtiNg tHe mEsSeNgER any time anyone tries to do that?

 

[South of the Yarra]

Have you any ideas about how you’d like systems to be restructured?

Yes, make them culturally appropriate as I mentioned above but it will not happen, so we are wasting our breath. Don't hole meetings dressed suits in a board room, hold them on a beach. Take away the power imbalance.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Do cases often happen many years later? - At this stage there wouldn't be any damages in the form of lost earnings. And direct short term coaching damages, if they occur, won't be from the article, they'll be from the Review and the AFL inquiry.

The short answer is that defo action in this country usually has to be commenced within a year of the original publication.

 

[SunshineBoy]

No, the media have a right to report on current issues.

It's the way the acusers have gone about this. Remaining anonymous and going to the ABC instead of presenting to the AFL first. Then letting the AFL investigate and both parties use lawyers if necessary.

The ABC may have uncovered some evidence however nothing has been proven yet. In the mean time both Clarkson and Fagan have had their reputations damaged and have placed their new clubs in an awkward position.

I'm all for them being stood down if they are found guilty but the ABC have helped to ruin their reputation on some extremal distasteful and sensitive issues that they may be innocent of.

Seriously going to the AFL and let them investigate, how old are you ?

 

[Gralin]

Why are you here then?

Genuine, serious question l.

I am interested in the outcome of the situation given the serious nature of the allegations.

I just don't care about impact to the AFL or football clubs, the players and their families on the other hand I do care about.

I also mod this board

If you do want to discuss the merits of what's been reported, why do you immediately have a giant sook about sHoOtiNg tHe mEsSeNgER any time anyone tries to do that?

Journo xx would have written a better article because they wouldn't have published the story as written by Jackson isn't discussing the merit

I was a journo so I know what I'm talking about is just you trying to give yourself authority on the topic

you've had something like 70 posts in these threads just on Jackson and the reporting alone

you're primary issue is with Jackson and the reporting, not the allegations, not the impact on the players and their families

just on the bloke you blame for the shit sandwich North has to deal with because they chose to hire Clarkson

 

[sr36]

The short answer is that defo action in this country usually has to be commenced within a year of the original publication.

Is there that much risk then? The blokes aren't going to lose their jobs due to the article - they might over the inquiry, but that would make the article supported by evidence in the inquiry. How do they show evidential damages if the inquiry says not enough evidence?

 

[perplexed]

There are people on this thread that should work o


'They', 'they', 'Their', 'Their', 'Their'. 'Their', 'Them'
Nice persuasive technique of exclusive language to position the reader.

Thought I'd actually take your post seriously and check how often I used they, their, etc rather than saying 'the players' or similar.
I used 'the players' 3 times and replacement pronouns 10 times. Compared to the post I was replying to which was 3 times and 12 times. From this I conclude that you didn't like what I was saying so baselessly attacked my grammar instead. Nice one.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Thought I'd actually take your post seriously and check how often I used they, their, etc rather than saying 'the players' or similar.
I used 'the players' 3 times and replacement pronouns 10 times. Compared to the post I was replying to which was 3 times and 12 times. From this I conclude that you didn't like what I was saying so baselessly attacked my grammar instead. Nice one.

I actually gave you a compliment so move on. Get back to the issue which is the alleged abuse of Aboriginal people.

 

[sr36]

Thought I'd actually take your post seriously and check how often I used they, their, etc rather than saying 'the players' or similar.
I used 'the players' 3 times and replacement pronouns 10 times. Compared to the post I was replying to which was 3 times and 12 times. From this I conclude that you didn't like what I was saying so baselessly attacked my grammar instead. Nice one.

Yeah, I thought that was a bit odd. Particularly describing 'they', 'them', 'their' as exclusive language, when they are the inclusive terms of our age. I wasn't sure if it was serious or playing around with inclusive/exclusive.