NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed. Part 3

[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

AFL Ends Investigation - 'Imperfect resolution' as Hawks probe ends, no one charged

DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[BangyBangy]

Unfortunately for North, Clarkson is still a chair-throwing man child

After certain poor performances, some players need chairs thrown at them.

What's your problem?

 

[Kanga Commando]

South of the Yarra is running with the academic definition of racism, where it is deemed racism if it has an extra negative effect for people of a particular cultural group. Which is different to the layman's defnition which assumes some negative intent towards that cultural group in order to categorise it as racism.

No idea how a body like the HRC would define it.

Yep - for sure.

The ramifications of a decision like this can be far reaching, and I'm not necessarily saying thats a bad thing.

Maybe the HRC will make a determination that surprises us all.

 

[sr36]

I don't doubt the coaches want to tell their versions. they are angry and want to clear their names. But Burt was foolish to speak when it was clear he couldn't provide the detail he wanted to. As you say, he probably had poor counsel. They should just shut up and sue. They don't need to either smear the victims or risk saying something that undermines their case.

They're not taking it to court. Burt's story made it clear that they were over-involved in personal lives. Even if they won a defamation case, it's pretty likely that they wouldn't come out with their reputations restored.

 

[portly]

Swept under the rug, not the AFL’S problem any more.

Was always going to happen. That's the AFL way.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Of course they could deny the aspects of the reported claims that they disagree with - Fagan is actually making statements about categorical denial, which doesn't make sense in the context of Burt's story. But yes, they would be ill-advised to talk to the reported claims. Personally I think Clarko has been ill-advised to have spoken about how keen he is to tell his version of events - detracts from his credibility on the matter, unless he takes the fraught path of actually doing it.

All they can say at this point though is that they deny the accusations. They don’t technically know who made them. To give anymore context could potentially remove the anonymity that the people involved have requested.

They can’t do anymore currently. They’ve denied the allegations, that’s all they can say. We can believe them if we’d like, or not. But until the accusations are made formal, which they may or may not be, that’s it. It’s neither good nor bad, it’s just it.

 

[eastfreo75]

And yet a day later the AFL drops the investigation.

Fagan is willing to. He said he would be ok with all documents made public. He wants the fight to clear his name.

But he refused to talk to the investigation.

Best legal advice is not to say anything but don’t claim you wanted to talk.

 

[perplexed]

They're not taking it to court. Burt's story made it clear that they were over-involved in personal lives. Even if they won a defamation case, it's pretty likely that they wouldn't come out with their reputations restored.

I think Clarkson might. But we shall see.

 

[sr36]

All they can say at this point though is that they deny the accusations. They don’t technically know who made them. To give anymore context could potentially remove the anonymity that the people involved have requested.

They can’t do anymore currently. They’ve denied the allegations, that’s all they can say. We can believe them if we’d like, or not. But until the accusations are made formal, which they may or may not be, that’s it. It’s neither good nor bad, it’s just it.

Burt showed that they could if they wanted to. I don't know why they'd want to though. They should shut up about wanting to.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

In the letter he published this evening he mentioned he'd been all of the reports, however cannot comment publicly on the contents

Yes, because the accusers are currently anonymous, which they were told they would be in the original process and have rightfully requested since. I have no doubt the coaches actually know who they are being accused by, but they technically do not.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Burt showed that they could if they wanted to. I don't know why they'd want to though. They should shut up about wanting to.

No, they are within their rights to protest their innocence, just as the people in the report are within their right to not formally take it further. Burt really didn’t say anything.

Most people on here want a black or white conclusion to this, as it stands tonight, they won’t get it (we rarely get what we want, such is life). That may change, or it may not. You can believe one side or the other, or believe both of them to an extent - it won’t change how things stand currently.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

They're not taking it to court. Burt's story made it clear that they were over-involved in personal lives. Even if they won a defamation case, it's pretty likely that they wouldn't come out with their reputations restored.

They’re not taking it to court because there is no court to take it to regardless of the strength of their case (I don’t know how strong or weak it may be, neither do you).

 

[sr36]

They’re not taking it to court because there is no court to take it to regardless of the strength of their case (I don’t know how strong or weak it may be, neither do you).

This is in reference to a potential defamation case - assumedly against the ABC.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

No. He's still cranking out articles.

I mean the abc set the bar pretty low for 'journalists' though.

 

[South of the Yarra]

A group of Aboriginal ex players come out and make an accusation of racism and hardly anyone believes them.
A coach comes out tonight and proclaims his innocence and most believe him.

Can someone explain why?

 

[Jim Prideaux]

This is in reference to a potential defamation case - assumedly against the ABC.

But the ABC didn’t defame them, at least not from what I saw. And there in is where this sits. Nothing has been formally alleged against them, they can’t defend an allegation that hasn’t been made - yet.

 

[jackolanturn]

A group of Aboriginal ex players come out and make an accusation of racism and hardly anyone believes them.
A coach comes out tonight and proclaims his innocence and most believe him.

Can someone explain why?

because you are presumed innocent until your actually proven guilty regardless of your race

then the AFL had a 6 month investigation into the matter and declared the coach had done nothing wrong

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

A group of Aboriginal ex players come out and make an accusation of racism and hardly anyone believes them.
A coach comes out tonight and proclaims his innocence and most believe him.

Can someone explain why?

Because people believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[spudmaster]

Sick beat drop from Gil tonight.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

because you are presumed innocent until your actually proven guilty regardless of your race

then the AFL had a 6 month investigation into the matter and declared the coach had done nothing wrong

Well, not quite, they had nothing to answer under the regulations of the AFL. That’s not the same as nothing wrong.

 

[sr36]

No, they are within their rights to protest their innocence, just as the people in the report are within their right to not formally take it further. Burt really didn’t say anything.

Most people on here want a black or white conclusion to this, as it stands tonight, they won’t get it (we rarely get what we want, such is life). That may change, or it may not. You can believe one side or the other, or believe both of them to an extent - it won’t change how things stand currently.

I'm not talking about protesting their innocence. You claim that Fagan can't speak to the allegations because there are no allegations, yet he's categorically denied the allegations. It doesn't make sense

 

[South of the Yarra]

because you are presumed innocent until your actually proven guilty regardless of your race

then the AFL had a 6 month investigation into the matter and declared the coach had done nothing wrong

You might want to go read the Jordan De Goey threads, many of the same posters that happily proclaimed his guilt. You know the reason.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

A group of Aboriginal ex players come out and make an accusation of racism and hardly anyone believes them.
A coach comes out tonight and proclaims his innocence and most believe him.

Can someone explain why?

1. Plenty of people had the accused strung up and prosecuted the moment the accusations came out.

2. Very few people have backed the accused. Many have said they want it investigated, and if proven, have them prosecuted.
Not instantly swinging the way you think does not mean people don't support you in what you think

 

[Walshawk]

Who leaked the report to the ABC?

 

[jackolanturn]

You might want to go read the Jordan De Goey threads, many of the same posters that happily proclaimed his gult. You know the reason.

um because there was video evidence of him in a nightclub doing things which weren't to say the least what you would expect from an AFL player. Same with Bailey Smith, Sydney Stack etc etc

difference here is there is zero evidence apart from hearsay

 

[Devington]

People knew who the accused were and had a mostly favorable opinion of them, the allegations came out in an underhanded manner via the media, and the people making the claims are (reasonably enough) anonymous. That had a decently sized influence.