NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

[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

 

[blackshadow]

How can you guarantee that?

Ten years of media relations work.

You learn how journalists who really want comments act. They certainly don’t give up after a couple of emails and voicemails especially when the people have staff to handle their media engagements.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I can guarantee that the specific allegations were not supplied to the accused.

It was a vague request to respond to some unspecified allegations that occurred while the accused were at Hawthorn.

Would you respond if someone you didn’t know emailed you or left a voice message asking for comment on unspecified occurrences from years ago?

Fagan has a media manager at Brisbane and Clarkson has a manager. Any competent journalist who actually wanted comment would have contacted those conduits and the first thing they would do is request the specifics of the allegations. That didn’t happen.

ABC Sport put detailed questions about the allegations in this story to Clarkson, Fagan and Burt but at time of publication none had responded.

How do you know this did not happen.

If they were not supplied I am sure we would have heard about it by now as they article clearly stated that.

 

[blackshadow]

ABC Sport put detailed questions about the allegations in this story to Clarkson, Fagan and Burt but at time of publication none had responded.

How do you know this did not happen.

If they were not supplied I am sure we would have heard about it by now as they article clearly stated that.

As I said years of media relations work tells me that I’m right.

Clarkson is on record saying that the first he heard of the allegations was when the ABC published the article.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Ten years of media relations work.

You learn how journalists who really want comments act. They certainly don’t give up after a couple of emails and voicemails especially when the people have staff to handle their media engagements.

Might have been how you operated but does not mean others always do.

You make it sound like he had these 3 in his gun sights and was gunning for them anyway Possible.


He had the victims side and he would have wanted their side too, would not matter if it contradicted what the victims said. He would have wanted both sides in the story .

 

[sr36]

Remember when there was that Wuhan Coronavirus thing beginning. Some journos researched and reported on claims of whistle blowing doctors being silenced and arrested and an early attempt to cover up the disease by the government. Bloody appalling journalism that they printed that without getting a response from the Chinese Communist Party.

 

[blackshadow]

Might have been how you operated but does not mean others always do.

You make it sound like he had these 3 in his gun sights and was gunning for them anyway Possible.


He had the victims side and he would have wanted their side too, would not matter if it contradicted what the victims said. He would have wanted both sides in the story .

I firmly believe that if the accused were aware of the allegations that were going to be published that their legal teams would have sought injunctions (and most likely got at least temporarily) preventing publication.
There’s no way Jackson wanted his story spiked by pesky lawyers.

 

[blackshadow]

Remember when there was that Wuhan Coronavirus thing beginning. Some journos researched and reported on claims of whistle blowing doctors being silenced and arrested and an early attempt to cover up the disease by the government. Bloody appalling journalism that they printed that without getting a response from the Chinese Communist Party.

Wuhan, Cambodia. Where to next the Belgian Congo?

 

[Slartibartfast]

I had a story written about me ( as a victim) by Nick Mckenzie and Richard Baker. I was astonished how long winded the process was From the first interview to hitting the age newspaper.

They wanted details of anyone who also was involved or knew and they called everyone I mentioned to corroborate my story. They were polite but tough on those people too.
Then came back to me and interviewed again to clarify certain points .
it was 6-7 weeks in the making.

That articles by those two journalists are in the same vain as Jacksons and I have no doubt he would go through a similar process.

Your experience would not give you the insight to discount that Jackson did not offer detailed questions about the allegations in this story .

 

[blackshadow]

I had a story written about me ( as a victim) by Nick Mckenzie and Richard Baker. I was astonished how long winded the process was From the first interview to hitting the age newspaper.

They wanted details of anyone who also was involved or knew and they called everyone I mentioned to corroborate my story. They were polite but tough on those people too.
Then came back to me and interviewed again to clarify certain points .
it was 6-7 weeks in the making.

That articles by those two journalists are in the same vain as Jacksons and I have no doubt he would go through a similar process.

Your experience would not give you the insight to discount that Jackson did not offer detailed questions about the allegations in this story .

You’re talking about extremely talented investigative journalists.

Jackson is a very good long form story teller but he’s no investigative journalist.

 

[natio]

Russel Jackson is a jackal. He exploited the indigenous players and partners, under the pretense of help, when in fact it was clearly going to be detrimental to them.

1. To get past indigenous players to open up and take part in a review, Hawthorn had to bring in an indigenous consultant and promise the participants they could remain anonymous. So being anonymous was important to them.
2. Jackson either gets leaked the report, or does his own investigations, and talks to the aggrieved individuals.
3. The players and families feared Hawthorn and the AFL would do nothing with the report.
4. He convinces the individuals to go on record with their claims, to force Hawks/AFLs hand, and so he can publish his article.
5. After the article comes out, the aggrieved individuals retain lawyers such as Leon Zwier.
So we can safely assume that when Jackson was speaking with the past players and families, that they did not have lawyers or any representation.

In their situation at that point in time, no lawyer worth their salt would advise them to go public with full allegations. A shot across the bow, a subtle leak about one low level allegation and that the families are thinking about going public out of fear the AFL are going to sweep the whole thing under the rug. That would be enough to scare the afl.

Instead, by convincing the families to go public, it undermines their credibility in remaining anonymous. Secondly, it opens them up completely to potential libel actions from Clarkson or Fagon if they can pounce on any inaccuracies. Which would completely undo the ability to remain anonymous.

I am completely flabergasted that the past players and families did not have legal representation or professional support at the time of publication. The fact the Jackson and the ABC didn't do anything in this regard is quite disturbing.

The indienous past players and families were in a vulnerable position. They were dealing with past trauma, and reported serious mental health issues. Jackson and the ABC, instead of suggesting to these people that perhaps they should retain a lawyer to assess if going public is the best course of action for them, he exploits their desperation. Fine that's his job. But it's a bit gross. And definitely self serving. Especially when he hides behind doing it to "help the families"

 

[Slartibartfast]

Russel Jackson is a jackal. He exploited the indigenous players and partners, under the pretense of help, when in fact it was clearly going to be detrimental to them.

1. To get past indigenous players to open up and take part in a review, Hawthorn had to bring in an indigenous consultant and promise the participants they could remain anonymous. So being anonymous was important to them.
2. Jackson either gets leaked the report, or does his own investigations, and talks to the aggrieved individuals.
3. The players and families feared Hawthorn and the AFL would do nothing with the report.
4. He convinces the individuals to go on record with their claims, to force Hawks/AFLs hand, and so he can publish his article.
5. After the article comes out, the aggrieved individuals retain lawyers such as Leon Zwier.
So we can safely assume that when Jackson was speaking with the past players and families, that they did not have lawyers or any representation.

In their situation at that point in time, no lawyer worth their salt would advise them to go public with full allegations. A shot across the bow, a subtle leak about one low level allegation and that the families are thinking about going public out of fear the AFL are going to sweep the whole thing under the rug. That would be enough to scare the afl.

Instead, by convincing the families to go public, it undermines their credibility in remaining anonymous. Secondly, it opens them up completely to potential libel actions from Clarkson or Fagon if they can pounce on any inaccuracies. Which would completely undo the ability to remain anonymous.

I am completely flabergasted that the past players and families did not have legal representation or professional support at the time of publication. The fact the Jackson and the ABC didn't do anything in this regard is quite disturbing.

The indienous past players and families were in a vulnerable position. They were dealing with past trauma, and reported serious mental health issues. Jackson and the ABC, instead of suggesting to these people that perhaps they should retain a lawyer to assess if going public is the best course of action for them, he exploits their desperation. Fine that's his job. But it's a bit gross. And definitely self serving. Especially when he hides behind doing it to "help the families"

The only reason HFC and AFL are now moving on this is because of the public interest Due to the article .
They were both sitting on the report .

Your depiction of Jackson is a fantasay.

 

[Klem]

Fair chance one of the accusers has just been delisted by Nth.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Fair chance one of the accusers has just been delisted by Nth

North delisted 4 players, none were from hawthorn ??

 

[Makeshift Park]

North delisted 4 players, none were from hawthorn ??

Actually Jed was.

But fortunately we can rule him out because his life story is different to those told in the story.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Fair chance one of the accusers has just been delisted by Nth.

Zero chance.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

The only reason HFC and AFL are now moving on this is because of the public interest Due to the article .
They were both sitting on the report .

Your depiction of Jackson is a fafantasay.

The afl were handed the report. How hard is that to understand? Hawthorn were never sitting on it. They didn't do the whole song and dance Collingwood did because we saw how that turned out.

As for Jackson - let's put it like this. If I ring you/message you late at night when it's expected you won't be working and could miss the call, reasonably, there's 12 hours of time that could pass.
Then if you're in a high position, it could be expected the message would be pushed down the line due to numerous calls from others and new calls coming in
Oh look, there's a business day gone.

It's a known media tactic

 

[HirdsTheWord]

The only reason HFC and AFL are now moving on this is because of the public interest Due to the article .
They were both sitting on the report .

Your depiction of Jackson is a fantasay.

AFL were sitting on it for ~3 weeks, Hawthorn by reports provided it straight to the AFL.

Don't think you can tarnish Hawthorn as a club for not being open about it. Hawthorn's time for judgment will come if/when these allegations are proven true.

 

[sr36]

Wuhan, Cambodia. Where to next the Belgian Congo?

That's where I was for the brief sojourn with the journo who had gone underground with a local militia. He couldn't get his unbalanced article printed, until he also went underground with the military. Got to hold up the newly found principle that investigative journalism can't break a story without including all perspectives of the story.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Not great for one of the few female Presidents.

Yeah, it'd suck for her.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Messiah worship ... when will folk learn?

Ain't that the truth.

 

[HairyO]

He gave all parties a chance to comment, some declined. That is well researched. Nothing else he can do.

Youre smart enough not to believe that.

Giving someone a day or 2 to respond then going to print with a one sided story doesnt cover "all aspects" and you know it.

What words in defence of Burt Clarkson and Fagan were there? Which paragraphs covered their explanation on what they believe happened?

It was 100% one sided. And that is fine. He can print what his employer wants and what comes of it will come of it. Just dont pretend it is what it isnt. Balanced.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Sonja got away with "I'm really confident in his side of the story", which was a bizarre and inappropriate thing for her to say. I think that's what put Sonja in the rifle hairs.

No doubt.

Honestly, I felt it was bizarre for her to make those comments.

She has form in struggling with her public comments, but in both scenarios (this and the Noble presser trainwreck) she was in very difficult positions. Personally I excused her as 'politics talk' isn't her thing and even if it was, it was hard to win in that scenario. But to make a statement that supportive of Clarkson, which in turn rejected the alleged victims, was clunky. At best.

But I think it's obvious she's backtracked on the initial comment. The language used in the club issued statement is very different.

If you read that in isolation, without her original comment, you'd be excused for thinking that North are very concerned about him coaching there.

'incoming coach' makes it clear that he's not their man yet. Contrary to her original comment.

She separates clearly, her people at North from Clarkson this time. Very different to the original statement.

So although publicly she was cut some slack for initial comments, it's clear that behind the scenes North have repositioned themselves.

The second statement is about right IMO. Doesn't burn him, but certainly doesn't put its arms around him either.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Actually Jed was.

But fortunately we can rule him out because his life story is different to those told in the story.

Are you sure about that?

 

[Makeshift Park]

Are you sure about that?

Something I wrote on the NM board a while back:

we know for certain Jed can’t be any of the three mentioned in the article because his life story has key differences.

Ian: “Ian and Amy's relationship did not survive such harrowing events, but she is now speaking up for Ian, too”

Zac: “A few seasons into his career, he believed he was on the right track, developing and progressing as a player.”
“At the end of that season, Zac says he left Hawthorn for the betterment of his mental health and wellbeing. The couple pieced their lives back together, eventually experiencing the joy of parenthood.”

*Jed‘s final season with hawthorn was 2015. His first kid was born in 2013.

Liam: “In a flash, Liam's AFL career was done, heralding a far more difficult era for the family.”

 

[The Warlord]

Well, Sonja has more power and standing and resilience to set him straight.

Something Russell, in his arrogance and ignorance, overlooked when he thought he could give the little woman a clip for daring to think for herself.

The whole "Well silly Sonja just listened to Clarkson and believed everything he said" line as run by Rusty and others on this thread like is the worst kind of misogyny.

She's one of the most powerful people in footy. One of the 18 people who gets to vote in a few weeks on whether a new team is added to the competition or not.

And she's earned that standing, and built that resilience, by working her guts out with disadvantaged and often marginalised communities, for years. She ran The Huddle at North, she runs the community hubs helping migrant woman now.

Rusty grandstands and wants medals for staying in touch with the people who's stories he's using as leverage for another Walkley and to feed hsi white saviour complex.

Sonja's done the hard yards there for well over a decade, actual on the grounds hard work, not sitting behind a laptop in Frankston regurgitating a drop from Phil Egan.

It is also worth remembering that Sonja stood by Majak Daw when he was targeted by racist police and charged with serious offences - and she was vindicated there too.

I only came back on this thread because the one I started about Russell's nasty misogyny was moved here - thanks to you and Wosh for letting it happen.

I'll give it a rest now until there's further developments as there's no point relitigating the only publicly available material we have via Rusty's shoddy (very likely defamatory) reporting.

But I reckon now we've seen Rusty's ugly snarling poisonous fangs out in public, it might be worth considering why other folks involved/caught up in this are behaving the way they are.

I guarantee you that if Sonja was getting word from her vast and varied footy connections that there was a big fire under this smoke, or she felt Clarkson's responses weren't good enough, she wouldn't be risking her entire reputation and career like this.

She already sacked one coach this year, she can do it to another.