News The Hawthorn Allegations

Remove this Banner Ad

Ex College boys as a whole run our AFL. Including most journos and commentators. Many know this to be a fact. Boys club and yes mostly racist..

DeGoey was treated worse than Clarko is right now.
DeGoey is a college boy so why was he treated so harshly? You said you were a college boy. Are you racist?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

So….you agree with me?
I think any normally intelligent human would agree that IF the accusations are true then the accused should be sacked.
But, it's an IF not a IS at this stage.
 
DeGoey is a college boy so why was he treated so harshly? You said you were a college boy. Are you racist?
As a whole, college boys are twats.
Obviously not all.

They are running our competition whether you like it or not.
Doing a s**t job at it as well.
 
As a whole, college boys are twats.
Obviously not all.

They are running our competition whether you like it or not.
Doing a s**t job at it as well.
In what way? They keep growing the competition and bringing more money into the game. It has never been stronger. Indigenous players are increasing in number. They have created a women's comp. Record TV rights. Record membership. The game was dying in the mid 80s. If that's a s**t job then we have a different understanding of the word s**t.

Why are college boys any more twatish than any other kind of school boy or girl? It sounds like a silly generalization.
 
It has been suggested by a few posters in this thread that the indigenous complainants should not be required to participate in an AFL inquiry because their 'truth' should be accepted as a given. I imagine that many women probably feel the same about Brittany Higgins regarding her accusations against Bruce Lehmann. Had she not been subjected to cross examination, her claim that she had kept under her bed for 6 months the dress she wore the night that she was allegedly raped would have stood unquestioned. Under examination, it was revealed that she had in fact worn the same dress to a function only 6 weeks after the incident.

Chinks in the armour of even the most outwardly sincere of people can be exposed when subject to the due process of law or cross examination. Clarkson and Fagan may well be guilty of the accusations against them, but they deserve the opportunity to have the claims against them formally questioned. 'Cultural safety' should not include being released from a process of objectively testing the complainants' accusations. Justice needs to be seen to be done.
 
It has been suggested by a few posters in this thread that the indigenous complainants should not be required to participate in an AFL inquiry because their 'truth' should be accepted as a given. I imagine that many women probably feel the same about Brittany Higgins regarding her accusations against Bruce Lehmann. Had she not been subjected to cross examination, her claim that she had kept under her bed for 6 months the dress she wore the night that she was allegedly raped would have stood unquestioned. Under examination, it was revealed that she had in fact worn the same dress to a function only 6 weeks after the incident.

Chinks in the armour of even the most outwardly sincere of people can be exposed when subject to the due process of law or cross examination. Clarkson and Fagan may well be guilty of the accusations against them, but they deserve the opportunity to have the claims against them formally questioned. 'Cultural safety' should not include being released from a process of objectively testing the complainants' accusations. Justice needs to be seen to be done.
Do you think the Higgins case is a suitable example to use to make your point?
 
From day one I said let's wait to find the truth. Few others bothered to do that. I also said if it was all true they should be sacked. You can scroll through the thread. I was called a racist for writing just that. Lovely.

Woe is you, woe is you.

Why do you attract such venom?
 
It has been suggested by a few posters in this thread that the indigenous complainants should not be required to participate in an AFL inquiry because their 'truth' should be accepted as a given. I imagine that many women probably feel the same about Brittany Higgins regarding her accusations against Bruce Lehmann. Had she not been subjected to cross examination, her claim that she had kept under her bed for 6 months the dress she wore the night that she was allegedly raped would have stood unquestioned. Under examination, it was revealed that she had in fact worn the same dress to a function only 6 weeks after the incident.

Chinks in the armour of even the most outwardly sincere of people can be exposed when subject to the due process of law or cross examination. Clarkson and Fagan may well be guilty of the accusations against them, but they deserve the opportunity to have the claims against them formally questioned. 'Cultural safety' should not include being released from a process of objectively testing the complainants' accusations. Justice needs to be seen to be done.

It's under cross-examination that simple mistakes of memory can be described as 'chinks in the armour' of 'outwardly sincere people'.

It isn't everyone's cup of tea.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It's all fixed brother. White college boys looking out for one another.

I went to Wesley College and know what they're all about.

AFL run by college boys.

Unlike NRL which is run perfectly under ex players.

Not a huge fan of rugby although I kind of follow the Storm.


Guessing you weren't in 6C at Prahran then...
 
It's under cross-examination that simple mistakes of memory can be described as 'chinks in the armour' of 'outwardly sincere people'.

It isn't everyone's cup of tea.
So, people who make reputation destroying and at times life ending accusations should not be subjected to rigorous cross examination? Exposing someone's lies, cover ups and misrepresentations is surely a good thing when you are seeking the truth. Trials can go for weeks. If somebody simply misspeaks or genuinely can't recall something they have plenty of ways in which that can be brought to the attention of the jury or judge if they have a competent legal team or lawyer.
 
So, people who make reputation destroying and at times life ending accusations should not be subjected to rigorous cross examination? Exposing someone's lies, cover ups and misrepresentations is surely a good thing when you are seeking the truth. Trials can go for weeks. If somebody simply misspeaks or genuinely can't recall something they have plenty of ways in which that can be brought to the attention of the jury or judge if they have a competent legal team or lawyer.
Cancel culture sucks. I have no doubt that some innocent people have had or will have their life destroyed by it. But the reality is we have a justice system heavily weighted towards money and power. Before it, we had the rich and powerful getting away with enormous abuses of power. The rich and powerful when accused used to smear accusers before and in court, to the point where enormous amounts of incidents went unreported and then when brave victims did put up with the smearing, a large payout often protected the abuser. Cancel culture has brought down some hideous abusers and thus dramatically changed the power imbalance regarding the accused and the accuser in cases of abuses of power. Would Epstein still be doing his s**t? How many other Epsteins have been stopped by this now powerful force? How many less cops are willing to pull the trigger on that dodgy looking black kid. How many victims saved versus the few innocent who have become victims of cancel culture? So whilst cancel culture sucks, until we have a justice system that isn't heavily weighted towards money and power, perhaps we ******* need it.
 
Cancel culture sucks. I have no doubt that some innocent people have had or will have their life destroyed by it. But the reality is we have a justice system heavily weighted towards money and power. Before it, we had the rich and powerful getting away with enormous abuses of power. The rich and powerful when accused used to smear accusers before and in court, to the point where enormous amounts of incidents went unreported and then when brave victims did put up with the smearing, a large payout often protected the abuser. Cancel culture has brought down some hideous abusers and thus dramatically changed the power imbalance regarding the accused and the accuser in cases of abuses of power. Would Epstein still be doing his s*t? How many other Epsteins have been stopped by this now powerful force? How many less cops are willing to pull the trigger on that dodgy looking black kid. How many victims saved versus the few innocent who have become victims of cancel culture? So whilst cancel culture sucks, until we have a justice system that isn't heavily weighted towards money and power, perhaps we ****** need it.
I'm all for cancel culture, it's the only way the scum can be bought to justice.
 
So, people who make reputation destroying and at times life ending accusations should not be subjected to rigorous cross examination? Exposing someone's lies, cover ups and misrepresentations is surely a good thing when you are seeking the truth. Trials can go for weeks. If somebody simply misspeaks or genuinely can't recall something they have plenty of ways in which that can be brought to the attention of the jury or judge if they have a competent legal team or lawyer.

I suggested that cross-examination isn't an ideal path for many people to tell their experience, that 'lies' are often things misspoken or misremembered under the heat of the examination itself.

Somehow you interpreted this observation as opposition to cross-examination in a court of law. How do you make such fantastic leaps?

Some kind of superpower, I guess. I am in awe.
 
Woe is me? Why? Because I am disgusted when people hurl the word racist at anyone who has a point of view opposing theirs? It's pathetic. Don't you agree?

We can agree here. The whole thing is pathetic, sad, deluded and deranged.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top