Mitch Clark's 6 goals - how ... 'depressing'.

[Henrietta Lumbago 331]

Oh please, some of the posters are the same from the Garlett topic, "not me your honour, never done a thing like that in my life", the hypocrisy kills me

Me, lots of times I have said something somebody wanted to hear so I could get something I wanted

Give me written proof that he 'gamed' the system and I will accept it

Mate, stop defending him. You know how much better our club would be with Clark Hogan & Dawes I know some of the clubs most die hard supporters, people who have been supporting the club in every way possible for a very long time, even they are dirty with Clark and feel like he has let us down.

Sure it's just a job, but when there is big money and supporters involved it is different!

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

if talia had played on him things might have been different as Hawkins drew the best defender

Don't think so.

Clark, when firing, is unstoppable.

Despite apparent character issues, I would still love the bloke to be lining up for us - alongside Dawes, Hogan, Gartlett, Kent, Watts (our Gunston in this set up).

And it seems clear to me that Clark skipped to a more successful club for more money. And that's not to say he didn't suffer from depression, or to trivialise that condition.

[Leoncelli_36 2,264]

Since demon land want to moderate the truth being told on here, in fear of defamation about what Clark actually did, I suggest you all go read some of the comments on Facebook on Fox Footys and SEN's pages. The truth is out there. The truth is leaking and soon people will know the real story and no one will have any sympathy for the turd.

I even had a Hawthorn supporter who is in the footy industry friend text me last night saying "you do know mitch Clark did X to X and that his X almost X'd so he played the depression card and X took him back."

As I said before, defamation only succeeds as an action in law if there is no truth to the comments.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

Since demon land want to moderate the truth being told on here, in fear of defamation about what Clark actually did, I suggest you all go read some of the comments on Facebook on Fox Footys and SEN's pages. The truth is out there. The truth is leaking and soon people will know the real story and no one will have any sympathy for the turd.

I even had a Hawthorn supporter who is in the footy industry friend text me last night saying "you do know mitch Clark did X to X and that his X almost X'd so he played the depression card and X took him back."

As I said before, defamation only succeeds as an action in law if there is no truth to the comments.

And of course you've got all the proof you need. The only problem with that is it probably isn't quite what a judge or jury might need ... but never mind, go on demanding your right to relay rumour, innuendo and any other scuttlebutt that comes your way.

In any case, I've already posted a link to a summary of Australian defamation law. It contains the following:

"... truth alone is not a defence in all jurisdictions. In some, the defendant must also prove that the publication of a true statement or imputation was made for the 'public benefit' (Queensland, Tasmania, A.C.T.) or relates to a matter of 'public interest' (NSW)."

Good luck with proving that material posted on an internet site isn't "published" in Qld, Tasmania, the ACT or NSW.

[Emerald 1,744]

I'm seeing the glass half full of Prince instead of half empty of Clark.Hopefully the meditation Roos has some of the players doing pays off and we don't have anymore depression or bulls**t issues in the future.

[T&W 38]

And of course you've got all the proof you need. The only problem with that is it probably isn't quite what a judge or jury might need ... but never mind, go on demanding your right to relay rumour, innuendo and any other scuttlebutt that comes your way.

In any case, I've already posted a link to a summary of Australian defamation law. It contains the following:

"... truth alone is not a defence in all jurisdictions. In some, the defendant must also prove that the publication of a true statement or imputation was made for the 'public benefit' (Queensland, Tasmania, A.C.T.) or relates to a matter of 'public interest' (NSW)."

Good luck with proving that material posted on an internet site isn't "published" in Qld, Tasmania, the ACT or NSW.

Defamation is a moving feast for internet lawyers ( now world wide ) places like this are ripe for the picking - over emotional angry supporters posting innuendo, speculation, lies and mis-truths. Our very own Joseph Gutnick proved country boarders are now no longer an issue.

Both the site owner and site host are capable of being sued, "as the publishers". Its only a matter of time before this place and others like it get sued. Thanks to meta data you can run but you cant hide.

[Leoncelli_36 2,264]

And of course you've got all the proof you need. The only problem with that is it probably isn't quite what a judge or jury might need ... but never mind, go on demanding your right to relay rumour, innuendo and any other scuttlebutt that comes your way.

In any case, I've already posted a link to a summary of Australian defamation law. It contains the following:

"... truth alone is not a defence in all jurisdictions. In some, the defendant must also prove that the publication of a true statement or imputation was made for the 'public benefit' (Queensland, Tasmania, A.C.T.) or relates to a matter of 'public interest' (NSW)."

Good luck with proving that material posted on an internet site isn't "published" in Qld, Tasmania, the ACT or NSW.

Judge would look at the readership of this page and conclude that the majority are Victorian. I am not here to debate the law mate, I do that for a living. I will refrain from posting anything that might land this site in trouble, but there is an elephant in the room and it will be seen soon enough

[McQueen 17,864]

I don't remember all the details but Clark was headed home to Fremantle before we diverted him to MFC on a long term big$ contract in 2012. He plays 12 great games then is injured and plays 3 more over 2 years battling foot injuries and later soft tissue problems. He trains endlessly running lap after laps but can't get on the park. Now did his depression and withdrawal from the club coincide with new contractual talks between his management and the new MFC regime who were reassessing his worth and wanted to negotiate a much reduced contract agreement? Mitch only came here for the money, if it was no longer on offer, why wouldn't he look elsewhere? So off he goes to the. cats but at what $ I don't know and unbelievably is suddenly fit to play. It will be interesting to see if he can stay on the park. If he does stay fit he will be very good for the Cats. It may be just NAB but A fit Mitch has everything you need to be a star, 200 cm tall, agile, great hands, great pack mark and can kick straight. Just about has it all but history says his body will let him down.

The only soft tissue injury this dog has is between his ears.

#shitforbrains

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

Judge would look at the readership of this page and conclude that the majority are Victorian. I am not here to debate the law mate, I do that for a living. I will refrain from posting anything that might land this site in trouble, but there is an elephant in the room and it will be seen soon enough

While doing exactly that.

If that's what you think a judge would conclude it's probably a good thing you don't do defamation law for a living.

[Leoncelli_36 2,264]

While doing exactly that.

If that's what you think a judge would conclude it's probably a good thing you don't do defamation law for a living.

No I work in Commercial Lit, if the Law was so founded regarding Defamation on Internet sites there would be a plethora of case law to support your view, sadly there isn't and its not uniform. The defence you refer to refers to as being truth is not a defence is outdated I believe. In 2006 all states adopted Unifom Defamation Laws which included 'Truth' as a defence.

Clause 91 of schedule 5 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) (“BSA”) prevents internet content hosts and internet service providers from being held liable for defamation in respect of material transmitted using an internet carriage service, provided the internet content host or service provider was not aware of the nature of the material. The BSA provides that an internet content host or service provider is not required to make enquiries about or keep records of internet content. This exemption from liability does not apply to information transmitted by email or broadcasting (see Chapter 10.4: Internet Law, for more information).

Pretty easy to ensure that the site owner isn't liable Doc

Edited March 13, 2015 by Leoncelli_36

[Leoncelli_36 2,264]

and further Doc - In Victoria, truth (technically, “justification”) has always been a complete defence to a defamation action. However, it is necessary for the defendant to prove that the imputation complained of were true; the plaintiff does not have to prove they were false. Further, the defendant must prove that the imputations conveyed by the words (not simply the words themselves) are true. Thus, using our example, the defendant would need to prove that the imputation that Mr X was a bigamist is true. It would not be enough to simply prove that the words used (i.e. That Mr X got married last Sunday) were true.

Prior to the enactment of the uniform law (see “What is defamation?”, above), it was also necessary for a defendant in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT to prove that the publication related to a matter of public interest or public benefit. Under the uniform defamation laws, truth alone is a defence.

So I am glad your knowledge is current you goose

Edited March 13, 2015 by Leoncelli_36

[Slartibartfast 17,265]

Well I'm glad we've sorted that out.

[KingDingAling 3,757]

Since demon land want to moderate the truth being told on here, in fear of defamation about what Clark actually did, I suggest you all go read some of the comments on Facebook on Fox Footys and SEN's pages. The truth is out there. The truth is leaking and soon people will know the real story and no one will have any sympathy for the turd.

I even had a Hawthorn supporter who is in the footy industry friend text me last night saying "you do know mitch Clark did X to X and that his X almost X'd so he played the depression card and X took him back."

As I said before, defamation only succeeds as an action in law if there is no truth to the comments.

I am godsmacked by those pages. As someone who hasn't done facebook in over 5 years, it appears to be one big cess pool of negativity.

In this instance - all that negativity is being directed at Mitch Clark. I am amazed the sheer amount of numbers. They certainly don't hold back.

Here I was reading big footy and demonland wondering why there wasn't that much hostility over the Clark issue, now I've realised how censored and regulated these sites must be. Judging by the SEN page, this is fast becoming an uproar. I don't know anything at all about the Clark situation, but if there is anything untoward about it - It will come out. It can't not. I'm still blown away. I'm glad I don't do facebook!!

Edited March 13, 2015 by KingDingAling

[jabberwocky 2,301]

The truth is out there.

[Leoncelli_36 2,264]

Yeah the Good Doctor seems to have gone quiet?? Where art thou Doc? Pays to check the year of publication of things you read on the net.

[daisycutter 29,613]

I am godsmacked by those pages. As someone who hasn't done facebook in over 5 years, it appears to be one big cess pool of negativity.

In this instance - all that negativity is being directed at Mitch Clark. I am amazed the sheer amount of numbers. They certainly don't hold back.

Here I was reading big footy and demonland wondering why there wasn't that much hostility over the Clark issue, now I've realised how censored and regulated these sites must be. Judging by the SEN page, this is fast becoming an uproar. I don't know anything at all about the Clark situation, but if there is anything untoward about it - It will come out. It can't not. I'm still blown away. I'm glad I don't do facebook!!

whereabouts on facebook and sen were you reading?

[Leoncelli_36 2,264]

You will have to read through the 752 comments mate, but you'll find it. The same story about the real situation is circling, it's either the most accurate and unwavering Chinese whisper of all time based on a rumour or is true given that so many unrelated people have the same version of events

[daisycutter 29,613]

You will have to read through the 752 comments mate, but you'll find it. The same story about the real situation is circling, it's either the most accurate and unwavering Chinese whisper of all time based on a rumour or is true given that so many unrelated people have the same version of events

yeah, but where? face book is a big place and i can't see any discussion/forum on sen site

[Slartibartfast 17,265]

yeah, but where? face book is a big place and i can't see any discussion/forum on sen site

Same.

[Leoncelli_36 2,264]

There is an article posted by SEN 1116 that refers to The Ox's comments re mitch Clark. About two days ago. Or just PM me and I will give you the gist

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

Terribly sorry I had to go to the local store and wasn't dancing attendance on any reply you might have deemed to required an immediate reply. I didn't realise either that any silence would be taken as an evasion of your debating points about the law you weren't debating about. So it goes. If your ego is so shallow that you need these little victories, give yourself a pat on the back.

As I said before, defamation only succeeds as an action in law if there is no truth to the comments.

Clause 91 of schedule 5 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) (“BSA”) prevents internet content hosts and internet service providers from being held liable for defamation in respect of material transmitted using an internet carriage service, provided the internet content host or service provider was not aware of the nature of the material. The BSA provides that an internet content host or service provider is not required to make enquiries about or keep records of internet content. This exemption from liability does not apply to information transmitted by email or broadcasting (see Chapter 10.4: Internet Law, for more information).

Pretty easy to ensure that the site owner isn't liable Doc

Pretty sure the case is otherwise. Demonland is not an ISP and since, as far as I know, it uses a service provided by a web host it's not an ICH either. The BSA exemption doesn't apply and that's why Demonland is moderated, whatever your objections to that might be. Don't like it? Start your own.

and further Doc - In Victoria, truth (technically, “justification”) has always been a complete defence to a defamation action. However, it is necessary for the defendant to prove that the imputation complained of were true; the plaintiff does not have to prove they were false.

So I am glad your knowledge is current you goose

Yes, I was using an outdated resource. Uniform defamation law changes little about the point at issue though. Defamation action won't only succeed if there's no truth to an imputation but, as you cite here but then ignore, only if the defendant can prove that it was true. Rumours (even rumours circulated by Hawthorn supporters as you refer to earlier or those posted on Facebook) have got a long way to go before they'd get anywhere near basing such a defence on.

Never mind, though; since truth is what you want it to be, it's all open and shut for you isn't it? As long as you don't have to carry the can.

I'm off to Queensland now. I hope that's alright by you, but I'm happy if my silence on any further point you wish to make in the debate you're not having is construed in whatever fashion you choose; and I hope it makes you feel just that little bit better about yourself for the rest of the day.

[Macca 16,963]

As far as we know, none of Rivers, Martin, Frawley, Sylvia, Moloney or Clark wanted to play for the club anymore - they all wanted out. And there are others. There is a chance that both Garland & Howe might be gone at years end.

Previously, we were trading out or dispensing with loyal servants/veteran players all because of an insane youth policy (that youth policy was never going to work - especially when one considers how footy was changing to a more contested style from about 2004 onwards )

We inadvertently built a siege mentality amongst the players (appointing a rookie, 'faux' hard man as a coach only exacerbated the problem) In many ways it became an every man for himself situation ... and free agency was just beginning - thus providing the ideal vehicle (free agency was always going open up other ways for players to move clubs)

Clark was just a symptom of a much larger problem. The residual effects lingered and those effects may still linger (albeit in a small way)

I neither wish him well or nor wish him bad luck either - he's not our player anymore so we need to move on whether we want to or not. There's nothing we can do about it anyway - apart from having faith in those who now run the club.

If we're going to point the finger at Clark, we also need to point the finger in all sorts of directions. That's if we want to be brutally honest of course. Regardless, I also don't believe he's that good a player anyway (and, he's injury prone)

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Sorry Curry, this is a massive generalization that creates a false impression. If this is what your GP does , then change your GP. The diagnosis of depression will be determined by the GP taking a case history (unless you are already well known to the GP, asking relevant questions, and in some cases using a questionnaire. In the latter case, the questionnaire is used as an additional tool not as the determining and sole means to diagnose the condition. In cases of doubt, the GP will refer to a specialist (psychiatrist) for a psychiatric assessment. This is what a capable and experienced GP will do.

Well mate I am describing exactly what happened to me so yeah. You are correct I was asked questions, such as 'do you think you're depressed?' to which I answered 'yes'. Like I said, not a particularly scientific or thorough process.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

That is just ridiculous, but I assume you have been through it during quite a few seasons

And what type of depression are we talking about?...What you mean you don't know there are different types

Again, this happens every day in other workplaces, and the difference is?

uummm no it's not ridiculous but a statement of fact from from personal experience. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Lucifers Hero 39,752]

Will always think MC is a dog with no morals, be it for what he did while at the club or the way he crapped on the club by leaving. However, I am past using any emotional energy on him. I don't wish him any mental or physical anguish/injury.

What I do hope for is that we go past Geelong on the ladder and we play heaps of finals while they don't , that we win our next GF before Geelong do and that MC is still at Geelong when we do.

Thrashing them a few times while on the way to GF would also be nice. Let our footy do the talking, I say!

Those things will give me sweet revenge!