31 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Rather than assuming guilt it seems the majority of assumptions being made are that the former players and their partners/families are fabricating their stories. Why?

Really ?

I haven't read all of the posts on this thread and I've also skimmed past plenty.  I also have some posters on ignore.

If there's a ''majority assuming the players/families are fabricating their stories'' are you able to quote some of these posts, as I haven't seen them.  Btw, I'm not saying you're incorrect. 

I would have thought the sites moderators would have removed them, but perhaps they missed them too.

For clarity, I don't assume the accusations are correct and nor do I assume they're fabricated.  I hope for fairness, but don't assume that either.

50 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

Really ?

I haven't read all of the posts on this thread and I've also skimmed past plenty.  I also have some posters on ignore.

If there's a ''majority assuming the players/families are fabricating their stories'' are you able to quote some of these posts, as I haven't seen them.  Btw, I'm not saying you're incorrect. 

I would have thought the sites moderators would have removed them, but perhaps they missed them too.

For clarity, I don't assume the accusations are correct and nor do I assume they're fabricated.  I hope for fairness, but don't assume that either.

I didn't say a majority of posters assume the players/families are fabricating their stories, I said "the majority of assumptions being made are that the former players and their partners/families are fabricating their stories."

9 hours ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

No, the testimony of players and their families may not be sufficient evidence.

You are assuming guilt without any due process.  Without the testimony of potential witnesses.  Without cross examination.  Without the testimony of those being accused.  Without the potential to prove lies.

In your world accusations are enough.  They're not and should never be.

I know you never want to argue with someone on the merits of what they are saying and prefer to build a easily defeated straw man so I don’t expect anything better than the above…

But just for the record, I don’t assume guilt and those accused will get their right to ‘natural justice’ but I am past the point of where society has been where we attack the marginalised that have been brave enough to report the assault on THEIR justice. 

But it’s great to see you back from BigFooty, there’s only so much enjoyment you can get from agreeing with 14 year old Tigers supporters hey?

 

8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Through a normal complaints investigation process the complainant provides their statement which is then investigated. Allegations are put to the accused who provide their own statement, witnesses are provided to give their own statements/testimony and the investigative team pieces it together to provide their report and recommendations.

I don't think it is commonplace for complainants in internal investigations to be cross-examined by lawyers. This isn't a criminal or civil investigation it's an investigation of an employer/organisation.

Exactly.

What's all this palaver about the player's, and God forbid their families, being obligated to participate in further interviews.

Leaving aside not bring obligated to, why on earth would they want to given how woefully the afl has proven to be in dealing with cultural issues.

The focus should not be on pagan and clarkson. It should be on the overall situation. Specifics distract from the central problem.

Sure it is important Pagan and Carkson have the opportunity to put their side of the story forward. The AFL investigation will give them that chance. No doubt they will consider media interviews too. 

And of course they both have the right to pursue legal action to clear their name by suing the ABC for defamation, the same way Roberts sued the AGE.

 

I would really hope that they can get some kind of finding at the end of this investigation and not leave things up to the court of public opinion. 

13 hours ago, tiers said:

Judges don't have to understand perspective. Royal Commissioners don't have to have perspective. They are selected because of their particular skills to find justice and or solutions. That they could be ignorant of the issues does not mean that they would be ignorant of the correct, fair process of investigation and understanding.

This panel is not, on the face, as serous or important but in the context of footy in the community they might be even more important. As I stated, those that have perspective should be available to provide their knowledge and understanding to the panel members who can then apply the correct weight to their opinions.

My great fear is that a panel consisting of those who "have perspective" might not be able to reach an adverse report due to their perspective. That would not be fair to either the complainants (who might not accept the report) or to the coaches (who might not be able to rely on the report).

A totally independent panel's report will carry much more weight and will more likely to be accepted in the community.

So you ascribe to hardcore legal positivism regarding the role of a judge...! As opposed to the softer Hart model which recognises a judge has discretion within the law and that social norms or principles may be reflected in the exercise of that discretion.

Heaven forbid we even consider some of the more radical legal theorists who note that judges are humans with their own biases and social understandings which can inadvertently sway outcomes.  A good judge does understand perspective rather than pretending neutrality and challenges themselves to think broadly and independently about a matter.

8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I didn't say a majority of posters assume the players/families are fabricating their stories, I said "the majority of assumptions being made are that the former players and their partners/families are fabricating their stories."

Where are these assumptions on this thread ?

4 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

Where are these assumptions on this thread ?

No direct assumptions but the suggestion that their original testimonies won't hold up is a little dicey. 

9 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

Where are these assumptions on this thread ?

 

3 minutes ago, layzie said:

No direct assumptions but the suggestion that their original testimonies won't hold up is a little dicey. 

No direct assumptions, but implications GALORE. Of course no one is gonna explicitly state as much, for to do so would be an invitation to be howled down or even have one’s post deleted, and rightly so. But the implications are there and they’re many. 
 

2 hours ago, rpfc said:

I know you never want to argue with someone on the merits of what they are saying and prefer to build a easily defeated straw man so I don’t expect anything better than the above…

But just for the record, I don’t assume guilt and those accused will get their right to ‘natural justice’ but I am past the point of where society has been where we attack the marginalised that have been brave enough to report the assault on THEIR justice. 

But it’s great to see you back from BigFooty, there’s only so much enjoyment you can get from agreeing with 14 year old Tigers supporters hey?

Talk about strawman...

You said, ''And are we to infer the testimony of the players and their families are not sufficient evidence?''.

Not sufficient evidence for what ?  To ascertain guilt ?  What conclusion are you drawing here ?  Be specific.

And no, as stated, I don't agree with that premise and articulated why.  To be succinct, so there's no confusion, their evidence, by itself, is NOT sufficient evidence.  Is that not arguing the ''merits'' of what someone is saying ?  How could I be clearer for you ?

What does the following statement mean ?  ''but I am past the point of where society has been where we attack the marginalised that have been brave enough to report the assault on THEIR justice''

Who is ''atacking'' them for their anonymous reports ?

And stating that ''they are brave enough to report the assault'' is insinuating their evidence is to be believed and that they're victims of the Hawthorn Football Club's behaviour.  But these very allegations have been denied and are yet to be prosecuted. 

You say you don't ''assume guilt'' yet your comments clearly imply that you do.

You'd be good at chasing parked cars.

11 minutes ago, layzie said:

No direct assumptions but the suggestion that their original testimonies won't hold up is a little dicey. 

There's nothing ''dicey'' about due process.

Their testimonies may or may not hold up.  They need to be adequately tested.

I'd hate to be an accused and have Demonland as my judge and jury.

17 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

There's nothing ''dicey'' about due process.

Their testimonies may or may not hold up.  They need to be adequately tested.

I'd hate to be an accused and have Demonland as my judge and jury.

Of course an investigation has to consider all sides and try to establish the truth as far as possible.  But repeatedly saying that in order to refute assumptions by other posters that there is likely to be a serious case to answer, smells slightly to me.  

If 3 or 5 people said that they saw me breaking into your house, I think most people would think there is likely to be something in the charge and await proceedings.

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It makes sense both sides will have lawyers giving them advice on their statements/responses but I would be staggered if lawyers for the opposing parties were allowed to cross-examine. Perhaps they will be and I am just ignorant of the process but I would be shocked if that were the case.

gonzo, i don't think you will see cross-examination in the sense you would in a legal trial. lawyers no doubt will be pushing for some system whereby they can pose questions in some format to the complainants and accused, whether they succeed who knows. We should also recognise that at this stage we don't know what the rules of engagement will be for the panel, it's all supposition. And finally we don't even know yet whether the complainants will even make themselves available. Some have indicated they don't want to. i'll be very surprised if the panel will complete their investigations and findings in 2 months or anything close to that. 

Edited September 28, 20222 yr by daisycutter

1 hour ago, DeelightfulPlay said:

So you ascribe to hardcore legal positivism regarding the role of a judge...!

 A good judge does understand perspective rather than pretending neutrality and challenges themselves to think broadly and independently about a matter.

I don't ascribe to anything other than a fair, independent and credible investigation.  In the context of this issue, a clear, unbiased and open mind is to be welcomed. Those with perspective are therefore limited.

44 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

There's nothing ''dicey'' about due process.

Their testimonies may or may not hold up.  They need to be adequately tested.

I'd hate to be an accused and have Demonland as my judge and jury.

Gee I would

What a daisy chain this forum has become ,illinformed and uneducated waffle,round and round we go

2 hours ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

And stating that ''they are brave enough to report the assault'' is insinuating their evidence is to be believed and that they're victims of the Hawthorn Football Club's behaviour.  But these very allegations have been denied and are yet to be prosecuted. 

This is the heart of the issue.

You, like many, appear to be conflating the accusations against Fagan and Clarkson with those against the club, which are much broader than headline grabbing accusations (eg forced termination of pregnancies)

You say 'these very allegations have been denied'. What allegations have been denied?

As far as i'm aware Clarkson and Fagan have only denied telling a player their partner should terminate their pregnancy. And Fagan made a general comment in his media release denying HE was culturally unsafe with Aboriginal players.

To be clear, Hawthorn, or Fagan and Clarkson for that matter, have not denied the central issue  - that the evidence from the players indicates the club was seemingly culturally unsafe in the period the report covered (noting his is not a proven fact).

The noise around Fagan and Clarkson just distracts from the central issue - cultural safety.

As a proponent of free speech, i presume you agree that the players had every right to say what they said. They didn't put the comments into the public arena - the ABC did.

Of course, when speaking to a reporter they would assume it would be reported, but one also assumes the ABC did their due diligence in terms of things such as checking sources, corroborating any accusations and assessing legal exposure. If they didn't they are rightly exposed to legal action 

People are free to make their own assessment of the comments from the player's and their families. 

Fagan and Clarkson will have their opportunity to tell their side of the story, both as part of the AFL investigation and in the  media, who will be gagging to give them both air time.

And people will be equally free to make their own assessment of those comments.

If that doesn't satisfy Fagan and Clarkson, they can take the ABC (not the players) to court for defamation

It was stupid, and so on point, by the AFL to not get ahead of the story and respond immediately they received the report, for example by coming out and doing what they now have been forced to (ie setting up a panel and investigating).

Instead they chose to sit on the report, presumably till after the GF, and left the door wide open for a news outlet to gazump them.  And the ABC obliged. 

The players don't owe anyone anything and are under no obligation, legally or morally, to participate in any way with an AFL investigation.

The players participated in a process commissioned and initiated by Hawthorn. What more do they need to do? They certainly have no obligation to justify or substantiate their claims.

And why would they have any interest in being interviewed again? What benefit would they derive from participating in the AFL investigation?

If they do decide to go down the legal path then they will have to substantiate their claims. 

Perhaps you think they do have a moral obligation to participate in the AFL investigation given the impact on Clarkson and Fagan's reputation?

I disagree, but for the sake of argument lets say i don't. Its neither here nor there if they have a moral obligation to participate. The bottom line is they can't be legally compelled to participate in an AFL investigation, which leaves only the courts as an option to have their 'stories tested'. 

If WorkCover get involved they might be interviewed as part of that process and any resulting legal action.

If the players sue Hawthorn their claims will be tested in court (assuming no settlement) 

If Fagan and Clarkson sue the ABC for defamation their claims will be tested in court.

But the players can leave the AFL to their own devices with their investigation. 

 

Edited September 28, 20222 yr by binman

I think this situation will be conducted like Mediation Cases. 
small groups questioned in private over a period of time

1 hour ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

There's nothing ''dicey'' about due process.

Their testimonies may or may not hold up.  They need to be adequately tested.

I'd hate to be an accused and have Demonland as my judge and jury.

How much extra testing do they need to do though? Do you want them cross examined with the light shined into their eyes? 

I understand what you're saying about due process but what I don't get is why we can't take their testimony in an official report from an internal club review seriously?

16 minutes ago, layzie said:

How much extra testing do they need to do though? Do you want them cross examined with the light shined into their eyes? 

I understand what you're saying about due process but what I don't get is why we can't take their testimony in an official report from an internal club review seriously?

Their allegations should be taken seriously ?

Who has said otherwise ?

32 minutes ago, binman said:

This is the heart of the issue.

You, like many, appear to be conflating the accusations against Pagan and Clarkson with those against the club, which are much broader than headline grabbing accusations (eg forced termination of pregnancies)

You say 'these very allegations have been denied'. What allegations have been denied?

As far as i'm aware Clarkson and Pagan have only denied telling a player their partner should terminate their pregnancy. And Pagan made a general comment in his media release denying HE was culturally safe with Aboriginal players.

To be clear, Hawthorn, or Pagan and Clarkson for that matter, have not denied the central issue  - that the evidence from the players indicates the club was seemingly culturally unsafe in the period the report covered (noting his is not a proven fact).

The noise around Pagan and Clarkson just distracts from the central issue - cultural safety.

As a proponent of free speech, i presume you agree that the players had every right to say what they said. They didn't put the comments into the public arena - the ABC did.

Of course, when speaking to a reporter they would assume it would be reported, but one also assumes the ABC did their due diligence in terms of things such as checking sources, corroborating any accusations and assessing legal exposure. If they didn't they are rightly exposed to legal action 

People are free to make their own assessment of the comments from the player's and their families. 

Pagan and Clarkson will have their opportunity to tell their side of the story, both as part of the AFL investigation and in the  media, who will be gagging to give them both air time.

And people will be equally free to make their own assessment of those comments.

If that doesn't satisfy Pagan and Clarkson, they can take the ABC (not the players) to court for defamation

It was stupid, and so on point, by the AFL to not get ahead of the story and respond immediately they received the report, for example by coming out and doing what they now have been forced to (ie setting up a panel and investigating).

Instead they chose to sit on the report, presumably till after the GF, and left the door wide open for a news outlet to gazump them.  And the ABC obliged. 

The players don't owe anyone anything and are under no obligation, legally or morally, to participate in any way with an AFL investigation.

The players participated in a process commissioned and initiated by Hawthorn. What more do they need to do? They certainly have no obligation to justify or substantiate their claims.

And why would they have any interest in being interviewed again? What benefit would they derive from participating in the AFL investigation?

If they do decide to go down the legal path then they will have to substantiate their claims. 

Perhaps you think they do have a moral obligation to participate in the AFL investigation given the impact on Clarkson and Pagan's reputation?

I disagree, but for the sake of argument lets say i don't. Its neither here nor there if they have a moral obligation to participate. The bottom line is they can't be legally compelled to participate in an AFL investigation, which leaves only the courts as an option to have their 'stories tested'. 

If WorkCover get involved they might be interviewed as part of that process and any resulting legal action.

If the players sue Hawthorn their claims will be tested in court (assuming no settlement) 

If Pagan and Clarkson sue the ABC for defamation their claims will be tested in court.

But the players can leave the AFL to their own devices with their investigation. 

 

Think you're getting someone mixed up here mate.....

9 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

Their allegations should be taken seriously ?

Who has said otherwise ?

You've said you're not interested in 'half-truths' and the testimony of players and their families may not be sufficient evidence. I get what you are trying to say about process and avoiding Kangaroo Court style approaches but the language seemed to play down the initial testimonies made in the report.

In an ideal world you would want all parties to be part of the investigation but it's not like they told their story to New Idea or something like that surely? 

1 hour ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

Talk about strawman...

You said, ''And are we to infer the testimony of the players and their families are not sufficient evidence?''.

Not sufficient evidence for what ?  To ascertain guilt ?  What conclusion are you drawing here ?  Be specific.

And no, as stated, I don't agree with that premise and articulated why.  To be succinct, so there's no confusion, their evidence, by itself, is NOT sufficient evidence.  Is that not arguing the ''merits'' of what someone is saying ?  How could I be clearer for you ?

What does the following statement mean ?  ''but I am past the point of where society has been where we attack the marginalised that have been brave enough to report the assault on THEIR justice''

Who is ''atacking'' them for their anonymous reports ?

And stating that ''they are brave enough to report the assault'' is insinuating their evidence is to be believed and that they're victims of the Hawthorn Football Club's behaviour.  But these very allegations have been denied and are yet to be prosecuted. 

You say you don't ''assume guilt'' yet your comments clearly imply that you do.

You'd be good at chasing parked cars.

Who is attacking the accusers? Have you been on social media or are you above it?

Our society has built itself around an ethos of marginalising those alleging  mistreatment of those in power. At the risk of ‘triggering’ people, the #metoo movement was a reaction to this ethos and that is the shift that we need to make in reacting to those who are alleging wrong doing like this. 

I presume innocence (in fact I wish it is all a big misunderstanding as a family friend is caught up in this), but I am past assuming lies and deceit from the accusers.

Nor will a failure to meet ‘the burden of proof’ in whatever investigation/litigation make their claims false or condemn their behaviour in looking for justice.

1 hour ago, tiers said:

I don't ascribe to anything other than a fair, independent and credible investigation.  In the context of this issue, a clear, unbiased and open mind is to be welcomed. Those with perspective are therefore limited.

Who do you consider would be unbiased? Or more to the point, who should be excluded due to perceived bias?