2 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Noticed that too... "Seized" is an interesting choice of words.

I wonder if the "seizing" involved a routine request for relevant information and the helpful compliance of those providing the information?

I'm not sure Graeme ......but Worksafe do have wide ranging power when they are investigating a workplace.

The less control the AFL have over the investigation / process the better. Sports governing bodies the world over will always prioritise "brand protection" above all else and the ALF are no different.

A very serious topic so don't want to trivialise in any way, but i'm quite looking forward to watching the AFL suits and the HFC squirm  

 

Having carefully checked that somehow his name has not resurfaced in these latest developments Mr Kennett has set in motion  the " fix" from the top.

 

It now seems he whole thing is their fault no matter what mistakes may or may not have been made.

 

Nothing to see here

22 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Not only that Luci but the newspaper article this morning claimed "materials seized" by Worksafe.

What are these materials? Will the AFL panel have access? Will witnesses etc want to speak to both enquiries?

The Worksafe enquiry has legal validity.

Is the AFL enquiry now compromised or even superfluous?

well just for one example, uncle i'd expect a dump of all historic emails from the period in question from the club's email server.

and then there would be minutes from board meetings and minutes from any other relevant meetings from same period.

and employment records of who was present in the club (players and employees) at same period.

etc etc 

Does anyone know what the purpose of the AFLPA is? If we look at the Essendon doping program, Adelaide's camp and now the findings of Hawthorn's cultural safety review the player association has done absolutely nothing. Do they advocate from a purely economic perspective, e.g. remuneration, number of games etc, or do they also have a role in player wellbeing and safety? This is a genuine question as no-one has brought up their role in any of these.

12 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Seems Dymocks must have made a horrible mistake...

2018... Where was all the outrage from Caro then?

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/mitch-in-the-works-20180803-p4zve4.html

8 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

well just for one example, uncle i'd expect a dump of all historic emails from the period in question from the club's email server.

and then there would be minutes from board meetings and minutes from any other relevant meetings from same period.

and employment records of who was present in the club (players and employees) at same period.

etc etc 

I agree dc but I can't help but wonder if there are any notes, "minutes"or any other record of those crucial meetings where the alleged incidents took place.

I very much doubt it.

26 minutes ago, IRW said:

Having carefully checked that somehow his name has not resurfaced in these latest developments Mr Kennett has set in motion  the " fix" from the top.

 

It now seems he whole thing is their fault no matter what mistakes may or may not have been made.

 

Nothing to see here

Pretty ordinary comments from Kennett here I thought

Seems he's looking to discredit accusers on process? Regardless of substance

Didn't Hawthorn set up the process? Therefore it's his or HFC lack of foresight responsible for the mess now...

26 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I agree dc but I can't help but wonder if there are any notes, "minutes"or any other record of those crucial meetings where the alleged incidents took place.

I very much doubt it.

i wouldn't have a clue, uncle.  seizing of "records" is just a sort of catch-all starting point

should keep a few dozen bureaucrats busy for months, sifting, sifting 

32 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

2018... Where was all the outrage from Caro then?

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/mitch-in-the-works-20180803-p4zve4.html

I’m really struggling to understand your point. How can you possibly be critical of a journalist publishing a background piece with similar accusations to a current major story? Possibly the only major story running right now on the AFL?

You obviously have a barrow to push. Are you trying to make the point that it is wrong of her to write an article surfacing additional information on the currently biggest story in football? I think you’ll find that she is employed to do exactly this.

16 minutes ago, FlashInThePan said:

Are you trying to make the point that it is wrong of her to write an article surfacing additional information on the currently biggest story in football?

No just responding to Lord Nev's sarcasm... following on from his criticising me of diminishing the current allegations, for calling out the way Caro presented the historical context, and the label "fresh allegations", where the book is 4 years old (and Caro wasn't reporting outrage at the time) and the fresh perspectives of non-indigenous players who stressed their experiences "should not be compared to those published in the cultural safety review"

If it were a more balanced and proportional reporting of historical context - I'd be fine with it... But that wouldn't present as strongly in support of the current narrative and drive headlines.

51 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Pretty ordinary comments from Kennett here I thought

Seems he's looking to discredit accusers on process? Regardless of substance

Didn't Hawthorn set up the process? Therefore it's his or HFC lack of foresight responsible for the mess now...

I think Kennett has a valid point that the players we participated in the review on the basis that it was confidential and then spoke to the media. The flip side of this is that with a history of this sort of thing being swept under the carpet it is understanding that the players and their families spoke to the media to get their story out. The issue I have with the players and their families could have waited to see where the review ended up before speaking to the media and they have put Clarkson and Fagan in a position where their reputations are tarnished without right of reply.

Edited October 2, 20222 yr by chookrat

2 hours ago, chookrat said:

While some of the stories look to overstep the mark re what many if us would find acceptable, Clarkson and Fagan's primary role was to win Premierships and they were very successful at that during the period in question.  It is pretty clear that a stable home environment is conducive to high performance on the field so it is reasonable that the Footy department discusses with players their relationships, plans to have children etc.

It looks like their approach is consistent across both First Nations and non-indigenous players, and that while the approach may not have adequately taken into account the cultural sensitivities of the indigenous players, this is an area we are still learning about as a society. I'm not convinced Clarkson and Fagan have done much wrong here, certainly not to the extent that the media has portrayed, and not to the point that they should be stepping down from their roles.

IF the allegations in the media are true it is sociopathic behaviour on their behalf and borderline criminal. Your post is a joke.

2 hours ago, rpfc said:

Yes it does. And I am sure ‘three-peats’ are much easier when you create a culture that family is to be diminished and all of life outside football are considered distractions to avoid. 

I can now get my head around how that ‘culture’ can be then applied to the indigenous experience with appalling consequences. 

Starting to see they treated everyone the same…

Family club hey…

Maybe if that family were the Manson family

2 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

I've found it interesting the backlash at the allegations that HFC intervened in the home living arrangements for one (or more?) of those laying accusations. I understand that football clubs routinely advise (or require) certain living arrangements and have role dedicated to developing players off-field, even today...

I'm waiting to understand the context, and if there was a lack of cultural sensitivity that meant indigenous players as a group weren't treated appropriately. Or whether it was one individual circumstances not treated appropriately. Or another explanation...

Time may tell? (Or may not)

"Routinely advising certain living arrangements" vs demanding the person cut off all communication with family/partners, change their sim card so as to be uncontactable and move them in with a senior leader of the club. Oh and also denying that players family/partner communication with the player when they attempt to contact them through the club.

29 minutes ago, chookrat said:

I think Kennett has a valid point that the players we participated in the review on the basis that it was confidential and then spoke to the media. ...

Wrong meaning of confidential.  When you are asked to tell your story and told that the review is confidential, it doesn't mean your are gagged forever telling your story anywhere else.   It means the reviewer won't release you details.     Who would ever agree to make a complaint on the condition they can't tell anyone else - especially if they had no confidence it wouldn't be swept under the carpet.

Is it wrong to say the allegations are probably true?...because you couldn't make this stuff up.

Would think that one piece of evidence easily verified is the new sim cards allegedly put into phones. I'm no telco tech but surely they can find records of who issued the cards, location of user (might substantiate use by player), what happened to old sim cards, phone call records and text messages, etc. A lot of data could be mined there aiding the investigation 

Edited October 2, 20222 yr by Stiff Arm

2 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Pretty ordinary comments from Kennett here I thought

Seems he's looking to discredit accusers on process? Regardless of substance

Didn't Hawthorn set up the process? Therefore it's his or HFC lack of foresight responsible for the mess now...

Karen Kennett has a much better ring to it than Jeff.

A "bump in the road" according to Karen. What a leader.

1 hour ago, Brownie said:

Karen Kennett has a much better ring to it than Jeff.

A "bump in the road" according to Karen. What a leader.

I think you are being very unfair on Jeff.

Jeff understands how serious this is - he is not minimising it.

He said it was a bump on the highway.

Much bigger than a road.

 

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

IF the allegations in the media are true it is sociopathic behaviour on their behalf and borderline criminal. Your post is a joke.

Dr Gonzo I'm not sure how my post is a joke. You are relying on media reports based on selected information provided by the players without any context. Happy if you want to elaborate further.

3 hours ago, sue said:

Wrong meaning of confidential.  When you are asked to tell your story and told that the review is confidential, it doesn't mean your are gagged forever telling your story anywhere else.   It means the reviewer won't release you details.     Who would ever agree to make a complaint on the condition they can't tell anyone else - especially if they had no confidence it wouldn't be swept under the carpet.

Fair point Sue. What I'm trying to say is that the players could have waited to see how the AFL handled the investigation, especially given Hawthorn looks to have conducted the investigation in good faith.

2 minutes ago, chookrat said:

Dr Gonzo I'm not sure how my post is a joke. You are relying on media reports based on selected information provided by the players without any context. Happy if you want to elaborate further.

Which is why I said "IF" the allegations are true. If the allegations are true they are abhorrent and your post is trying to minimise the actions, stating "I'm not convinced Clarkson and Fagan have done much wrong here". We only have the allegations to go on at this stage in hand with the denial of those involved without anything specific so I'm not sure what else you have to go on.

48 minutes ago, chookrat said:

Dr Gonzo I'm not sure how my post is a joke. You are relying on media reports based on selected information provided by the players without any context. Happy if you want to elaborate further.

Good point, so clearly we better not believe Hodge's comments about being treated well also. We'll need some evidence to back that up, can't just take his word for it surely?

1 hour ago, chookrat said:

Fair point Sue. What I'm trying to say is that the players could have waited to see how the AFL handled the investigation, especially given Hawthorn looks to have conducted the investigation in good faith.

The AFL would have swept it under the Carpet, as Jeff Kennett is trying to do, if the players and wives hadn’t spoken to the Media 

They have a past record of doing exactly that. This problem is way to big for the AFL to handle