Hawks racism allegations (merged thread)

[beelzebub 23,390]

10 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Given the panel was there to advise the AFL and because the panel investigation did not conclude in its process, but was agreed by the complainants to end the process, then that is for Gil to announce. 

The core line that Gil said that jumped out at me was ‘No adverse findings have been made’

His announcement would have been combed over by lawyers so the specific language that ‘no adverse findings have been made’ suggests that the investigation is halted before it could complete its work (from all the reasons you mentioned).

He didn’t say ‘no adverse findings have been established’ or ‘there are no adverse findings at the conclusion of the investigation’.

Instead the statement is: the panel is not stating any adverse findings. 

So essentially we are at the exact same place we were last year when the panel was announced that nothing has been proved or disproved. 

You cant find what essentially isnt there.

If the accusers weren't prepared to go on record,  test their case in court,  then there IS nothing.

People can hypothesise to their hearts desire .

For something adverse to have been found, something would at least have to been  substantiated. Accusations alone are not substantive.

[The heart beats true 18,183]

6 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

You cant find what essentially isnt there.

If the accusers weren't prepared to go on record,  test their case in court,  then there IS nothing.

People can hypothesise to their hearts desire .

For something adverse to have been found, something would at least have to been  substantiated. Accusations alone are not substantive.

They only weren’t prepared to go on THIS record - a record they perceived to be biased. They wanted to go to the Arbitration in Sport, and it looks like they want to go to the Human Rights Commission.

They perceive the AFL process to be flawed. The AFL is the same people who run the Tribunal. It’s fair to say that’s not a legal process most agree with.

[Demon17 5,227]

22 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

You cant find what essentially isnt there.

If the accusers weren't prepared to go on record,  test their case in court,  then there IS nothing.

People can hypothesise to their hearts desire .

For something adverse to have been found, something would at least have to been  substantiated. Accusations alone are not substantive.

You judge the issue  noting the first line without any inside information I assume.   Your statement can't hold either.  None of us know if it isn't "..essentially there..." do we.

A court can choose to believe one side over another in a ' he said, she said'. The Inquiry heard the complainants, but not the Hawks heirachy at the time, and Gil has decided to close it down using common weezel words. Of course there's now nothing to see.

Cyril voted with his feet and walked away. Why on earth would he trust the court system or the social commentary he and his partner would endure.

Clarko and Fagan have the benefit of being on the 'inside' and will move on. Robbo interestingly last night did not accept the issue is dealt with. He gets it I suspect.

Gil's never recovered from thr Adam Goodes episode IMO in this space.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Demon17
spelling mistakes

[BoBo 2,953]

51 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

You cant find what essentially isnt there.

If the accusers weren't prepared to go on record,  test their case in court,  then there IS nothing.

People can hypothesise to their hearts desire .

For something adverse to have been found, something would at least have to been  substantiated. Accusations alone are not substantive.

Yes you agree with me then. The process has been abandoned before it's completion and therefore the statement is one that is implicitly saying there is nothing provable nor is there anything exculpatory for the panel to express.

Hence why I said, nothing is proven or disproven and we are at the exact same stage last year when the panel was created in the first place.

Some people are misunderstanding this situation to mean 'the allegations are not true', which, isn't the case. 

(For what it's worth, there are high profile cases where accusations are rightly treated as substantive. I'm NOT saying that applies in this case, but that sentiment is not a consistent truism. Again, not saying that applies here.)

[beelzebub 23,390]

10 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Yes you agree with me then. The process has been abandoned before it's completion and therefore the statement is one that is implicitly saying there is nothing provable nor is there anything exculpatory for the panel to express.

Hence why I said, nothing is proven or disproven and we are at the exact same stage last year when the panel was created in the first place.

Some people are misunderstanding this situation to mean 'the allegations are not true', which, isn't the case. 

(For what it's worth, there are high profile cases where accusations are rightly treated as substantive. I'm NOT saying that applies in this case, but that sentiment is not a consistent truism. Again, not saying that applies here.)

Yes... i think many might be overlaying another extrapolation which cant be done.

Edit... funny how much of anything is read but invariably people will see what theyre looking to see or not.

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by beelzebub
Context

[daisycutter 29,891]

10 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Hence why I said, nothing is proven or disproven and we are at the exact same stage last year when the panel was created in the first place.

 

correct

[Gator 17,967]

28 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Hence why I said, nothing is proven or disproven and we are at the exact same stage last year when the panel was created in the first place.

If only that was the general sentiment on here 9 months ago.

It wasn't.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Gator

[Bay Riffin 1,493]

10 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Sadly whenever the word "racism" is involved then fairness & common sense go out the window & the lynch mob turns up and there are many here on Demonland always ready with pitchforks & torches.

couldn't agree more. and people like Whately ready to burn the accused at stake. Based on zero evidence put before them. Absolutly disgraceful. 

[beelzebub 23,390]

19 minutes ago, Gator said:

If only that was the general sentiment on here 9 months ago.

It wasn't.

General no...   certainly  select.

 

[BoBo 2,953]

38 minutes ago, Gator said:

If only that was the general sentiment on here 9 months ago.

It wasn't.

Yeah but this isn't a rule that people follow consistently. Literally NOBODY actually holds the standard of 'accusations are only accusations' in all situations. People will sway one way or the other given the information they have available to them at the time. 

To hold this as a standard across all situations will take you into places you don't want to go.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,289]

I have read @BoBo  's take above, and agree with his emphasis on the importance of finding 1. I have quoted it below

1. "No adverse findings have been made in the Independent Investigation against any of the individuals against whom allegations have been made (“Individual Respondents”)."

However, I would like a lawyerly interpretation of just what this statement means in relation to, particularly, Clarkson and Fagan. Does " No adverse findings" mean that there is no evidence of wrongdoing? Is it an exoneration? 

Or is it to be interpreted as BoBo suggests, that we really aren't  any wiser so let's just ..... err move on ?

Over to our in house KC - calling @Redleg.

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by Bitter but optimistic
typo

[beelzebub 23,390]

18 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I have read @BoBo  's take above, and agree with his emphasis on the importance of finding 1. I have quoted it below

1. "No adverse findings have been made in the Independent Investigation against any of the individuals against whom allegations have been made (“Individual Respondents”)."

However, I would like a lawyerly interpretation of just what this statement means in relation to, particularly, Clarkson and Fagan. Does " No adverse findings" mean that there is no evidence of wrongdoing? Is it an exoneration? 

Or is it to be interpreted as BoBo suggests, that we really aren't we really any wiser so let's just ..... err move on ?

Over to our in house KC - calling @Redleg.

 

The strict answer must be we're no further advanced.

There have been accusations.  They havent been properly tested. There being an impasse to proprietary procedures. 

Kinda he said ...he said.. they said.. others said nothing..   yada yada yada nada nada nada.

Many other things could be said...  i won't 

 

[Willmoy1947 4,198]

I would imagine there could be a case/precedent for the Human Rights commission if they so desire to take this further to certain Courts within or outside Australia 

[daisycutter 29,891]

52 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I have read @BoBo  's take above, and agree with his emphasis on the importance of finding 1. I have quoted it below

1. "No adverse findings have been made in the Independent Investigation against any of the individuals against whom allegations have been made (“Individual Respondents”)."

However, I would like a lawyerly interpretation of just what this statement means in relation to, particularly, Clarkson and Fagan. Does " No adverse findings" mean that there is no evidence of wrongdoing? Is it an exoneration? 

Or is it to be interpreted as BoBo suggests, that we really aren't  any wiser so let's just ..... err move on ?

Over to our in house KC - calling @Redleg.

 

well uncle. they were crafty words emanating from gill the teflon dill .... need i say anymore?

he could have easily said no adverse or non-adverse findings were made

Edited May 31, 2023 by daisycutter

[Redleg 41,933]

1 hour ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I have read @BoBo  's take above, and agree with his emphasis on the importance of finding 1. I have quoted it below

1. "No adverse findings have been made in the Independent Investigation against any of the individuals against whom allegations have been made (“Individual Respondents”)."

However, I would like a lawyerly interpretation of just what this statement means in relation to, particularly, Clarkson and Fagan. Does " No adverse findings" mean that there is no evidence of wrongdoing? Is it an exoneration? 

Or is it to be interpreted as BoBo suggests, that we really aren't  any wiser so let's just ..... err move on ?

Over to our in house KC - calling @Redleg.

 

I don’t think it is in any way an exoneration.

It is just simply that no adverse findings are made, because only one side has presented any form of statement and the party paying the bills for the panel have forced this outcome.

No allegations have been properly tested and the Investigation has been stopped and brought to a crashing end, as another “deal” by the AFL.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Redleg

[redandbluemakepurple 370]

8 hours ago, old55 said:

You critiqued the AFL performance and I asked you what they could have done differently and you replied with some vague undefined "action". OK I accept that you don't know what they could have done differently

 

If I may have a attempt Old55, the AFL should have wrapped this up more rapidly.

First up, their investigations officer should have interviewed all parties individually asap with or without their lawyer as they choose.

When it came apparent that their stories were incompatible and one side didn't want to meet the other side, the AFL should quickly have said that the basic facts could not be agreed and no further action was possible. 

The appointment of a panel of lawyers had no prospect of success. Gill's statement that "this is what they asked for" ducks responsibility. 

So no further action unless someone sues.  Then the jury will be able to look into their faces and work out who was gutted and who is defensive/ashamed.  I suspect that there won't be cases.  The interview with the  former Hawthorn football club welfare manager Jason Burt suggests that they should keep their heads down.

So Gill that is another big fail after Lamumba, Goodes, Rioli(?), etc.  The system to support indigenous and/or immature and/or isolated players is broken and you do not seem to care.  Sling me or many others some of your salary and we would tell you how to fix it.

[Gator 17,967]

1 hour ago, BoBo said:

Yeah but this isn't a rule that people follow consistently. Literally NOBODY actually holds the standard of 'accusations are only accusations' in all situations. People will sway one way or the other given the information they have available to them at the time. 

To hold this as a standard across all situations will take you into places you don't want to go.

Balanced observers of this sorry tale wanted the accusations tested before making judgment.

Evidence is always a prerequisite for me. 

[Brownie 6,066]

25 minutes ago, redandbluemakepurple said:

If I may have a attempt Old55, the AFL should have wrapped this up more rapidly.

First up, their investigations officer should have interviewed all parties individually asap with or without their lawyer as they choose.

When it came apparent that their stories were incompatible and one side didn't want to meet the other side, the AFL should quickly have said that the basic facts could not be agreed and no further action was possible. 

The appointment of a panel of lawyers had no prospect of success. Gill's statement that "this is what they asked for" ducks responsibility. 

So no further action unless someone sues.  Then the jury will be able to look into their faces and work out who was gutted and who is defensive/ashamed.  I suspect that there won't be cases.  The interview with the  former Hawthorn football club welfare manager Jason Burt suggests that they should keep their heads down.

So Gill that is another big fail after Lamumba, Goodes, Rioli(?), etc.  The system to support indigenous and/or immature and/or isolated players is broken and you do not seem to care.  Sling me or many others some of your salary and we would tell you how to fix it.

A late night media conference to state that nothing has really been found or resolved.

All in the middle of the Sir Doug Nicholls rounds.

Onya Gil, don't let the door hit ya in the MRO on the way out.

[Redleg 41,933]

On 360 they said that the North President put out a statement saying Clarkson had been cleared and that it was the right decision, as she had seen all the documents. What’s that about? Really?

Also said that two of the complainants “Zac and Amy” weren’t indigenous Australians.

What does that mean?

Is there a suggestion of bad treatment to non indigenous players or partners?

It’s all very confusing.

[Cranky Franky 2,200]

Some posters here remind me that I know people who are still convinced that Lindy Chamberlain is guilty.

[dees189227 12,453]

I'm very confused. I mean the AFL basically clear them but what about those alledged allegations about ditching the girlfriend, accusations or told to get an abortion. 

I still think they're questions that need to be answered 

[Harvey Wallbanger 1,214]

The Age has reported that the lawyers for Clarkson, Fagan and Burt were proposing to seek an injunction this week to halt the AFL inquiry. If true it explains the haste to "call the whole thing off", which happened on Tuesday evening.

And of course there was a very different spin put on the development at the AFL press conference.

[redandbluemakepurple 370]

45 minutes ago, Redleg said:

On 360 they said that the North President put out a statement saying Clarkson had been cleared and that it was the right decision, as she had seen all the documents. What’s that about? Really?

Also said that two of the complainants “Zac and Amy” weren’t indigenous Australians.

What does that mean?

Is there a suggestion of bad treatment to non indigenous players or partners?

It’s all very confusing.

My bolded words are just putting fuel on the fire and are surprisingly ill-judged IMHO.

[DeeSpencer 26,266]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

On 360 they said that the North President put out a statement saying Clarkson had been cleared and that it was the right decision, as she had seen all the documents. What’s that about? Really?

Also said that two of the complainants “Zac and Amy” weren’t indigenous Australians.

What does that mean?

Is there a suggestion of bad treatment to non indigenous players or partners?

It’s all very confusing.

First Nations has been used in the report/reporting several times, it's my understanding that one of the couples may be from a non Australian First Nations background.

Not sure it's wise to really emphasise that because surely the conduct matters more, but there you go.

[rjay 25,301]

23 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

surely the conduct matters more

Of course it does.

I guess after all the previous reporting, I don't know, it take me aback.