11 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Yeah, people who think Russell Jackson's article was as bad as it was going to get and that it was BS be prepared. Usually more people come forward after the initial bombshell.

On 9/21/2022 at 2:30 PM, CYB said:

I hear you but if this was a trial for rape or paedophilia, you would need much more than witness statement to persecute the perpetrator. From what I read there doesn’t seem to be any factual evidence to support these allegations. It is circumstantial as I can find many holes in the information that has been presented and the way it has been presented. 

My frustration is probably misplaced - as i do hope the truth comes out and justice prevails. I have a mistrust in all things media as they are inherently conflicted in their duties these days to sell papers and I find it just way too coincidental that they decide to release this report on the eve of the GF. 
 

That first statement is just flat out incorrect. 

I'd like to see two things:  (1) expand scope of inquiry to all clubs; and (2) expand scope of inquiry to all AFL players (not just indigenous, not just young). 

Of course, that won't/can't happen. 

But I think that is what is needed to determine:  (A) whether this is just a Hawthorn or an industry-wide issue; and (B) whether this is racism, or age/new-player-related abuse/bullying, or some combination thereof.

1 minute ago, Frosticles said:

I'd like to see two things:  (1) expand scope of inquiry to all clubs; and (2) expand scope of inquiry to all AFL players (not just indigenous, not just young). 

Of course, that won't/can't happen. 

But I think that is what is needed to determine:  (A) whether this is just a Hawthorn or an industry-wide issue; and (B) whether this is racism, or age/new-player-related abuse/bullying, or some combination thereof.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-news-2022-hawthorn-hawks-racism-report-other-clubs-conducting-external-reviews-sydney-swans-michael-oloughlin-fremantle-dockers-all-18-clubs-response-eddie-betts-call-latest/news-story/370963711da2f1571b22c9aad4f32ce4
 

Two clubs have already agreed to having reviews conducted. 

12 hours ago, CYB said:

They will be sued slander. Either Hawthorn, the review panel or the players. Or maybe all of them.

The review has been handled incredibly poorly.

 

Why do you say the accused parties will be suing for slander at this stage? The report hasn’t been released, there hasn’t been an investigation yet based on the report and the ABC story is adjacent to the report with testimony from 3 families involved with the report. 
 

At this stage, the only way you could say the accused would be suing is if you knew that any/all of the 3 families in the article were being untruthful. Do you have information that the families were being untruthful?

Not related to this topic I know, but has the AFL investigation in to that video of Dusty Martin that surfaced a month ago come out yet?  I tried several searches for the thread but couldn’t find it.

57 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Why do you say the accused parties will be suing for slander at this stage? The report hasn’t been released, there hasn’t been an investigation yet based on the report and the ABC story is adjacent to the report with testimony from 3 families involved with the report. 
 

At this stage, the only way you could say the accused would be suing is if you knew that any/all of the 3 families in the article were being untruthful. Do you have information that the families were being untruthful?

The accused are getting no natural justice. Rightly or wrongly they have been hung out to dry. 

19 minutes ago, old dee said:

The accused are getting no natural justice. Rightly or wrongly they have been hung out to dry. 

From what I have heard, there is at least one assistant coach who can back up some of the claims .

1 hour ago, old dee said:

The accused are getting no natural justice. Rightly or wrongly they have been hung out to dry. 

Ok, this is totally different from CYB saying the accused will be able to sue for slander as that specifically implies that the families are lying but…

This idea that the accused aren’t getting natural justice isn’t accurate. The Hawks report was just that, a report. It was to gather the experiences of indigenous players and that was the scope of the report. Which they did. In it, was extremely serious allegations. The report is confidential and hasn’t been publicly released yet.
 

There is now going to be an investigation by the AFL in which the accused will be told of the allegations, be able to give their side of the story and have their time in front of a tribunal to hear our the plurality of evidence from all sides. 
 

This is the definition of natural justice.
 

The only ‘contentious’ part in all of this that could be argued, is that the ABC journalist ran a story about this in which he interviewed participants in the report and released the story. This story is what everyone is referring too and nobody would know about this if this story hadn’t broken. 
 

So given that.
 

If you were to argue that the ABC journalist should not have run the story, which is the mechanism in this that brought all this to light, you have to realise you are arguing for either:

 

Self censorship by the journalist in the face of 3 families all making extremely serious and detailed allegations about one of the biggest clubs, in one of the biggest sports, in the country. The allegations are DEFINITELY in the public interest.They deserve to be heard. The journalist would be remiss in not publishing the story if the allegations being made, meet the journalistic standards of credibility. And if they are found to not meet those standards, then, he and the abc will get the pants sued off them. It would also be grounds for this journalist to never work in media again as he would be effectively gagging the families for the benefit of the accused.

Imagine how much would be covered up if journalists worked in this manner. We would be a waayyyyy worse society if this was the case.

Or

Censorship by some larger body to disallow the journalist from running the story in the interest of the accused. This is the definition of a cover up.

Yes this is a messy situation, but, the alternatives to how this whole situation played out would lead to EXTREMELY BAD outcomes for our society and in the end, the accused will have their opportunity to defend themselves, which goes against the idea that are not receiving natural justice. 
 

P.S. I’m not saying you are explicitly arguing for censorship, I’m saying the logical outcomes of people arguing the accused aren’t getting natural justice, would lead to censorship.

Edited September 23, 20222 yr by BoBo

You could say that every person accused of a crime and named in the media as being arrested and charged is being denied natural justice and their name besmirched because they haven't yet defended themselves in public.  

But generally we leave that to the trial.  The AFL review will effectively be the trial in this case.

Natural justice or procedural fairness (interchangeable) requires that the accused be given an opportunity to know their accusers and to be able to adequately respond to the accusations.

The dorks' report was not empowered to do this and, so far as I understand, has not been released or made public so that the risk of any action against the dorks, AFL or Egan, at this stage, would appear to be negligible.

However, the abc and the journo, who appear not to have relied on the contents of the report but interviewed the accusers separately, might not escape being sued if the accusations are comprehensively or substantially refuted following further investigations and the evidence of the accused.

It is a long process but, sadly, the three accused, if the accusations are not found to be credible, will never be able to clean the stain from their reputation.

Even if these accusations are "in the public interest" it is in the public's interest for such accusations to be thoroughly investigated from all sides before being released to the public in order to maintain an fair society where people's reputations cannot be impugned by unproven or unproveable accusations.

A difficult time ahead for our great game of footy.

 

55 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Ok, this is totally different from CYB saying the accused will be able to sue for slander as that specifically implies that the families are lying but…

This idea that the accused aren’t getting natural justice isn’t accurate. The Hawks report was just that, a report. It was to gather the experiences of indigenous players and that was the scope of the report. Which they did. In it, was extremely serious allegations. The report is confidential and hasn’t been publicly released yet.
 

There is now going to be an investigation by the AFL in which the accused will be told of the allegations, be able to give their side of the story and have their time in front of a tribunal to hear our the plurality of evidence from all sides. 
 

This is the definition of natural justice.
 

The only ‘contentious’ part in all of this that could be argued, is that the ABC journalist ran a story about this in which he interviewed participants in the report and released the story. This story is what everyone is referring too and nobody would know about this if this story hadn’t broken. 
 

So given that.
 

If you were to argue that the ABC journalist should not have run the story, which is the mechanism in this that brought all this to light, you have to realise you are arguing for either:

 

Self censorship by the journalist in the face of 3 families all making extremely serious and detailed allegations about one of the biggest clubs, in one of the biggest sports, in the country. The allegations are DEFINITELY in the public interest.They deserve to be heard. The journalist would be remiss in not publishing the story if the allegations being made, meet the journalistic standards of credibility. And if they are found to not meet those standards, then, he and the abc will get the pants sued off them. It would also be grounds for this journalist to never work in media again as he would be effectively gagging the families for the benefit of the accused.

Imagine how much would be covered up if journalists worked in this manner. We would be a waayyyyy worse society if this was the case.

Or

Censorship by some larger body to disallow the journalist from running the story in the interest of the accused. This is the definition of a cover up.

Yes this is a messy situation, but, the alternatives to how this whole situation played out would lead to EXTREMELY BAD outcomes for our society and in the end, the accused will have their opportunity to defend themselves, which goes against the idea that are not receiving natural justice. 
 

P.S. I’m not saying you are explicitly arguing for censorship, I’m saying the logical outcomes of people arguing the accused aren’t getting natural justice, would lead to censorship.

Perhaps the Journo involved could have interviewed the accused as well to bring any other perspectives to light

I just don't think making accusations alone is enough and like all of these matters rarely tested in open and fair environments because of the way it is brought to light. It will be interesting to see how this plays but damage is certainly a consequence

41 minutes ago, tiers said:

Even if these accusations are "in the public interest" it is in the public's interest for such accusations to be thoroughly investigated from all sides before being released to the public in order to maintain an fair society where people's reputations cannot be impugned by unproven or unproveable accusations.

I can rattle off at least a dozen names of public figures who have had their reputations trashed and careers lost because accusations have been made that they have no effective opportunity to combat let alone test in court of law.

The court of public opinion takes over.

8 minutes ago, Kent said:

Perhaps the Journo involved could have interviewed the accused as well to bring any other perspectives to light

I just don't think making accusations alone is enough and like all of these matters rarely tested in open and fair environments because of the way it is brought to light. It will be interesting to see how this plays but damage is certainly a consequence

They did ask the parties involved and they didn’t respond. 

On 9/21/2022 at 9:56 AM, DubDee said:

Horrific! I couldn’t finish reading the article. 

That poor woman, forced to abort her child and psychologically abused by the club. 

this is almost criminal

yes it is almost criminal  to be found guilty by the media  hang them  now myself i dont believe this at all and why arent the accusers named  if its  fair tor  fagan and clarkson to be crucified on an elegation and thats all it is 

1 hour ago, Ugottobekidding said:

From what I have heard, there is at least one assistant coach who can back up some of the claims .

"some of the claims" is not really a helpful statement, it just raises more questions on what statements they can back up?

WC have announced a review as well.  I think it will be come a industry wide review.  But I believe it should be expanded to all players to determine whether it was toward a specific group or aimed at all in their or other club cultures.  I still find it strange within a tight club environment that hawthorn must have had at the time, nothing has leaked before or other players heard/said anything.  As players talk to each other.  Surely a player having gone through that experience would talk about it with a teammate at some point, even to ask if it had happened to other players? 

14 minutes ago, BarnDee said:

yes it is almost criminal  to be found guilty by the media  hang them  now myself i dont believe this at all and why arent the accusers named  if its  fair tor  fagan and clarkson to be crucified on an elegation and thats all it is 

You really believe the Journalist made up this story from thin air?

12 minutes ago, BarnDee said:

yes it is almost criminal  to be found guilty by the media  hang them  now myself i dont believe this at all and why arent the accusers named  if its  fair tor  fagan and clarkson to be crucified on an elegation and thats all it is 

The Hawks asked for this information and had to ensure the past players privacy in order to get the information. They gave the coaches the chance to respond and they didn’t. 

be careful what you ask for. You might not like the answers

1 hour ago, tiers said:

 

Even if these accusations are "in the public interest" it is in the public's interest for such accusations to be thoroughly investigated from all sides before being released to the public in order to maintain an fair society where people's reputations cannot be impugned by unproven or unproveable accusations.

 

 

The journalist asked for Clarkson et al to respond to the story and they didn’t. They had an opportunity to be heard in the story and they didn’t take it. 
 

There is zero evidence thus far that the journalist has not met any journalistic standards here. 

You realise that if you made this a pre-requisite of journalism, to not release a story until both sides evidence had been waded through to the point of a concrete conclusion, we wouldn’t know about Jimmy Saville being one of the worst and most protected pedophiles in British History. Saville was dead at the time of print so he couldn’t defend himself and no court cases were able to test the validity of the allegations. They only had the hearsay evidence of victims. 

Just think about it for a second, if you didn’t broadcast credible allegations (ones that meet the journalistic standard) in the media, do you have any idea how much corruption would never have been found out about? 
 

You can’t demand a set of standards in a vacuum and not think about the broader problems that would arise. 
 

Edited September 23, 20222 yr by BoBo

Pretty sure Melbourne did one a few years back.

1 hour ago, sue said:

The AFL review will effectively be the trial in this case.

I hope not.

21 minutes ago, BoBo said:

The journalist asked for Clarkson et al to respond to the story and they didn’t. They had an opportunity to be heard in the story and they didn’t take it. 
 

There is zero evidence thus far that the journalist has not met any journalistic standards here. 

You realise that if you made this a pre-requisite of journalism, to not release a story until both sides evidence had been waded through to the point of a concrete conclusion, we wouldn’t know about Jimmy Saville being one of the worst and most protected pedophiles in British History. Saville was dead at the time of print so he couldn’t defend himself and no court cases were able to test the validity of the allegations. They only had the hearsay evidence of victims. 

Just think about it for a second, if you didn’t broadcast credible allegations (ones that meet the journalistic standard) in the media, do you have any idea how much corruption would never have been found out about? 
 

You can’t demand a set of standards in a vacuum and not think about the broader problems that would arise. 
 

According to Caroline Wilson, the journalist sent questions to the 'General' email address for North and Brisbane on Monday ie less than 48 hours before publication.  Not sure how well they are staffed post season. 

I didn't get the impression Clarkson and Fagan were directly contacted by the journalist.

Maybe an email to an info box is enough these days.  Given the nature of the allegations I would have thought more would have been done to avoid blindsiding them.

7 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

According to Caroline Wilson, the journalist sent questions to the 'General' email address for North and Brisbane on Monday ie less than 48 hours before publication.  Not sure how well they are staffed post season. 

I didn't get the impression Clarkson and Fagan were directly contacted by the journalist.

Maybe an email to an info box is enough these days.  Given the nature of the allegations I would have thought more would have been done to avoid blindsiding them.

 

11 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

According to Caroline Wilson, the journalist sent questions to the 'General' email address for North and Brisbane on Monday ie less than 48 hours before publication.  Not sure how well they are staffed post season. 

I didn't get the impression Clarkson and Fagan were directly contacted by the journalist.

Maybe an email to an info box is enough these days.  Given the nature of the allegations I would have thought more would have been done to avoid blindsiding them.

The journalist rejects this in part and maintains he contacted Fagan directly. 
 

Can only assume he did the same with the rest of them.