Jump to content

Hawks racism allegations (merged thread)


Demonland

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Each story Print, Radio or TV is either cleared to Broadcast or it is withheld, when it is sent to Legal 

So is it fair to say if there was one bit of doubt in the facts presented it would probably still be with legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Probably, but did he want a response? Or just want to be able to say he tried to get one...?

He could go to press without an attempt...

If there was more time, I think the pre-emptive legal route may have been pursued

Maybe the old 'Thank God this call went through to voicemail' trick?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, layzie said:

So is it fair to say if there was one bit of doubt in the facts presented it would probably still be with legal?

Were any "facts" presented? I'm not sure

There were quotes presented, from unnamed sources, who alleged events happened, without much context

Don't for a minute think that I doubt the allegations, I simply don't know anything. Just calling out the word "facts"

Edited by Graeme Yeats' Mullet
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, layzie said:

So is it fair to say if there was one bit of doubt in the facts presented it would probably still be with legal?

Absolutely Correct when I worked in News. I had a few stories pulled after spending a lot of hours working on them. Sometimes because circumstances changed, but other times because the risk was too high

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Were any "facts" presented? I'm not sure

There were quotes presented, from unnamed sources, who alleged events happened, without much context

Don't for a minute think that I doubt the allegations, I simply don't know anything. Just calling out the word "facts"

The people who gave the “facts” would know the consequences of lying. That would have been made very clear. 
This article was not one case, but 3 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't think there was much legal risk when you are just reporting on accusations by others. as long as he can prove the accusations were made (e.g. audio etc) that would suffice.

the reporter wasn't writing a personal opinion piece and by technically (even if contrived) offering a right of reply he covers himself further.

the legal approval to print in no way is an indication that any of the accusations are accurate

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i don't think there was much legal risk when you are just reporting on accusations by others. as long as he can prove the accusations were made (e.g. audio etc) that would suffice.

the reporter wasn't writing a personal opinion piece and by technically (even if contrived) offering a right of reply he covers himself further.

the legal approval to print in no way is an indication that any of the accusations are accurate

I don’t think the story would be printed if the journalist thought that any of the 3 cases were lying. This is the same journalist that broke the story about Rod Owen. 
What the Legal Department do to verify a story I cannot say. In my case we were just given a Yes or No

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i don't think there was much legal risk when you are just reporting on accusations by others. as long as he can prove the accusations were made (e.g. audio etc) that would suffice.

the reporter wasn't writing a personal opinion piece and by technically (even if contrived) offering a right of reply he covers himself further.

the legal approval to print in no way is an indication that any of the accusations are accurate

Exactly 

The report is of allegations made by third parties, which the reporter can establish were made

So the "facts" are those people made those allegations

Much of the opinion on here is based on the substance of the allegations - which have now been categorically denied by the accused parties

The legal avenue I think more time for responses may have resulted in was injunction to prevent the story going to press, not the reporter being sued

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I don’t think the story would be printed if the journalist thought that any of the 3 cases were lying. This is the same journalist that broke the story about Rod Owen. 
What the Legal Department do to verify a story I cannot say. In my case we were just given a Yes or No

what the reporter "thought" is really irrelevant and besides you or i don't actually know what he thought. It was a story....full stop.

now, if he had said in the article that he personally thought their story was true, legal would probably have told him to remove that statement.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, daisycutter said:

what the reporter "thought" is really irrelevant and besides you or i don't actually know what he thought. It was a story....full stop.

now, if he had said in the article that he personally thought their story was true, legal would probably have told him to remove that statement.

 

His reputation is on the line by writing the story. So far his reputation is Top Shelf.

If Russell Jackson “thought” his subjects were lying i don’t think the story would have been written. 
When i saw who wrote the article yesterday, I immediately read it with more interest. 
Balls have been put on the line here…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

His reputation is on the line by writing the story. So far his reputation is Top Shelf.

If Russell Jackson “thought” his subjects were lying i don’t think the story would have been written. 
When i saw who wrote the article yesterday, I immediately read it with more interest. 
Balls have been put on the line here…

i never said he didn't believe them (i don't even know) but what I did say is that it is irrelevant in the scheme of things.

I don't just believe a story is true just because i think the reporter "probably" thinks it is true.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, daisycutter said:

i never said he didn't believe them (i don't even know) but what I did say is that it is irrelevant in the scheme of things.

I don't just believe a story is true just because i think the reporter "probably" thinks it is true.

 

DC the Journalist put his name to the story. That means a lot. 
Many stories on the internet do not have a Journalists name. This one did. 
It is very relevant in this case whether the journalist believes he is writing facts or fiction. His job is on the line

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, old dee said:

What we now have is the two coaches having to prove themselves innocent. ⁴ Makes me wonder why we bother with courts. Much quicker and cheaper to just accept the accusers view and be done with it.

Ok no worries, what kind of media censorship sounds good to you then?

 

Do you want journalists to self censor in favour of the accused and the powerful?

Or

Would you like there to be a governing body determining what can be published?

 

Which absolute nightmare scenario sounds better to you than the current one?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

DC the Journalist put his name to the story. That means a lot. 
Many stories on the internet do not have a Journalists name. This one did. 
It is very relevant in this case whether the journalist believes he is writing facts or fiction. His job is on the line

i'm sure the journo is smart enough to know he hasn't got nearly all the "facts" yet and certainly not all the context.

he's dug up some allegations that he has no reason yet to doubt and gone with it. he's done nothing wrong and got a good scoop. i'm sure he realises there will be many more twists and turns to come and he'll have many more stories to publish.

no need to read anymore than that into it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


5 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Were any "facts" presented? I'm not sure

There were quotes presented, from unnamed sources, who alleged events happened, without much context

Don't for a minute think that I doubt the allegations, I simply don't know anything. Just calling out the word "facts"

No but you're right, they didn't provide the full report in PDF form or anything like that so shouldn't have said 'facts'. The one fact is that there are allegations I guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i'm sure the journo is smart enough to know he hasn't got nearly all the "facts" yet and certainly not all the context.

he's dug up some allegations that he has no reason yet to doubt and gone with it. he's done nothing wrong and got a good scoop. i'm sure he realises there will be many more twists and turns to come and he'll have many more stories to publish.

no need to read anymore than that into it. 

Stories like these are always a risk, but the Legal Department has gone through it with a fine tooth comb. 
So i will be interested to hear the other side. 
It’s on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i'm sure the journo is smart enough to know he hasn't got nearly all the "facts" yet and certainly not all the context.

he's dug up some allegations that he has no reason yet to doubt and gone with it. he's done nothing wrong and got a good scoop. i'm sure he realises there will be many more twists and turns to come and he'll have many more stories to publish.

no need to read anymore than that into it. 

Just curious, the journalists that brought up the Jimmy Saville case also just ‘dug up some allegations’ and went ‘with it’.

They had even less to go on considering Saville was dead, so in terms of ‘facts’, it’s easily arguable that Saville was the victim of a smear campaign, yes? Considering his side of the story never had the chance to be heard?

Just want to hear your reasoning considering the ‘facts’ are in question (in which they definitely were in the Saville case too). 

Edited by BoBo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, sue said:

Sorry OldDee I can’t stay quiet any longer. Hearsay is one word. 
 

@Demonstonewould be very proud of this post🙂

But OldDee is two words with lower case o and d😉

Edited by Lucifers Hero
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've followed the discussion about the the fairness of the publication of the allegations etc and overnight I came to the following conclusions which satisfy me, if no one else.

1. It was perfectly reasonable for the Hawthorn review to only question those making allegations.  That review was not charged with establishing the truth of the allegations by interviewing the alleged offenders.  That should be done by a seperate investigation by the club or the AFL.  A bit like the Crown prosecution service may decide there is a case to answer which then goes to trial where everyone gets to present their case.

2. So the next question then is, should  the review (or its effective contents) have been made public.  Surely it could not be kept secret until the 'trial' of the matter was concluded.  We don't do that for criminal trials. Keeping such things secret undermines public confidence that justice is being done. It's what you expect to happen in totalitarian countries.

3. So the next question is, could have it been made public without naming names?  That is, the AFL announces an enquiry into these allegations without naming the senior coach, other coaches or club.  But that wouldn't wash.  First for those who are concerned about Malthouse etc being besmirched, if it wasn't clear who was being accused, every coach at every club would be under an unfair cloud.  Anyway, it would soon become clear which club it was, so they just as well have been named at the start.

4. To me that leaves only the question of should the coaches have been given more time to respond.  I really can't see what would be achieved by that. Very unlikley that they would 'confess' or say there is some truth in some of the less obnoxious allegations and offer to assist any investigation.  Very much more likely, they'd either dodge responding to a journo or just deny the allegations and offer to support any investigation the AFL makes.  And that is what they did.  Whether they had 24 hours or a week, I can't see them doing anything else. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Demonland Forums  

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles  

    MEANWHILE by Whispering Jack

    … meanwhile, at about the same time that Narrm was putting its feet on the accelerator to obliterate the long-suffering Euro-Yroke combination, I heard someone mention in passing that Kuwarna was leading Waalitj Marawar by a whopping 46 to 1 halfway through the second quarter of their game over in Adelaide. “What is football coming to?” I asked myself.  In front of my eyes, the Demons were smashing it through the midfield, forcing turnovers and getting the footy to their forwards who w

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons

    PREGAME: Rd 12 vs Fremantle

    The Demons head back on the road for the fourth time this season as the travel to Alice Springs to take on the Fremantle Dockers at Treager Park on Sunday afternoon. Who comes in and who goes out?

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 71

    PODCAST: Rd 11 vs St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 27th May @ 8:30pm. Join George, Binman & I as we analyse the Demons victory at the MCG over the Saints in the Round 11. You questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show. If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human. Listen & Chat LIVE

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 24

    VOTES: Rd 11 vs St. Kilda

    Captain Max Gawn has a considerable lead over reigning champion Christian Petracca in the Demonland Player of the Year Award. Steven May, Alex Neal-Bullen & Jake Lever make up the Top 5. Your votes for the win against the Saints. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 54

    POSTGAME: Rd 11 vs St. Kilda

    After a very wasteful first half of footy the Demons ended up cruising to a clinical victory over the Saints by 38 points at the MCG and ultimately reclaimed a coveted spot in the Top 4.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 344

    GAMEDAY: Rd 11 vs St. Kilda

    It's Game Day and after 2 losses on the trot the Dees must win against the Saints today at the MCG to keep in touch with the Top 4. A loss today will see them drop out of the Top 8 for the first time since 2020.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 503

    HEAVEN OR HELL by The Oracle

    Clashes between Melbourne and St Kilda are often described as battles between the forces of heaven and hell. However, based on recent performances, it’s hard to get excited about the forthcoming match between these two sides. It would be fair to say that, at the moment, both of these teams are in the doldrums. The Demons have become the competition’s slow starters while the Saints are not only slow to begin, they’re not doing much of a job finishing off their games either. About the only th

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    THE BLOW by Whispering Jack

    Narrm’s finals prospects took a crushing blow after the team’s insipid performance at Optus Stadium against a confident Waaljit Marawar in the first of its Doug Nicholls Round outings for 2024.  I use the description “crushing blow” advisedly because, although the season is not yet at it’s halfway mark, the Demons have now failed abysmally in two of their games against teams currently occupying bottom eight places on the ladder.  The manner in which these losing games were played out w

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports 6

    HALF FULL by KC from Casey

    It was a case of the Casey Demons going into a game with a glass half full in their match up against the Brisbane Lions at Casey Fields on Saturday. As the list of injured and unavailable AFL and VFL listed players continues to grow and with Melbourne taking all three emergencies to Perth for the weekend on a “just in case” basis, its little brother was always destined to struggle. Casey was left with only eight AFL listed players from who to select their team but only two - an out-of-form

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!

×
×
  • Create New...