11 minutes ago, rjay said:

Who could blame them.

I don't trust the AFL either, history shows they have never got it right...despite all the chances they've had.

The more serious concern in terms of trying to get a resolution is that the indigenous families don't wish to testify or for the issues to go into the legal system (according to John Ralph).

Without them telling their stories to a representative body Clarkson, Burt and Fagan will forever stay accused and don't get the opportunity to put their case.

For any panel to be both credible and independent it should eschew the appointment of any person who might be seen as having, to use the legal term, an "apprehension of bias" by the public and the football community.

This principle would exclude any club officials, discrimination officers, aboriginal members and coaches representatives and also any attempt to introduce a gender balance.

A truly independent and credible panel should be comprised of independent outsiders who have an open mind, no preconceived notions and the ability to frame their investigations and questions to all participants with a view to establishing the facts.

Once the facts are established, all those who might otherwise have seemed worthy of a place on the panel, ie. those who might be seen as biased, should be available to provide background and interpretation for the benefit of the panel.

If, as reported, the complainants no longer want to proceed with a further investigation, the investigation by the panel must still go ahead if only to protect the coaches' interests.

Gil and the AFL board have to make it work.

6 minutes ago, BDA said:

Adelaide conducted a review of the infamous preseason camp. The conclusion was nothing to see here. No wonder these families have reservations 

It is understandable the indigenous families feel the Adelaide camp is a good example of the 'system' having failed them.  Not only did the AFL Integrity Unit find nothing to see, Work Safe SA also gave the all clear.

As I mentioned it is hard to see how the AFL will even get to first base to set up a panel.

2 minutes ago, tiers said:

For any panel to be both credible and independent it should eschew the appointment of any person who might be seen as having, to use the legal term, an "apprehension of bias" by the public and the football community.

This principle would exclude any club officials, discrimination officers, aboriginal members and coaches representatives and also any attempt to introduce a gender balance.

A truly independent and credible panel should be comprised of independent outsiders who have an open mind, no preconceived notions and the ability to frame their investigations and questions to all participants with a view to establishing the facts.

Once the facts are established, all those who might otherwise have seemed worthy of a place on the panel, ie. those who might be seen as biased, should be available to provide background and interpretation for the benefit of the panel.

If, as reported, the complainants no longer want to proceed with a further investigation, the investigation by the panel must still go ahead if only to protect the coaches' interests.

Gil and the AFL board have to make it work.

Serious question:  who would qualify for the panel with those criteria?

15 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

The more serious concern in terms of trying to get a resolution is that the indigenous families don't wish to testify or for the issues to go into the legal system (according to John Ralph).

Without them telling their stories to a representative body Clarkson, Burt and Fagan will forever stay accused and don't get the opportunity to put their case.

They might just say bad luck...you sort it out AFL, you weren't there when needed you. Never have been for all your tokenism.

Backed Eddie M & others before him.

Who helped Goodes when he was left out on a limb?

Who helped Eddie B?

I can totally understand their reticence.

Does anyone else find it odd that the AFL is in charge of investigating the AFL?

 

6 minutes ago, rjay said:

They might just say bad luck...you sort it out AFL, you weren't there when needed you. Never have been for all your tokenism.

Backed Eddie M & others before him.

Who helped Goodes when he was left out on a limb?

Who helped Eddie B?

I can totally understand their reticence.

If It wasn't clear I 100% understand their reticence and share their doubts about the AFL it having failed them many many times but you are missing my point about a way to get to a resolution. 

Anyway, I've posted the information that has come up today.  People can interpret it how they wish but just note the last thing I'm doing is defending the AFL and the quoted post makes it look like I do.  I don't.

37 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Serious question:  who would qualify for the panel with those criteria?

Not many. Although I expect that there would be any number of experienced senior people with a judicial, administrative or management background that are not connected to footy who would qualify.

I don't believe that the AFL would be looking in this direction as they seem to be looking elsewhere. Pity.

It's the problem with the AFL's short term management of the various issues that have popped up. It's all very well and good to make an issue go away by managing the issue in the short term (Goodes, Adelaide camp, Lumumba, etc) or by providing platitudes that don't require follow though (indigenous round, Dreamtime, etc), but when you need something from those whose issues you have been managing away, that lack of trust means that there's no genuine relationship. 

The families have every right, now, to say to the AFL that "We've told our stories but we don't trust you to act in our best interests, so #$%^ off". 

This is not their issue anymore, it's the AFL's. It's up to the AFL to repair the relationship with the indigenous community through genuine actions in the best interests of the indigenous community, which would only make an impact (slowly) over the longer term. There will, however, still be many whose bridges the AFL cannot unburn. 

3 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

....

The families have every right, now, to say to the AFL that "We've told our stories but we don't trust you to act in our best interests, so #$%^ off". 

...

The difficulty is greater than that I fear.  My first thought when the AFL said it would investigate was "Will these people really want to go through this all again in a more public way, especially if some smooth-talking lawyer gets to cross-examine them".   Now maybe the AFL review won't go that way, but if it does I suspect this will not end well for anyone.

48 minutes ago, tiers said:

This principle would exclude any club officials, discrimination officers, aboriginal members and coaches representatives and also any attempt to introduce a gender balance.

How is the panel supposed to understand the issues and the perspectives if there are no indigenous people or football people on the panel? And how would either side accept the outcome if there's nobody on the panel that can understand their perspective?

Independent doesn't have to be synonymous with ignorant (ie, the panel, not you). 

What a [censored] Pandora's box this has become !

There is a very long way to go on this.

53 minutes ago, sue said:

The difficulty is greater than that I fear.  My first thought when the AFL said it would investigate was "Will these people really want to go through this all again in a more public way, especially if some smooth-talking lawyer gets to cross-examine them".   Now maybe the AFL review won't go that way, but if it does I suspect this will not end well for anyone.

well, in the interests of justice for everyone i can't see how cross examination (of both accused and accuser) can be avoided, given very specific and serious accusations have been made. Unfortunately accusations can't just be left hanging in the air so to speak, they have to be tested rigorously in a fair legal process, uncomfortable or not.

1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

If It wasn't clear I 100% understand their reticence and share their doubts about the AFL it having failed them many many times but you are missing my point about a way to get to a resolution. 

Anyway, I've posted the information that has come up today.  People can interpret it how they wish but just note the last thing I'm doing is defending the AFL and the quoted post makes it look like I do.  I don't.

No, I get your point (and understand it's Ralphy's article) it's just that I don't think they believe there will be a fair resolution so why put yourself through it.

I appreciate you posting the information..

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

Unfortunately accusations can't just be left hanging in the air so to speak, they have to be tested rigorously in a fair legal process, uncomfortable or not.

They can be left hanging and don't have to be tested unless someone wants to take the issue through the courts.

The AFL have no jurisdiction over the families involved.

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

well, in the interests of justice for everyone i can't see how cross examination (of both accused and accuser) can be avoided, given very specific and serious accusations have been made. Unfortunately accusations can't just be left hanging in the air so to speak, they have to be tested rigorously in a fair legal process, uncomfortable or not.

True. What I meant by 'may not end well for anyone' was that the complainants may refuse to enter into such a process and so there may be no resolution.

4 minutes ago, sue said:

True. What I meant by 'may not end well for anyone' was that the complainants may refuse to enter into such a process and so there may be no resolution.

yes i agree that's a real possibility

and no resolution could lead to all sorts of problems i don't want to speculate on

2 hours ago, BDA said:

Adelaide conducted a review of the infamous preseason camp. The conclusion was nothing to see here. No wonder these families have reservations 

Was thinking exactly the same thing.

I'd add that the AFL were happy to leave it there, even though from the get go there was talk of cultural insensitivities.

Which opened the door for the ****knuckles running the camp to take the age to court for their reporting on the camp.

And the Age folded, only for eddy to reveal more of what went on and basically backing up Sam McClure's initial reporting.

2 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

It's the problem with the AFL's short term management of the various issues that have popped up. It's all very well and good to make an issue go away by managing the issue in the short term (Goodes, Adelaide camp, Lumumba, etc) or by providing platitudes that don't require follow though (indigenous round, Dreamtime, etc), but when you need something from those whose issues you have been managing away, that lack of trust means that there's no genuine relationship. 

The families have every right, now, to say to the AFL that "We've told our stories but we don't trust you to act in our best interests, so #$%^ off". 

This is not their issue anymore, it's the AFL's. It's up to the AFL to repair the relationship with the indigenous community through genuine actions in the best interests of the indigenous community, which would only make an impact (slowly) over the longer term. There will, however, still be many whose bridges the AFL cannot unburn. 

Totally agree with all of the above.

I'd add that it won't be long before some tool in the media will says clarkson and pagan are the real victims.

Edited September 27, 20222 yr by binman

If the AFL manage to sweep this under a rug, I’ll be furious. I can understand completely if the families involved don’t want to go into the courts as they will not win, regardless of the outcome.

I do believe there is a genuine chance for the AFL to make a statement and influence a huge audience for future generations. Like it or not, we all need to be better with how we treat people and culturally we could improve immensely as a population.

This should not happen to anyone, from any background, yet the fact it may have been happening, in a very formal manner, just a few years ago, is truly horrifying.

 

 

2 hours ago, Roost it far said:

Does anyone else find it odd that the AFL is in charge of investigating the AFL?

 

No surprise the Essendon players were found not guilty.

The indigenous players' version of events, or ''their story'' as I keep reading on here, need to be fully tested.

There seems to be a presumption that their accounts are beyond scrutiny and are to be accepted as fact.  This doesn't sit well with me.

I look forward to seeing how these accusations play out with both parties having a fully transparent and fair hearing.

4 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

There seems to be a presumption that their accounts are beyond scrutiny and are to be accepted as fact.

No there isn't.

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

No there isn't.

It's most definitely an undercurrent throughout many of the posts across these 26 pages.

Otherwise, I wouldn't be here.