BoBo

I don’t know if I hope the truth is anywhere on a scale leaning one way or the other to be honest. Remaining as disinterested as I can until the report and investigation findings are released to be objective with what’s in front of me.

Interesting statement. ’However, as the allegations against me have been spread widely and sometimes as indisputable matters of facts, I must state that my clear memory of the matters reported is very different’ So it’s not categorical denial that the matters occurred at all, it’s going to be about the character of what was said in so far as what was implied and what was inferred. If it straight up didn’t happen, he would come out and categorically deny the allegations.

Great call!

Fair points. Naughton coming to Melbourne for $750,000 would be an absurd STEAL though. He could easily demand $900,000+ To the highest bidder. Tomlinson is on $500,000 for us, bringing him into the dogs… whilst losing Naughton? For the same price? Tomlinson is also contracted with us until the end of 2024. Grundy is *apparently* going to have $300,000 of his remaining contract a year paid by the pies, which has 1-2 more years I think? Don’t see things squaring up financially real quick. If Naughton was so premiership hungry and ok with earning a lot less than he’s worth, then I guess I could see it happening. But his worth seems untenable for us if he wants money anywhere near his worth. I mean hey, if the doggies want to do it and Naughton is willing to break contract and be on the same money, then great! I just don’t see how it could happen without all the chips falling our way and the doggies being willing to lose their 2nd (arguably most important?) player.

Naughton is on $750,000 (apparently) at the dogs (would be worth more now considering this was a 2019 contract) and we are on the cusp of getting Grundy for about $600,000 or something? Ok.

Feeling real pessimistic today apparently.

Yup. Geelong broke them early and there was nothing Sydney could do about it. The pressure from Geelong in the first 3 qtrs was incredible to watch. Pretty bland GF for neutrals though I thought…

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).

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?

Yup I agree. This is by far the most likely scenario.

If Chris Fagan wasn’t a highly media trained AFL coach that has access to every single news station/news paper/journalist in the country that has a dedicated team of communications staff at his club, I could entertain this as being a valid concern. But he is Chris Fagan and he does have endless access to journalists. He could pick up the phone at anytime, to any journalist and give as much detail as he wants if he chose. So if he did just miss the communications from the journalist, it’s not like he can’t make a call and be heard…. He was given 24 hours to respond and he didn’t. He could have asked for more time, but he didn’t. If *somehow* he didn’t check his email or phone messages or missed calls, as an AFL coach, then that’s on him, not the journalist. ‘To me it looks the equivalent of a journalist thrusting a microphone in someone's face demanding explanations on something they know little if anything about’ If Fagan is the person in this scenario, why are you saying that he either knows ‘little if anything’ about it?

The journalist rejects this in part and maintains he contacted Fagan directly. Can only assume he did the same with the rest of them.

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.

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

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.

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?

It’s a very effective mode of deflection, you throw the accusations you’re guilty of at your opponent to skew discourse. Murdoch press saying the ABC has an agenda is the definition of this tactic.

Good thing a court has already heard his side and decided he’s a racist. So please allow me to dance on his head and call him a racist. Thanks for your redundantly obvious point Mr. Racist.

Given that the abc report has redacted the real names of those mentioned in the abc article and that the initial report by the Hawks was purely about documenting the experiences of indigenous players and their time at the club… An AFL investigation without further testimony from those indigenous players involved without naming them is going to be untenable. I worry that players that were willing to speak in the initial internal club report will be intimidated out of adding/clarifying further if pressed. They clearly are uncomfortable/intimidated from being named which says a lot about the dynamics of the situation.

The ABC report was interviews with 3 families involved in the report. From the article: ‘Hawthorn had more than 20 First Nations players in the period of the review. Three families involved told ABC Sport about incidents in which club staff allegedly bullied and removed First Nations players from their homes and relocated them elsewhere, telling them to choose between their careers and their families’ The report itself is apparently going to have more allegations.

Is the lynch mob in the room with you now Cranky?

@ding Oh shoot, I misread for me to PM you the links, my apologies. Not on purpose.

https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Publications/BB/bb41.pdf https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au/media-releases/article/ibac-audit-highlights-inadequacies-in-victoria-police's-handling-of-complaints-by-aboriginal-people https://hir.harvard.edu/police-violence-australia-aboriginals/amp/ Here’s a few. I recognise that the first two are VERY long, so I included the last one that is a synthesis of criminological findings as an explanation. ———————————————————————— You’ve said to me: ‘We we’re clearly discussing RPFC’s suggestion that white Ex-coppers couldn’t possibly give them a fair hearing’ And: ‘Are you suggesting all of our prosecutors, judges and juries are racist too?.... ALL of them? This garbage needs to stop.’ To answer your question about whether I think ex-white police officers could give indigenous Australians a fair hearing, the data (to which I’ve provided in the links) suggests that there is an huge implicit bias within the entire justice system. It isn’t about any one ( or five) individuals, it is at systemic level. Given this clear evidence of bias that’s is endemic within the justice system, it isn’t entirely outrageous to suggest having an integrity board that is filled with ex-members of a state apparatus that again, clearly has bias issues, might not be a good idea. Doesn’t make them bad people, but what it has the capacity to do, is allow these same systemic biases to replicate themselves. So I don’t know if they could or couldn’t give a fair hearing. Nobody does. The five members are probably perfectly fine people. However, I don’t think it’s a good idea to have such a high representation of people from a state apparatus that is very, VERY, problematic when it comes to just outcomes for indigenous Australians, in and of itself. I arrive at this position exclusively from what the data about this institution says. It’s not a flippant position.

Nup. That would be a dumb thing to say or to think I’m saying. I’m giving you statistical facts about how systemic racism exists and expresses itself in Australia which are a part of the reasons indigenous Australians to mistrust the police. Not an opinion either, it’s just very basic criminology which finds these disparities out. I can send you links to criminological papers on the issue which explains it all if you like?

489 indigenous deaths in custody since 1991 might be a reason? With 0 convictions? Indigenous people composing 3% of the Australian population but comprising 28% of jail inmates?