BoBo

An Aldous Harding mention in an AFL thread. What a time to be alive.

We can absolutely do it next year. Hunter replacing hunt is a huge upgrade. Grundy replacing Jackson is (on current abilities) also a huge upgrade. I got sucked into the ‘what’s happened to Grundy?’ in the midst of his form decline after his big deal… but even after his decline, he’s still easily in the top 5 ruckman in the game. Schache is a like for like for Weed but is more versatile in my opinion. If anything he’s also an upgrade. I feel personnel wise, we have only strengthened the team. Make some tactical tweaks, get back to the selfless 2021 style (I felt like at times this year we had players go for glory instead of the best thing for the team) and bring back in T-Mac to bolster the forward line. I believe wholeheartedly that our best still beats everyone else’s. Just got to get the recipe right with what we have to make that happen. Good as gold.

Ok no worries, thanks for the comment Bitter. I do try to avoid generalisations and sincerely take on advice to avoid generalisations when I’m explicitly or implicitly making generalisations which I’ll own up too. Always open to that, I don’t know everything (or really anything truth be told). I’m asking Mullet to justify his overtly generalised comment in account of the specific claims (not general claims which you’ve stated for me to keep away from) made in the article that ‘those statements apply for any student’. Given that: Indigenous kids being ‘banned’ from speaking their home language seems pretty strange considering I’d hazard a guess that people from Italy, Spain, Indonesia, China, Nigeria, French Canada etc. etc. etc. probably aren’t being told the same thing. So that’s weird considering they live here and unless speaking a language apart from Australian English is outlawed, that’s a strange thing to ‘ban’. I also wonder how many non-indigenous, economically wealthy (considering it’s a boarding school) people were told their family of origin was a ‘dead loss’ and that the school family that mentored them was their family now. That’s literally cult behaviour which I’m sure you would agree. Don’t feel like I need to engage with the whole how to and how much you should wash. But all that is by the by really. What I really want to know is considering you are against generalisations (which I asserted none), why didn’t you aim the ‘don’t make generalisations’ point to the commenter who made blatant generalisations against specific claims made in the article that he didn’t read, but to my reply?? Why would you aim the ‘don’t generalise’ comment to the person that is asking another poster to not generalise? I’m sincerely not implying anything further than, if you don’t want people to generalise, then why are you aiming that at me in this situation? I’m trying to clarify Mullets overt generalisation?

Are these the larger cultural shifts you mean? Or applying to any student? From the article: ‘Examples include staff presuming that a student had special learning needs, despite evidence to the contrary. One young woman was top of her class but required to attend supplementary English as a Second Language lessons with the overseas students. Today she is a doctor. Young men reported being banned from speaking in their home languages at school or in the boarding house. Another was told that their family of origin was a “dead loss” and that the school family who mentored them should be their family now. Two young women explained how humiliated they felt when a poster was fixed to the bathroom wall telling them how, and how often, to wash themselves’

This seems prescient: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/12825394

Wait, so harmes and a second round pick for pick 60??

Yeah, they were all on the phone to lawyers as soon as they got wind that the abc were asking questions.

I love it! It’s like a time machine

There is still a significant portion of Australians that deny racism exists outside of explicitly calling people racial slurs. On top of that, there’s a smaller segment that want to propagate and perpetuate racism because… well… they’re just racist and they want to hold onto that apparently. People still defend Andrew Bolt for example even though he peddles anti-genocide rhetoric in the biggest newspaper in the country. Even if the allegations are proven to be 100 % correct on the weight of things, I have learned to never underestimate people’s ability to deny racist intent. People will then just say ‘ok yes those things happened, but it’s an isolated incident, this definitely isn’t an example of a larger trend and we definitely shouldn’t extrapolate this ‘isolated’ incident to larger societal/historical trends blah blah blah’

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?