Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVI

[VelvetSledge]

It's nice to not be the center of attention for once, especially in a negative aspect - but good lord this is just sad for all involved. It's going to get nasty soon.

 

['51 Bewick]

Clarkson is a creep and the AFL is pathetic. Sweep, Rug.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

He's completely willing to tell his story, but only when others jump through a certain series of hoops that he's comfortable with, that he knows they don't want to jump through.

I mean he could simply tell it if he was so innocent of everything.

I thought he was told not to say anything whilst investigation is ongoing. He and Fagan want the right to defend themselves and want to give evidence to the panel to clear their names, whilst the confidentiality that was promised has not been fully adhered.

 

[jannissary]

He's completely willing to tell his story, but only when others jump through a certain series of hoops that he's comfortable with, that he knows they don't want to jump through.

I mean he could simply tell it if he was so innocent of everything.

yeah i was listening to the radio the other day & he kept on saying he did nothing wrong but he'll only answer the investigators or something

so dumb

 

[BrunoV]

yeah i was listening to the radio the other day & he kept on saying he did nothing wrong but he'll only answer the investigators or something

so dumb

Who is it you want him to talk to?

 

[jannissary]

Who is it you want him to talk to?

if he's acting like he's innocent he should just say it publicly, i don't see why he can't

 

[citizen-erased]

Is anyone else wondering how this isn't bringing the game into disrepute

Along with collingwood being persistently racist.

 

[TheGrizz]

He's completely willing to tell his story, but only when others jump through a certain series of hoops that he's comfortable with, that he knows they don't want to jump through.

Sorry, but that is rubbish.
I mean, dont get it twisted. I despise Clarkson as much as the next Essendon supporter for a myriad of reasons relating to football.

But let's be clear - he/Fagan/Burt are not 'demanding' anything that isn't completely reasonable for someone in his position.
If what Clarkson, Fagan and Burt are being accused of is even remotely true, it's career over and reputations irreparably decimated.
And that's not just footy, but any job that involves dealing with minorities in a position of authority. That is a very small field of vocations in modern Australia.

And so an expectation (which is generally held) that they would answer the inquiry and have to give their version of events when they havent been presented with the full extent of evidence against them and the totality of allegations provided by the aggrieved is - to be frank - absolutely ****ing bonkers.

A reasonable person would think that in order for them to defend themselves/answer allegations as accurately as possible, knowing what evidence has been compiled against them and what is being alleged in specific times and circumstances is a prerequisite. Knowing the contents of the ABC article ain't gonna cut it.

It's not expecting people to jump through hoops - it's basic procedural fairness. If the inquiry aren't willing to present them with the evidence, and the aggrieved don't want them to ever have it, then this goes one way - litigation, and most likely defamation suits following that

I mean he could simply tell it if he was so innocent of everything.

if he's acting like he's innocent he should just say it publicly, i don't see why he can't

No, he can't. Everyone involved signed a confidentiality agreement at the outset of the investigation, and I imagine a significant aspect to that is refraining from public comment of the details of what is being investigated.

It is a common and basic practice in ADR processes and external disciplinary investigations.
He already said he was innocent right back when it started.

 

[Lore]

I don’t know why they keep commenting on it. They put out statements at the start. Should just let the lawyers work and the process play out.

There will be a time for public comment once the process concludes, whatever the outcome, and then either litigate or don’t, if you dislike the outcome.

I don’t know if the seemingly constant bleating is intended to publicly discredit the process in case the outcome goes against them or take the heat off his current club and their on-field performances, but it’s the kind of PR that hardly seems worth it.

Surely a good lawyer would advise against commenting.

 

[andleanback]

yeah i was listening to the radio the other day & he kept on saying he did nothing wrong but he'll only answer the investigators or something

so dumb

Well he’s only allowed to tell his side to the investigators…
It’ll end up in court imo

 

[faible]

It's not expecting people to jump through hoops - it's basic procedural fairness. If the inquiry aren't willing to present them with the evidence, and the aggrieved don't want them to ever have it, then this goes one way - litigation, and most likely defamation suits following that

It is, they've requested a whole host of information from the ex-players, some of which they're not willing to provide due to confidentiality - and potentially, irrelevancy - but the remainder of which has been provided.

No, he can't. Everyone involved signed a confidentiality agreement at the outset of the investigation, and I imagine a significant aspect to that is refraining from public comment of the details of what is being investigated.

Sure he can. I didn't say anything about speaking publicly though, he could speak to the tribunal, which he's refusing to do until others have jumped through the hoops he (and his legal team) have decided they need to jump through.

Unsurprisingly, Aboriginal people with a distrust of a legal system that often does not treat them fairly, have distrust of a tribunal process under that legal system. I doubt we'll see justice done here, for any party.

 

[Lore]

Sliding doors sinking to new lows

 

[Beerfish]

Then then?

 

[faible]

Then then?

He continues to get worse

 

[VelvetSledge]

I dunno, the paragraph shitting on Hawthorne was kind of good.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

It is, they've requested a whole host of information from the ex-players, some of which they're not willing to provide due to confidentiality - and potentially, irrelevancy - but the remainder of which has been provided.



Sure he can. I didn't say anything about speaking publicly though, he could speak to the tribunal, which he's refusing to do until others have jumped through the hoops he (and his legal team) have decided they need to jump through.

Unsurprisingly, Aboriginal people with a distrust of a legal system that often does not treat them fairly, have distrust of a tribunal process under that legal system. I doubt we'll see justice done here, for any party.

He’s not refusing anything. He wants to have his say.

To quote Gill when terms of reference were released:

“Given the seriousness of the allegations, it is important that we set up an independent investigation that is fair and provides a clear and safe process to investigate the matters referred to the AFL by the Hawthorn Football Club,” McLachlan said in a statement.

“The terms of reference provide the guide rails for which the investigation can be undertaken in a culturally safe environment.”

So in order to protect all those involved on both sides it’s been deemed appropriate to have all discussions go through the panel.

 

[TheGrizz]

It is, they've requested a whole host of information from the ex-players, some of which they're not willing to provide due to confidentiality - and potentially, irrelevancy - but the remainder of which has been provided.

They (Clarkson and Co) have requested a cache of information that has already been provided to the inquiry by the aggrieved in the process of the inquiry. They aren't seeking the Aggrieved compile further evidence that they know they won't, as you suggest.
Now the aggrieved dont want the panel to hand that over to Clarkson/Fagan/Burt on fear it will be misused or leaked.

If they have provided it themselves, it fails any test of logic that they would then argue it is irrelevant or too confidential.
If that is the evidence that aggrieved have provided to the inquiry in support of the allegations against Clarkson and Co, then they have every right to see it. That is not an unreasonable hoop.

Sure he can. I didn't say anything about speaking publicly though, he could speak to the tribunal, which he's refusing to do until others have jumped through the hoops he (and his legal team) have decided they need to jump through.

Unsurprisingly, Aboriginal people with a distrust of a legal system that often does not treat them fairly, have distrust of a tribunal process under that legal system. I doubt we'll see justice done here, for any party.

First off, this isn't a tribunal. It's an investigation and may be loosely interpreted as ADR considering mediation is being mooted. There are no laws of evidence here other than general principles of fairness.

As above, it fails any logic that Clarkson and Co would walk into an inquiry to answer questions when they do not even know what evidence or allegations have been leveled agains them.
It's for the same ethical reason that we have discovery in legal process for example. Its why we wouldn't expect someone accused of murder to walk into a court room and be cross examined without knowing the evidence against them.

They are fully entitled to know what they are being accused of and the evidence supporting it as part of this 'truth telling' exercise before they answer anything.

I get this feeling that if this was anyone other than Clarkson apmost everyone would have an issue with it.

 

[84859300]

I don’t know why they keep commenting on it. They put out statements at the start. Should just let the lawyers work and the process play out.

There will be a time for public comment once the process concludes, whatever the outcome, and then either litigate or don’t, if you dislike the outcome.

I don’t know if the seemingly constant bleating is intended to publicly discredit the process in case the outcome goes against them or take the heat off his current club and their on-field performances, but it’s the kind of PR that hardly seems worth it.

Surely a good lawyer would advise against commenting.

With the time it's taking to get to any legal process to even start, the inaction allows for speculation to grow and grow. Remaining silent despite the magnitude of the situation and the parties involved could be understood as the accused just continuing on with no care or remorse.

IMO - I think that their continuing to mention the case (within reason) shows humility and empathy that this is nowhere close to even being looked at, when they have already been tried and strung up by the media. Yes, lawyers are involved, but the AFL have been left lacking in making a decision for or against on their employees. What's the answer: forced leave, backing of the coaches association, let them coach, suspend half their pay etc.? I'm not sure either.

Yet, the AFL find it equally important to pressure the political objective of having clubs state their status on the First Nations Voice in parliament.

Priorities here are certainly borked right now.

 

[Nifft]

Then then?

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Two Tassie Lib MPs resigning from the party in protest over worries about future debt of new stadium. Tassie now a minority govt

Anger over Hobart AFL stadium sinks Tasmania's government into minority as MPs quit party

Concerns over a contentious $715 million stadium and the government's priorities have pushed two Tasmanian MPs to quit the Liberal Party and sit as independents, ending Premier Jeremy Rockliff's majority.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Lore]

With the time it's taking to get to any legal process to even start, the inaction allows for speculation to grow and grow. Remaining silent despite the magnitude of the situation and the parties involved could be understood as the accused just continuing on with no care or remorse.

IMO - I think that their continuing to mention the case (within reason) shows humility and empathy that this is nowhere close to even being looked at, when they have already been tried and strung up by the media. Yes, lawyers are involved, but the AFL have been left lacking in making a decision for or against on their employees. What's the answer: forced leave, backing of the coaches association, let them coach, suspend half their pay etc.? I'm not sure either.

Yet, the AFL find it equally important to pressure the political objective of having clubs state their status on the First Nations Voice in parliament.

Priorities here are certainly borked right now.

Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought careless and lacking in remorse, than to open your mouth and prove it.

You have lawyers for lawyering. You have spokespeople for speaking. You have agents for PR. What it looks like is he's a bit unhinged and instead of taking advice from people paid to handle it, he's taking matters into his own hands and doing things that are counter to his interests. Pride cometh before the fall and all that.

The only people that are currently going to believe a word he says are already pre-disposed to love him for his achievements in football, to disbelieve victims where the perpetrator is in a position of authority, and/or to favour outcomes which disempower and silence Indigenous people or minority demographics generally. Just because you have the right to speak doesn't mean it's advisable.

And you know if the shoe was on the other foot and the accusers went on radio or television talking about their experiences he'd be the first to object, too.

One would hope there is a Reconciliation Action Plan, GM Indigenous & GM People and Culture whose job it is to present the AFL as a culturally safe place for all of their employees, Indigenous, playing, non-Indigenous, coaching, whatever, and to ensure that it is more than just a veneer.

There should be policies in place on how to handle stuff like this, and you'd expect adherence to be written into all contracts where the AFL is a listed employer – especially when it's not the first time they've dealt with a) racism and sexism b) employees suing each other c) public relations problems resulting from poor behaviour of employees.

 

[frodos gardener]

The only people that are currently going to believe a word he says are already pre-disposed to love him for his achievements in football, to disbelieve victims where the perpetrator is in a position of authority, and/or to favour outcomes which disempower and silence Indigenous people or minority demographics generally. Just because you have the right to speak doesn't mean it's advisable.

I think there's another camp, and I'd put myself in it - those who don't like Clarkson at all, but who don't have a firm belief about what happened because they weren't there and aren't across the evidence. I would've thought that would be most people, but it seems (and this isn't a shot at anyone in particular) some people like to form their opinions based on how they feel about any alleged victims and perpetrators. I prefer just to wait and see what the full story and facts are. Can't say that I always succeed, but it's my starting point.

It can feel right to say "he's a campaigner and this sounds in line with something he'd do" but we just don't really know.

 

[VelvetSledge]

Clarko rocking up to the Hawkes flag reunion like:

"Oh gosh. You know, I'm not much on speeches, but, it's so gratifying to leave you wallowing in the mess you've made. You're screwed. Thank you. Bye."

 

[Zach Package]

Clarko rocking up to the Hawkes flag reunion like:

"Oh gosh. You know, I'm not much on speeches, but, it's so gratifying to leave you wallowing in the mess you've made. You're screwed. Thank you. Bye."

 

[jannissary]

No, he can't. Everyone involved signed a confidentiality agreement at the outset of the investigation, and I imagine a significant aspect to that is refraining from public comment of the details of what is being investigated.

It is a common and basic practice in ADR processes and external disciplinary investigations.
He already said he was innocent right back when it started.

that's fair, i suppose i'm just a bit sick of hearing nothing new out of the investigation.