Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVI

[andleanback]

I think it's more that the AFL can't act with any real 'competence' unless it has a contractual power to compel.

No one has the power to compel retired players to do anything. No power to require production of documents exists. Not unless a court proceeding is commenced.

There is a case which has been made on the basis of documents which the accused can't see.

As I understand it, the complainants have attempted to put conditions on mediation which are consistent with the guilt of the accused.

You don't participate in a process that is not transparent and which looks designed to railroad you. What would be the purpose of that?

If I was Clarkson and believed myself innocent this would be in Court by now. I'm also not stuck between wanting to coach and defend my reputation so I can understand why he may be reluctant.

The whole approach is interesting. I rarely encounter resistance to informal production of documents which help an opponents case or where there is a genuine desire to settle...

Yep clarko and co want to see the full list of allegations and information before participating in mediation, they aren’t being allowed to. Why on earth would you walk into that without even knowing with what has been said. This ends up in the courts, and most likely defamation action.

 

[raskolnikov]

No sympathy for lol norf whatsoever. Lol norf.

 

[BrunoV]

Yep clarko and co want to see the full list of allegations and information before participating in mediation, they aren’t being allowed to. Why on earth would you walk into that without even knowing with what has been said. This ends up in the courts, and most likely defamation action.

I would not discount the possibility that Hawthorn is having buyer's regret.

You don't let activits near your organisation if for no reason other than they don't speak your language.

Anyone familiar with the grievance studies canon knows that the meaning of words gets strained, manipulated and extended well beyond the meaning you'd find in a dictionary or in common society. Afterall, that is the most expedient way toward bringing in the change that the activists and their friends came up with as being necessary... while in first year at uni.

The best example of word manipulation is 'gender'. Two sides of a debate having a discussion when only one side (the activist side) understands how the word is being defined.

I recall a real absence of direct quotes of key claims in the reporting. I am not discounting the possibility that the original investigation has planted many ideas that form the basis of the allegations.

 

[andleanback]

I would not discount the possibility that Hawthorn is having buyer's regret.

You don't let activits near your organisation if for no reason other than they don't speak your language.

Anyone familiar with the grievance studies canon knows that the meaning of words gets strained, manipulated and extended well beyond the meaning you'd find in a dictionary or in common society.

The best example is 'gender'. Two sides of a debate having a discussion when only one side understands how the word is being defined.ķ

I recall a real absence of direct quotes of key claims in the reporting. I am not discounting the possibility that the original investigation has planted many ideas that form the basis of the allegations.

I agree

 

[frodos gardener]

Did someone say KFC?

 

[Beerfish]

Did someone say KFC?

I'll have a word salad please with extra mayo.

 

[Nifft]

Did someone say KFC?

Putting potato on potato seems redundant, and yet it's especially nice to use the fries to eat their mash potato and gravy...

 

[Lore]

Yep clarko and co want to see the full list of allegations and information before participating in mediation, they aren’t being allowed to. Why on earth would you walk into that without even knowing with what has been said. This ends up in the courts, and most likely defamation action.

Defamation action against whom?

The ABC published based on their knowledge of Hawthorn's report, interviews with some of the families and having seen medical documents, journals and emails verifying the story. They have a pretty solid team of lawyers that would be verifying that stuff before they'd publish it, presumably under a public interest defence after taking all reasonable measures to get both sides of the story.

The part that's confusing for a public interest defence is I'm not entirely sure what qualifies as being in the public interest. Obviously if we were talking about a politician mis-spending public money that would be in the public interest, but the AFL and Hawthorn FC are recipients of public money and I'm not sure a fair wage for a day's work gives rise to a public interest in every person who has ever been hired with that money and what they do in the course of their employment? Especially when the public funding generally goes into facilities, not staffing.


The documents that the ABC have seen which would be used to protect the ABC, would also be useful as a defamation defence for the families that the ABC interviewed. You could argue misinterpretation or taken out of context or a bunch of other things, which is all still subject to a court case, but I think there is an exception in defamation law for honest opinions or something?

I'm also not sure what Hawthorn have done wrong in the sense of defamation, they have legal obligations to investigate allegations of discrimination in their organisation and a fiduciary duty to report the existence of such investigations to their key stakeholders (including members and the AFL). As far as I know their report has never been released so I don't think they can be done for defamation on that basis?


There are probably plenty of third parties that could be sued though, like talking heads on TV and radio if they're making statements as if fact, and then there's other public figures like club presidents and the like that mouth off sometimes and could get themselves into trouble.

 

[Lore]

I recall a real absence of direct quotes of key claims in the reporting. I am not discounting the possibility that the original investigation has planted many ideas that form the basis of the allegations.

Family separations and pregnancy termination: Hawthorn racism review reveals shock allegations against former coaches

Alastair Clarkson and Chris Fagan are named in a Hawthorn review into how First Nations players were treated during Clarkson's time at the helm of the Hawks. Warning — this story contains details of self-harm, pregnancy loss, and intergenerational trauma for Indigenous people.

www.abc.net.au

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

I would not discount the possibility that Hawthorn is having buyer's regret.

You don't let activits near your organisation if for no reason other than they don't speak your language.

Anyone familiar with the grievance studies canon knows that the meaning of words gets strained, manipulated and extended well beyond the meaning you'd find in a dictionary or in common society. Afterall, that is the most expedient way toward bringing in the change that the activists and their friends came up with as being necessary... while in first year at uni.

The best example of word manipulation is 'gender'. Two sides of a debate having a discussion when only one side (the activist side) understands how the word is being defined.

I recall a real absence of direct quotes of key claims in the reporting. I am not discounting the possibility that the original investigation has planted many ideas that form the basis of the allegations.

Activist? Strange use of the word. Someone who stands up for themselves after being wronged or potentially had a crime/some form of injustice committed against them is not an "activist".

 

[TheUnicorn]

R16-23 FIXTURE: Primetime Pies, treat for Dogs, Blues bumped

Collingwood and the Western Bulldogs feature prominently in marquee timeslots from rounds 16-23 of the 2023 season

www.afl.com.au

 

[Beerfish]

Boy I hope there's a few more Sunday arvo games for us.

 

[Ati Tude]

R16-23 FIXTURE: Primetime Pies, treat for Dogs, Blues bumped

Collingwood and the Western Bulldogs feature prominently in marquee timeslots from rounds 16-23 of the 2023 season

www.afl.com.au

AFL running around working out what else they can release today to get some attention away from another issue. Quick, quick, lets finalise the rest of the draw. I dont care what it looks like.

 

[TheUnicorn]

No friday's for us

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Poor Alistair.

 

[dank420_]

No friday's for us

round 19

 

[Ati Tude]

No friday's for us

Round 19 vs Dogs (wouldnt be surprised if get round 24 against Pies on Friday if they top of the ladder too)

 

[TheUnicorn]

round 19

Round 19 vs Dogs (wouldnt be surprised if get round 24 against Pies on Friday if they top of the ladder too)

Yay! I'm blind.

 

[doug85]

Poor Alistair.

View attachment 1690303

Strikes me as one of those people that think mental health issues are weakness until they experience them. I.e. a boofhead

 

[boncer34]

Boy I hope there's a few more Sunday arvo games for us.

I like to get through my weekend before getting kicked in the nuts so 4.40 please.

 

[DERO]

Or maybe some of us just enjoy taking the piss on here.

Thought you of all people would understand that.

Oh I’ve found it amusing at different stages, don’t get me wrong…

 

[BrunoV]

Activist? Strange use of the word. Someone who stands up for themselves after being wronged or potentially had a crime/some form of injustice committed against them is not an "activist".

Those doing the investigation.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Those doing the investigation.

They're not activists either

 

[DERO]

Agree with you and posted similar on main board... but after all the s**t that was thrown at our club over the drug saga ..and rival supporters comments at the time...you can't blame some of our supporters given it back I suppose

100%.

 

[TheGrizz]

Defamation action against whom?

The ABC published based on their knowledge of Hawthorn's report, interviews with some of the families and having seen medical documents, journals and emails verifying the story. They have a pretty solid team of lawyers that would be verifying that stuff before they'd publish it, presumably under a public interest defence after taking all reasonable measures to get both sides of the story.

Yeah, but a small portion of those have been made available to the public. And whilst the inquiry might have them, Clarkson and Co don't because the aggrieved dont want them released to them.

If the ABC get sued for defamation and the aggrieved continue to not want to release the documents themselves, then the ABC is going to have to make the choice between providing the docs themselves (likely under some sort of privacy order) or standing there with their dick in their hands.

The part that's confusing for a public interest defence is I'm not entirely sure what qualifies as being in the public interest. Obviously if we were talking about a politician mis-spending public money that would be in the public interest, but the AFL and Hawthorn FC are recipients of public money and I'm not sure a fair wage for a day's work gives rise to a public interest in every person who has ever been hired with that money and what they do in the course of their employment? Especially when the public funding generally goes into facilities, not staffing.

Public interest defence ain't relevant if you can't prove they are true either, there is no public benefit in unsubstantiated claims being leaked through the media in relation to a football department.

The documents that the ABC have seen which would be used to protect the ABC, would also be useful as a defamation defence for the families that the ABC interviewed. You could argue misinterpretation or taken out of context or a bunch of other things, which is all still subject to a court case, but I think there is an exception in defamation law for honest opinions or something?

There is no 'honest opinion' defence here. The allegations in the article were made loud and clear and the only defence that would get then off will be the fact the allegations are true.

Honest opinion is saying you think someone comes across as an arrogant prick at a press conference.
Not saying they pressured young indigenous men to isolate themselves from family or to abort an otherwise wanted pregnancy.

I'm also not sure what Hawthorn have done wrong in the sense of defamation, they have legal obligations to investigate allegations of discrimination in their organisation and a fiduciary duty to report the existence of such investigations to their key stakeholders (including members and the AFL). As far as I know their report has never been released so I don't think they can be done for defamation on that basis?


There are probably plenty of third parties that could be sued though, like talking heads on TV and radio if they're making statements as if fact, and then there's other public figures like club presidents and the like that mouth off sometimes and could get themselves into trouble.

It's a can of worms trying to sue third parties. Generally tbey will go after the biggest fish and then wait for others to retract as a result.
Like for example someone wouldn't sue the HS, they would sue Murdoch media as that is the fatter cow and would cover all their other media outlets.
Fairfax/ABC etc would then go back and amend/retract what they needed to.