I want to know if Rusty takes part in the afl investigation, can we set up a judge Judy style live stream? surely we can make it seven degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon scenario.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
You can understand that though, given that they have essentially been used to tell a story by a journalist that saw them as an opportunity. Throw in the fact they were reluctant participants from the very beginning of The Hawthorn Review, to the publicised Jackson piece, I'm not surprised they don't want a bar of any of it. I don't think they ever really did.
For arguments sake, say Ämy is made aware of the Hawthorn Review taking place and she is encouraged to share her experiences. Some assurances are given by Egan, so she agrees despite some reservation and outlines her personal experience. The next thing she knows is being door-stopped by some ABC journo, a Russell Jackson (???) who apparently has some knowledge of an internal review. This guy shows his bonafides, points to some authored articles, asks if he can just have a chat. No names, just a chat. A rapport is established, some trust is established and they agree to talk again in a day or two. Amy then opens up a little more, more assurances are given on annonymity, etc. Story drops, bombs go off and the next thing you know Amy finds herself front and centre of a process she never really wanted a part of from day 1.
No winners, except the lawyers.
Who was thatMy first thought was another player who was unexpectedly dropped for the final game.
Marque Lawyers speaking on her behalf and insisting that the truth of her story should not be tested, and that the only thing the AFL should be doing is determining how they allowed it all to happen and who should be punished is the very height of ambit claims. No lawyer in the history of forever really thinks that a valid legal argument.Amy's story is going to get destroyed now.
It was always going to come under serious questioning but without her there to contextualise it, it's going to be ugly.
Well done Phil and Russell. You really put her first.
Hall? Can't remember who was dropped for the final game but I'd thought he was out of contract at that point before signing a new deal but I'd thought he was still considered best 22My first thought was another player who was unexpectedly dropped for the final game.
I want to know if Rusty takes part in the afl investigation, can we set up a judge Judy style live stream? surely we can make it seven degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon scenario.
This, this and this. Completely shoddy piece of journalism which - I dare say - would not have passed muster at a media organisation which employs senior editors to oversee reporters’ work. The ABC, alas, is a staff-run collective. So Jackson has not just Cherry-picked the ‘facts’ to suit his narrative, he’s actively taken sides in this story. He’s done the trade no credit whatsoever …. (as if people need another reason to heap sh*T on it.)What I find extraordinary is that any journalist would want to publish any story without understanding all perspectives and making sure context is accounted for in any situation. It’s beyond belief. Whether the story is actually true or not….how can you not consider all sides before hitting “submit”? (And of course allowing TIME for all parties to respond).
Marque Lawyers speaking on her behalf and insisting that the truth of her story should not be tested, and that the only thing the AFL should be doing is determining how they allowed it all to happen and who should be punished is the very height of ambit claims. No lawyer in the history of forever really thinks that a valid legal argument.
At this point in time, he’d be wise to stay far far away from any sort of cross examining.They surely have to invite/ask him.
Wonder if he's AFL accredited.
Hall? Can't remember who was dropped for the final game but I'd thought he was out of contract at that point before signing a new deal but I'd thought he was still considered best 22
At this point in time, he’d be wise to stay far far away from any sort of cross examining.
I can see both sides attempting to nail him.
If Amy didn’t speak directly with Clarkson isn’t it just considered hearsay which won’t stand up in court ?
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
there is no court.If Amy didn’t speak directly with Clarkson isn’t it just considered hearsay which won’t stand up in court ?
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
No - highly unlikely to be approached.Have we spoke to ratten yet anyone know
Interesting that they chose to format the statement as a multimedia presentation with her quite good but highly emotive art.
there is no court.
" The Dream" is lost for many. The AFL requires that some players are delisted after every season.
there is no court.
Oh really I thought we would have well hope we get some news on assistants and ceo any news on themNo - highly unlikely to be approached.
Just had a look at the main board thread.
Its a whitewash, AFL sweeping it under the carpet are the 2 most common takes.
Not happy they’re not getting blood.