Coach Alastair Clarkson IV - HFC Racism Investigation Discussion

[Tas]

Pell's accuser gave evidence under oath and he was found guilty by a jury, then the highest court in Victoria upheld the verdict.

That counts far more for me than what rich peoples court in Canberra said.

Amy won't give evidence and Clarko isn't being tried at a criminal court.

Very different situations.

You are getting caught up by the specifics of the case, it wasn't the point I was making. I am not comparing the two cases. I am comparing that people will develop a bias based on what they have absorbed and will use different justifications for taking a position. What you have proved is how pointless legal action will be in terms of changing someone's mind or clearing your name. Because you don't believe Pell is innocent despite a not guilty verdict in the highest court of appeal. The lesser court verdicts are null and void, the High Court's ruling was the jury was too biased to do the duty they had pledged to do, so what hope do you have of convincing regular punters?

Clarkson already addressed it in a statement: "The further recent publication of purported extracts from the report means I now have grave concerns that any chance of a fair process and just outcome have been seriously undermined, if not irrevocably corrupted."

I think now that everyone has lawyered up, the public comments have stopped, if the outcome of the investigation allows him to keep coaching and it doesn't string him up, I think he and Fagan will get on with life.

The people who think he is guilty now, will think it regardless of the result of legal action.

 

[gokangas]

You are getting caught up by the specifics of the case, it wasn't the point I was making. I am not comparing the two cases. I am comparing that people will develop a bias based on what they have absorbed and will use different justifications for taking a position. What you have proved is how pointless legal action will be in terms of changing someone's mind or clearing your name. Because you don't believe Pell is innocent despite a not guilty verdict in the highest court of appeal. The lesser court verdicts are null and void, the High Court's ruling was the jury was too biased to do the duty they had pledged to do, so what hope do you have of convincing regular punters?

Clarkson already addressed it in a statement: "The further recent publication of purported extracts from the report means I now have grave concerns that any chance of a fair process and just outcome have been seriously undermined, if not irrevocably corrupted."

I think now that everyone has lawyered up, the public comments have stopped, if the outcome of the investigation allows him to keep coaching and it doesn't string him up, I think he and Fagan will get on with life.

The people who think he is guilty now, will think it regardless of the result of legal action.

I still don't see how they can achieve a compromise resolution as any form of apology from Clarko implies guilt. My understanding is that Clarko will have no part of that at all. So what can the enquiry achieve? They have no legal status, no evidence is given under oath. I just don't see an outcome that would be acceptable if I was Clarko.

 

[Merlin007]

I still don't see how they can achieve a compromise resolution as any form of apology from Clarko implies guilt. My understanding is that Clarko will have no part of that at all. So what can the enquiry achieve? They have no legal status, no evidence is given under oath. I just don't see an outcome that would be acceptable if I was Clarko.

I assume by ‘no legal status’ you mean criminal or civil jurisdiction; the matter can still be dealt with (incl. without evidence under oath) as a disciplinary matter via employment law

 

[gokangas]

I assume by ‘no legal status’ you mean criminal or civil jurisdiction; the matter can still be dealt with (incl. without evidence under oath) as a disciplinary matter via employment law

Yeah - I do mean criminal law. I don't see how any enquiry with the potential to destroy people's careers can be taken seriously when no evidence is taken under oath and with no judicial protection. Maybe I am placing to much emphasis on that angle.

 

[Merlin007]

Yeah - I do mean criminal law. I don't see how any enquiry with the potential to destroy people's careers can be taken seriously when no evidence is taken under oath and with no judicial protection. Maybe I am placing too much emphasis on that angle.

Look I understand the frustration but the legal tests under employment law are much lower - to take just one example, the test of proof in employment law is the balance of probabilities, in criminal it’s beyond reasonable doubt

 

[gokangas]

Look I understand the frustration but the legal tests under employment law are much lower - to take just one example, the test of proof in employment law is the balance of probabilities, in criminal it’s beyond reasonable doubt

I don't know anything about employment law tbh but how would that help or hinder Clarko? This is not conducted under that guise anyway.

 

[Mjs94]

Look I understand the frustration but the legal tests under employment law are much lower - to take just one example, the test of proof in employment law is the balance of probabilities, in criminal it’s beyond reasonable doubt

Beyond reasonable doubt or not, findings under employment law require sworn evidence by the accuser(s) which the alleged has the right to counter and to test usually under cross-examination.

If someone made an unfair dismissal claim or a workplace bullying claim and then did not provide any evidence of that at a defending hearing their case would be dismissed.

 

[Merlin007]

Beyond reasonable doubt or not, findings under employment law require sworn evidence by the accuser(s) which the alleged has the right to counter and to test usually under cross-examination.

If someone made an unfair dismissal claim or a workplace bullying claim and then did not provide any evidence of that at a defending hearing their case would be dismissed.

That’s not right - employees are sacked routinely as a result of disciplinary processes that don’t include sworn evidence (I’ve been involved in dozens of such cases). So long as the process is based on natural justice, (and obviously if the merit is there) the decision will stand appeal. It’s at that stage - where you rightly point out - evidence under oath might arise, ie at the fair work commission.

And to answer gokangas question, employment law is relevant because if there are adverse findings, it will be Clarko’s employment contract (and fagan’s) which will potentially be in jeopardy (whether or not it’s now with north Melbourne)

 

[DuckYeah]

Again. If the “victim” isn’t willing to testify or put their name to it. thats all you need to know. If MarqueLawyers have have given ABSOLUTE DONUTS the last few months, thats also all you need to know. Speaks volumes. If there was one scintilla of evidence, it would have never been “swept under the carpet”.

Clarko is all good

 

[the big lebowski]

Again. If the “victim” isn’t willing to testify or put their name to it. thats all you need to know. If MarqueLawyers have have given ABSOLUTE DONUTS the last few months, thats also all you need to know. Speaks volumes. If there was one scintilla of evidence, it would have never been “swept under the carpet”.

Clarko is all good

Please elaborate

Are you saying no testimony has been given to this point?

 

[DuckYeah]

Please elaborate

Are you saying no testimony has been given to this point?

A statement? To whom? Anyone can make a statement. Doesn’t mean shit.

Unless its backed up by evidence. Its nothing. At this stage, it’s completely nothing and ongoing it will be completely nothing. In these current “accusations”.

 

[the big lebowski]

A statement? To whom? Anyone can make a statement. Doesn’t mean s**t.

Unless its backed up by evidence. Its nothing. At this stage, it’s completely nothing and ongoing it will be completely nothing. In these current “accusations”.

Sorry, I’m not trying to be confrontational, but it’s a topic that the vast majority of us are obviously very invested in.

Are you claiming you have inside knowledge of the current four person independent afl investigation into hawthorn and it’s coaches?

If so, can you be a little bit clearer in what you are saying?

 

[DuckYeah]

Sorry, I’m not trying to be confrontational, but it’s a topic that the vast majority of us are obviously very invested in.

Are you claiming you have inside knowledge of the current four person independent afl investigation into hawthorn and it’s coaches?

If so, can you be a little bit clearer in what you are saying?

What I am saying is. All parties associated with said accusations are tight lipped. Haven’t dropped anything after these “SJW” decided to chip in a chirp up. Its been how long? If you are MarqueLawyers, you are reaffirming your base, at the very least things are moving forward and progressing. However there has been absolutely NOTHING. Why? Why is there nothing?

 

[the big lebowski]

What I am saying is. All parties associated with said accusations are tight lipped. Haven’t dropped anything after these “SJW” decided to chip in a chirp up. Its been how long? If you are MarqueLawyers, you are reaffirming your base, at the very least things are moving forward and progressing. However there has been absolutely NOTHING. Why? Why is there nothing?

If what you’re saying is correct and none of the complainants have provided anything to the panel (after almost 3 months and hence the delay) then I’d agree with you in that there is nothing to tell.

 

[Themanbun]

That’s not right - employees are sacked routinely as a result of disciplinary processes that don’t include sworn evidence (I’ve been involved in dozens of such cases). So long as the process is based on natural justice, (and obviously if the merit is there) the decision will stand appeal. It’s at that stage - where you rightly point out - evidence under oath might arise, ie at the fair work commission.

And to answer gokangas question, employment law is relevant because if there are adverse findings, it will be Clarko’s employment contract (and fagan’s) which will potentially be in jeopardy (whether or not it’s now with north Melbourne)

It wouldn't go to the FWC due to the salaries involved. If people felt they were dismissed without basis, in my opinion they'd go straight to court with a wrongful dismissal claim (essentially a breach of contract), which likely will involve the court assessing whether the findings substantiate termination. The stronger the process the less likely the termination is deemed wrongful (which is where sworn evidence could become relevant if there's no other corroborating evidence).

This is one reason why in big $ cases like this independent panels are drawn up with terms of ref., rather than a run of the mill workplace investigation.

 

[DuckYeah]

If what you’re saying is correct and none of the complainants have provided anything to the panel (after almost 3 months and hence the delay) then I’d agree with you in that there is nothing to tell.

Its impossible to prove unless there’s substantial evidence. Fortunately, a testimony is not sufficient evidence

 

[the big lebowski]

Its impossible to prove unless there’s substantial evidence. Fortunately, a testimony is not sufficient evidence

It’s not a court of law, it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Testimony is evidence.

But it seems like you’re saying that none of the Clarkson accusers have provided testimony to this point.

 

[DuckYeah]

It’s not a court of law, it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Testimony is evidence.

But it seems like you’re saying that none of the Clarkson accusers have provided testimony to this point.

Testimony is as good as an accusation. A statement’s worth is pittance unless there is something substantial to back it up. Multiple statements, of the same “offence“ has more weight, however, the aforementioned statements are not identical accusations. Nuffin. Nuffin to see here

 

[DuckYeah]

The point is. MarqueLawyers lawyers have a base that they pander too. If they are not regularly pursuing in socials to cater for their base then its game over.

I have followed MarqueLawyers lawyers for years, they are dogs with a bone. If there’s something there, they use socials too push and elevate the case. Not in this one. Not for months and months. Speaks volumes.

Nothing burger might be a low IQ colloquial term. However its totally relevant to everything that has occurred.

If anything, and as a win, its awareness and further reinforcement that treatment of First Nations needs to understood.

I also appreciate the other side of the coin too. A professional cut throat environment is not a free pass.

 

[Mjs94]

That’s not right - employees are sacked routinely as a result of disciplinary processes that don’t include sworn evidence (I’ve been involved in dozens of such cases). So long as the process is based on natural justice, (and obviously if the merit is there) the decision will stand appeal. It’s at that stage - where you rightly point out - evidence under oath might arise, ie at the fair work commission.

And to answer gokangas question, employment law is relevant because if there are adverse findings, it will be Clarko’s employment contract (and fagan’s) which will potentially be in jeopardy (whether or not it’s now with north Melbourne)

I had gone beyond the point of an employer decision in my post.

The point I was trying to make was that without actual evidence by the accusers there is no way, in my mind at least, that the commission (or whatever they have been called) can make a finding of guilt against anyone at Hawthorn. In the most simple terms it goes completely against their legal teachings which require such evidence and the testing of it.

 

[the big lebowski]

The point is. MarqueLawyers lawyers have a base that they pander too. If they are not regularly pursuing in socials to cater for their base then its game over.

I have followed MarqueLawyers lawyers for years, they are dogs with a bone. If there’s something there, they use socials too push and elevate the case. Not in this one. Not for months and months. Speaks volumes.

Nothing burger might be a low IQ colloquial term. However its totally relevant to everything that has occurred.

If anything, and as a win, its awareness and further reinforcement that treatment of First Nations needs to understood.

I also appreciate the other side of the coin too. A professional cut throat environment is not a free pass.

Marque lawyers only represented the woman that didn’t have the abortion. She said she wasn’t participating.

Multiple complainants hired the ex afl mr fix it lawyer. They are participating as last I heard.

 

[DuckYeah]

Marque lawyers only represented the woman that didn’t have the abortion. She said she wasn’t participating.

Multiple complainants hired the ex afl mr fix it lawyer. They are participating as last I heard.

They retweet and advocate cases they are not involved with, if it means justice. Or has benefits

 

[Tas]

I still don't see how they can achieve a compromise resolution as any form of apology from Clarko implies guilt. My understanding is that Clarko will have no part of that at all. So what can the enquiry achieve? They have no legal status, no evidence is given under oath. I just don't see an outcome that would be acceptable if I was Clarko.

Clarko won't apologise imo outside of a blanket statement that applies to any footballer that it is extremely tough to make it as an AFL footballer and in the process of trying to turn a young man into a footballer it can result in a negative experience for some players but this is a fundamental part of the industry in any elite sport.

In terms of the investigation, it's objective is outlined in the terms of reference.

In summary:
a) whether there inappropriate conduct occurred, and if so, the circumstances in which such conduct occurred.

b) recommendations as to whether any persons who engaged in, where involved in and/or were aware of any inappropriate conduct should, in the view of the investigation panel, be subject to disciplinary action which would be undertaken pursuant to a separate process under AFL Rules.

So this would be a pre-investigation of sorts which will recommend to the AFL if disciplinary action is recommended by the panel.

I think if nobody shows up that has made one of the more serious accusations then I can't see how they could recommend disciplinary action if Clarkson, Fagan, etc give evidence to say this is what happened and this is what was told to those that made accusations and there is nobody to refute or challenge that evidence.

My gut feel is the major outcome of this investigation will be recommendations made to the AFL for guidelines in terms of how AFL clubs should deal with players when it comes to the private life of players and it will probably involve requiring the club's indigenous officer being at any communication relating to private life matters and in general any instruction or advice to players in relation to private life should require the presence of the club's psychologist and any specialist in the field that is involved at the club and the player's manager.

This would ensure the player had the support elements there and there would be enough people to tick off all the boxes that there wouldn't be miscommunication.

I don't think a coach should be involved, at all, with WAGs other than meeting them at club functions, at games, etc and it should just be a polite exchange in the presence of other witnesses. I think there needs to be that distance between club officials and players lives outside of football.

 

[HELLSBELLS]

Look I understand the frustration but the legal tests under employment law are much lower - to take just one example, the test of proof in employment law is the balance of probabilities, in criminal it’s beyond reasonable doubt

So basically if they tell a good enough story and the panel believes it then Clarko and co are in trouble ?

Lets hope the panel have their heads screwed on and syphon the truth from the bullshit.

Some people are very good liars at worst or can add a good amount of mayo to a story at best.

Also why hasn't any of this started what is the hold up ?

 

[Devington]

Also why hasn't any of this started what is the hold up ?

The official investigation has started (though it is already behind it's own schedule).