Coach Alastair Clarkson IV - HFC Racism Investigation Discussion

[DarkPhoenix]

I can't believe what I've just read

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

I can't believe what I've just read
View attachment 1577095

Defamation proceedings is his only play. If he doesn't secure a backdown from the Hun, I can't imagine he will get any more gigs like this one.

 

[Mav]

Why should he? It may not have been in scope for what he was commissioned to do, and without knowing that I don't think we can pass judgement. He didn't publish it either, it came to public attention when its existence was reported on by Jackson.

It was in scope as he interviewed another staff. And it depends on your definition of published. He made the report available to a select group.

And this is with out assuming he had a link to Rusty.

 

[shinboner magic]

Oh god what an absolute mess
Clarko will coach us to 3 flags before these accusations are sorted

 

[bennymate]

View attachment 1577095

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

Oh god what an absolute mess
Clarko will coach us to 3 flags before these accusations are sorted

I am going to be livid if this investigation distracts Clarko from completing the four-peat.

 

[buttox]

i dont think it Egans history changes anything. The AFL were not using the report as evidence it seems so I dont think it matters if Egans a crook.
Otherwise they would not need the accusers to take part.
Which they do.
Egan wont get work again like this thats for sure.

 

[Agenda 21]

Oh god what an absolute mess
Clarko will coach us to 3 flags before these accusations are sorted

Imagine how many baby shinboners will be born, if we win 3 flags under Clarko?

This place will be peaking.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

i dont think it Egans history changes anything. The AFL were not using the report as evidence it seems so I dont think it matters if Egans a crook.
Otherwise they would not need the accusers to take part.
Which they do.
Egan wont get work again like this thats for sure.

Theres a number of families who aren't taking part in the formal investigation. If they were intending to use the comments they made in the report (in lieu of being there) as a form of testimony, it would certainly raise questions as to whether it is accurate and should be put forward.

 

[buttox]

Theres a number of families who aren't taking part in the formal investigation. If they were intending to use the comments they made in the report (in lieu of being there) as a form of testimony, it would certainly raise questions as to whether it is accurate and should be put forward.

I doubt thats even an option. the report is all hearsay and wont be able to be used like that.
Clarko will be able to face his accusers or he would not have agreed to the investigation.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

I doubt thats even an option. the report is all hearsay and wont be able to be used like that.

It's not a legal investigation.

They could theoretically do whatever they wanted as long as it doesn't breach the outline they gave to participants.

But if they intended to use it in any way, it raises questions over the validity. The AFL would want a whole nother report done, and I don't see most of the families wanting to comply with that.

 

[buttox]

It's not a legal investigation.

They could theoretically do whatever they wanted as long as it doesn't breach the outline they gave to participants.

But if they intended to use it in any way, it raises questions over the validity. The AFL would want a whole nother report done, and I don't see most of the families wanting to comply with that.

yep agree. I reckon this was all over when the accusers opted out.
I think its more likely to end up in court or work safe than the afl to get a result.

 

[shinboner magic]

Imagine how many baby shinboners will be born, if we win 3 flags under Clarko?

This place will be peaking.

It’s better than having kittens after every loss

 

[Psicosis]

i dont think it Egans history changes anything. The AFL were not using the report as evidence it seems so I dont think it matters if Egans a crook.
Otherwise they would not need the accusers to take part.
Which they do.
Egan wont get work again like this thats for sure.

It further invalidates the report, making it about as useful as used toilet paper.

Any decent lawyer, and Clarkson has the some handy ones, will lock down on Egans history. His history is significant in that everything he has touched will be questioned & ripped apart.

 

[Agenda 21]

It’s better than having kittens after every loss

Ok, you outdid my post.

Only by a whisker though.

 

[hsquid]

I admit I had mixed emotions reading the news. It’s horrible to see a prominent indigenous person facing accusations that perpetuate clear stereotypes of institutional funds being abused for personal gain - whether or not the accusations are true. On the other hand, it’s hard to avoid a petty ‘gotcha’ feeling that clicks together the indications we already had that something dodgy was happening. And the absurd hypocrisy of Egan’s indignant rejection of trial-by-media.

Fundamentally, however, the idea is not to point out hypocrisy in others but to be consistent yourself. The goal remains to understand the facts and support reform and/or accountability where it is merited. I’ve done my best to tease apart my own thoughts.

I see three main questions, related but distinct:

• What does this mean for the report?
• What does this mean for the facts?
• What does this mean for the investigation?

What does this mean for the report?
On its own this is bad for the credibility of the report, but in my view even if the accusations against Egan are proven it is not fatal. However it is not on its own. There has been a lot written about the report’s deficiencies and this provides two critical missing ingredients: a reason to doubt Egan’s word and a potential motivation for him to manipulate the report findings.

The report was already under a lot of scrutiny because:

• It was commissioned to cover a strangely specific time period that ruled out accountability for the golliwog-collecting President whose actions triggered the report
• It was run by the cousin of a person intimately involved in the period who left ‘disgruntled’
• The indigenous officer of the time - the person who was specifically in charge of preventing these kinds of events occurring, and the cousin of the report author - was only mentioned as a witness not as a responsible actor for the events described.
• It went well beyond its ToR and its “yarning"/story-listening methodology by naming names and recommending reparations.
• A lot of the most significant accusations were made by people who were not witnesses to the events alleged (i.e. partners describing discussions between players and coach) with no cross-checking with direct actors.
• There was no inclusion of known complicating and contradictory facts (i.e. player statements to the playing group at the time).
• It claimed ‘everything has been fine for years now’ despite the key villain remaining coach for almost all of that period.
• It was leaked to the media
• When it was leaked Phil’s cousin was the only Hawthorn staffer to have his name redacted.
• Interviewees did not seem to want to be part of a naming of names, yet were dragged into that role.
• These anomalies were already sufficient that the report and the process of procuring it were included in the ToR of the AFL investigation.

The points above were already sufficient to show the shambles nature of the report and Hawthorns process. The accusations simply give a hint as to what Egan’s motivation may have been and reduces the weight of his opinions and recommendations to virtually zero.

But we need to remember that the report itself wasn’t supposed to come to findings and recommendations: Both the ToRs and the methodology were absolutely unsuitable for that. So the ‘findings’ should anyway have been ignored, and just the testimonies taken as the basis for either a) more rigorous fact-finding (if it was to hold people to account) or b) systemic reform.

What does this mean for the facts?
The facts do not go away. There is plenty of evidence that some ugly things happened over this period. The documented emails to and from Andrew Newbold are shocking reading. The quotes from the partners almost certainly reflect things they have said. The subsequent public statements from some directly assert the emotions they feel and the impact events of that time had on their lives.

Things that happened still happened. The facts and truths are no more or less subject to different perspectives, self-interest and misinformation than before.

What does this mean for the investigation?
This will have two main impacts on the investigation.
Firstly, it makes it very difficult for anything in the report to be used directly as part of an accountability process. It was already difficult to take quotes and testimonies out of context, but putting a potential bad actor in there as the interviewer removes all viability. However as part of a broader approach to addressing systemic problems through systemic change the importance of individual facts is much reduced and the testimonies would still be directly useful.
This means that penalties for Clarkson would need to be based on accusations presented directly to the investigation. From what we think we know, only a much smaller and less inflammatory set of accusations have been presented directly to the investigation.

Secondly, it gives a lot of political cover to the AFL if the recommendations come back focussed on systemic issues and financial investment rather than individual accountability. This additional stink on the report will greatly reduce the amount of holier-than-though pushback they would risk through the media, who will probably get on board with “Hawthorn messed up the investigation, let’s fix the system”.

This second point may be the critical one. From info I have, the bigger risk to Mr. Clarkson has always been that the AFL would throw him under the bus despite the facts being in his favour. That now becomes a whole lot less likely.

 

[the big lebowski]

I admit I had mixed emotions reading the news. It’s horrible to see a prominent indigenous person facing accusations that perpetuate clear stereotypes of institutional funds being abused for personal gain - whether or not the accusations are true. On the other hand, it’s hard to avoid a petty ‘gotcha’ feeling that clicks together the indications we already had that something dodgy was happening. And the absurd hypocrisy of Egan’s indignant rejection of trial-by-media.

Fundamentally, however, the idea is not to point out in hypocrisy in others but to be consistent yourself. The goal remains to understand the facts and support reform and/or accountability where it is merited. I’ve done my best to tease apart my own thoughts.

I see three main questions, related but distinct:

• What does this mean for the report?
• What does this mean for the facts?
• What does this mean for the investigation?

What does this mean for the report?
On its own this is bad for the credibility of the report, but - in my view - even if the accusations against Egan are proven it is not fatal. However it is not on its own. There has been a lot written about the report’s deficiencies and this provides two critical missing ingredients: a reason to doubt Egan’s word and a potential motivation for him to manipulate the report findings.

The report was already under a lot of scrutiny because:

• It was commissioned to cover a strangely specific time period that ruled out accountability for the golliwog-collecting President whose actions triggered the report
• It was run by the cousin of a person intimately involved in the period who left ‘disgruntled’
• The indigenous officer of the time - the person who was specifically in charge of preventing the kinds of events occurring, and the cousin of the report author - was only mentioned as a witness not as a responsible actor for the events described.
• It went well beyond it’s ToR and it’s “yarning’/story-listening methodology by naming names and recommending reparations
• A lot of the most significant accusations were made by people who were not witnesses to the events alleged (i.e. partners describing discussions between players and coach)
• There was no inclusion of known complicating and contradictory facts (i.e. player statements to the playing group at the time).
• It claimed ‘everything has been fine for years now’ despite the key villain remaining coach for almost all of that period.
• It was leaked to the media
• When it was leaked Phil’s cousin was the only Hawthorn staffer to have his name redacted.
• Interviewees did not seem to want to be part of a naming of names, yet were dragged into that role
• These anomalies were already sufficient for the report and the process of procuring it was included in the ToR of the AFL investigation.

The points above were already sufficient to show the shambles nature of the report and Hawthorns process. The accusations simply give a hint as to what Egan’s motivation may have been and reduces the weight of his options and recommendations to virtually zero.

But we need to remember that the report itself wasn’t supposed to come to findings and recommendations: Both the ToRs and the methodology were absolutely unsuitable for that. So the ‘findings’ should anyway have been ignored, and just the testimonies taken as the basis for either a) more rigorous fact-finding (if it was to hold people to account) or b) systemic reform.

What does this mean for the facts?
The facts do not go away. There is plenty of evidence that some ugly things happened over this period. The documented emails to and from Andrew Newbold are shocking reading. The quotes from the partners almost certainly reflect things they have said. The subsequent public statements some have made independently assert the emotions they feel and the impact events of that time had on their lives.

Things that happened still happened. The facts and truths are no more or less subject to different perspectives, self-interest and misinformation than before.

What does this mean for the investigation?
This will have two main impacts on the investigation.
Firstly, it makes it very difficult for anything in the report to be used directly as part of an accountability process. It was already difficult to take quotes and testimonies out of context, but putting a potential bad actor in there as the interviewer removes all viability. However as part of a broader approach to addressing systemic problems through systemic change the importance of individual facts is much reduced and the testimonies would still be directly useful.
This means that penalties for Clarkson would need to be based on accusations presented directly to the investigation. From what we think we know, only a much smaller and less inflammatory set of accusations have been presented directly to the investigation.

Secondly, it gives a lot of political cover to the AFL if the recommendations come back focussed on systemic issues and financial investment rather than individual accountability. This additional stink on the report will greatly reduce the amount of holier-than-though pushback they would risk through the media, who will probably get on board with “Hawthorn messed up the investigation, let’s fix the system”.

This second point may be the critical one. From excellent info I have, the bigger risk to Mr. Clarkson has always been that the AFL would throw him under the bus despite the facts being in his favour. That now becomes a whole lot less likely.

I’ve never understood the “shockingness” of Kylie’s emails to newbold.

She is upset she can’t get in contact with her ex boyfriend. He obviously doesn’t want to contact her otherwise he could simply pick up the phone or wrote an email or whatever.

She states she is taking with an aflpa physiatrist. She also states she is seeing a doctor. She allegedly sends this email to the hawthorn ceo.

He allegedly replies that her health concerns are outside the realms of his expertise.

What is so troubling about her emails, other than someone that appears to be in a bad mental state?

 

[mcnulty]

I admit I had mixed emotions reading the news. It’s horrible to see a prominent indigenous person facing accusations that perpetuate clear stereotypes of institutional funds being abused for personal gain - whether or not the accusations are true. On the other hand, it’s hard to avoid a petty ‘gotcha’ feeling that clicks together the indications we already had that something dodgy was happening. And the absurd hypocrisy of Egan’s indignant rejection of trial-by-media.

Fundamentally, however, the idea is not to point out in hypocrisy in others but to be consistent yourself. The goal remains to understand the facts and support reform and/or accountability where it is merited. I’ve done my best to tease apart my own thoughts.

I see three main questions, related but distinct:

• What does this mean for the report?
• What does this mean for the facts?
• What does this mean for the investigation?

What does this mean for the report?
On its own this is bad for the credibility of the report, but - in my view - even if the accusations against Egan are proven it is not fatal. However it is not on its own. There has been a lot written about the report’s deficiencies and this provides two critical missing ingredients: a reason to doubt Egan’s word and a potential motivation for him to manipulate the report findings.

The report was already under a lot of scrutiny because:

• It was commissioned to cover a strangely specific time period that ruled out accountability for the golliwog-collecting President whose actions triggered the report
• It was run by the cousin of a person intimately involved in the period who left ‘disgruntled’
• The indigenous officer of the time - the person who was specifically in charge of preventing the kinds of events occurring, and the cousin of the report author - was only mentioned as a witness not as a responsible actor for the events described.
• It went well beyond it’s ToR and it’s “yarning’/story-listening methodology by naming names and recommending reparations
• A lot of the most significant accusations were made by people who were not witnesses to the events alleged (i.e. partners describing discussions between players and coach)
• There was no inclusion of known complicating and contradictory facts (i.e. player statements to the playing group at the time).
• It claimed ‘everything has been fine for years now’ despite the key villain remaining coach for almost all of that period.
• It was leaked to the media
• When it was leaked Phil’s cousin was the only Hawthorn staffer to have his name redacted.
• Interviewees did not seem to want to be part of a naming of names, yet were dragged into that role
• These anomalies were already sufficient for the report and the process of procuring it was included in the ToR of the AFL investigation.

The points above were already sufficient to show the shambles nature of the report and Hawthorns process. The accusations simply give a hint as to what Egan’s motivation may have been and reduces the weight of his options and recommendations to virtually zero.

But we need to remember that the report itself wasn’t supposed to come to findings and recommendations: Both the ToRs and the methodology were absolutely unsuitable for that. So the ‘findings’ should anyway have been ignored, and just the testimonies taken as the basis for either a) more rigorous fact-finding (if it was to hold people to account) or b) systemic reform.

What does this mean for the facts?
The facts do not go away. There is plenty of evidence that some ugly things happened over this period. The documented emails to and from Andrew Newbold are shocking reading. The quotes from the partners almost certainly reflect things they have said. The subsequent public statements some have made independently assert the emotions they feel and the impact events of that time had on their lives.

Things that happened still happened. The facts and truths are no more or less subject to different perspectives, self-interest and misinformation than before.

What does this mean for the investigation?
This will have two main impacts on the investigation.
Firstly, it makes it very difficult for anything in the report to be used directly as part of an accountability process. It was already difficult to take quotes and testimonies out of context, but putting a potential bad actor in there as the interviewer removes all viability. However as part of a broader approach to addressing systemic problems through systemic change the importance of individual facts is much reduced and the testimonies would still be directly useful.
This means that penalties for Clarkson would need to be based on accusations presented directly to the investigation. From what we think we know, only a much smaller and less inflammatory set of accusations have been presented directly to the investigation.

Secondly, it gives a lot of political cover to the AFL if the recommendations come back focussed on systemic issues and financial investment rather than individual accountability. This additional stink on the report will greatly reduce the amount of holier-than-though pushback they would risk through the media, who will probably get on board with “Hawthorn messed up the investigation, let’s fix the system”.

This second point may be the critical one. From excellent info I have, the bigger risk to Mr. Clarkson has always been that the AFL would throw him under the bus despite the facts being in his favour. That now becomes a whole lot less likely.

Outstanding post. Should be reposted on the main board.

 

[hsquid]

I’ve never understood the “shockingness” of Kylie’s emails to newbold.

She is upset she can’t get in contact with her ex boyfriend. He obviously doesn’t want to contact her otherwise he could simply pick up the phone or wrote an email or whatever.

She states she is taking with an aflpa physiatrist. She also states she is seeing a doctor. She allegedly sends this email to the hawthorn ceo.

He allegedly replies that her health concerns are outside the realms of his expertise.

What is so troubling about her emails, other than someone that appears to be in a bad mental state?

She details an extremely traumatic situation in which the club very clearly put itself in between her and her partner of 9 years.
He showed absolutely zero empathy. He offered zero help. He didn’t say he had looked into the situation other than that Burt had said it was all ok. He didn’t say Hawthorn was acting at the request of the player. He didn’t offer any point of contact with the club. He didn’t offer any alternative pathway to resolution. It’s absolutely appalling.

If you have a senior role in an organisation and you get that kind of email you absolutely do not just reply that it’s not your job to do anything about it.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Outstanding post. Should be reposted on the main board.

Would be wasted on the 3 IQ points that make up the main board.

 

[the big lebowski]

She details an extremely traumatic situation in which the club very clearly put itself in between her and her partner of 9 years.
He showed absolutely zero empathy. He offered zero help. He didn’t say he had looked into the situation other than that Burt had said it was all ok. He didn’t say Hawthorn was acting at the request of the player. He didn’t offer any point of contact with the club. He didn’t offer any alternative pathway to resolution. It’s absolutely appalling.

If you have a senior role in an organisation and you get that kind of email you absolutely do not just reply that it’s not your job to do anything about it.

I personally disagree with your take, given he met subsequently with her even though she wasn’t in anyway connected to the club and was receiving afl approved care through the aflpa, and receiving appropriate medical help.

That said, how does provide any evidence of anything other than a ceo who didn’t handle an email in the way some people want.

From that email it’s clear

- the aflpa knew what was happening and didn’t think it warranted their involvement

- she filed a police report, and they didn’t feel the need to follow up further than what they did

It in no way proves that her ex partner didn’t want to be with her at that time.

It doesn’t back up any claim made in the hawthorn report or abc article other than Zac and Kylie weren’t together at that time and she was unable to contact him.

 

[tazaa]

I can't believe what I've just read
View attachment 1577095

F*** the Herald Sun
And f*** this c*** too

I hope he sues them and his report gets thrown in the bin

Both have zero cred

 

[dus]

Why does Kennett hate Clarko so much?

 

[DesertRoo]

Why does Kennett hate Clarko so much?

Because Clarko takes the shine away from Kennett

 

[Mathiasp]

And then the highest court in Australia overturned the decision and wrote a scathing report on the highest court of Victoria stating basically there was no legal grounds for them uphold the jury's decision.

All courts are for rich people mate, the more expensive your lawyer is the better the outcome will be

The judgement of the HC is easily accessible

Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12 (7 April 2020)

www.austlii.edu.au

It is a really clear and easy read. Not legalese at all and lays out the real flaws in the Crown case. Also, as per usual, gives the Victorian Court of Appeal another rebuff.