No Oppo Supporters General AFL Discussion #12 - Carlton Posters ONLY!

[goreds]

Or sounding like the individuals in question have already recounted and documented their experiences, extensively, with the ABC journo. There is no need for them to be sat down in an interrogation room and grilled about it again. They've made their statements, there will be transcripts, and it sounds like there are supporting documents (emails) from the time which, if genuine, would lend credence to their claims. The onus now will be on the accused to recount their side of the story and refute the evidence that will be put forward to the investigative panel.

Really???

 

[JustaBattler]

The AFL has put itself up as 'the investigative panel'. This affords a modicum of increasing control over any narrative they wish to peddle - when they wish to peddle it. Footy fans are interested football.

It seems that the people that the ABC report is referencing have made no claims for damages - they have just told their stories.

All this criminal V civil talk is just that.

There is no criminal charge - there probably isn't any civil charge that can be put - except perhaps a long-winded damages case that would be difficult if not impossible to prove either way as it will be he says she says stuff.

All there is - is a story and concomitant reputational 'damage'.

If the people who have made these claims -weren't anonymous- no doubt the legal reaction from Clarkson and Fagan side would be far more aggressive.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Really???

Yes...?

I mean, that's exactly what's happened. What exactly are you questioning?

 

[Choc Milk]

Really???

Unbelievable lol

 

[Gethelred]

Seeing as it's been mentioned as a 'shot across the bow' or as though Clarkson reserves all rights regarding defamation, here is the transcript of his statement to the media:

A 'deeply distressed' Alastair Clarkson releases statement

A “deeply distressed” Alastair Clarkson has released another strongly-worded statement, categorically denying claims made about his relationship with some Indigenous players at Hawthorn while he was coach of the club. The North Melbourne coach says constant public commentary about the situation...

www.3aw.com.au

“Since learning of the allegations first reported in the media last Wednesday I have been shocked and deeply distressed,” the statement read.

“It remains profoundly disappointing that these matters are now being widely canvassed in the public domain without the opportunity being given to me or others to give our accounts or even read the Hawthorn report, which to this day I have not seen.
“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.

“The failure to maintain the confidentiality of the review and further damaging public speculation means I have no option but to express publicly, in the strongest and most emphatic terms possible, that I did not behave in the manner claimed.

I would like the following noted:
1. He does not dispute the contents of the Hawthorn report or the ABC article, specifically; rather, he takes issue with the fact that he wasn't consulted in the report and that it failed to remain confidential. The closest he gets to it are the words, "I did not behave in the manner claimed." This is hardly an unequivocal statement of dispute; it hinges - as most legal language does - on specific words, in this case being 'behave' and 'manner'.

The article does not discuss behaviour or manner, only action: this is what he is alleged to have done.

2. In this statement, he is exceedingly careful not to dispute anything that has been released in either the Hawthorn report or the ABC article. He says that his 'memory of the matters reported is very different'. This statement reeks of legalese, of appeals to 'natural justice' and asking for cooler heads to prevail. At no point does he make a claim against either the journalist, the review, or the accusers of dishonesty.

3. He leans on emotional language and his reputation, instead of specifically refuting the accusations. We're told about how he has 'genuine affection for all the players who walked through the doors of Hawthorn', and 'I have always appreciated and respected the unique journeys of First Nations players into the highest echelons of Australian Rules Football' but this isn't an addressing of anything. This is fluff; I'm sure there were any number of Franciscan brothers and nuns who had genuine affection for the stolen aboriginal children in the past, too.

What you have done is not mitigated by how you felt about it.

All in all, this is hardly the 'shots fired' or 'Clarkson strikes back!' moment some are painting it to be.

 

[AceAndy]

Seeing as it's been mentioned as a 'shot across the bow' or as though Clarkson reserves all rights regarding defamation, here is the full transcript of his statement to the media:

I would like the following noted:
1. He does not dispute the contents of the Hawthorn report or the ABC article, specifically; rather, he takes issue with the fact that he wasn't consulted in the report and that it failed to remain confidential. The closest he gets to it are the words, "I did not behave in the manner claimed." This is hardly an unequivocal statement of dispute; it hinges - as most legal language does - on specific words, in this case being 'behave' and 'manner'.

The article does not discuss behaviour or manner, only action: this is what he is alleged to have done.

2. In this statement, he is exceedingly careful not to dispute anything that has been released in either the Hawthorn report or the ABC article. He says that his 'memory of the matters reported is very different'. This statement reeks of legalese, of appeals to 'natural justice' and asking for cooler heads to prevail. At no point does he make a claim against either the journalist, the review, or the accusers of dishonesty.

3. He leans on emotional language and his reputation, instead of specifically refuting the accusations. We're told about how he has 'genuine affection for all the players who walked through the doors of Hawthorn', and 'I have always appreciated and respected the unique journeys of First Nations players into the highest echelons of Australian Rules Football' but this isn't an addressing of anything. This is fluff; I'm sure there were any number of Franciscan brothers and nuns who had genuine affection for the stolen aboriginal children in the past, too.

What you have done is not mitigated by how you felt about it.

All in all, this is hardly the 'shots fired' or 'Clarkson strikes back!' moment some are painting it to be.

______


Now, to put my other hat on.

This is the Carlton forum, not the SRP or the Main board. Seeing as I'm the one who kicked this off, any who would want to reply or feel that I'm being unjust/unfair/unwhatever can respond to this post or any for the next 24 hours on this subject. After that, the conversation is encouraged to continue in PM or in the appropriate threads of other parts of the forum.

Should you wish to open a thread on the Carlton board for this conversation, you're welcome to do that as well.

So how is this not General AFL discussion ?

 

[Gethelred]

So how is this not General AFL discussion ?

There might be others in here who are both not interested in reading pages of argument about this, and instead want to talk about retirements and other news.

I'm not doing it because I want to stifle debate. Just, this thread is a good catchall but sometimes when one conversation dominates it it's not a bad idea to control the flow of discussion some.

If that's not what posters want, say so y'all.

 

[AceAndy]

There might be others in here who are both not interested in reading pages of argument about this, and instead want to talk about retirements and other news.

I'm not doing it because I want to stifle debate. Just, this thread is a good catchall but sometimes when one conversation dominates it it's not a bad idea to control the flow of discussion some.

If that's not what posters want, say so y'all.

Bizarre rationale.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

There might be others in here who are both not interested in reading pages of argument about this, and instead want to talk about retirements and other news.

I'm not doing it because I want to stifle debate. Just, this thread is a good catchall but sometimes when one conversation dominates it it's not a bad idea to control the flow of discussion some.

If that's not what posters want, say so y'all.

Probably a bit similar to the controversial vaccination and anti vaccination discussion a couple of years ago.

Happy to keep this discussing this clearly polarising issue on the main board thread myself, this subject had the potential to cause some bad blood/unpleasant arguments on this board between fellow Carlton supporters/posters, and no one wants really to see that, so for what it is worth, I support your decision on this matter.

 

[sbwan]

Plenty have threatened and even gone through with launching defamation claims in the past, it doesn't always go well for you. Parties that may refuse to participate in an investigation can be compelled to appear in court.

 

[JustaBattler]

Seeing as it's been mentioned as a 'shot across the bow' or as though Clarkson reserves all rights regarding defamation, here is the transcript of his statement to the media:

A 'deeply distressed' Alastair Clarkson releases statement

A “deeply distressed” Alastair Clarkson has released another strongly-worded statement, categorically denying claims made about his relationship with some Indigenous players at Hawthorn while he was coach of the club. The North Melbourne coach says constant public commentary about the situation...

www.3aw.com.au

I would like the following noted:
1. He does not dispute the contents of the Hawthorn report or the ABC article, specifically; rather, he takes issue with the fact that he wasn't consulted in the report and that it failed to remain confidential. The closest he gets to it are the words, "I did not behave in the manner claimed." This is hardly an unequivocal statement of dispute; it hinges - as most legal language does - on specific words, in this case being 'behave' and 'manner'.

The article does not discuss behaviour or manner, only action: this is what he is alleged to have done.

2. In this statement, he is exceedingly careful not to dispute anything that has been released in either the Hawthorn report or the ABC article. He says that his 'memory of the matters reported is very different'. This statement reeks of legalese, of appeals to 'natural justice' and asking for cooler heads to prevail. At no point does he make a claim against either the journalist, the review, or the accusers of dishonesty.

3. He leans on emotional language and his reputation, instead of specifically refuting the accusations. We're told about how he has 'genuine affection for all the players who walked through the doors of Hawthorn', and 'I have always appreciated and respected the unique journeys of First Nations players into the highest echelons of Australian Rules Football' but this isn't an addressing of anything. This is fluff; I'm sure there were any number of Franciscan brothers and nuns who had genuine affection for the stolen aboriginal children in the past, too.

What you have done is not mitigated by how you felt about it.

All in all, this is hardly the 'shots fired' or 'Clarkson strikes back!' moment some are painting it to be.

______


Now, to put my other hat on.

This is the Carlton forum, not the SRP or the Main board. Seeing as I'm the one who kicked this off, any who would want to reply or feel that I'm being unjust/unfair/unwhatever can respond to this post or any for the next 24 hours on this subject. After that, the conversation is encouraged to continue in PM or in the appropriate threads of other parts of the forum.

Should you wish to open a thread on the Carlton board for this conversation, you're welcome to do that as well.

I hope you aren't suggesting that I am being unfair in my post - Clarkson has reserved his right and in fact makes it clear that he will he will not hesitate to protect his position and reputation....see below:

A 'deeply distressed' Alastair Clarkson releases statement

A “deeply distressed” Alastair Clarkson has released another strongly-worded statement, categorically denying claims made about his relationship with some Indigenous players at Hawthorn while he was coach of the club. The North Melbourne coach says constant public commentary about the situation...

www.3aw.com.au

“However, as the allegations against me have been spread widely and sometimes presented as indisputable matters of fact, I must state that my clear memory of the matters reported is very different.

“I will continue to cooperate with the AFL and I am trying to retain my trust that it will put in place a fair, respectful and supportive process for all involved. However. I will not hesitate to take further steps to protect my position and reputation should that be necessary.

the above is basically seeking a gag order on the whole issue clearly threatening legal action based on protecting his 'position' ( employment presumably) and reputation ( FWIW)

the whole point of his media release to say:

1. I love first nation people
2. I dont really trust that the process is fair
3. I don't remember these events as stated and therefore they are disputable
4. I will sue anyone who defames me for damages to my employment and reputation
5. I will not speak to the media

SOP in legal and PR defence.

 

[AceAndy]

Probably a bit similar to the controversial vaccination and anti vaccination discussion a couple of years ago.

Happy to keep this discussing this clearly polarising issue on the main board thread myself, this subject had the potential to cause some bad blood/unpleasant arguments on this board between fellow Carlton supporters/posters, and no one wants really to see that, so for what it is worth, I support your decision on this matter.

I would imagine some posters on this forum have no interest or indeed have no idea where the Main Board even is.

As for civil discussion on the Main Board you can forget that. Anyone suggesting that it might be good idea to wait and hear both sides of the argument will be likely be called out as a racist or an apologist for racists. Absolute cesspool over there.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

I would imagine some posters on this forum have no interest or indeed have no idea where the Main Board even is.

As for civil discussion on the Main Board you can forget that. Anyone suggesting that it might be good idea to wait and hear both sides of the argument will be likely be called out as a racist or an apologist for racists. Absolute cesspool over there.

Yeah it is getting pretty ugly on the main bpard I have to admit.
It's an very emotive and sensitive issue, and the media (not just the ABC) have not really reported it in an responsible and respectful manner that they should have.

We simply do not know enough to make an informed decision either way, victim shaming and or already condemning the alleged perpetrators as guilty already doesn't help (although said previously I have an very uneasy feeling about Clarkson and the allegations against him)

Not sure what more we can discuss about it until more facts or revelations are revealed, most of us have already seemed to have formed our own opinions on it, one way or another (least from my observations)

 

[goreds]

Yeah it is getting pretty ugly on the main bpard I have to admit.
It's an very emotive and sensitive issue, and the media (not just the ABC) have not really reported it in an responsible and respectful manner that they should have.

We simply do not know enough to make an informed decision either way, victim shaming and or already condemning the alleged perpetrators as guilty already doesn't help (although said previously I have an very uneasy feeling about Clarkson and the allegations against him)

Not sure what more we can discuss about it until more facts or revelations are revealed, most of us have already seemed to have formed our own opinions on it, one way or another (least from my observations)

Agree with this post especially the highlighted part.

Opinions are like ……

Because of the ‘leak’ opinions have been formed. This is my biggest concern and the fact a journalist has collected information, whether it was lifted from the report or directly from the accusers, either way it’s just not right…

I care about the process and that people, no matter if they are ‘pricks’ or JC himself, should not be thrown under a bus or found guilty without proper process…

It’s a bloody mess…

 

[goreds]

Yes...?

I mean, that's exactly what's happened. What exactly are you questioning?

I’m questioning how giving a story to a journo is acceptable to be used as the only ‘truth’ when there are ‘experts’ that have been brought in to get to the bottom of it…

Come on BB, talking to a journalist that usually has an agenda is not acceptable…

 

[marleyblue]

Without the original investigation and subsequent report from Russell Jackson - would we ever find out about this? Who has faith in the AFL to run their own internal investigation that threatens the reputation and image of not just the league but two very high profile coaches. Did we learn nothing from the * drug scandal on the lengths the AFL will go to manage a situation to protect their image.

Without the ABC investigation, this would still be hidden within the AFL integrity unit to be buried permanently or quietly dealt with some payouts and non-disclosure agreements and a media release during the xmas break with a 'we have acted on a small misunderstanding, nothing to see here'.

 

[AceAndy]

Without the original investigation and subsequent report from Russell Jackson - would we ever find out about this? Who has faith in the AFL to run their own internal investigation that threatens the reputation and image of not just the league but two very high profile coaches. Did we learn nothing from the * drug scandal on the lengths the AFL will go to manage a situation to protect their image.

Without the ABC investigation, this would still be hidden within the AFL integrity unit to be buried permanently or quietly dealt with some payouts and non-disclosure agreements and a media release during the xmas break with a 'we have acted on a small misunderstanding, nothing to see here'.

Absolutely spot on.

 

[Bletch]

I’m questioning how giving a story to a journo is acceptable to be used as the only ‘truth’ when there are ‘experts’ that have been brought in to get to the bottom of it…

Come on BB, talking to a journalist that usually has an agenda is not acceptable…

Completely disagree on this. It's literally the role of the 4th estate to ask questions and investigate issues that may not otherwise come to light.

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

Let's not forget that neither Fagan or Clarkson has yet been provided with a copy of the report.

That is shameful.

Bit hard for Clarkson to refute specific allegations when he hasn't seen the report.

I hate the guy as much as the next CFC supporter, but the AFL has handled this shambolically, as usual....

 

[Blues_1864]

I’m questioning how giving a story to a journo is acceptable to be used as the only ‘truth’ when there are ‘experts’ that have been brought in to get to the bottom of it…

Come on BB, talking to a journalist that usually has an agenda is not acceptable…

But it's not the only "truth". Hawthorn had their own "truth", in the form of the review they commissioned, and subsequently handed to the AFL. They then made the joint decision to try to bury it; Gil McLachlan has already publicly stated that they would never have released the report. In so doing, they left themselves vulnerable to the "unmanageable".

So, what actually happened? Presumably Russell Jackson (ABC) gets wind of the player-interviews happening as part of the Hawthorn review, possibly through his First Nations connections built during his Robbie Muir story. He learns that the review - which was given strict "rules of racing" by Hawthorn - is mostly interviewing only the (ex-)Hawthorn First Nations players themselves. He wonders if anyone has spoken to the players' partners (or ex-partners). Turns out, nobody has... and those women have a lot of very interesting (and distressing) things to say. He publishes these as a genuine scoop (we know this because Gil McLachlan helpfully told us that the ABC article contained material that did not appear in the Hawthorn review).

There is obviously a lot to play out with respect to the allegations themselves. But Jackson foresaw the possibility that his sources would not be believed. The most shocking thing about his article is just how specific and detailed it is, with respect to the incidents described. He included a mountain of verifiable detail, and it's likely that he personally checked most/all of it himself, knowing that his journalistic reputation would be at stake. I suggest he has published in the knowledge that the verifiable details of the accusations can be proven.

So, over to Clarkson and his "clear memories" of those incidents "that are very different". The allegations are detailed; his refutation will need to be detailed, and I am not quite sure how he is going to do that. I note, as others have, that he has denied "wrongdoing", but he has not denied his part in the specific incidents described. Possibly his ultimate defence will be wrongheadedness - we will see.

And I'm not saying there are no grey areas in the allegations - there certainly are. I expect Clarkson and Fagan to vigorously dispute the things they "said and did", when those details will be unverifiable without recordings - and of course, that is their right. The devil will be in the detail, like the contents (and context) of traceable email chains to and from Hawthorn. But it is likely that the coaches will probably be insulated from that sort of thing, at a personal level.

 

[passmark]

He's been blindsided - it's like someone snuck up behind him and king hit him

Devastated for him.

 

[passmark]

Let's not forget that neither Fagan or Clarkson has yet been provided with a copy of the report.

That is shameful.

Bit hard for Clarkson to refute specific allegations when he hasn't seen the report.

I hate the guy as much as the next CFC supporter, but the AFL has handled this shambolically, as usual....

How is this the AFLs fault?
Isn’t this a Hawthorn report leaked to the ABC?

 

[passmark]

Yes. This should have all been kept behind closed doors because we all know that’s the only way the truth comes out and justice is served

 

[Stamos]

How is this the AFLs fault?
Isn’t this a Hawthorn report leaked to the ABC?

Not saying it is their fault, but Hawthorn (rightfully) handed the report to the AFL a couple of weeks before Jackson's article was published, which was 9 days ago. They still haven't set up an investigation into the report/events.

 

[Mondyboy]

Not saying it is their fault, but Hawthorn (rightfully) handed the report to the AFL a couple of weeks before Jackson's article was published, which was 9 days ago. They still haven't set up an investigation into the report/events.

It’s not helped that in a panic Gil said he’d have the committee set up in 24 hours. We’re all still waiting.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com