Opinion Hawthorn - Clarkson - Fagan Racism Investigation

[CrowsB4hoes]

That’s exactly what it will say. No evidence will exist, but fluffy platitudes will be thrown around and AFL will breathe out in relief

There’ll be something whereby Fagan and Clarko are cleared, but not cleared and let’s never speak of this again.

 

[Sanders]

It is kinda as in harassments in the realm of the workplace. But the point still stand, work harassments cases aren’t always easy to know the entire truth. Perceptions and deceptions can make things more complicated and can drag on. You nor I nor anyone can know how long it should really take in this particular case.

Think back to WorkSafe SA investigation on the Crows camp, how long did that drag on for? And the investigation was for a simple 3 day event!!

It is kinda.

John showing his vast experience in work place investigations…

 

[John Who]

It is kinda.

John showing his vast experience in work place investigations…

Sanders doing what he does best with a show of his grammatical and spelling superpowers. What a hero!

 

[Sanders]

Work over and work safe SA are bound by legislation and accountable to the government and the public. The AFL doesn’t have the same requirements in the slightest.

This is an internal grievance investigation. Where the AFL is going way over and above what is required of it so it can avoid the pithy bitching from the cheap seats

 

[Sanders]

Sanders doing what he does best with a show of his grammatical and spelling superpowers. What a hero!

 

[John Who]

Work over and work safe SA are bound by legislation and accountable to the government and the public. The AFL doesn’t have the same requirements in the slightest.

Yes I agree with this post. Though by setting a time limit on a serious investigation, would you, the general public or the victims (whoever they are) feel confident that matters will be sorted fairly?

I’m saying no. You seem to be saying yes?

 

[Sanders]

Yes I agree with this post. Though by setting a time limit on a serious investigation, would you, the general public or the victims (whoever they are) feel confident that matters will be sorted fairly?

I’m saying no. You seem to be saying yes?

I’m saying you have no experience from which to judge. The opposite of what you are saying is true, there is obligation to investigate and expedite matters quickly.

The AFL will not be awarding compensation, so if they want that they have to go civilly anyway (and they do). The investigation is just a step along that path, and they will wait for the outcome to point at as evidence of a) wrongdoing or b) institutional bias

There are no win no fee lawyers involved in representing the families, so we don’t have to be confused about the objective

 

[John Who]

I’m saying you have no experience from which to judge. The opposite of what you are saying is true, there is obligation to investigate and expedite matters quickly.

The AFL will not be awarding compensation, so if they want that they have to go civilly anyway (and they do). The investigation is just a step along that path, and they will wait for the outcome to point at as evidence of a) wrongdoing or b) institutional bias

There are no win no fee lawyers involved in representing the families, so we don’t have to be confused about the objective

Of course who wouldn’t want the investigation to end as soon as possible? The issue is why put a timeline and make it public? What happens when the timeline is up and the investigation is still around the half way mark? Then what?

Oh, we’ll extend it to another 2 months after that. What happens if a further witness needs to be asked but he’s in the hospital with Covid-induced pneumonitis?

Oops, we’ll need another 10 days. Or maybe more..

The better approach would be to make a rough approximation, like saying “we’re hoping to settle everything within 3 months, obviously the earlier the better”. Instead of “yeah, it’s gonna be 7 weeks for us to clear the matter”.

 

[Sanders]

Of course who wouldn’t want the investigation to end as soon as possible? The issue is why put a timeline and make it public? What happens when the timeline is up and the investigation is still around the half way mark? Then what?

Oh, we’ll extend it to another 2 months after that. What happens if a further witness needs to be asked but he’s in the hospital with Covid-induced pneumonitis?

Oops, we’ll need another 10 days. Or maybe more..

The better approach would be to make a rough approximation, like saying “we’re hoping to settle everything within 3 months, obviously the earlier the better”. Instead of “yeah, it’s gonna be 7 weeks for us to clear the matter”.

John, what are the subjects you do know something about?

You seem addicted to ones where you just guess and make it up as you go.

 

[1970crow]

You have to remember, the original survey by HAW, was simply that a survey of past players ....not just indigenous players

For what purpose would adding mayo have, in anonymous feedback ......which just coincidentally had similar stories from 4 families ?

It only became a question of the feedback, once the ABC article came out ......not surprisingly repeating the same claims from a 2nd round of interviews .....at that stage, the chances of the families staying anonymous was going to be difficult to impossible

How could you have such strong opinions when you don’t even know the most basic of facts. The Hawthorn report surveyed ONLY indigenous players and their families. It’s been very clear from the beginning.

 

[1970crow]

Sorry quoting you again, I’ve seen Workcover cases involving emotional harassments/bullying that can take 1-2 years.

Are you mixing up the claim assessment and the employer’s initial investigation as if it’s a single thing?

 

[1970crow]

I’m the one laughing at you when you said Workcover cases for emotional bullying usually gets done quick. This can easily be answered by anyone if they ask their own GP (if their GP does Workcover).

He never said anything about workcover cases. That’s an insurance issue, not a workplace investigation into the facts. We’ve got one going on at the moment, being conducted by an external investigative business. 2 months is way beyond the expected timeframe for a result. Workers compensation is a separate event in the event someone makes a claim.

 

[Sanders]

Are you mixing up the claim assessment and the employer’s initial investigation as if it’s a single thing?

It’s hard to know whether John really believes the crap he comes out with

 

[John Who]

John, what are the subjects you do know something about?

You seem addicted to ones where you just guess and make it up as you go.

Your attempts at devaluing others is textbook stuff. You’re back on ignore. Congrats!

 

[John Who]

He never said anything about workcover cases. That’s an insurance issue, not a workplace investigation into the facts. We’ve got one going on at the moment, being conducted by an external investigative business. 2 months is way beyond the expected timeframe for a result. Workers compensation is a separate event in the event someone makes a claim.

Workcover cases on workplace bullying was more an analogy, with the main point being finding out the truth between various parties with conflicting stories can take time. Also how emotionally affected people are, takes further digging.

You were one of the ones that defended Worksafe taking an entire year to investigate on the Crows camp, and here you are defending the AFL to finalise their investigations within 7 weeks on a much more serious allegation?

Personally, I feel it’s being disrespectful and disingenuous to set a timeline on when the investigation should end. If they can do an accurate assessment within that time frame, then all well and good. But if it’s a rush job, then I’d rather they don’t even bother.

 

[Sanders]

Your attempts at devaluing others is textbook stuff. You’re back on ignore. Congrats!

I can’t imagine anyone could ever do a better job of devaluing your opinions than you do.

It’s almost like that’s your goal.

 

[Sanders]

Workcover cases on workplace bullying was more an analogy, with the main point being finding out the truth between various parties with conflicting stories can take time. Also how emotionally affected people are, takes further digging.

You were one of the ones that defended Worksafe taking an entire year to investigate on the Crows camp, and here you are defending the AFL to finalise their investigations within 7 weeks on a much more serious allegation?

Personally, I feel it’s being disrespectful and disingenuous to set a timeline on when the investigation should end. If they can do an accurate assessment within that time frame, then all well and good. But if it’s a rush job, then I’d rather they don’t even bother.

This is the problem. You keep repeating the same trash over and over, as if somehow the only thing wrong is that you haven’t said it enough times

 

[arrowman]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/hawthorn-accuser-announces-major-action-against-afl-investigation/news-story/a8953a97f219a1178936ffd68fbdc811?fbclid=IwAR0tPox5d78FAN8uZk6TQ3hYnnx0i6_1EujFxh_8f3GKabiyWv4E6GzLccg

Some interesting quotes:

From the AFL:

“The AFL can only investigate the matter under AFL Rules, as that is the only jurisdiction we have the ability to determine and - as we have said previously – our process doesn’t stop any impacted person from taking separate legal action or seeking redress in another forum or jurisdiction."

- Which is fair comment, I think. I mean, we might question how "independent" the investigation is, but the AFL can argue that it has to be done, to some extent, under their jurisdiction.

From Clarkson:

“I’d be very, very surprised if weren’t able to put a strong case forward that these allegations have been reported in a different way to what we saw them when we were at the club.
...
“There is a lot more depth and history to what has transpired, but we will get a chance in the investigation to outline that.”

From "Amy"'s law firm:

The legal team claims it is a “huge insult” that the focus on the AFL investigation will be determining if the claims made against Hawthorn are true — rather than focus on how the alleged mistreatment occured under the AFL’s watch.

Um sorry what? "You shouldn't be investigating whether the allegations are true, you should be assuming they are true and investigating how it happened on your watch".

 

[Sanders]

From "Amy"'s law firm:

Um sorry what? "You shouldn't be investigating whether the allegations are true, you should be assuming they are true and investigating how it happened on your watch".

That law firm doesn’t look like serious people. It’s a crank operation

 

[arrowman]

That law firm doesn’t look like serious people. It’s a crank operation

I'm not convinced "Amy" is getting terribly good advice.

 

[1970crow]

To be fair in my experience Amys are nothing but trouble

My best man still dealing with his version.

 

[1970crow]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/hawthorn-accuser-announces-major-action-against-afl-investigation/news-story/a8953a97f219a1178936ffd68fbdc811?fbclid=IwAR0tPox5d78FAN8uZk6TQ3hYnnx0i6_1EujFxh_8f3GKabiyWv4E6GzLccg

Some interesting quotes:

From the AFL:

- Which is fair comment, I think. I mean, we might question how "independent" the investigation is, but the AFL can argue that it has to be done, to some extent, under their jurisdiction.

From Clarkson:


From "Amy"'s law firm:

Um sorry what? "You shouldn't be investigating whether the allegations are true, you should be assuming they are true and investigating how it happened on your watch".

I’m getting the feeling that Amy might have overcooked her claims or perhaps her partner may not have been telling her the whole truth. Interesting that so far it’s only her withdrawing from the process. No doubt her counsel will have been begging the others to follow suit.

Still, that may yet eventuate, but she’s definitely on a limb by herself at the moment.

 

[1970crow]

I'm not convinced "Amy" is getting terribly good advice.

Not necessarily true.

 

[arrowman]

Not necessarily true.

Well, if your earlier post is accurate, then yes, this is true.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Not necessarily true.

Depends what her end goal is. At the moment I think the legal advice has been terrible.