NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed. Part 2

[Wosh]

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread.
Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the report button, please and thank you.

If you feel upset or need to talk you can call either Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636 or Lifeline on 13 11 14 at any time.

- Crisis support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 13YARN (13 92 76) 13YARN - Call 13 92 76 | 24 /7

This is a serious topic, please treat it as such.

Videos, statements etc in the OP here:

NO TROLLS - Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread. Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the...

www.bigfooty.com

Link to Hawthorn Statement. - Link to ABC Sports article. - Leaked Report

Process Plan - https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...erms-of-Reference-and-Process-Plan-FINAL-.pdf


DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[blackshadow]

That’s the thing, doing things this way and playing things out in public means they hold all the cards.

There’s no rush or timeline. For them, it will be about causing maximum damage at the best time and it’s an approach where they can’t really lose.

AFL release a report they didn’t participate in “exonerating” Clarko? Day after, here comes an explosive follow-up article how their trauma is being compounded by all of this. Then release more and more until heads roll and sponsors go. Any compensation they’d be entitled to also goes up if trauma keeps compounding.

These sorts of scandals are messy, the AFL can’t tie a bow around it.

If it’s played out in public it will be gloves off from Clarkson and Fagan’s legal teams. They will have absolutely nothing to lose by going the nuclear option - their reputations are being sullied every minute and this drags on and they won’t allow it to keep happening.

Jackson/ABC would be legally silenced as it would be a slam dunk to have an injunction put in place while defamation proceedings are under way and that process could take years

The accusers would also be named in defamation proceedings and they would then be a targets for intense media scrutiny. If they’re not lily-white their reputations will be trashed just as hard if not harder than the accused as gutter journalists will be trolling through their lives and family connection lives and publishing any damning information they uncover.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

So to summarise

- we agree that if compo doesn’t come from the afl via this investigation then the only form of compo will be civil. So if they don’t participate, they’ll need to sue.

I just can’t see any form of critical mass forming without any form of investigation finding in favour of the accusers, be it civil or via this process.

For me, compo is way down the track and, as I said, not even something on the radar right now. It’ll likely come up at some stage but when and how… there is a lot of water to go under the bridge before then.

This can’t be an issue that is paid off.

What those bringing it up want is cultural change. A seminal moment in history.

If you think critical mass is unlikely to be reached on a race issue like this in Australia, I think you’ll be in for a surprise.

No need for courts when you have a journo who can deliver everything you need.

It’s a global world, racism is the big issue everywhere. Australia and the AFL is no longer a bubble.

A hell of a lot to play out in this story, and why I don’t get the premature celebrations from those when Clarko got told he could start coaching. Clarko is a problematic piece in it that the AFL would do away with if necessary to save themselves.

 

[sr36]

If it’s played out in public it will be gloves off from Clarkson and Fagan’s legal teams. They will have absolutely nothing to lose by going the nuclear option - their reputations are being sullied every minute and this drags on and they won’t allow it to keep happening.

Jackson/ABC would be legally silenced as it would be a slam dunk to have an injunction put in place while defamation proceedings are under way and that process could take years

The accusers would also be named in defamation proceedings and they would then be a targets for intense media scrutiny. If they’re not lily-white their reputations will be trashed just as hard if not harder than the accused as gutter journalists will be trolling through their lives and family connection lives and publishing any damning information they uncover.

The inquiry is in camera, isn't it?

 

[the big lebowski]

For me, compo is way down the track and, as I said, not even something on the radar right now. It’ll likely come up at some stage but when and how… there is a lot of water to go under the bridge before then.

This can’t be an issue that is paid off.

What those bringing it up want is cultural change. A seminal moment in history.

If you think critical mass is unlikely to be reached on a race issue like this in Australia, I think you’ll be in for a surprise.

No need for courts when you have a journo who can deliver everything you need.

It’s a global world, racism is the big issue everywhere. Australia and the AFL is no longer a bubble.

A hell of a lot to play out in this story, and why I don’t get the premature celebrations from those when Clarko got told he could start coaching. Clarko is a problematic piece in it that the AFL would do away with if necessary to save themselves.

Neither of us know what the accusers want.

Maybe a million dollars each, and a commitment from the afl to further cultural sensitivities will suffice.

I’d actually be surly if it didn’t. But we don’t know.

Again, I think you’re brushing over the compo side of things and the mechanisms that cause it to arise.

Fancy a friendly bet on the participation of the accusers?

Edit: I don’t think anyone thinks that becuase clarko and fagan are back at work that it means anything for this issue. If they do, they shouldn’t.

 

[blackshadow]

For me, compo is way down the track and, as I said, not even something on the radar right now. It’ll likely come up at some stage but when and how… there is a lot of water to go under the bridge before then.

This can’t be an issue that is paid off.

What those bringing it up want is cultural change. A seminal moment in history.

If you think critical mass is unlikely to be reached on a race issue like this in Australia, I think you’ll be in for a surprise.

No need for courts when you have a journo who can deliver everything you need.

It’s a global world, racism is the big issue everywhere. Australia and the AFL is no longer a bubble.

A hell of a lot to play out in this story, and why I don’t get the premature celebrations from those when Clarko got told he could start coaching. Clarko is a problematic piece in it that the AFL would do away with if necessary to save themselves.

You’re kidding yourself if you don’t see compensation as a motivating factor.

I doubt the accusers have the stomach to be martyrs for the cause which is basically what you’re implying.

Jackson has shot his load and will be delivering jack shit from here on in unless it’s a sizeable payout to messrs Clarkson and Fagan.

 

[blackshadow]

The inquiry is in camera, isn't it?

The inquiry is but if the accused are going public that’s outside the inquiry.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

If it’s played out in public it will be gloves off from Clarkson and Fagan’s legal teams. They will have absolutely nothing to lose by going the nuclear option - their reputations are being sullied every minute and this drags on and they won’t allow it to keep happening.

Jackson/ABC would be legally silenced as it would be a slam dunk to have an injunction put in place while defamation proceedings are under way and that process could take years

The accusers would also be named in defamation proceedings and they would then be a targets for intense media scrutiny. If they’re not lily-white their reputations will be trashed just as hard if not harder than the accused as gutter journalists will be trolling through their lives and family connection lives and publishing any damning information they uncover.

You’ve pretty much summed the way I think it will play out.

A mess for years.

And there’s one big factor that will look terrible for the AFL once the gloves come off in the modern world we live in: powerful white men telling abused people of color their abuse didn’t exist or wasn’t as bad as what they imagined.

If/when that would happen? That’s the trump card Jackson and others will play that will beat all and ultimately get the sponsors leaving in droves.

The AFL would want to avoid this at all costs.

 

[sr36]

Maybe. But I think you’re drawing your own conclusions without 50% of the story, and are fixated with a cancel culture outcome occurring.

Which may well happen.

But may well not happen.

If it happened as alleged then we all agree the accused are gone from footy.

If the public are told that’s not what happened, very few will be agitating. Certainly not enough to make a difference imo.

The tide will eventually turn regarding cancel culture. But has it turned yet? They'd have to be bloody lucky.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

Neither of us know what the accusers want.

Maybe a million dollars each, and a commitment from the afl to further cultural sensitivities will suffice.

I’d actually be surly if it didn’t. But we don’t know.

Again, I think you’re brushing over the compo side of things and the mechanisms that cause it to arise.

Fancy a friendly bet on the participation of the accusers?

Edit: I don’t think anyone thinks that becuase clarko and fagan are back at work that it means anything for this issue. If they do, they shouldn’t.

I’m not a betting man.

What are you so confident they will participate? What in this article am I missing here? Has there been some fresh news saying they will participate that I’ve missed?

Families of First Nations players query the independence of AFL's proposed investigation of Hawthorn allegations - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au

 

[NarklesHelmet]

You’re kidding yourself if you don’t see compensation as a motivating factor.

I doubt the accusers have the stomach to be martyrs for the cause which is basically what you’re implying.

Jackson has shot his load and will be delivering jack s**t from here on in unless it’s a sizeable payout to messrs Clarkson and Fagan.

What has happened with Jackson that makes you think that? Why wouldn’t he have more up his sleeve?

He did many follow-ups with his other abuse articles, including the one he won a Walkley for.

 

[blackshadow]

What has happened with Jackson that makes you think that? Why wouldn’t he have more up his sleeve?

He did many follow-ups with his other abuse articles, including the one he won a Walkley for.

He’d have run them by now if he had anything.

If he had more he’d have run them instead of taking defamatory potshots at Sonja Hood on social media then sent scampering with his tail between his legs.

 

[sr36]

You’ve pretty much summed the way I think it will play out.

A mess for years.

And there’s one big factor that will look terrible for the AFL once the gloves come off in the modern world we live in: powerful white men telling abused people of color their abuse didn’t exist or wasn’t as bad as what they imagined.

If/when that would happen? That’s the trump card Jackson and others will play that will beat all and ultimately get the sponsors leaving in droves.

The AFL would want to avoid this at all costs.

I think they'll participate, but there's going to be an inquiry regardless of participation.

I think the best case scenario for the AFL and the innocent clubs is a negative finding pointed at set individuals and Hawthorn. A finding that's serious enough to justify big penalties, so the AFL can go whack, apologise, announce some commitments moving forward and then negotiate a big settlement. All over quick smart.

The worst case is a small negative finding where they can't justify much of a penalty and thus put themselves in the firing line of the anti-racism movement.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

He’d have run them by now if he had anything.

That’d be pretty dumb of him: much smarter to wait and see how it plays out for a bit and release stuff when maximum damage can be inflicted (he chose Grand Final week for a reason).

 

[the big lebowski]

I’m not a betting man.

What are you so confident they will participate? What in this article am I missing here? Has there been some fresh news saying they will participate that I’ve missed?

Families of First Nations players query the independence of AFL's proposed investigation of Hawthorn allegations - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au

Im very confident that the 5 players that have the ex afl lawyer will participate.

Im also extremely confident that the legal strategy of ambiguity about participation in the investigation was in order to get the unprecedented advantageous makeup of the panel.

Fantastic lawyering from their legal team.

They’ll participate.

If they don’t I’ll come back here and tip my hat to you good sir. Though I did say I’d eat it, so ………..

 

[sr36]

He’d have run them by now if he had anything.

Agree. I don't think there's any more actual news from that side. He's told their stories. But I do think there's a lot of locked and loaded opinion pieces if the Inquiry and/or subsequent penalties aren't favourable/unfavourable. I don't think that's Jackson's thing though.

 

[blackshadow]

That’d be pretty dumb of him: much smarter to wait and see how it plays out for a bit and release stuff when maximum damage can be inflicted (he chose Grand Final week for a reason).

He’s certainly shown himself to be pretty dumb in the aftermath.

Dumb enough to be forced to issue an apology for defaming Sonja Hood.

If he had more he wouldn’t be launching defamatory attacks against her on social media he’d run the story.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

He’s certainly shown himself to be pretty dumb in the aftermath.

Dumb enough to be forced to issue an apology for defaming Sonja Hood.

If he had more he wouldn’t be launching defamatory attacks against her on social media he’d run the story.

He’ll have more, as the story unfolds, “update” pieces.

They pretty much write themselves: “it was bad enough the trauma we were put through by Clarkson but this trauma was exacerbated by seeing him being able to go back to work as if nothing happens and how the AFL tried to force us into taking part in an enquiry while we were still suffering trauma. This is yet another example of the racism First Nations people suffer in Australia etc etc”

It will be the lowest of low-hanging fruit for Jackson. Not to mention the others that will run with their own opinions on it based on what he writes.

That’s when the shit will really start for the AFL as sponsors will come knocking going “what the hell is going on here?”.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

What has happened with Jackson that makes you think that? Why wouldn’t he have more up his sleeve?

He did many follow-ups with his other abuse articles, including the one he won a Walkley for.

Really? I was told by many posters on here just last week that it wasn't his style to do follow up articles.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

Really? I was told by many posters on here just last week that it wasn't his style to do follow up articles.

Hmm, well he did for the Muir ones (quite a few actually).

 

[JGreezy]

If the other side of the story is it didn't happen at all. It's he said/she said and the public, the media and sponsors will back the Aboriginal voices and the anti-racism movement kicks in really hard.

If they try to completely discredit the player's accounts - well that's about as high risk a strategy as you can get.

Unless there's evidence contrary to the claims. We don't know if thats the case. That was not part of the process of the report.

If there's evidence to the contrary then that completely changes things.

I would be surprised if this is purely he said/she said. Organisations don't usually take these sorts of actions without reports, notes, emails etc.

 

[Sherrinator]

The tide will eventually turn regarding cancel culture. But has it turned yet? They'd have to be bloody lucky.

This whole witch hunt is a great example of cancel culture. Instead of using the stories of those allegedly affected as a wake up call (be they true, exaggerated or false), someone needs to pay. This is exactly what that belligerent journo aimed for when he shared the report - maximum carnage = maximum plaudits.

 

[ferball]

Sorry, but you have imputed motives to another person in a very problematic way - that their "intent is to distort and ignore and not engage in good faith". That is simply not a defensible statement, since you don't know his intent.

You are framing these matters as though they have simple yes/no, right/wrong answers. When anyone seeks to add nuance, or point to the complexities of the situation, you are accusing them of spreading misinformation or not acting in good faith. I would say that it is acting in bad faith to try to force others' responses into simplistic binary categories of right/wrong, fact/falsehood. Note that I am not saying that that is your intent, but that is how I would characterise the action.

Hi Rich. I've been drinking. Always the perfect way to start a post in a thread like this.

Anyway i appreciate what you're saying. You're sticking up for a good guy when he's copping it. I've known Simmo/SLF for as long as I've been here etc etc and, of the people I have known here he is one of a few I'd give the chance to have my back if it mattered and I asked. I say that as a black man in a white world. He might **** up, he might run away when it mattered ... whatever.

If he did I'd trust he'd feel badly enough about how he acted that he'd make every effort not to disgrace himself again.

He's conflicted, he's caught between different loyalties and he's struggling with it. Someone once said: "Just as important as what we do or what we don't do is how we behave when we don't know what to do." Simmo is struggling with that and trying his damnedest so good on you for sticking up for him. You're doing well for a Richmond supporter.

The point about Jackson giving the coaches an opportunity to respond is a prime example. You seem to think it is simply a matter of fact. The point that has been under discussion is not whether Jackson emailed the coaches and gave them an opportunity to respond (which we have every reason to believe he did), it is whether this opportunity was given in a way that, in reality, was tokenistic, or else genuinely aimed at getting a response. The answer to that question is not simply a matter of right/wrong, fact/falsehood. Different journalists and media experts may well have different opinions on it. But you seem intent to frame that issue as a simple binary. If Simpkin wants to argue (as a former journo) that that, in effect, constitutes Jackson not giving the coaches a fair chance to respond, then that is a reasonable argument. Similarly, if one argues, as you do, that giving 24-48 hours to respond is indeed a fair chance, that too would be a reasonable argument. Neither is "misinformation". Neither is straightforwardly right or wrong.

As a black person i've experienced the use of similar situations as double binds before. It makes me uncomfortable seeing it in this thread.

Re: mentioning Jurrah, I actually think it's bad faith to try as hard as possible to interpret that as racist or otherwise inappropriate; it's a reflex response that seeks to pigeon hole the poster in a category, and thereby invalidate everything they have to say, rather than trying to actually understand the point they were actually trying to make. Simpkin clarified that Jurrah, like the players in the article, came from a very disadvantaged background and a very different culture to white middle class Australia. Jurrah had some serious difficulties during his playing days, and afterwards, like the Hawks players. His point, as I understood it, was that Jurrah's situation demonstrates that a culture and class position that deviates markedly from the mainstream norm can result in lots of difficulties in life, without necessarily requiring active, egregiously bad treatment by a football club. Now, is that a good point to make? Not particularly, in my opinion. Does it add much to our understanding of the Hawthorn situation? Not really, for mine. But to characterise it as automatically racist is the epitome of bad faith. It was simply an ineffective point, clumsily made (sorry Simpkin lol) - something which we are all guilty of at different times.

Again there is something going on here that Smmo recognises that some of the people criticising him ... well I wonder if they'd run a mile when confronted with the reality if this stuff.

 

[sr36]

This whole witch hunt is a great example of cancel culture. Instead of using the stories of those allegedly affected as a wake up call (be they true, exaggerated or false), someone needs to pay. This is exactly what that belligerent journo aimed for when he shared the report - maximum carnage = maximum plaudits.

Let's not forget what came before BLM and MeToo. Centuries of large numbers being abused by those in positions of power. We've since had a heap of horrible shit rightfully exposed saving a lot of future victims, versus a small number of prominent figures who may have innocently been punished without a fair trial. Cancel culture sucks but what came before was worse. Hopefully what comes next is better again.

 

[blackshadow]

Sorry, but you have imputed motives to another person in a very problematic way - that their "intent is to distort and ignore and not engage in good faith". That is simply not a defensible statement, since you don't know his intent.

You are framing these matters as though they have simple yes/no, right/wrong answers. When anyone seeks to add nuance, or point to the complexities of the situation, you are accusing them of spreading misinformation or not acting in good faith. I would say that it is acting in bad faith to try to force others' responses into simplistic binary categories of right/wrong, fact/falsehood. Note that I am not saying that that is your intent, but that is how I would characterise the action.

The point about Jackson giving the coaches an opportunity to respond is a prime example. You seem to think it is simply a matter of fact. The point that has been under discussion is not whether Jackson emailed the coaches and gave them an opportunity to respond (which we have every reason to believe he did), it is whether this opportunity was given in a way that, in reality, was tokenistic, or else genuinely aimed at getting a response. The answer to that question is not simply a matter of right/wrong, fact/falsehood. Different journalists and media experts may well have different opinions on it. But you seem intent to frame that issue as a simple binary. If Simpkin wants to argue (as a former journo) that that, in effect, constitutes Jackson not giving the coaches a fair chance to respond, then that is a reasonable argument. Similarly, if one argues, as you do, that giving 24-48 hours to respond is indeed a fair chance, that too would be a reasonable argument. Neither is "misinformation". Neither is straightforwardly right or wrong.

Re: mentioning Jurrah, I actually think it's bad faith to try as hard as possible to interpret that as racist or otherwise inappropriate; it's a reflex response that seeks to pigeon hole the poster in a category, and thereby invalidate everything they have to say, rather than trying to actually understand the point they were actually trying to make. Simpkin clarified that Jurrah, like the players in the article, came from a very disadvantaged background and a very different culture to white middle class Australia. Jurrah had some serious difficulties during his playing days, and afterwards, like the Hawks players. His point, as I understood it, was that Jurrah's situation demonstrates that a culture and class position that deviates markedly from the mainstream norm can result in lots of difficulties in life, without necessarily requiring active, egregiously bad treatment by a football club. Now, is that a good point to make? Not particularly, in my opinion. Does it add much to our understanding of the Hawthorn situation? Not really, for mine. But to characterise it as automatically racist is the epitome of bad faith. It was simply an ineffective point, clumsily made (sorry Simpkin lol) - something which we are all guilty of at different times.

Well said RMD.

 

[ferball]

There is no way I would want to run a footy club.

What's no way?

**** ... have you seen what we've been thru beforehand?