NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed. Part 3

[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

AFL Ends Investigation - 'Imperfect resolution' as Hawks probe ends, no one charged

DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[perplexed]

Now that it’s been published the question will only be answered in hindsight if someone sues the ABC.

Haven’t other journalists also said their organisation wouldn’t have published in the way Jackson did if at all? That could be instructive re ethical and legal questions.

But ultimately it’s moot point now.

Edit: imo whether he reached out or not is largely irrelevant. Like I have said before, no one would have responded to his queries…I mean the coaches didn’t even have the report.

This. Lots of people are obsessed about whether or not the coaches had time to respond when they were never going to anyway. The bigger question is the extent to which Jackson verified the claims prior to publishing and naming the coaches. We've seen from the recent BRS trial the extent to which McKenzie went to check and cross check accounts from witnesses prior to naming BRS. It doesn't seem that Jackson did any of this. I think it is telling that he hasn't followed up the article in any meaningful way.

 

[Elixuh]

Correcting the Record - Media Centre - About the ABC

Information about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation including history, management, corporate reports, plans and submissions and the latest news from our media centre.

about.abc.net.au

This isn’t the most recent one but the one made last year when people were fired up about it.

“On Monday 19 September and into the following day all three were contacted multiple times by the ABC, via email, phone call and text message. Also contacted were the media teams at Hawthorn and the Brisbane Lions and the personal management of one of the individuals.

They were provided with all relevant information about the allegations. They were asked detailed and open-ended questions that gave them the opportunity to fully respond to all the allegations.

After initially receiving no response, the ABC contacted all the parties again and offered them more time in which to respond. We again received no response to the questions.

Statements provided by Hawthorn and the AFL were included in the story and the ABC has reported comments that have subsequently been made.”

And here’s some information about the right of reply and the standards of it:

Fair opportunity to respond - ABC Editorial Policies

The focus of this Guidance Note is on the provision of a fair opportunity to respond prior to disclosure of allegations and includes information for when allegations are made during live content.

www.abc.net.au

Sounds like it’s very interpretational, and I’d assume that Jackson’s two days and multiple attempts at contact without response was deemed sufficient. I would be surprised if a court found it to be unreasonable considering the ABC is more than happy to tick off on it.

Yeh very much a non issue.

 

[jannissary]

i’m

This. Lots of people are obsessed about whether or not the coaches had time to respond when they were never going to anyway. The bigger question is the extent to which Jackson verified the claims prior to publishing and naming the coaches. We've seen from the recent BRS trial the extent to which McKenzie went to check and cross check accounts from witnesses prior to naming BRS. It doesn't seem that Jackson did any of this. I think it is telling that he hasn't followed up the article in any meaningful way.

i’m no legal eagle so apologies if i’m wrong, but with the ben roberts smith case, as it was a defamation case and not a legal, criminal trial (ie: there was no “crime” committed by the accusers) then there was a different expectation as to what evidence was used and provided, what counts as defamation as opposed to just reporting etc.

i feel like it’s far too early in the piece to be talking about defamation of clarkson etc

 

[buttermuffs]

Yep its unclear exactly what it means. As I said, if they actually spoke to people and said it was urgent the info was passed on vs "we left a heap of messages and didnt hear back before our arbitrary deadline and went ahead without giving them a reply".

I mean the idea that they need to speak to people and pass on that it’s urgent requires people to actually speak back which they didn’t. I would assume ‘we left a heap of messages’ also implies urgency but maybe it’s just me.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[sr36]

i’m

i’m no legal eagle so apologies if i’m wrong, but with the ben roberts smith case, as it was a defamation case and not a legal, criminal trial (ie: there was no “crime” committed by the accusers) then there was a different expectation as to what evidence was used and provided, what counts as defamation as opposed to just reporting etc.

i feel like it’s far too early in the piece to be talking about defamation of clarkson etc

In a nut shell, if you damage someone's reputation, without being able to show that the damaging claims are probably true - you can lose a defamation case.

 

[perplexed]

i’m

i’m no legal eagle so apologies if i’m wrong, but with the ben roberts smith case, as it was a defamation case and not a legal, criminal trial (ie: there was no “crime” committed by the accusers) then there was a different expectation as to what evidence was used and provided, what counts as defamation as opposed to just reporting etc.

i feel like it’s far too early in the piece to be talking about defamation of clarkson etc

I was more comparing the level of research undertaken by the journalists prior to damaging someone's reputation rather than how this might play out in court - if it ever got to that. I think it wasn't until the third of the six articles that BRS was named by McKenzie.

 

[HairyO]

I mean the idea that they need to speak to people and pass on that it’s urgent requires people to actually speak back which they didn’t. I would assume ‘we left a heap of messages’ also implies urgency but maybe it’s just me.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

As I said, maybe none of the messages were actually seen. The timing was just after the Prelim where Brisbane were knocked out and Fagan would have been madly finishing up the season and given the Hawks were out Clarko may have already been off on holidays.

That's why it matters whether they spoke to anyone at all about it.

Arbitrary deadlines dont trump someone's right to reply. Even if we all know the reply would have been "no comment".

 

[jannissary]

In a nut shell, if you damage someone's reputation, without being able to show that the damaging claims are probably true - you can lose a defamation case.

the word i was thinking of was scrutiny and how the level of it will depend on where the case is being held, but that’s a good point, thank you

I was more comparing the level of research undertaken by the journalists prior to damaging someone's reputation rather than how this might play out in court - if it ever got to that. I think it wasn't until the third of the six articles that BRS was named by McKenzie.

completely fair, i’ll stick my beak out of legal stuff haha

 

[western royboy]

Without Russell Jackson’s article, how does anyone find out about the allegations?

 

[perplexed]

Without Russell Jackson’s article, how does anyone find out about the allegations?

The players take their claims to the HRC - like they are now.

 

[western royboy]

The players take their claims to the HRC - like they are now.

You reckon they would have gone straight there? I don’t

 

[perplexed]

You reckon they would have gone straight there? I don’t

I don't know, but don't see why not. The AFL were never going to resolve this to anyone's satisfaction.

 

[western royboy]

I don't know, but don't see why not. The AFL were never going to resolve this to anyone's satisfaction.

I agree with that but as the peak body it had to go there first - I can’t see any other way

 

[PenfoldsFan]

To be fair, Jackson writes in his article that 'Kylie' gave Clarko, Fagan and Burts phone numbers to Vicpol so they could do a welfare check after she got no response from them or the club.
None of them responded to the Police enquiries so I doubt there was much chance of Rusty getting a response.

 

[phantom13]

I think the whole defamation thing can probably chill.

For one thing if any of the parties feel they were defamed they will sue and if those claims are founded they will win, they will get an apology, a retraction and settlement.

Its almost certain that some of most of the claims in the report will be validated in some way and we already have a living breathing example of the "damage" that gets done to people reputations from these sorts of reports in the long term in the Collingwood do better report and the answer is none or extremely close to none.

Collingwood hasnt suffered, none of the individuals accused or eventually outed as being the accused have suffered and im tipping the only thing most people even remember from that report are Heritier and his "nickname" stuff.

 

[sr36]

I think the whole defamation thing can probably chill.

For one thing if any of the parties feel they were defamed they will sue and if those claims are founded they will win, they will get an apology, a retraction and settlement.

Its almost certain that some of most of the claims in the report will be validated in some way and we already have a living breathing example of the "damage" that gets done to people reputations from these sorts of reports in the long term in the Collingwood do better report and the answer is none or extremely close to none.

Collingwood hasnt suffered, none of the individuals accused or eventually outed as being the accused have suffered and im tipping the only thing most people even remember from that report are Heritier and his "nickname" stuff.

I think you misunderstand the Collingwood review. Individuals weren't "accused or eventually outed". It was looking at the club's responses to the issue of racism and not whether any individual did something directly racist. It didn't investigate for direct racism at all.

 

[Elixuh]

I think the whole defamation thing can probably chill.

For one thing if any of the parties feel they were defamed they will sue and if those claims are founded they will win, they will get an apology, a retraction and settlement.

Its almost certain that some of most of the claims in the report will be validated in some way and we already have a living breathing example of the "damage" that gets done to people reputations from these sorts of reports in the long term in the Collingwood do better report and the answer is none or extremely close to none.

Collingwood hasn't suffered, none of the individuals accused or eventually outed as being the accused have suffered and im tipping the only thing most people even remember from that report are Heritier and his "nickname" stuff.

I don’t think this is necessarily correct. Long term people just forget so assume the impact is nil or close to nil. But for the actual people who have been affected and who have to go out and interact with the world everyday, I don’t think they see it this way.

This isn’t a comment on the present circumstances, but a general comment.

 

[phantom13]

I think you misunderstand the Collingwood review. Individuals weren't "accused or eventually outed". It was looking at the club's responses to the issue of racism and not whether any individual did something directly racist. It didn't investigate for direct racism at all.

No the Hawks investigation and report was comissioned in the same way as the Collingwood one, ultimately because of the seriousness of the claims it has gone very differently after it was finished.

In any event my point was about the whole defamation point which has dominated the thread. If its defamation then theyll rightly sue and be exonorated, if its not then theyre not being defamed and all the "reputation impact" is pretty minimal anyway

I don’t think this is necessarily correct. Long term people just forget so assume the impact is nil or close to nil. But for the actual people who have been affected and who have to go out and interact with the world everyday, I don’t think they see it this way.

This isn’t a comment on the present circumstances, but a general comment.

Its still only really applicable if the claims are found to be false, which, in their entirety, is extremely unlikely. In the event they are then they can and likely will sue and have retractions and apologies plus compensation, which is supposed to be for exactly what youre talking about.

 

[sr36]

No the Hawks investigation and report was comissioned in the same way as the Collingwood one, ultimately because of the seriousness of the claims it has gone very differently after it was finished.

No. You misunderstood the Collingwood review. The two reviews were miles apart. Hawthorn's review essentially went looking for unknown stuff. Collingwood's review wasn't capable of finding out things like those that were allegedly uncovered in the Hawthorn review. It reviewed our policy and our practice regarding our responses to previously known events relating to racism. Players weren't interviewed to uncover previously unknown events. Players like Davis and Krak weren't part of the review as they weren't part of any of the events that were looked at in the review.

Collingwoods review wasn't looking for racist events. It was looking at how we responded to the issue of racism in general through our policies and specifically in relation to well known events or allegations incolving racism.

 

[phantom13]

No. You misunderstood the Collingwood review. The two reviews were miles apart. Hawthorn's review essentially went looking for unknown stuff. Collingwood's review wasn't capable of finding out things like those that were allegedly uncovered in the Hawthorn review. It reviewed our policy and our practice regarding our responses to previously known events relating to racism. Players weren't interviewed to uncover previously unknown events. Players like Davis and Krak weren't part of the review as they weren't part of any of the events that were looked at in the review.

Having read the review im pretty sure thats wrong but either way the broader point is that everyone knew who the accused were (Bucks, McGuire and others spoke on the claims) and a couple of years on, in spite of no rebuttal of any of the claims and Collingwood accepting them all no one gives a shit about them anymore. Collingwood to their credit (and all clubs should do the same) have implemented the recommendations and worked very hard to create a better environment but no one was defamed and no one who was outed from the process is any worse off.

 

[sr36]

Having read the review im pretty sure thats wrong but either way the broader point is that everyone knew who the accused were (Bucks, McGuire and others spoke on the claims) and a couple of years on, in spite of no rebuttal of any of the claims and Collingwood accepting them all no one gives a s**t about them anymore. Collingwood to their credit (and all clubs should do the same) have implemented the recommendations and worked very hard to create a better environment but no one was defamed and no one who was outed from the process is any worse off.

If you've read it, you misunderstood it.

If they were accused in the review it was in relation to their responses to racism and not in terms of direct racism. Direct racism allegations weren't reviewed. And there was no attempt to uncover allegations.

If you look at the HL stuff, there were no findings relating to his initial complaint, as that wasn't part of the scope of the review. There are however findings that relate to Collingwoods response to his initial allegations.

 

[phantom13]

If you've read it, you misunderstood it.

If they were accused in the review it was in relation to their responses to racism and not in terms of direct racism. Direct racism allegations weren't reviewed. And there was no attempt to uncover allegations.

I did read it and again, i dont think i did misunderstand it but its kind of not really the point.

There were references to directly racist incidents (the nickname as an example) and from that through social media and gossip the accused were known to the public.

From that none of those people named have suffered any real world impacts from being known as having committed racist acts.

Its relevant to this as we have a similar situation, the people involved in the acts are known, if the acts are false they will sue for defamation, theyll win, theyll get apologies and compensation. If theyre not false then they reality will be people will forget about 95% of the accusations in a year or two tops.

 

[phantom13]

If you look at the HL stuff, there were no findings relating to his initial complaint, as that wasn't part of the scope of the review. There are however findings that relate to Collingwoods response to his initial allegations.

Right, i think i understand the point your making but ultimately Collingwoods response and actions to his complaint are still relevant in the context of "was it racist".

Ultimately the report was still a review into recent and historical racism and the Clubs response, opposed to Hawthorns which started with the initial action.

Its still relevant to what im talking about.

 

[sr36]

I did read it and again, i dont think i did misunderstand it but its kind of not really the point.

There were references to directly racist incidents (the nickname as an example) and from that through social media and gossip the accused were known to the public.

From that none of those people named have suffered any real world impacts from being known as having committed racist acts.

Its relevant to this as we have a similar situation, the people involved in the acts are known, if the acts are false they will sue for defamation, theyll win, theyll get apologies and compensation. If theyre not false then they reality will be people will forget about 95% of the accusations in a year or two tops.

HL didn't participate in the review. The nickname came up before the review and HL didn't name anyone in relation to the nickname. The calling him of that name wasn't part of the scope of the review. How the club responded or didn't respond to that nickname might have been a part of the review.

 

[phantom13]

HL didn't participate in the review. The nickname came up before the review and HL didn't name anyone in relation to the nickname. Him being called that name wasn't part of the scope of the review. How the club responded or didn't respond to that nickname might have been a part of the review.

... none of which has any relevance to the point im making...

The outcome of the review (which very much noted the nicknaming) in a public sphere was that Buckleys response both at the time it happened and in response to the report was public knowledge.

So in terms of him being defamed he wasnt.

In terms of him suffering from any sort of public backlash he didnt.

He remained employed (albeit in the media and not at a club although that wasnt because of the claims).

Your focusing on some misguided assumption that ive misunderstood the report when in reality, even if i have its got nothing to do with the point im making.