NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

[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

 

[Grogg]

Tell me how.
his article was fantastic . Where was it wrong????

It wasn't, by your quote: "Well researched" or "Tackles all aspects of the story".

I'm not sure how you can in all good faith, argue that.

The articlle was a very heartfelt, empathetic account of the complainants view, but it wasn't entirely well resarched or tackling all aspects of the story.

Not sure why you would dispute this.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Perhaps corporate Sonja threatened to sue with her vast money and group of lawyers.

Even by the standards you’ve demonstrated in this thread thus far, this is brain numbing codswallop.

Our president has a career in the NGO sector and public health services.

Your clubs president comes from a big six law firm and MLC.

Russell Jackson works for a national broadcaster with an annual budget in excess of one billion dollars.

This is not the David vs Goliath fight you think it is.

 

[August192022]

I can't speak on behalf of other north supporters but as much as I don't want to believe the allegations, if they're true then clarko won't have a leg to stand on and it as I continuously do I will move on from the disappointment. The issue with Russell, to his credit an albeit enforced apology is still an aknowledgement of wrongdoing, he attacked Sonja's character.

Sonja as a leader, embodies the Shinboner Spirit that we all hold dear. To other clubs supporters that won't mean two bits of bugger all but to myself it's something I hold dearly, it's the never say die, fierce loyalty to the club, accept what is gone and influence what is yet to be mentality.

That woman has it in spades.

This won't mean much to many but for some it will resonate. That's why we stand by our own.

 

[sr36]

It wasn't, by your quote: "Well researched" or "Tackles all aspects of the story".

I'm not sure how you can in all good faith, argue that.

The articlle was a very heartfelt, empathetic account of the complainants view, but it wasn't entirely well resarched or tackling all aspects of the story.

Not sure why you would dispute this.

It certainly didn't tackle all aspects of the story. No individual news report ever does. I don't know where this theory that an individual story has to cover all angles has come from. It seems to be a new theory based around attacking a journo to protect a future coach.

 

[Grogg]

I will say that the defence of Sonja Hood is completely based in her unquestionable personal character that Russell Jackson has decided to attack.

It's patently ilinformed and ridiculuols.

No North Melbourne person is in defence of an untried character examination of a newly appointed coach, nor do they discount the sadness or the harm that those first nations players have experienced.

What they are in defence of is a character assasination of a person who, by her very core is an advocate and believer of equal human rights.

The fact she and the aboriginal players of the North Melbourne Football Club tacitly support the version of their new coach should not be discounted or ridiculed, by either those in the public forum.

 

[Grogg]

It certainly didn't tackle all aspects of the story. No individual news report ever does. I don't know where this theory that an individual story has to cover all angles has come from. It seems to be a new theory based around attacking a journo to protect a future coach.

I don't believe that either.

It was a claim from the dude I quoted.

 

[JackOutback]

I don't know about you, but in my whole time working as a journo I never had to issue a grovelling apology like Russell just did.

I'm very comfortable assessment of his abilities.

Wanna show me your Walkley?

 

[Engimal v3]

Wanna show me your Walkley?

Show you his what?!

 

[sr36]

I don't believe that either.

It was a claim from the dude I quoted.

Then I'm curious about your claim that it wasn't well researched?

There seems to be an assumption that he's written an article from a particular angle without enough substance behind it, but it looks to me to be holding up bloody well.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Wanna show me your Walkley?

Enough with the unusual euphemisms please sir, this is a family website.

 

[Grogg]

Then I'm curious about your claim that it wasn't well researched?

There seems to be an assumption that he's written an article from a particular angle without enough substance behind it, but it looks to me to be holding up bloody well.

Well researched would entail input from all involved, yes?

I don't disagree the substance, i disagree with the thorough investigative procedures.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It wasn't, by your quote: "Well researched" or "Tackles all aspects of the story".

I'm not sure how you can in all good faith, argue that.

The articlle was a very heartfelt, empathetic account of the complainants view, but it wasn't entirely well resarched or tackling all aspects of the story.

Not sure why you would dispute this.

He gave all parties an opportunity to comment, Al did not have the canastas to speak to the allegations.
What else was missing???

It Was very well researched , not sure why you are saying this. Tell us how the research was lacking ????
Was there any other topic or area he should have discussed?

You keep throwing out these dismissive comments but never offer any details?

 

[ferball]

It's a story about both, as that type of coercive control is more likely to be focussed on people with cultural difference who don't conform to the coaches expectations regarding their life outside of football. So whilst the intent may not have been racist the outcome is. It's systemic racism - and potentially direct racism if the coaches had prejudices against indigenous communities.

Its not even that, altho your point about systemic racism is a good one. But ... its even more embedded than what you described.

On top of that indigenous people here or FN people generally are more likely to have experienced coercive control in an oppressive way and as a result of other white institutions besides footy (ormore specifically the AFL and the clubs themselves.)

So white people are more likely to view that level of control as a sacrifice they're prepared to make because they don't experience it all the ****en time.

They don't have it forced on them constantly.

For blackfellas its just more of the same shit if you've had a lifetime of poor interactions with authority. That's why not every indigenous player in the comp that's dealt with Clarkson and Fagan is saying thing like "Well we all knew that.,.. he's a racist campaigner!" about them.

They haven't all had to go thru that same level of shit. Once upon a time it was everywhere. Now we are even having this conversation.


Anyway despite this,

If Clarkson coaches the football public won't stand for it. - various people

The AFL (like the country) isn't just systematically racist its outright racist at times.

The treatment of Lindsay Thomas was appalling. I mentioned it before but no one wants to touch that now. Wringing their hands about Adam Goodes and saying the most vile shit about him, while lauding other players for exactly the same things they bagged him for. I wonder if Rusty ever booed LT.

And there are people on here saying stuff like: "The footballing public won't stand for it if North Melbourne let Clarkson coach - so racist. tut tut tut."

I mean seriously get ****ed. The last time we had a good small forward you lot - the rest of the AFL - hounded him out of the comp with your racist bullshit.

"Oh but North Melbourne blah blah blah coercive control. Alastair Clarkson wank wank racism wank."

You want to deal with coercive control of indigenous people? Seperating families? What about the rates of incarceration of young indigenous Australians? WTF is that? Talk some shit about the AFL and turn a blind eye to that disgrace. If the footballing public, as represented by people on this thread, expressed the same levels of outrage and put the time they've put into this media driven spectacle as into forcing some sort of action to deal with that real blight on Australia it might be harder to see this as just a bit of scapegoating so people can ignore the reality of the situation in too many parts of the country. While sniffing their own farts and pretending they did something. This is what enables systematic racism as much as anything.

So as a North supporter when the rest of the footballing world start banging about not standing for Clarkson cos racism I can only say "How does get ****ed sound? Get back to us when you really give a shit about the situation."

Anyway turns out this clown's been forced to eat humble pie and apologise for being an idiot.

So my interest in this thread is done.

If you really give a **** about this sort of stuff get vocal about the situation with over policing and over representation of young indigenous people in the prison system. Really vocal. Make an effort. Do something about it in your spare time.

Concern trolling on Big Footy doesn't help anyone.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Well researched would entail input from all involved, yes?

I don't disagree the substance, i disagree with the thorough investigative procedures.

He gave all parties a chance to comment, some declined. That is well researched. Nothing else he can do.

 

[Grogg]

He gave all parties a chance to comment, some declined. That is well researched. Nothing else he can do.

All parties or some?

Given it's well researched, where is it reported that he gave anybody a right of response other than Fagan?

(Not to mention the timing or timeframe of course.)

 

[sr36]

Well researched would entail input from all involved, yes?

In the 1970s, when journalists heard about shocking stories being told by emaciated Cambodians that had snuck across the border into Thailand, they interviewed a heap of these refugees, heard the similarity in the stories and reported on it - informing the world of the horror that was occuring in Cambodia, which led to a massive aid campaign that saved an enormous number of lives. The journalists didn't interview Pol Pot to discover his perspective of the stories.

No I'm not drawing comparisons to Clarko and Pol Pot, I'm just suggesting that good research and reporting can be ascertaining and writing about one clear and accurate perspective of the story.

Sorry mate, you've lived with that guerrilla group for two months, you can't tell their side of the story, you now have to join the military for two months so your journalism is balanced.

 

[Grogg]

lol.

ok.

 

[JackOutback]

He didn’t interview me, so it mustn’t have been thoroughly researched

 

[blackshadow]

He gave all parties a chance to comment, some declined. That is well researched. Nothing else he can do.

Keep telling yourself that.

There was plenty he could have done if he really wanted the accused to respond. But he didn’t really want a response because his story would have been shut down by the legal teams of the accused if proper details of the allegations were supplied.

His so called attempts to engage with the accused were definitely not the actions of a journalist who wanted a comment.

 

[Slartibartfast]

All parties or some?

Given it's well researched, where is it reported that he gave anybody a right of response other than Fagan?

(Not to mention the timing or timeframe of course.)

He did mention all three were asked for a response by phone and email.
I think he mentioned offering more time if needed too.

 

[blackshadow]

He did mention all three were asked for a response by phone and email.
I think he mentioned offering more time if needed too.

He never supplied details of the allegations. Of course they weren’t going to respond.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Keep telling yourself that.

There was plenty he could have done if he really wanted the accused to respond. But he didn’t really want a response because his story would have been shut down by the legal teams of the accused if proper details of the allegations were supplied.

His so called attempts to engage with the accused were definitely not the actions of a journalist who wanted a comment.

Garbage , of course he did. He wanted to hear their response.

Why did they not respond…….they knew there was truth involved so did not want to be caught out.

I know if I was accused of something i would talk to the allegations specifically.
Christ, how much time do they need. it is in the memory.

 

[Slartibartfast]

He never supplied details of the allegations. Of course they weren’t going to respond.

Keep telling yourself that.

From the article .
ABC Sport put detailed questions about the allegations in this story to Clarkson, Fagan and Burt but at time of publication none had responded.

 

[blackshadow]

Garbage , of course he did. He wanted to hear their response.

Why did they not respond…….they knew there was truth involved so did not want to be caught out.

I know if I was accused of something i would talk to the allegations specifically.
Christ, how much time do they need. it is in the memory.

I can guarantee that the specific allegations were not supplied to the accused.

It was a vague request to respond to some unspecified allegations that occurred while the accused were at Hawthorn.

Would you respond if someone you didn’t know emailed you or left a voice message asking for comment on unspecified occurrences from years ago?

Fagan has a media manager at Brisbane and Clarkson has a manager. Any competent journalist who actually wanted comment would have contacted those conduits and the first thing they would do is request the specifics of the allegations. That didn’t happen.

 

[Engimal v3]

I can guarantee that the specific allegations were not supplied to the accused.

It was a vague request to respond to some unspecified allegations that occurred while the accused were at Hawthorn.

Would you respond if someone you didn’t know emailed you or left a voice message asking for comment on unspecified occurrences from years ago?

Fagan has a media manager at Brisbane and Clarkson has a manager. Any competent journalist who actually wanted comment would have contacted those conduits and the first thing they would do is request the specifics of the allegations. That didn’t happen.

How can you guarantee that?