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

 

[sr36]

Haha you’ll bet? You have nfi. I’ll personally bet she doubles down if given the opportunity.

It is purely your personal opinion of what you think she should or shouldn’t do. Myself and others disagree, as I acknowledge that she would have significantly more information then we do.

Stop spouting it as anything more then your opinion that you’ve made with significantly less information.

It's not purely my personal opinion. It's standard policy and protocol to not comment on your opinion regarding serious allegations if you are speaking on behalf of a company, until those allegations have gone through a formal hearing. It's not a complicated concept and I can't see how it's even debatable. She made an error, which she probably won't make again.

 

[Maddo11]

He’s not the only one it seems

Yeah, heaps of North supporters crowing about getting Clarko back

He may never coach again ya know

 

[sr36]

The club isn't going to make public comment now that the investigation is underway & terms of reference are in place?

Wow, massive call!

So in your version of the world, it was OK because she snuck the comment in just before a formal investigation was announced - an investigation that every one knew was going to occur - but obviously she wouldn't say it after the investigation is underway, becasue that wouldn't be OK? Is that really what you're going with, rather than just saying - yeah she made a mistake?

 

[the big lebowski]

Yeah, heaps of North supporters crowing about getting Clarko back

He may never coach again ya know

He may not.

Tell that to the people saying this investigation has basically already cleared him. And the accusers whose lawyer has already cast doubts on the process.

 

[Xtreme]

She knows much more about the claims and Clarkson's defense than any of us. I trust her judgement, and if she lets him start work, I'll back her on that too. I expect you will blow a fuse.

I see no reason why Clarko and Fagan can't resume their jobs. They have contracts to fulfill.

 

[Stax on the mill]

This inquirey is a farce and one sided if the compainants don't trust it.
McLoughlan has pre-empted the result as well.

Pot..kettle..black.You and all the other usual suspects had Clarkson and Fagan hung, drawn and quartered 5 minutes after the allegations appeared in the public domain.

But then again, that’s your normal race baiting default position.

 

[Psicosis]

It's not purely my personal opinion. It's standard policy and protocol to not comment on your opinion regarding serious allegations if you are speaking on behalf of a company, until those allegations have gone through a formal hearing. It's not a complicated concept and I can't see how it's even debatable. She made an error, which she probably won't make again.

It really is just your opinion. Given she spoke to both the board & Gil prior to making those comments, I see no issue at all with it, nor did she.

Sonja won't need to make comment again, her position is clear. Repeatedly using that as some sort of reference to conclude you're take is correct, is crap.

So in your version of the world, it was OK because she snuck the comment in just before a formal investigation was announced - an investigation that every one knew was going to occur - but obviously she wouldn't say it after the investigation is underway, becasue that wouldn't be OK? Is that really what you're going with, rather than just saying - yeah she made a mistake?

As stated above, her position is clear. Clarkson will start on Nov 1. She doesn't need to comment again.

 

[faible]

If you are in a thread about racism, you should be aware of the context that your comments will have, and not use the boutique comments used in another racist thread as an excuse for using it in this one.

The term, when it was used in the Essendon Saga was racist. Just because you white fellas find it acceptable doesn't mean it is.

It is ridiculous you are defending it on the grounds of context when you are completely ignoring the greater context of the thread that you were having your irrelevant little private boys joke in.

Get it now? That is what irony is. You saying something that actually applies to you.

Try as you might, you're still completely lacking context.

You've decided that any and every time 'ooga booga' was used it's racist, there is no context, there is no consideration of anything. Always racist. Always intended to be racist. Always.

What's ridiculous is you deciding that someone was being racist based upon a post that you completely misunderstood, despite them (and others) trying to explain to you what it was they were saying, lumping a whole heap of insults in their direction, making racial statements of your own - refer 'white fellas - and still trying to claim the moral high ground.

 

[faible]

You use the term negotiation, but the AFL used the term "in consultation with". You can develop something "in consultation with" somebody, without satisfying or negotiating with that person.

There is a big difference between 'consultation' and 'negotiation'.

I can't make any comment as to how involved or satisfied any of the parties are, was just providing some context around that players and families having had at least some opportunity to shape the terms of reference.

 

[travelli]

Are Principals and Teachers who are accused of something serious allowed to keep working whilst the accusations are dealt with. No, they are stood down immediately until cleared. or found guilty.

When they are accused of something? Or when they are charged with something?

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Pot..kettle..black.You and all the other usual suspects had Clarkson and Fagan hung, drawn and quartered 5 minutes after the allegations appeared in the public domain.

But then again, that’s your normal race baiting default position.

Rubbish post. The report still stands. If they get off it's because only one side were at the inquirey.
Keep your abusive 'race-baiting' slander to yourself.

 

[faible]

Just because the intent may not have been one of racism, doesn't make it not racist.

Yes and no.

 

[4Seasons]

Now you are trolling. I have already reported you, and hopefully the mods have the decency to get your distasteful, gutless crap out of here.

Hopefully someone reports you as well.
Then hopefully your high horse, distasteful, gutless name calling can be removed as well.

Having a complete sissy fit over something that was explained quite clearly to you, just so you can feel good about yourself as a keyboard martyr…sheesh.

 

[The Warlord]

You just watch if she makes any more comments about her confidence in Clarkson's version of events before a conclusion to this. She's going to have a lot of chances to, but she won't, because she made a mistake. Even messiahs make mistakes.

Actually, when she backed him she was just saying what is now formal AFL policy.

Clarkson is starting on Nov 1. The investigation is not costing anyone their career.

 

[sr36]

It really is just your opinion. Given she spoke to both the board & Gil prior to making those comments, I see no issue at all with it, nor did she.

Sonja won't need to make comment again, her position is clear. Repeatedly using that as some sort of reference to conclude you're take is correct, is crap.

As stated above, her position is clear. Clarkson will start on Nov 1. She doesn't need to comment again.

It's a serious misconduct complaint against an incoming employee. You may be ok with her commenting on her belief regarding versions of events before those events have been fully investigated - but it goes against the processes that workplace legislation has set up for dealing with serious misconduct and the internal policies and protocols that well governed companies have in place. It surprises me that people are debating this point. It's just not debatable.

 

[sr36]

Actually, when she backed him she was just saying what is now formal AFL policy.

Confidence in Clarko's version of events may very well be felt at AFL HQ - I don't know - but there was never a hope in hell that Gil was going to come out and declare confidence in Clarko's version of events, before the culmination of a formal investigation. And it sure as hell isn't AFL Policy.

 

[The Warlord]

Confidence in Clarko's version of events may very well be felt at AFL HQ - I don't know - but there was never a hope in hell that Gil was going to come out and declare confidence in Clarko's version of events, before the culmination of a formal investigation.

No, when she said she thought he'd be starting Nov 1, which is what the AFL has subsequently confirmed.

Smart people listen to Sonja, only silly sausages are still Rusty Jackson stans.

 

[the big lebowski]

Confidence in Clarko's version of events may very well be felt at AFL HQ - I don't know - but there was never a hope in hell that Gil was going to come out and declare confidence in Clarko's version of events, before the culmination of a formal investigation. And it sure as hell isn't AFL Policy.

True, the afl twists itself into knots t try big to appease everyone.

Probably why clarko and fagan were commended by the afl yesterday

 

[sr36]

No, when she said she thought he'd be starting Nov 1, which is what the AFL has subsequently confirmed.

Smart people listen to Sonja, only silly sausages are still Rusty Jackson stans.

I've got no issue with him starting before the culmination of an inquiry. That's not my point.

I don't think I'd go there if I was North, but that's for practical reasons and not ethical ones.

 

[Psicosis]

It's a serious misconduct complaint against an incoming employee. You may be ok with her commenting on her belief regarding versions of events before those events have been fully investigated - but it goes against the processes that workplace legislation has set up for dealing with serious misconduct and the internal policies and protocols that well governed companies have in place. It surprises me that people are debating this point. It's just not debatable.

Why aren't workplace going after her?

 

[Laphroaig]

The more I think about this highly compromised investigation, the more I think they should scrap it.

The AFL should come out and say whilst they felt it was their responsibility to investigate, the differing needs of the parties make it that there is too much compromise and this we are unlikely to get to the bottom of this important issue.

Let the players then commence civil proceedings at their leisure so timeframes, limitations on cross examinations etc are not a concern to truth and transparency. If nothing happens in that space, they have to option of human rights commission.

The accused also have the option of commencing defamation proceedings if they deem it appropriate.

What we have now doesn’t appear to be the best way of doing things.

Yeah nah.

Courts usually tend to take a very dim view of having matters bought before them which have not been through other available avenues. Especially internal resolution processes where they are available. The reaction often tends to be refusal by the court to even hear the matter.

You don't have to like those processes, but usually you have to go through them anyway. And then go to the courts and say "That really sucked. Help me." And the court may STILL refuse to become involved without a compelling possibility that justice may have been denied.

Who knows what the lawyers of those making the allegations are trying to achieve with go to the press first, then signal possible refusal to participate. The cynic in me says it's a warning. We are prepared to use nuclear weapons.

It is hard to see how it serves anyone's interest to actually attempt to take this to court.

 

[sr36]

Why aren't workplace going after her?

I get it. She's one of North supporters multiple messiahs and thus incapable of error. I'll leave it at that and never question her statements and actions again.

 

[JackOutback]

I get it. She's one of North supporters multiple messiahs and thus incapable of error. I'll leave it at that and never question her statements and actions again.

And one of the biggest acolytes refers to 'Rusty Jackson stans'. My irony meter exploded.

 

[The Warlord]

This element has been overlooked imo.

Wonder if Egan leaking names and details to Rusty comes in here.

 

[Chief]

I'm sure they will find something wrong and scare other clubs off doing these sorts of reports in future.