Non-Lions discussion 2021

[Gadzorks]

He chose to pay for those himself according to this article from ABC news which you can be sure would have been to include the marginalised part.

Héritier Lumumba stands up to racism in the AFL, finding strength in African history

Héritier Lumumba's stand for equality forced a review of racism at Collingwood. Now the former AFL star embraces the strength of his African identity and culture.

www.google.com.au

He also freed himself from distractions, investing financially and philosophically in his training and recovery, significantly improving his performance. At his own expense, he hired a full-time assistant, a massage therapist, a chef to create a specially formulated diet and, later, a personal coach who specialised in conflict resolution. As in five of the previous six years, his peers elected him to Collingwood's 2013 leadership group.

Sound like a perfect role model player that is happily have at the lions.

 

[Brett C]

Sound like a perfect role model player that is happily have at the lions.

Always surprised more players don’t make that investment in themselves and good on him for not just coasting along.

 

[patfullfankezz]

What a complete and total mess, and there is zero joy in picking on Collingwood anymore. Just plain and simple disgust.

And Eddie trying to explain it away this afternoon as "Oh, I didn't mean we were proud of the racism, we were proud of what we're gonna do..." nonsense can take a hike. The word "proud" should never have been uttered, period.

 

[BangyBangy]

What a complete and total mess, and there is zero joy in picking on Collingwood anymore. Just plain and simple disgust.

And Eddie trying to explain it away this afternoon as "Oh, I didn't mean we were proud of the racism, we were proud of what we're gonna do..." nonsense can take a hike. The word "proud" should never have been uttered, period.

And it's just more bullshit too. Why even say that? No one thought for one second that Eddie was implying that the club was proud of racism. Obvious he was trying to say that the pride was about the fact that the club is tackling this issue, but it was just such a cringeworthy introduction / segue.

So glad it's not my club. Don't believe one word that he utters. Maybe i'm just a cynic, but I still think they're trying to find a way to spin their way out of this. If you truly think you've done something wrong you acknowledge it, and you apologize to the people you've done it to. It's pretty simple.

Anything other than that isn't really being sorry, it's just being sorry you got caught / called out.

 

[briztoon]

From what I understand Harry refused to be interviewed for the review so I’m not sure if he wants to make a career out of being outraged vs playing a part in effecting change.

Who cares what his motivations are?

The bloke was racial abused and not treated the same as other teammates because of the colour of his skin.

The line you appear to be taking is that of having a crack at the victim.

He clearly said he had concerns about the investigation in to the club, and didn’t want to take part in the investigation.

That’s not an unreasonable stance to take if you believe the investigation is not being conducted appropriately.

 

[Brett C]

Who cares what his motivations are?

The bloke was racial abused and not treated the same as other teammates because of the colour of his skin.

The line you appear to be taking is that of having a crack at the victim.

He clearly said he had concerns about the investigation in to the club, and didn’t want to take part in the investigation.

That’s not an unreasonable stance to take if you believe the investigation is not being conducted appropriately.

For all the faults the pies have and there are many who they hired to complete the investigation is not one of them.

2 preeminent aboriginal legal professionals who are known for their strong position on aboriginal rights are about as above board as you can get.

If he’s not prepared to talk to them but prepared to tweet constantly then he loses credibility in my mind.

 

[martinson]

Who cares what his motivations are?

The bloke was racial abused and not treated the same as other teammates because of the colour of his skin.

The line you appear to be taking is that of having a crack at the victim.

He clearly said he had concerns about the investigation in to the club, and didn’t want to take part in the investigation.

That’s not an unreasonable stance to take if you believe the investigation is not being conducted appropriately.

I think the only people surprised at the outcome of the investigation are Collingwood. The people conducting it have a CV as long as your arm into what they feel about racial injustice and other related issues . It makes me wonder if Eddie ,Nathan and the brains trust there were completely ignorant of their own transgressions.

Understandable Heritier didn't want anything to do with any official investigation connected with the club because his feelings had never been taken on board ever since he entered the system.

Maybe the report is a total shock to Collingwood . They've sat on it for long enough to have attempted a more conciliatory outcome.

 

[Section 5]

Eddie is the President and he really has to resign now for the Club to go forward
But he should not be the only one.
Did all this start at the top and filter down through the ranks.
Or did it start with the playing group then via leadership group, Captain, Coach and Assistants, Football Director and so on
Probably a bit of both as it has been going on for some time
Then throw in the other debacles over the last 4 months
Either way a few will have to fall on their sword or be thrown under the bus.
But with the reduced soft salary cap they can't afford to pay anyone out in the footy department
Just did a copy & paste from Pies Membership

Many reasons to join
Beyond standing side by side, and that great feeling of belonging, there are many benefits to membership.

 

[Full Wingspan]

For all the faults the pies have and there are many who they hired to complete the investigation is not one of them.

2 preeminent aboriginal legal professionals who are known for their strong position on aboriginal rights are about as above board as you can get.

If he’s not prepared to talk to them but prepared to tweet constantly then he loses credibility in my mind.

These 'independent investigations' are often used by employers to assess litigation risk and undertake fact-finding in the course of disciplinary proceedings etc. Typically, the legal representatives of the employer will be the party that engages the independent investigator (rather than the employer themselves). Consequently, the findings of the report and any evidence collected throughout are protected by legal professional privilege i.e. Collingwood are protected from disclosing such documents in the course of any legal proceeding.

Collingwood's legal representatives would essentially have an opportunity to scrutinize (or maintain confidentiality over) any evidence in respect of the investigation before it reaches a courtroom. This is important to consider given the upcoming legal proceeding Heritier has initiated against Collingwood.

This primary aim of this exercise is to maximise employer's control over these proceedings and to minimise (or assess) their risk to liability or wrongdoing. Consistent with the tone and spin narrative Eddie shamelessly placed over the whole affair at yesterday's disastrous press conference, this is completely in line with the finding from the report that Collingwood are historically more focused on the PR outcome instead of addressing the issue in any meaningful way.

For these reasons, it did not serve Heritier's interests in the slightest to cooperate with this 'investigation', nor would he be inclined to given the mistreatment he endured at Collingwood and their prior form in downplaying his experiences. His participation would only serve to waste his time and give Collingwood advance notice of his case in their upcoming civil dispute, giving them another opportunity to manipulate his version of events.

TLDR; it is more than understandable that Heritier did not participate in this 'mickey-mouse' process, as it is designed only to serve Collingwood's interests and to undermine his own credibility. Your assertion that Heritier's unwillingness to cooperate is indicative of an intention to "make a career out of being outraged" is wildly misplaced. Heritier is prepared to tell his story, but rightfully, not on Collingwood's terms.

 

[BangyBangy]

These 'independent investigations' are often used by employers to assess litigation risk and undertake fact-finding in the course of disciplinary proceedings etc. Typically, the legal representatives of the employer will be the party that engages the independent investigator (rather than the employer themselves). Consequently, the findings of the report and any evidence collected throughout are protected by legal professional privilege i.e. Collingwood are protected from disclosing such documents in the course of any legal proceeding.

Collingwood's legal representatives would essentially have an opportunity to scrutinize (or maintain confidentiality over) any evidence in respect of the investigation before it reaches a courtroom. This is important to consider given the upcoming legal proceeding Heritier has initiated against Collingwood.

This primary aim of this exercise is to maximise employer's control over these proceedings and to minimise (or assess) their risk to liability or wrongdoing. Consistent with the tone and spin narrative Eddie shamelessly placed over the whole affair at yesterday's disastrous press conference, this is completely in line with the finding from the report that Collingwood are historically more focused on the PR outcome instead of addressing the issue in any meaningful way.

For these reasons, it did not serve Heritier's interests in the slightest to cooperate with this 'investigation', nor would he be inclined to given the mistreatment he endured at Collingwood and their prior form in downplaying his experiences. His participation would only serve to waste his time and give Collingwood advance notice of his case in their upcoming civil dispute, giving them another opportunity to manipulate his version of events.

TLDR; it is more than understandable that Heritier did not participate in this 'mickey-mouse' process, as it is designed only to serve Collingwood's interests and to undermine his own credibility. Your assertion that Heritier's unwillingness to cooperate is indicative of an intention to "make a career out of being outraged" is wildly misplaced. Heritier is prepared to tell his story, but rightfully, not on Collingwood's terms.

Thanks for the insight, much appreciated. Great post.

 

[BangyBangy]

These 'independent investigations' are often used by employers to assess litigation risk and undertake fact-finding in the course of disciplinary proceedings etc. Typically, the legal representatives of the employer will be the party that engages the independent investigator (rather than the employer themselves). Consequently, the findings of the report and any evidence collected throughout are protected by legal professional privilege i.e. Collingwood are protected from disclosing such documents in the course of any legal proceeding.

Collingwood's legal representatives would essentially have an opportunity to scrutinize (or maintain confidentiality over) any evidence in respect of the investigation before it reaches a courtroom. This is important to consider given the upcoming legal proceeding Heritier has initiated against Collingwood.

This primary aim of this exercise is to maximise employer's control over these proceedings and to minimise (or assess) their risk to liability or wrongdoing. Consistent with the tone and spin narrative Eddie shamelessly placed over the whole affair at yesterday's disastrous press conference, this is completely in line with the finding from the report that Collingwood are historically more focused on the PR outcome instead of addressing the issue in any meaningful way.

For these reasons, it did not serve Heritier's interests in the slightest to cooperate with this 'investigation', nor would he be inclined to given the mistreatment he endured at Collingwood and their prior form in downplaying his experiences. His participation would only serve to waste his time and give Collingwood advance notice of his case in their upcoming civil dispute, giving them another opportunity to manipulate his version of events.

TLDR; it is more than understandable that Heritier did not participate in this 'mickey-mouse' process, as it is designed only to serve Collingwood's interests and to undermine his own credibility. Your assertion that Heritier's unwillingness to cooperate is indicative of an intention to "make a career out of being outraged" is wildly misplaced. Heritier is prepared to tell his story, but rightfully, not on Collingwood's terms.

Is much of that moot now though that the report has been leaked?

I know from a legal point it may not be used as evidence etc. But things that are seen & heard can't be unseen & heard.

 

[Full Wingspan]

Thanks for the insight, much appreciated. Great post.

I also fully appreciate and why Collingwood would conduct it this way. And for what it's worth, it is a step in the right direction by them.

However, to hijack what should have been humble and apologetic moment (given the troubling findings of the report) into a congratulatory, back-slapping event that ought to be congratulated was sickening. I can understand the sentiment behind Ed's "proud day" comments, but gee whiz, he is completely deluded and out-of-touch if he thinks that this should be a congratulated. In 2021, this sort of reflection and action is expected in today's society.

The press conference removed any possibility that Eddie (or Collingwood) could be seen to have held any genuine feelings of guilt or remorse, and perhaps most importantly, a true apprehension of the conduct and systemic failures that have seen Collingwood reach this position during his time at the helm. Consistent with the findings from the report, it was evident that Collingwood were still more preoccupied with maintaining their image rather than accepting any form of responsibility for their actions.

He has ongoing form in this regard also - his 'apology' to Adam Goodes was qualified by the fact he 'didn't mean it'. Time and time again he has shown an unwillingness to accept his shortcomings and instead provide reasons to excuse the behaviour. On another note, how he escaped any punishment for his comments regarding Caroline Wilson still bewilders me. I was deeply concerned listening to the live broadcast, particularly given our understanding of the widespread impact of domestic violence in this country.

 

[Full Wingspan]

Is much of that moot now though that the report has been leaked?

I know from a legal point it may not be used as evidence etc. But things that are seen & heard can't be unseen & heard.

I am curious as to how it was leaked and by whom. I also understand that Collingwood stated from the outset that they would be revealing the findings of the report once the investigation concluded.

The leak essentially means any confidential information or findings available in the public domain will no longer be protected by legal professional privilege (LPP). In fact, depending on the extent of the leak (and what documents), there is a question as to whether all materials used in the investigation to form the basis of the report are still protected by LPP.

If Collingwood came out and revealed the report and the materials relied upon, that would amount to a waiver of LPP. I am only speculating, but I would think the reason they sat on it for so long was because they were awaiting advice on what to reveal and how they could reveal it, so as to not prejudice their position in the proceeding with Lumumba.

It's a complicated area of law that the High Court recently clarified in a taxation matter involving the Panama papers leak. LPP is a "shield and not a sword" was the famous line of the judgment. In other words, Collingwood would no longer be able to assert LPP over information that was leaked notwithstanding the circumstances. You cannot use LPP as a 'sword' to assert the confidentiality of a document. Rather, it can only be used as a shield to defend against a party that is seeking to view material protected by LPP.

 

[BangyBangy]

I am curious as to how it was leaked and by whom. I also understand that Collingwood stated from the outset that they would be revealing the findings of the report once the investigation concluded.

The leak essentially means any confidential information or findings available in the public domain will no longer be protected by legal professional privilege (LPP). In fact, depending on the extent of the leak (and what documents), there is a question as to whether all materials used in the investigation to form the basis of the report are still protected by LPP.

If Collingwood came out and revealed the report and the materials relied upon, that would amount to a waiver of LPP. I am only speculating, but I would think the reason they sat on it for so long was because they were awaiting advice on what to reveal and how they could reveal it, so as to not prejudice their position in proceeding with Lumumba.

It's a complicated area of law that the High Court recently clarified in a taxation matter involving the Panama papers leak. LPP is a "shield and not a sword" was the famous line of the judgment. In other words, Collingwood would no longer be able to assert LPP over information that was leaked notwithstanding the circumstances. You cannot use LPP as a 'sword' to assert the confidentiality of a document. Rather, it can only be used as a shield to defend against a party that is seeking to view material protected by LPP.

Leaked the day before the AGM can't be a coincidence can it?

 

[Full Wingspan]

Leaked the day before the AGM can't be a coincidence can it?

No way. Perhaps another board member who wanted to expedite Eddie's exit? I think many Collingwood people (including board members) know Eddie has held his position for too long but given his popularity amongst the members, it has been difficult to move him on.

 

[martinson]

No way. Perhaps another board member who wanted to expedite Eddie's exit? I think many Collingwood people (including board members) know Eddie has held his position for too long but given his popularity amongst the members, it has been difficult to move him on.

In light of your comments Full Wingspan it's evident that Collingwood concocted a take on the whole issue that blew up in their faces. Unsurprisingly.

The review was perhaps perceived as a backstop to their resolution of the issue but has instead raised more questions. At least publicly.

 

[Happy_Neale]

The old expression states 'never take on a review if you don't know what the outcome will be'. Part of me thinks Collingwood broke this rule and don't know where to go from here.

 

[martinson]

The old expression states 'never take on a review if you don't know what the outcome will be'. Part of me thinks Collingwood broke this rule and don't know where to go from here.

The part I don't quite get is that the people they commissioned to do the review are pretty much rusted on in their views of these issues , it was inevitable what the outcome would be in the light of what Heritier had been saying all along. Even if it were only half true.

Which makes me think they thought it wasn't a problem.

 

[Section 5]

I suppose things could get worse for Eddie and the CFC.
They might finally decide to give in to the AFL and wear a predominantly white away guernsey for 2021

 

[Brett C]

These 'independent investigations' are often used by employers to assess litigation risk and undertake fact-finding in the course of disciplinary proceedings etc. Typically, the legal representatives of the employer will be the party that engages the independent investigator (rather than the employer themselves). Consequently, the findings of the report and any evidence collected throughout are protected by legal professional privilege i.e. Collingwood are protected from disclosing such documents in the course of any legal proceeding.

Collingwood's legal representatives would essentially have an opportunity to scrutinize (or maintain confidentiality over) any evidence in respect of the investigation before it reaches a courtroom. This is important to consider given the upcoming legal proceeding Heritier has initiated against Collingwood.

This primary aim of this exercise is to maximise employer's control over these proceedings and to minimise (or assess) their risk to liability or wrongdoing. Consistent with the tone and spin narrative Eddie shamelessly placed over the whole affair at yesterday's disastrous press conference, this is completely in line with the finding from the report that Collingwood are historically more focused on the PR outcome instead of addressing the issue in any meaningful way.

For these reasons, it did not serve Heritier's interests in the slightest to cooperate with this 'investigation', nor would he be inclined to given the mistreatment he endured at Collingwood and their prior form in downplaying his experiences. His participation would only serve to waste his time and give Collingwood advance notice of his case in their upcoming civil dispute, giving them another opportunity to manipulate his version of events.

TLDR; it is more than understandable that Heritier did not participate in this 'mickey-mouse' process, as it is designed only to serve Collingwood's interests and to undermine his own credibility. Your assertion that Heritier's unwillingness to cooperate is indicative of an intention to "make a career out of being outraged" is wildly misplaced. Heritier is prepared to tell his story, but rightfully, not on Collingwood's terms.

You're making a lot of assumptions about the power of Collingwood's legal representations along with the reasons for the review while and also calling into question the integrity of the people who conducted the review.

You can call it a mickey mouse process but I am guessing you haven't taken the time to actually look at the CV's of the people Collingwood hired to actually look at the issues. To say they'd be involved is a pretty disrespectful and frankly ignorant thing to say.

Good on Harry for setting himself up as a social justice warrior but that I doesn't mean I have to accept his BS reasons for not speaking to either Professors Larissa Behrendt or Lindon Coombes.

 

[Full Wingspan]

You're making a lot of assumptions about the power of Collingwood's legal representations along with the reasons for the review while and also calling into question the integrity of the people who conducted the review.

You can call it a mickey mouse process but I am guessing you haven't taken the time to actually look at the CV's of the people Collingwood hired to actually look at the issues. To say they'd be involved is a pretty disrespectful and frankly ignorant thing to say.

Good on Harry for setting himself up as a social justice warrior but that I doesn't mean I have to accept his BS reasons for not speaking to either Professors Larissa Behrendt or Lindon Coombes.

My comments are by no means an attack on the integrity of the people conducting the investigation at all. The findings (which have been leaked) do not hold back on their assessment of the CFC in respect of their attitudes and processes towards handling allegations of racism and/or fostering it within their four walls

The approach I've described above is a common practice to maintain a level of control and reduce risk from a legal point of view. Based on my experience, I would be surprised if Collingwood did not go down this path, however it is entirely possible that it has not been engaged in the manner I've outlined.

To clarify, the investigation itself would not have been compromised and I am sure Lumumba would have been afforded procedural fairness throughout. However this exercise would be somewhat redundant if Collingwood have maintained control over the findings and the contents of the report.

This is also relevant in the CFC's object to win the public image battle, which relevantly, the report found to be one of their primary motivators rather than actually addressing the concerns at hand.

There is little utility in Lumumba's participation and that sceptism is well founded given Collingwood's prior history in handling complaints brought by him. In fact, his participation would only stand to potentially prejudice his position in the legal proceeding and he would be better off to have his version scrutinised by the courts.

 

[dlanod]

Good on Harry for setting himself up as a social justice warrior but that I doesn't mean I have to accept his BS reasons for not speaking to either Professors Larissa Behrendt or Lindon Coombes.

I feel like you've got more a focused dislike on him than is going to be shaken from any discussion, but I'd have to wonder what's his incentive for taking part?

He's already said his piece.

Collingwood haven't made any overtures to him, but rather dismissed his claims.

Not a whole lot of goodwill either way in that relationship any more.

So where's his benefit in getting involved with an internal review?

Now that the review has leaked it turns out it is unusually blunt but there wasn't a guarantee of that beforehand. It also was sat upon until someone leaked it, so there was a fair chance it was going to get swept under the carpet if their hand wasn't forced. It was a no upside scenario, and the down side is that it can be spun like he was giving his sign off on the whole affair.

 

[Brett C]

I feel like you've got more a focused dislike on him than is going to be shaken from any discussion, but I'd have to wonder what's his incentive for taking part?

He's already said his piece.

Collingwood haven't made any overtures to him, but rather dismissed his claims.

Not a whole lot of goodwill either way in that relationship any more.

So where's his benefit in getting involved with an internal review?

Now that the review has leaked it turns out it is unusually blunt but there wasn't a guarantee of that beforehand. It also was sat upon until someone leaked it, so there was a fair chance it was going to get swept under the carpet if their hand wasn't forced. It was a no upside scenario, and the down side is that it can be spun like he was giving his sign off on the whole affair.

Yes I don’t like the guy and that’s a lot to do with some of his comments in the past proving he’s prone to spewing BS.

It’s very easy to make claims but it’s another to actually back those claims up. At this point Harry has said a lot but has he actually proven anything?

The woke brigade throw out a lot of accusations without any need to have facts behind them.

 

[dlanod]

Yes I don’t like the guy and that’s a lot to do with some of his comments in the past proving he’s prone to spewing BS.

It’s very easy to make claims but it’s another to actually back those claims up. At this point Harry has said a lot but has he actually proven anything?

The woke brigade throw out a lot of accusations without any need to have facts behind them.

I can see the basis for your position - but my question was "what was his incentive for taking part in the Collingwood inquiry?"

If he is full of crap, there's obviously no reason to take part.

If he isn't full of crap, I still think there's obviously no reason to take part - he would have no faith in Collingwood actually doing the right thing (which has been proven out given the report was not going to be released) and worst case his participation could be used to handwave away any actual issues.

There's stuff you can hold against him, but I don't think this is one of them.

 

[Dylan12]

Yes I don’t like the guy and that’s a lot to do with some of his comments in the past proving he’s prone to spewing BS.

It’s very easy to make claims but it’s another to actually back those claims up. At this point Harry has said a lot but has he actually proven anything?

The woke brigade throw out a lot of accusations without any need to have facts behind them.

I'm surprised; I actually agree with you for a change and have often thought the same.

Old Harry, who I distinctly recall playing footy with Claremont has found a pretty unique way of playing the victim with little substance, other than him saying so. I've often wondered whether the likes of Anthony Corrie, Daniel Wells, Leon Davis, Travis Varcoe etc. have ever felt the way Harry does, because none of have ever come and out said anything.

That's not to say that Collingwood or certain individuals at Collingwood aren't guilty of their handling of certain issues.