News Review into racism at Collingwood

[Markfs]

Careful. Your constant haranguing of Our Alex might be seen by some as anti-semitism.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

i didnt know he spoke hebrew... i respect someone who can learn a second language

 

[jmac70]

I would have thought that the report was commissioned to inform the club rather than inform the media. It was always going to be publicly released at some time in the not too distant future.

Well we’ll never know now. Our incompetent administration ensured we were completely humiliated.

 

[sideswipe]

I would have though a report of this seriousness would have warranted an emergency sitting of the board.
The findings only became public knowledge after they were leaked to the media.
Doesn’t that bother you?

In a word, no. Which bit of the report do you think justified an “emergency sitting”? Because my read on the report was that a lot of the 18 recommendations are already in place?

Give up some substance please? Something to suggest you have considered the report.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

i didnt know he spoke hebrew... i respect someone who can learn a second language

just needs to be an ancestor of someone who did

 

[sr36]

In a word, no. Which bit of the report do you think justified an “emergency sitting”? Because my read on the report was that a lot of the 18 recommendations are already in place?

Give up some substance please? Something to suggest you have considered the report.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Surely our thirst for immediate knowledge is a modern day emergency?

Need a new protocol where no information gets released directly to a company, it should all just be posted on an open twitter account.

 

[sideswipe]

Payout coming, if it goes to court you'd have to think he'll win that claim when you consider the review. But then again I know nothing aobut the law.

Disagree. Report findings do nothing to substantiate H’s allegations.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jmac70]

In a word, no. Which bit of the report do you think justified an “emergency sitting”? Because my read on the report was that a lot of the 18 recommendations are already in place?

Give up some substance please? Something to suggest you have considered the report.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

How do we know they are already in place?

 

[sideswipe]

How do we know they are already in place?

Are you aware of the three policies put in place in 2020? You know, the ones the report referenced?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

Disagree. Report findings do nothing to substantiate H’s allegations.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

You're the one who'd know, but isn't the report essentially a conclusion that would make Collingwood responsible if damages occurred - doesn't it basically suggest we were negligent in terms of providing a safe workplace in terms of racial inclusion? Thus he's left to show damages through racist incidents at Collingwood. I would have thought that was the easy part, considering everything we've seen and heard from HL - I think he'll find it pretty easy to get psych reports to support damages. Then throw in 10 years at a workplace like a footy club and he's going to have some stories involving racism. Does he need to argue a really strong causal relationship between damages and events?

 

[sr36]

How do we know they are already in place?

Have you read the report?

 

[jmac70]

Are you aware of the three policies put in place in 2020? You know, the ones the report referenced?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yes.
Grievance and complaint, Discrimination, Harassment & Bullying, OHS.
Has the Expert Group on anti-racism been established?[/QUOTE]

 

[sideswipe]

You're the one who'd know, but isn't the report essentially a conclusion that would make Collingwood responsible if damages occurred - doesn't it basically suggest we were negligent in terms of providing a safe workplace in terms of racial inclusion? Thus he's left to show damages through racist incidents at Collingwood. I would have thought that was the easy part, considering everything we've seen and heard from HL - I think he'll find it pretty easy to get psych reports to support damages. Then throw in 10 years at a workplace like a footy club and he's going to have some stories involving racism. Does he need to argue a really strong causal relationship between damages and events?

I actually wouldn’t know. I was a filthy commercial lawyer. But the report specifically excluded h’s claims and only essentially addressed the club’s procedures/systems to address the situation in light of a “racial incident”.

H’s claim appears to need to prove a bunch of events relating to racism “events”, duty of care etc. He seems to have joined the afl as well.

His lawyer appears to be a class action “specialist”. Insert spew emoji.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[noideaatall]

It was written by Stan Grant, who doesn't --as far as I know-- qualify as intellectual/academic type.
Your aversion to an intellectual/academic type makes me wonder where you'd rather get your info from.
The article was clumsily written, but in between its clumsiness is a truer point that racism most certainly 'evolved' in Europe during the age of colonisation, becoming increasingly theorised and 'scientific' right up until the 20th century.

I have no idea who Stan Grant is or what he qualifies as. Seemed to be some enlightened argument that made absolutely no sense to me and I think is only about blame and separation. Much the same as the last bit of your post - in that I have no idea what you mean. At a wild guess I'd say you and he are going on about some theoretical justification for racist values. People have been justifying their shite since consciousness, or thereabouts. Giving undue attention to one justification by one mob a while back doesn't make much sense to me. Unless we want to get on some blame train.

I don't know if I get my info from anywhere much these days. Bit of youtube, a dose of BF every coupld of months, a glance at news.com and listening to the kids at school. Hence my name.

 

[sr36]

I actually wouldn’t know. I was a filthy commercial lawyer. But the report specifically excluded h’s claims and only essentially addressed the club’s procedures/systems to address the situation in light of a “racial incident”.

H’s claim appears to need to prove a bunch of events relating to racism “events”, duty of care etc. He seems to have joined the afl as well.

His lawyer appears to be a class action “specialist”. Insert spew emoji.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

The most flabbergasting (or perhaps not so surprising) thing about all of this is that CFC were too dumb or arrogant to believe that they needed policies - even if only to cover their own arses. This group of ex players in their 30s who manage the whole playing list will be on to it and will automatically know the best way to respond if anything goes awry.

 

[sideswipe]

Yes.
Grievance and complaint, Discrimination, Harassment & Bullying, OHS.
Has the Expert Group on anti-racism been established?

[/QUOTE]

Dunno. But the 2020 measures conceivably put in place a number of the 18 recommendations. You don’t see that? That you seem to continue to believe the worst in the club is troublesome.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jmac70]

Dunno. But the 2020 measures conceivably put in place a number of the 18 recommendations. You don’t see that? That you seem to continue to believe the worst in the club is troublesome.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
[/QUOTE]
Yes I see that, not disputing it. The Expert Group seems to have a fair bit of oversight so will need to be well resourced and independent.
It’s clear to me that Ed should stand down now, or very soon. He is damaging the club.

 

[sr36]

I have no idea who Stan Grant is or what he qualifies as. Seemed to be some enlightened argument that made absolutely no sense to me and I think is only about blame and separation. Much the same as the last bit of your post - in that I have no idea what you mean. At a wild guess I'd say you and he are going on about some theoretical justification for racist values. People have been justifying their sh*te since consciousness, or thereabouts. Given undue attention to one justification by one mob a while back doesn't make much sense to me. Unless we want to get on some blame train.

I don't know if I get my info from anywhere much these days. Bit of youtube, a dose of BF every coupld of months, a glance at news.com and listening to the kids at school. Hence my name.

During this period, heaps of measuring of skulls, weighing of brains, measuring of all manner of body parts was done to try to use maths and science to support the idea that Whites were naturally more intelligent and thus the natural masters of other races and blacks were natural labourers.

The racist ideas were already there, but they put academic time and effort into trying to justify it with reason. The period of time that is being referred to also gets referred to The Age of Reason because they moved towards looking for reasons to support their beliefs.

The writer seems to be claiming that this was the invention of racism.

I agree that it's all part of the blame game.

 

[noideaatall]

During this period, heaps of measuring of skulls, weighing of brains, measuring of all manner of body parts was done to try to use maths and science to claim that Whites were naturally more intelligent and thus the natural masters of other races and blacks were natural labourers.

Right. Like I posted I am happy to walk away from this conversation: if this is where someone believes racism started then that person and I do not share a common understanding of the term racism. We aren't even on the same planet.

 

[Apples]

I've appreciated the way in which you put forward your views, despite my disagreement with them.

But I can't help but feel somewhat disappointed that you categorise opposing views as 'moral posturing', even while noting that they are heartfelt.

You diminish those views further by branding them a pile on, those who hold them as a throng (despite probably being in the minority on this thread), and an attempt at cancel culture.

I've taken a lot of time to consider my position on the club, my club, and its president. I don't think that any of your categorisations are fair or accurate.

It seems a shame that such a position is being misrepresented or --more troubling-- remains misunderstood.

The moral posturing I spoke of was in the media/social media; I did not mean the opinions advanced here. I should have made that clear. People are perfectly entitled to their views, but I think it's very sad that so many are prepared to basically cancel a person's life work because of a press conference gaffe, or clumsy use of words.

There has been a pile on and there has been a lot of moral posturing out there. #collingwood, #Eddie, #SackEddie were trending for 3-4 days on Twitter. The only support for Ed that I have read so far, has come from people here and from Daniel Andrews.

BTW, as I was waiting for the presser to begin, I noticed Eddie making notes whilst he waited. I wondered at the time if he was adjusting his statement or just doing something else. Perhaps these adjustments, if that's what they were, caused the meltdown.

 

[Helfarch]

I hear a couple of the guys on BF are going to make up a transcript of the case this week...it should be available next week

Far too slow.

My thorough investigation has revealed that Collingwood have been zombie Nazis since the late 1940s and caused COVID19 through exotic bat sex tourism. They'll be breaking away to form the ZFL and I for one welcome our new zombie overlords.

 

[Apples]

Maybe. It’s also naive to believe they didn’t have ample time to read the report and release the findings properly.

At the Monday press conference, that question was asked and Peter Murphy answered it. He said that the Club was not going to release the report at the AGM (as I'd presumed), because the board wanted to announce initiatives at the same time. Because the report was leaked, they felt they needed to address the report earlier. This seems perfectly reasonable, especially considering the report lobbed on December 17. Why is it hard to understand that the club would wish to control the narrative and announce a series of initiatives at a time of its choosing?

 

[Trickster]

The most flabbergasting (or perhaps not so surprising) thing about all of this is that CFC were too dumb or arrogant to believe that they needed policies

I've said this before, but there should be a consistent policy handed down from the AFL on this (plus other key areas) that each club needs to follow. I'm far from an expert but the AFL should have a policy that is developed with their and the clubs inputs and all clubs follow.

That way there's no grey on this club does it this way while that club is best practice. They should all follow the same process on what's acceptable, how to listen and report grievances and the processes from there on in to resolution.

Seems strange that there's not, though I may be thinking about this too simplistically.

 

[JB1975]

The moral posturing I spoke of was in the media/social media; I did not mean the opinions advanced here. I should have made that clear. People are perfectly entitled to their views, but I think it's very sad that so many are prepared to basically cancel a person's life work because of a press conference gaffe, or clumsy use of words.

There has been a pile on and there has been a lot of moral posturing out there. #collingwood, #Eddie, #SackEddie were trending for 3-4 days on Twitter. The only support for Ed that I have read so far, has come from people here and from Daniel Andrews.

BTW, as I was waiting for the presser to begin, I noticed Eddie making notes whilst he waited. I wondered at the time if he was adjusting his statement or just doing something else. Perhaps these adjustments, if that's what they were, caused the meltdown.

I suppose I'm mostly 'progressive' in my thinking, but I find cancel culture abhorrent. There is something dehumanising about it, not to mention its lack of imagination.

In my view, to suggest that there's a move to cancel the life and work of Eddie McGuire isn't right at all.

It might appear that way, and I've got no doubt that Ed feels it in that way, but in my opinion the momentum against him is less about effacing what he's done and stood for and more about a sense that he isn't the person to lead the club onward to the future. This is a very different thing.

The question of who is best to lead us into the future is, at least, what occupies my mind.

I agree with lament about the media. The issues we're grappling with seem to get cloudier by the day. I don't have an easy answer to that problem, but it won't be solved by lurching in the other direction and pretending that the issues are of little significance at all.

Ed's temperament caused the meltdown. He looked out upon a room full of people wanting to throw a term such as 'systemic racism' in his face, and he reverted to instinct and came out swinging.

Eddie has been getting plenty of support in the Murdoch press, for what it's worth, in between some slaps from Robbo. The federal minister for Indigenous Australians has offered support. Amidst all this, we need to decide what's best for the club in dealing with these issues and what's best for the club more generally. The media have precious little interest in such things.

 

[Apples]

Hard to disagree with any of that JB.

 

[ZEV]

Agreed. Amazing post.