News The Hawthorn Allegations

[FIGJAM]

Hard to argue against this.

Indigenous woman says probe would be ‘unsafe’, Clarkson’s ‘really strong’ defence, AFL acknowledges ‘trauma’

An Indigenous woman who alleges the Hawthorn Football Club subjected her to appalling mistreatment won’t take part in the “unsafe” AFL investigation, sparking an AFL response. This statement came as Alastair Clarkson, clocking on as North Melbourne coach, said he was ready to defend himself.

www.theage.com.au

Absolutely no doubt that this is a sham investigation pushed to complete before the end of the year to give season 2023 clear air.

Heaven forbid that someone might be afforded the opportunity to respond to an allegation somehow...

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Heaven forbid that someone might be afforded the opportunity to respond to an allegation somehow...

If the woman doesn't have a problem with the panel members then I don't quite understand why she feels unsafe.

Her outrage that the investigation is going to continue the pattern of abuse it is supposedly addressing by investigating “whether the incidents of abuse even took place, (which is a huge insult to the many First Nations players and family members who were brave enough to come forward)” suggests that the claimants believe their version of events should be accepted as the truth, and they need say nothing more, whereas Clarkson seems determined to try and explain the context in which the alleged abuse took place.

Her worry about being retraumatised is surely the same hardship that any victim experiences giving evidence in a trial - can't see this would be any better or worse for a white or indigenous person in the same circumstances.

Suggesting that she would best serve her community by boycotting the investigation is a strange rationalisation of non participation. If claimants feel the same way, then the AFL may as well cancel the investigation and allow the accused to resume life as they knew it. Either that or Clarkson will have it all his own way in providing the context of the abuse and any rebuttal of them.

 

[jmac70]

If the woman doesn't have a problem with the panel members then I don't quite understand why she feels unsafe.

Her outrage that the investigation is going to continue the pattern of abuse it is supposedly addressing by investigating “whether the incidents of abuse even took place, (which is a huge insult to the many First Nations players and family members who were brave enough to come forward)” suggests that the claimants believe their version of events should be accepted as the truth, and they need say nothing more, whereas Clarkson seems determined to try and explain the context in which the alleged abuse took place.

Her worry about being retraumatised is surely the same hardship that any victim experiences giving evidence in a trial - can't see this would be any better or worse for a white or indigenous person in the same circumstances.

Suggesting that she would best serve her community by boycotting the investigation is a strange rationalisation of non participation. If claimants feel the same way, then the AFL may as well cancel the investigation and allow the accused to resume life as they knew it. Either that or Clarkson will have it all his own way in providing the context of the abuse and any rebuttal of them.

Seems that she doesn’t trust the AFL.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Seems that she doesn’t trust the AFL.

Yet she has no problem with the 4 panellists. How does she think their findings are going to be twisted by the AFL?

 

[jmac70]

Yet she has no problem with the 4 panellists. How does she think their findings are going to be twisted by the AFL?

I don’t know. She clearly doesn’t feel comfortable taking part, and she doesn’t have to.

Clarkson will have the opportunity to detail the context in which these allegations took place.

I will read with interest.

 

[Pie eyed]

Seems that she doesn’t trust the AFL.

I am not sure what she thought would happen?
Not what some poster here imagine might happen, but what she thought.

Historically we have proof positive, even in the last 12 months, that even with a body, an assailant and numerous witnesses, the offender gets off, sometimes with an award.

How is a an untested allegation about something which is unlikely to even be illegal going to pan out?

 

[jmac70]

I am not sure what she thought would happen?
Not what some poster here imagine might happen, but what she thought.

Historically we have proof positive, even in the last 12 months, that even with a body, an assailant and numerous witnesses, the offender gets off, sometimes with an award.

How is a an untested allegation about something which is unlikely to even be illegal going to pan out?

Perhaps that’s why she prefers not to take part in the AFL inquiry.
She’s already given her statement to the Hawthorn inquiry.

She can just let that stand without be subjected to further examination.

 

[sideswipe]

Perhaps that’s why she prefers not to take part in the AFL inquiry.
She’s already given her statement to the Hawthorn inquiry.

She can just let that stand without be subjected to further examination.

Which is absolutely her right.

However the panel will have to effectively disregard her statement. It will have no standing if they can’t investigate it. Addressing what happened to Amy can only be examined if her partner speaks up. Plus evidence from the coaching staff…


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

I don’t know. She clearly doesn’t feel comfortable taking part, and she doesn’t have to.

Clarkson will have the opportunity to detail the context in which these allegations took place.

I will read with interest.

Will you get to read with interest? I doubt they'll release anything other than the findings.

 

[jmac70]

Will you get to read with interest? I doubt they'll release anything other than the findings.

Maybe. I assumed the testimony would be published.

 

[sideswipe]

Maybe. I assumed the testimony would be published.

Zero chance.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Jasper84]

Which is absolutely her right.

However the panel will have to effectively disregard her statement. It will have no standing if they can’t investigate it. Addressing what happened to Amy can only be examined if her partner speaks up. Plus evidence from the coaching staff…


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I wonder whether it's related to the AFL's handling of the Adelaide camp investigation. Betts and others participated with the investigation and the AFL effectively buried it. Wouldn't be surprised if these complainants feel that they are going to get the same treatment.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Amazing cooincidence that Amy’s lawyer has timed the announcement of the refusal to participate with clarkos first day in the new job.

Doesn’t trust the legal process but using one of the oldest legal/PR tricks in the book.

 

[jmac70]

Amazing cooincidence that Amy’s lawyer has timed the announcement of the refusal to participate with clarkos first day in the new job.

Doesn’t trust the legal process but using one of the oldest legal/PR tricks in the book.

Why not?
Clarkson had his say too.

 

[manicpie]

Seems that she doesn’t trust the AFL.

I wonder whether it's related to the AFL's handling of the Adelaide camp investigation. Betts and others participated with the investigation and the AFL effectively buried it. Wouldn't be surprised if these complainants feel that they are going to get the same treatment.

Could it be the complainants are worried that regardless of the outcome it will eventually get into the mainstream courts? I can see both the coaches lawyers going to town with this.

 

[jmac70]

Could it be the complainants are worried that regardless of the outcome it will eventually get into the mainstream courts? I can see both the coaches lawyers going to town with this.

Then you can’t see too well.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Why not?
Clarkson had his say too.

It’s inconsistent with the message she’s trying to send.

Let’s not pretend she isn’t playing this legal game as hard as anybody. The system she claims that she doesn’t trust is the same system she’s utilising for maximum effect, with guidance from her legal counsel.

 

[sideswipe]

Could it be the complainants are worried that regardless of the outcome it will eventually get into the mainstream courts? I can see both the coaches lawyers going to town with this.

There was a wise man called Confucius
Who said don’t sue the impecunious


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[manicpie]

There was a wise man called Confucius
Who said don’t sue the impecunious


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

True, but can you honestly see Clarko allowing himself to be put through this without trying to clear his name.

 

[sideswipe]

True, but can you honestly see Clarko allowing himself to be put through this without trying to clear his name.

I can’t see what “legal action” he would take. Defamation is not an easy course of action for plaintiffs. And very expensive.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[manicpie]

I can’t see what “legal action” he would take. Defamation is not an easy course of action for plaintiffs. And very expensive.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I was thinking more defamation than money. Anyway, there is a long way to go but clarko has a head bigger than Luna Park

 

[Go Woods]

Interesting we have this thread going in the 'Collingwood' forum when it has nothing to do with the Pies.... Just saying.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Interesting we have this thread going in the 'Collingwood' forum when it has nothing to do with the Pies.... Just saying.

Thanks for your contribution

 

[Go Woods]

Thanks for your contribution

Just saying, thread belongs elsewhere imo, it's not Collingwood related.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Just saying, thread belongs elsewhere imo, it's not Collingwood related.

That’s the mods call not yours……but personally for such a contentious issue I’d rather be amongst friends discussing this topic rather than bickering with the great unwashed on the main board.