-
03-06-2023, 07:48 PM
#571
Re: Hawthorn racism review
You don't have to be cynical yourself to see the cynical tactics deployed by Clarkson, Fagan and Burt throughout the process. These people have agency and have had plenty of opportunities to "tell their sides of the story" without prejudice, via the AFL investigation or outside of it.
Stonewalling by seeking documents that would compromise those who responded to the Hawthorn enquiry, and using that as an excuse not to participate is disingenuous even if it is in line with legal advice received. Again, Clarkson, Fagan and Burt have ample avenues to refute or respond to the complaints listed publicly - but they choose not to. There's nothing valiant in their stance, they aren't persecuted, and they aren't leaders.
Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 4 Likes
-
04-06-2023, 04:14 AM
#572
Re: Hawthorn racism review
Originally Posted by
D Mitchell
Unless you and Topdog know a lot more about the Hawthorn indigenous controversy than what's appeared in the media, you can't reasonably draw the distasteful conclusions about the characters of Clarkson and/or Fagan that appear in the immediately preceding 2 posts. Fagan asserts that he's legally represented, it's reasonable to presume that he's obtained advice on his stand, in all likelihood, Clarkson too. The consequences of the most recent enquiry into racism at an AFL club might caution participants, the President lost his job. There are a number of posters openly and enthusiastically barracking for the indigenous families, even though probably no better informed than any of us I can't identify anyone "defending Clarko and co", unless urging caution and/or warning about assumptions constitutes defending. Next step is the Human Rights Commission which I think is investigative rather than judicial and probably conducts its processes in camera.
They are gutless wonders for not wanting to discuss, mediate or communicate with the players and families.
Aboriginal people are sick and tired of being treated badly in this country.
FFC: Established 1883
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.
-
06-06-2023, 11:50 PM
#573
Re: Hawthorn racism review
Pretty good summation:
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...04-p5ddsq.html
Don’t be conned by the PR spin: The AFL is no exemplar on racism
The latest failure of the AFL to resolve allegations of racism in the sport it oversees provides a cautionary tale of what happens when we do not listen to Indigenous people, when their hurt is marginalised and ignored, and when polite requests for just resolutions are shut down.
Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Likes
-
07-06-2023, 12:45 AM
#574
Re: Hawthorn racism review
Originally Posted by
jeemak
Pretty good summation:
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...04-p5ddsq.html
Don’t be conned by the PR spin: The AFL is no exemplar on racism
The latest failure of the AFL to resolve allegations of racism in the sport it oversees provides a cautionary tale of what happens when we do not listen to Indigenous people, when their hurt is marginalised and ignored, and when polite requests for just resolutions are shut down.
Marcia seldom misses but she's being kind characterising the league's efforts here as incompetent rather than wilful.
BORDERLINE FLYING
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 2 Likes
-
09-06-2023, 10:08 PM
#575
Re: Hawthorn racism review
This seems productive:
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...09-p5dfam.html
‘We are asking questions’: AFL chasing source of Hawks’ racism report leak
AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan has revealed the league is chasing the source of the leak of the original Hawthorn cultural safety review, declaring this leak left all parties in a “vulnerable” position.
Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.
-
10-06-2023, 07:25 AM
#576
Re: Hawthorn racism review
Originally Posted by
D Mitchell
I can't identify anyone "defending Clarko and co", unless urging caution and/or warning about assumptions constitutes defending.
Bit of a late response here but my comment wasnt about anyone on woof, it was about people on facebook/twitter.