Thanks Thanks:  4
Likes Likes:  5
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 58
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4,569
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Player upset by comments in Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match

    Quote Originally Posted by ledge View Post
    You do realise this was 9 years ago. A lot has gone under the bridge since then.
    That incident must have been settled or it would have come up a lot more back then.
    You do realise Wilkinson commenced legal action against the Suns, the AFEL and other parties in 2018 which was when our President was engaged by the league to act in their defence.

    Reporting on the outcome of those proceedings seems vague but according to Wilkinson he "removed himself from legal proceedings towards the end of 2019 as he was being pushed into settlement with a non-disclosure agreement".

    So our President was acting on behalf of the AFEL as recently as late last year ... Around the same time he spoke passionately at a televised end of year club function about our desire to encourage Indigenous players to our club and to foster stronger Indigenous cultural ties as an organisation.

    This SBS article touches on PG's involvement including comment from Peter himself ...

    "Gordon brushed aside the argument that as Bulldogs president, there is a potential conflict of interest by taking the case.
    "I agree the Bulldogs have a separate set of interests to the AFL, but I don't think I have a conflict in this case," he said. "In fact, I have a common interest, with the AFL and all the other clubs, to make sure the issues are addressed and advanced."


    I guess you'd have to ask Wilkinson whether he feels his cause has been "advanced" but his recent comments probably answer that.

    I'm extremely uncomfortable with our President's role in this.

    Surely the AFEL can find another shill to defend their less than glowing record.
    BORDERLINE FLYING

  2. Thanks The Pie Man thanked for this post
    Likes azabob liked this post
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    374
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Player upset by comments in Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocket Science View Post
    You do realise Wilkinson commenced legal action against the Suns, the AFEL and other parties in 2018 which was when our President was engaged by the league to act in their defence.

    Reporting on the outcome of those proceedings seems vague but according to Wilkinson he "removed himself from legal proceedings towards the end of 2019 as he was being pushed into settlement with a non-disclosure agreement".

    So our President was acting on behalf of the AFEL as recently as late last year ... Around the same time he spoke passionately at a televised end of year club function about our desire to encourage Indigenous players to our club and to foster stronger Indigenous cultural ties as an organisation.

    This SBS article touches on PG's involvement including comment from Peter himself ...

    "Gordon brushed aside the argument that as Bulldogs president, there is a potential conflict of interest by taking the case.
    "I agree the Bulldogs have a separate set of interests to the AFL, but I don't think I have a conflict in this case," he said. "In fact, I have a common interest, with the AFL and all the other clubs, to make sure the issues are addressed and advanced."


    I guess you'd have to ask Wilkinson whether he feels his cause has been "advanced" but his recent comments probably answer that.

    I'm extremely uncomfortable with our President's role in this.

    Surely the AFEL can find another shill to defend their less than glowing record.
    I agree with the sentiments you are expressing. I trust you are a Non-Lawyer like myself?

    I still can't fathom how Julie Bishop ever defended Gina Reinhardt in Perth over the Blue Sky Mine Case (Midnight Oil song base on these tragic events) before she entered Politics. It never hurt Julie's career. As Lawyer's all say you get paid to do a job. I even have a good mate who is a Criminal Lawyer who has successfully argued on behalf of Rapists! That's not helping society I would have thought.

    It's another world I can't get my head around. In saying that surely Peter would have felt pressured, given the AFL "asked". He knows more than us. Does he really want the Club to be disadvantaged because he said No to this? Who know's?

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,546
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Player upset by comments in Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match

    Quote Originally Posted by WBFC4FFC View Post
    I agree with the sentiments you are expressing. I trust you are a Non-Lawyer like myself?

    I still can't fathom how Julie Bishop ever defended Gina Reinhardt in Perth over the Blue Sky Mine Case (Midnight Oil song base on these tragic events) before she entered Politics. It never hurt Julie's career. As Lawyer's all say you get paid to do a job. I even have a good mate who is a Criminal Lawyer who has successfully argued on behalf of Rapists! That's not helping society I would have thought.

    It's another world I can't get my head around. In saying that surely Peter would have felt pressured, given the AFL "asked". He knows more than us. Does he really want the Club to be disadvantaged because he said No to this? Who know's?
    Lawyers, including criminal lawyers are there to argue their client's case. They don't make the ultimate decision. The burden of proof in the majority of criminal cases lies with the State, the prosecution has to prove - BEYOND all REASONABLE DOUBT, that an individual is guilty of a crime they are charged with. Whilst helping a rapist get off a charge grabs the headlines and has people wondering how this is to the benefit of society, look at it from another perspective.

    The Burden of Proof, Beyond Reasonable Doubt is set as a high standard because its not enough for an individual to be probably guilty and have their freedom removed. If all that was needed was conviction in the court of public opinion it would allow the state cart-blanche the ability to incarcerate people on very little evidence or where the facts were at best dubious. Whilst in the case of a person who is a rapist this means they get off unless the case against the is strong and the evidence is compelling, what it means is that someone against who the evidence is 50-50 or against which the claims are pure fantasy is not convicted.

    The State is driven by political factions. As legislators they hold too much power to criminalise behaviors and prosecute people who may not agree or act within the the State's ideal of what is accepted. Think not of Australia, but say of Dictatorships where opposition is quashed mercilessly and being on the wrong side of a divide isn't just being on the wrong side of an argument, but also likely to get you killed. Personally, I will take the times that the judicial system wrongly releases a person over a criminal justice system which prioritises political expediency over justice.

    Long winded way of saying....lawyers have a job to do and that job, though not apparent does a public service in a way that is less obvious, but more important than you think.

  5. Thanks jeemak thanked for this post
    Likes WBFC4FFC liked this post
  6. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    18,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Player upset by comments in Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match

    Quote Originally Posted by FrediKanoute View Post
    Lawyers, including criminal lawyers are there to argue their client's case. They don't make the ultimate decision. The burden of proof in the majority of criminal cases lies with the State, the prosecution has to prove - BEYOND all REASONABLE DOUBT, that an individual is guilty of a crime they are charged with. Whilst helping a rapist get off a charge grabs the headlines and has people wondering how this is to the benefit of society, look at it from another perspective.

    The Burden of Proof, Beyond Reasonable Doubt is set as a high standard because its not enough for an individual to be probably guilty and have their freedom removed. If all that was needed was conviction in the court of public opinion it would allow the state cart-blanche the ability to incarcerate people on very little evidence or where the facts were at best dubious. Whilst in the case of a person who is a rapist this means they get off unless the case against the is strong and the evidence is compelling, what it means is that someone against who the evidence is 50-50 or against which the claims are pure fantasy is not convicted.

    The State is driven by political factions. As legislators they hold too much power to criminalise behaviors and prosecute people who may not agree or act within the the State's ideal of what is accepted. Think not of Australia, but say of Dictatorships where opposition is quashed mercilessly and being on the wrong side of a divide isn't just being on the wrong side of an argument, but also likely to get you killed. Personally, I will take the times that the judicial system wrongly releases a person over a criminal justice system which prioritises political expediency over justice.

    Long winded way of saying....lawyers have a job to do and that job, though not apparent does a public service in a way that is less obvious, but more important than you think.
    Nailed.

    I was just going to say everything's a bit worse without heaps of educated and experienced people overseeing stuff.
    Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.

  7. #35
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,453
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Player upset by comments in Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match

    My view isn't based on a prejudice against lawyers - and I'm sympathetic to any potential 'pressure' one *may* have felt to represent the AFL.

    My view is he should not have taken this case specifically being the president of the club, considering our club's unfortunate involvement in Wilkinson's experience.

    We take a knee today, but in 2018 we argued against a young man's experience of racism while a player that our club had involvement in. It remains disappointing.
    Float Along - Fill Your Lungs

  8. Likes WBFC4FFC liked this post
  9. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    27,890
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Player upset by comments in Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match

    I know that in a criminal case there are very limited reasons why a lawyer can refuse to take a brief to represent a client. They cannot refuse a brief if:

    -The case is within their capacity, skill and experience;

    -The barrister is available to work, and not already committed to other professional or personal engagements which may prevent the barrister from advancing the clients interests to the best of their ability;

    -The fee offered is acceptable

    -No other exception applies (for example, there would be a conflict of interests, it is reasonably likely that the barrister will required in court for another client on the same day or a barrister may be required to cross-examine a friend or family member)


    This is known as the cab-rank rule and it means that unpopular clients or causes will still be able to get representation.

    It also means that barristers who take on such cases should be spared criticism for doing so.

    But this would be a civil case and the rules I've read about those are a little bit hard to find and are also contradictory.
    Have you been reading those Roddy Doyle books again, Dougal!?


    I have, yeah Ted, you big gobshite

  10. #37
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,453
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Player upset by comments in Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match

    Despite the club having had direct involvement in Wilkinson’s complaint?

    From my uneducated perspective, that’s a conflict.
    Float Along - Fill Your Lungs

  11. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    27,890
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Player upset by comments in Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match

    Quote Originally Posted by The Pie Man View Post
    Despite the club having had direct involvement in Wilkinson’s complaint?

    From my uneducated perspective, that’s a conflict.
    I would think so too but PG would know more more about a potential COI then us. Was he the president or did he have any official role with the club at the time? Maybe it comes down to that?

    The AFL deserve the legal representation they want, the same as Joel Wilkinson deserves the legal representation as he wants. I dislike the AFL and what happened as much as anyone else but this is one of the the few things that I see in absolutes. It makes me uncomfortable saying that an organisation should be refused legal representation for any reason. It's the start of a very slippery slope.
    Have you been reading those Roddy Doyle books again, Dougal!?


    I have, yeah Ted, you big gobshite

  12. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wherever the dogs are playing
    Posts
    60,856
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Player upset by comments in Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match

    Quote Originally Posted by Twodogs View Post
    I would think so too but PG would know more more about a potential COI then us. Was he the president or did he have any official role with the club at the time? Maybe it comes down to that?

    The AFL deserve the legal representation they want, the same as Joel Wilkinson deserves the legal representation as he wants. I dislike the AFL and what happened as much as anyone else but this is one of the the few things that I see in absolutes. It makes me uncomfortable saying that an organisation should be refused legal representation for any reason. It's the start of a very slippery slope.
    He became President in October 2012, so after the incident.

    If a lawyer knows you are guilty and you want to plead not guilty, then they cannot represent you.
    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.

  13. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    27,890
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Player upset by comments in Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match

    Quote Originally Posted by bornadog View Post
    He became President in October 2012, so after the incident.

    If a lawyer knows you are guilty and you want to plead not guilty, then they cannot represent you.
    And the only way they can know you are guilty is if you tell them that you are guilty.
    Have you been reading those Roddy Doyle books again, Dougal!?


    I have, yeah Ted, you big gobshite

  14. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wherever the dogs are playing
    Posts
    60,856
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Player upset by comments in Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match

    Quote Originally Posted by Twodogs View Post
    And the only way they can know you are guilty is if you tell them that you are guilty.
    Yep, you don't tell them
    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.

  15. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5,048
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Player upset by comments in Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match

    Quote Originally Posted by The Pie Man View Post
    Despite the club having had direct involvement in Wilkinson’s complaint?

    From my uneducated perspective, that’s a conflict.
    Actually, we don't know if this even relates to the incident involving our player.

    That incident was dealt with at the time. There may have been other events that Wilkinson was aggrieved about.

    The other issue is that Wilkinson (on my understaning) is not indigenous, so there should be no concern from the indigenous community.
    Life is to be Enjoyed not Endured

  16. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4,569
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Player upset by comments in Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match

    Quote Originally Posted by WBFC4FFC View Post
    I agree with the sentiments you are expressing. I trust you are a Non-Lawyer like myself?
    I plainly ain't no lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by WBFC4FFC View Post
    It's another world I can't get my head around. In saying that surely Peter would have felt pressured, given the AFL "asked". He knows more than us. Does he really want the Club to be disadvantaged because he said No to this? Who know's?
    I'd be stunned if PG would allow himself or his club to be compromised in this way, but rather than a passable rationale, that scenario doesn't strike you as deeply problematic?

    "Hey Peter, nice club you've got there, be a shame if something happened to it. We need you to do a job for us."

    Are we really willing to accept our President being coerced into representing the interests of an organisation that might behave this way? Let alone on this particular issue and the personal (club) and public (society) stakes involved?

    ----

    More broadly, nobody's turning this into a screed against the legal profession or PG's right to earn a crust.

    The fact remains in 2020 an ugly culture still pervades our game, not only in the stands but at club level and conceivably higher. Who realistically thinks Collingwood's an outlier? The media the league ingratiates itself with is also culpable, unsurprisingly because it's littered with the same perpetuators and deadshit appeasers that comprise the body politic of the league. It's one giant chum bucket of privilege, organisational nepotism and conflict of interest and everyone's pretty relaxed with the way things are thanks very much.

    Ask Eddie Betts if he's feeling relaxed. Or Adam Goodes. Or Lumumba. Or Wilkinson.

    The league by it's own admission isn't doing enough on this issue. Performative gestures for public consumption and non-disclosure settlements behind the scenes won't cut it.

    There's an overdue reckoning happening on race, and I'd much rather our President wasn't representing the interests of an organisation that's at best, dragging its feet on the issue and at worst, internally resistant to proper, substantive change while shielding a culture of neanderthalism that damages young men in its orbit.

    And even if one scoffs all of this and thinks simple pragmatism should rule the day ... It's counterproductive for our club to lament negligible-to-no Indigenous representation heaped with public wishes to remedy that situation while our President chooses to act to minimise the league's exposure on issues of race and by extension enables it to continue to avoid the issue and sideline inconvenient voices to that end.

    It reeks.
    BORDERLINE FLYING

  17. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4,569
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Player upset by comments in Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match

    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldog Joe View Post
    Actually, we don't know if this even relates to the incident involving our player.

    That incident was dealt with at the time. There may have been other events that Wilkinson was aggrieved about.

    The other issue is that Wilkinson (on my understaning) is not indigenous, so there should be no concern from the indigenous community.
    I'd love you to run me through this line of logic.
    BORDERLINE FLYING

  18. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5,048
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Player upset by comments in Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocket Science View Post
    I'd love you to run me through this line of logic.
    The line of logic is that we can't attract indigenous players, but we have no issue in having an African in Johannisen as one of our regulars.

    Any issue we see being compromised because of the Wilkinson situation is surely mitigated by the way we appear to have embraced players of other races, such as Johannisen and Jong.

    To my mind this just makes it another case and while Wilkinson himself is coming from a racial vilification position, it doen't mean PG defending the AFL is condoning anything.

    It just could be that the case has been handled reasonably, but Wilkinson wants more.

    We just don't know and it is not prudent to draw conclusions without sufficient knowledge.
    Life is to be Enjoyed not Endured

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •