Hawthorn racism review

[bulldogtragic]

I think written by a lawyer. You have to wonder why he would put out a statement

It's written most likely by a top silk. It is expertly crafted, just brilliant legal work (I hate to say it). That's what you get for $1,000+ an hour.

It's been put out to pre-empt a scenario that any negative finding, or possible negative inference is not a matter of fact....

i.e... It is a corrupted process, where the evidence has been compromised, where witnesses evidence can't be trusted as exposure to media reports have subconsciously altered their memories, where any conclusion or determination has been prejudiced by a flawed process of contaminated evidence, witness tampering and general misinformation. That he cannot ever get a 'fair hearing' because no 'jury' (inquiry) can be impartial.

So of course a 'negative' decision/conclusion was reached. It was always going to happen when the media irresponsibly put all this information in the public domain. That doesn't mean my client did anything wrong. In fact, it's the obvious and simple fruit of the poisonous tree that was always going to materalise after the media and authorities breaches my client's rights and privacy, and right to 'a fair trial'. This was a very serious matter and by the breaching of the integrity of the process all the individuals involved have further victimised including my client. My client is also a victim of these circumstances and we will pursue every legal avenue against anyone and everyone who smears my clients impeccable good character as evidence by his long career and high standing in a professional industry... etc... etc... etc...




He's effectively saying he can't be 'tried' (publicly or privately) for the 'charges' because 'he can never get a fair and impartial jury' because everything (including evidence and witnesses) has been corrupted beyond any chance to receive 'a fair trial'. Thus, in such prejudicial/pre-judged circumstances, he can not be found 'guilty' and can not be sentenced in any way, shape or form.

It's moving from the matters in 2013, into the legalese of 2022 and creating a legalese quagmire of conflicted legal principles. That's the debate now.

Over to you AFEL.

[The bulldog tragician]

Newbold’s defence doesn’t ring true. It might be the case that a hawthorn staffer has access to his emails and is delegated to answer them. Yep, when it’s someone emailing to say they are so disappointed in last week’s performance or why wasn’t Player X selected, some dogsbody in the club can answer on his behalf with a bland: “ we are sorry to hear this, all efforts being made etc”

But if thejr processes are such that a heartrending email of this nature from a player’s partner is not being flagged and that same dogsbody is able to answer it…well that’s gobsmackingly awful and derelict of duty, but it also sounds unlikely. Or if said dogsbody feels confident he/she is acting as expected, what does that say about how they go about things. “the prez won’t want to see this. I don’t have to take this further.” ??????

[Swoop]

Not sure the need for Clarkson to come out with a second statement when he has already stated he welcomes the AFL investigation? Strange.

I find it interesting that neither Newbold or Clarkson have denied the actual events.

Clarkson is arguing that his version of events differs, while Newbold claims he wasn't aware of these things happening.

I feel sad because it's going to be messy and above all else, those affected will not receive the closure they deserve.

[jeemak]

Now wait a second wait a second, I think we should just wait before we start virtue signalling about whether any of this actually happened.

Which practical antonym of virtue is the weapon of choice we should use for our signaling until this is resolved? Disbelief is actually too close to what I feel, wildness and meanness seem appealing......

[jeemak]

Wow.
I'd like to say thanks to Josh Dunkley for making his departure that much more palatable for me.. In what should've been an otherwise a simple leave outside off to the keeper when asked about the Fagan dilemma, he's had a big waft at it and in one stroke revealed what a complete self-absorbed nothingburger he is... to not be able to read the lay of the football landscape right now and , if incapable of showing or verbalising some empathy, at least display some awareness and shut the hell up...

What a flog. Seeya

By and large he's just an ignorant kid in this area, hopefully about to learn a substantial lesson and build some self-awareness.

[jeemak]

It’s hard to reconcile the comments in ‘the day’ about Hawthorn being a ruthless club that would do anything to win…

You wouldn’t think in 2013 caveats like ‘anything to win but no forced taking of humans, pressure to abort pregnancies or destroy lives’ would’ve been needed. But apparently they were. If the price of a dynasty means the destruction of souls and a clubs soul (by extension it’s members souls) then I’ll take 2016 and be content to look in the mirror and be happy to see the reflection. Honestly, it’s a game with a ball where lots of money is involved.

Like Gloria says in White Men Can’t Jump, about being desperate to win. “Sometimes when you win, you really lose.”

I have no idea how you could possibly determine a thing she said in that film with any certainty.

[jeemak]

Not sure the need for Clarkson to come out with a second statement when he has already stated he welcomes the AFL investigation? Strange.

I find it interesting that neither Newbold or Clarkson have denied the actual events.

Clarkson is arguing that his version of events differs, while Newbold claims he wasn't aware of these things happening.

I feel sad because it's going to be messy and above all else, those affected will not receive the closure they deserve.

Yes, it's going to get messy. Nobody has come out and said the incidents reported haven't taken place, which might mean they all acknowledge that they did, and out of care or otherwise they're still inappropriate if they in fact did occur.

It boggles my mind that in this troglodyte industry and others which are coincidentally male dominated (not really a coincidence) people still put themselves in the position to have this type of thing go so completely pear shaped.

[bulldogtragic]

I have no idea how you could possibly determine a thing she said in that film with any certainty.

It’s my best guess admittedly. But growing up in the 90’s I learned to guess a lot seemingly incoherent actors and song lyrics.

[jeemak]

It’s my best guess admittedly. But growing up in the 90’s I learned to guess a lot seemingly incoherent actors and song lyrics.

Daddy Snow says hi!

[bulldogtragic]

Daddy Snow says hi!

Informer! The original and better Eminem according to Canadians…..

[jeemak]

It's written most likely by a top silk. It is expertly crafted, just brilliant legal work (I hate to say it). That's what you get for $1,000+ an hour.

It's been put out to pre-empt a scenario that any negative finding, or possible negative inference is not a matter of fact....

i.e... It is a corrupted process, where the evidence has been compromised, where witnesses evidence can't be trusted as exposure to media reports have subconsciously altered their memories, where any conclusion or determination has been prejudiced by a flawed process of contaminated evidence, witness tampering and general misinformation. That he cannot ever get a 'fair hearing' because no 'jury' (inquiry) can be impartial.

So of course a 'negative' decision/conclusion was reached. It was always going to happen when the media irresponsibly put all this information in the public domain. That doesn't mean my client did anything wrong. In fact, it's the obvious and simple fruit of the poisonous tree that was always going to materalise after the media and authorities breaches my client's rights and privacy, and right to 'a fair trial'. This was a very serious matter and by the breaching of the integrity of the process all the individuals involved have further victimised including my client. My client is also a victim of these circumstances and we will pursue every legal avenue against anyone and everyone who smears my clients impeccable good character as evidence by his long career and high standing in a professional industry... etc... etc... etc...




He's effectively saying he can't be 'tried' (publicly or privately) for the 'charges' because 'he can never get a fair and impartial jury' because everything (including evidence and witnesses) has been corrupted beyond any chance to receive 'a fair trial'. Thus, in such prejudicial/pre-judged circumstances, he can not be found 'guilty' and can not be sentenced in any way, shape or form.

It's moving from the matters in 2013, into the legalese of 2022 and creating a legalese quagmire of conflicted legal principles. That's the debate now.

Over to you AFEL.

Good summary.

The easy thing for him to do would be to give a detailed account of what he did or didn't do in an open letter specifically addressing the incidents within the report on the open record.

Was I present at a meeting at a player's house as stated - yes/ no, however my recollection of events is x, y, z
Did I encourage player x and his partner to terminate a pregnancy - yes/ no, however my recollection of events is x, y, z

What I'm proposing above is completely ridiculous, because while we have more avenues for people to openly respond to accusations and tell their sides of the story, it's the fact those avenues exist for everyone - not just a few with relationships in the media - that stops them from doing so.

The fact of the matter is, Clarkson or anyone involved have never had more opportunity to get their points across in whichever way they like exactly how they want to. It's just that there's now open forums in which they can be scrutinised and/ or shut down by those without the same level of power as they have - albeit with the latter still being at a significant disadvantage due to the overall power imbalance.

The question I have for people like Clarkson et al, is without the cover of the AFL integrity investigation unit would you take the opportunity even with your position of power considered to tell your side of the story in direct response to what has been alleged - given the access you have to the megaphone cupboard? Or would you find a way not to through claiming nobody would give you a fair go? I suspect it's the latter, which is kind of ironic given that's exactly how the alleged victims of this situation feel, who without the independent investigation initiated by the HFC would never have been heard because of their genuine fear of being lambasted and being treated like shit in public (which is what is happening to them anyway).

[Mofra]

Hawks emails from 2013 now doing the rounds, to and from Andrew Newbold.
Basically details one of the stories from the ABC article - if anything, it's worse than the details provided in the ABC article. Awful reading

[SquirrelGrip]

Hawks emails from 2013 now doing the rounds, to and from Andrew Newbold.
Basically details one of the stories from the ABC article - if anything, it's worse than the details provided in the ABC article. Awful reading

Where would one find "the rounds"?

[GVGjr]

Hawks emails from 2013 now doing the rounds, to and from Andrew Newbold.
Basically details one of the stories from the ABC article - if anything, it's worse than the details provided in the ABC article. Awful reading

I find it very hard to read these emails knowing that the paint a bad picture and on face value little was done to address it.

[bulldogtragic]

Where would one find "the rounds"?

They are linked to an article by Robbo yesterday if you have newscorp access. Presumably someone has screen shot them.