Re: Hawthorn racism review
No doubt every person gets a defence, couldn’t agree more. But the case is such that the report authors found the complainants credible and were backed up by contemporaneous records that support the claims and records of involvement with the AFLPA. The report was found credible enough to immediately send to the the AFEL. These aren’t hearsay claims. There’s multiple ‘direct witnesses’ with contemporaneous records that appear to be corroborative of the claims, such they’ve been deemed credible already. They all get a defence, but the direct and corroborating evidence, while being independent ‘similar fact’ evidence, is enough to discuss this in a very serious way.
I suspect it will be ‘word vs word’ and with powerful interests that the AFEL will be conflicted in doing anything. The key is the contemporaneous records that are referenced in the main article. That may force the issue along with media scrutiny.
A logical discussion pointing out innocent until proven guilty is fine. Being sick about virtue signalling is a bridge to far. I’ve used the word ‘if’ so I’m not sure not sure if I’m a ‘virtue signaller’, but as I have no virtue I know it’s not me!
No doubt every person gets a defence, couldn’t agree more. But the case is such that the report authors found the complainants credible and were backed up by contemporaneous records that support the claims and records of involvement with the AFLPA. The report was found credible enough to immediately send to the the AFEL. These aren’t hearsay claims. There’s multiple ‘direct witnesses’ with contemporaneous records that appear to be corroborative of the claims, such they’ve been deemed credible already. They all get a defence, but the direct and corroborating evidence, while being independent ‘similar fact’ evidence, is enough to discuss this in a very serious way.
I suspect it will be ‘word vs word’ and with powerful interests that the AFEL will be conflicted in doing anything. The key is the contemporaneous records that are referenced in the main article. That may force the issue along with media scrutiny.
A logical discussion pointing out innocent until proven guilty is fine. Being sick about virtue signalling is a bridge to far. I’ve used the word ‘if’ so I’m not sure not sure if I’m a ‘virtue signaller’, but as I have no virtue I know it’s not me!
Comment