Annoyedsaint wrote: ↑Thu 22 Sep 2022 9:07pm
skeptic wrote: ↑Thu 22 Sep 2022 2:54pm
It’s hard to imagine that these things didn’t occur as stated…
What’s missing is the context. The first story for example, those aren’t rationale responses to the challenge. Hence the question becomes what was happening that got the club so worried like that?
That leads to the two obvious follow ups… is there a reasonable scenario that sees a club advocate for separation of a relationship and termination of a pregnancy?
Secondly… would they take this course of action with a non-Indigenous person.
On both levels it doesn’t seem right.
The next thing that perplexes me though is how have Clarkson and Fagan become the principle figures of interest here. Surely decisions like these would be primarily driven through the club’s welfare individuals?
We’re talking about near DFFH levels of intervention (noting that they’re obviously adults).
I’m also unsure as to how this happened so vehemently against the wishes of all those involved and the non-specific denial from Fagan and Clarkson.
If there was no wrong doing whatsoever, I’d expect a more impassioned response focused on clearing his name… this is obviously juxtaposed with I guess what legal instruct him t say.
I guess what I’m trying to say here is that like most things… the answer is pbly in the middle but geeez we are still missing a lot of information
My gut says it seems fairly unlikely that at least some misconduct hasn’t occurred but I can’t say i have my head around it either
Best response/thought process I’ve seen in here so far.
Perhaps too much for the virtue signalling twats that have already applied the death penalty via their Kangaroo Court….
It’s a report based on one side of the story.
Let’s now have the actual investigation where the other parties have an opportunity to have their say.
That’s all assuming everything is done on face value.
Then you will now have AFL branding, lawyers looking for different angles, the possibility of a prior fall out with an individual (eg. Rioli & Clarkson) and the revenge aspect.
It’s a little suss this report was finalised the week after Clarkson is announced as coach of another club as well.
It seems bizarre the alleged things could be said by an employer to an enployee, but I’m sure that family or mates would say to each other at times if a partner was right for them, but questioning a pregnancy goes way overboard unless it was a parent to son conversation if financial constraints are an issue for example in bringing up a child.
It would be very interesting if other non aboriginal players at any stage have been placed in the same conversations by all clubs. It not, then it’s looking really poor.
The timing angle is not one that stuck out to me and is interesting as a few people have noted. Regardless, you make good points.
The only thing that I think needs to be added and here is where Curly as gotten himself in trouble (not having a dig)…
The undercurrent here, in my opinion, is that one has to look at this through the lenses that as a country we have form here.
Don’t get me wrong… I would say with 100% certainty that everyone at Hawthorn, misconduct or not, have not intentionally or consciously set out to treat people differently based on race. Further to that, I’m sure that the majority of what’s happened has at least occurred under the pretence of being in the person’s best interest.
One only had to note for example, that with Clarkson a lot of the players that have played under him are coming to his defence and most that have spoken out are seemingly shocked that anything like this is alleged/has happened.
The paternal line is a really difficult path to walk down for this reason…
It’s extremely subjective and prone to exploitation. I see it all the time in mental health where people want use of the Mental Health Act to control behaviour. Heck just recently, I had to explain to someone that I couldn’t just admit someone to hospital because their loved one was smoking too much because who in their right mind would do that knowing what we know now.
But here’s the other reality… in my role in forensic mental health… my colleague and I have come or the realisation that we can identify whether or not an offender is Indigenous purely based on their charges.
The pattern is not so much that Indigenous Australians tend to have more public disturbance charges… but that they tend to get more charges in any one given instance.
For example… someone gets drunk at a bar and involved in a fight.
They’ll get charged as being drunk in a public place and unlawful assault.
An Indigenous person is more likely to also have charges for being drunk, drunk and disorderly behaviour, using obscene language in a public place, resisting arrest, reckless conduct, threats of violence, threats to damage property, affray, property damage etc
It really stands out if you do that type of work for a while.
Point that I’m making here… is that yes we all need to hold fire until the full investigation comes out but at the same time, you can’t look at the people and the organisation involved and assert that because of their standing/prominence, that the allegations are likely a beat up.
