Do you mean positive action?

Positive discrimination is not legal in UK or EU.

It was alleged on here that Child gets big games purely because he is gay even though he isn't as good (not that he is equal standard).

The other confession was to offer a job to a second best candidate purely due to race.

I do feel these comments about a person based on their sexuality with no evidence whatsoever are offensive and do not belong on a public message board. Is it not time to end this thread before someone brings the whole board into trouble?

From the Oxford English Dictionary

Definition of prejudice in English
1Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience

We don't know!!

Maybe someone thought he was up to it?

Maybe he is half French?

Maybe he is just a nice lad?

Maybe he was / is seen as a prospect for the future? Just like Golding? I guess Golding must be gay too then?

You also claim he didn't "come out" until the Hardaker incident so what does 2012 have to do with it?

Yes I am aware. I'm also aware he officiated England 4 times before he became a SL referee and only twice after. I'm also aware that when England played New Zealand in the 2009 Four Nations, that Australia do have referees.

Unless he was hired solely because they'd be mid season internationals between England and Wales and the Southern Hemisphere couldn't be bothered to send a ref over then your theory is poor.

Alibert first three matches at International level were games involving France including one vs England.

You might want to cast your mind back to last year and the Ryan Hall pinky finger no try vs Australia as well before harping on about referees nationalities in International fixtures.

People had no problem claiming they only picked Sutton because he was an Aussie and not because they thought he was best man for the job.

But it's ok to accuse the Aussies without no proof.

No I didn't, that was another poster.

But you don't think his work colleagues didn't know before then?

But it wasn't preconceived, you lot just want it to be and you want the reason to be that I'm prejudice or homophobic instead of even remotely thinking that's their's even a 1% chance that's it's possible.

Like I said before, If people don't think it's to do with his sexuality then fine. To say it's 100% NOT possible is just sticking your head in the sand.

Has anyone accused Thierry Alibert of being anything other than being the best french referee promoted to a competition that is part french?

You do realise it being fair on Les Catalans and France to allow their officials to officiate in competitions they participate is the same thing right?

For the same reason Ian Smith was given a Leeds/Wigan game in 2009. There you go. It has been answered (one of numerous answers given to you)

FFS. It's also 1% possible that Steve Ganson shoves hamsters up his backside whilst pleasuring himself to the soundtrack of Frozen and that James Child walked in on him doing it. It doesn't mean you come to that conclusion WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

There are a plethora of other much more plausible reasons for why James Child is considered one of the top 4 refs by the RFL. His attitude, his professionalism, his work ethic, how he conducts himself, how he prepares, how he reviews, how he interacts with others are all reasons why the RFL might favour him over others. Or that the RFL are relatively happy with his performances.

To suggest he only gets what he does because of his sexuality, with no evidence for it, is a prejudiced view. Because you aren't saying the same about any other ref, some of whom have performed just as poorly as Child. And the fact is, if Child wasn't gay, you wouldn't be suggesting he's where he is because of is sexuality.

It is exactly the same as saying Ryan Bailey kept getting a game at Leeds because he was black.

So now you want to confuse refereeing neutrality with your absurd homophobic allegations.

Did you honestly think that was a good argument?

The gay referee gets games because he is gay
The french referee gets games because he is french
The straight white english referees get judged solely on their performance in a fair and even manner.

With no further evidence this is what a rational, none bigoted person should apparently conclude.

No he didn't. He's reffed England more than that. And would have done many had the Aussies not vetoed his appointment in the 4 Nations.


Except there is plenty of proof. Because the Aussies regularly vote for Aussie refs in RLIF votes. Plus with international refereeing there is a conflict of interest because Sutton is employed by one side in the match. A side that isn't used to losing and doesn't take losing well.

Bit of a sh|t attempt at a diversion there though. Another nice try though.

They do vote for Aussies, where is your proof that they do that because they take losing badly and not because they think their guy is the best referee?

Come on, proof?

How do you know which of the two they were thinking when they asked for Sutton? Two different reasons their and unless the Aussies have come out and said we picked Sutton because "we are sore losers" then yours is no more fact than mine.

No I'm asking why it's ok to accuse employers of only picking someone based on their nationality (if it's a nationality we aren't afraid to call cheaters) but it's taboo to accuse employers of picking someone based on sexuality.

What a guy that had been a ref in SL nearly a decade getting a big match (a rarity) is comparable to some guy with miles less experienced than several other options who kept getting them early on in his career.

Yep. Its perfectly ok to argue in favour of referees being neutral and they not being a paid representative of one of the sides ,and it is wrong to, in the admitted absence of any proof, accuse an employer of picking someone based on their sexuality.

It really shouldnt need explaining to you that the neutrality of a referee is integral to their ability to do their job. Their sexuality however is entirely irrelevant.

But why had Ian Smith been kept on as an SL referee despite him regularly criticised by fans and coaches a like and often thought to be the worst of the referees. Because of the RFL's equality agenda and Ian Smith ticking the salt and pepper hair box?

Come on Printer, you're just being daft and attempting to move it away from YOUR allegation.

Firstly, no-one has asked you for facts, we've asked for evidence. In my case there is lots of evidence because my allegation is that Australia picks its own refs. And the evidence is that Australia picks its own refs and conspires with NZ to get its own refs.

My secondary, throw-away comment about the Aussies taking losing badly is pretty bloody obvious just from seeing them when they lose. The 2008 World Cup Final being a good example.
As for my allegation that they pick their own refs to help themselves, well considering there are plenty of examples of Aussie refs reffing GB/England v Australia games in just the way the Aussies want then I'd say there is at least some evidence to back up my view, even if it's not universally agreed.

Though here's the difference:
Firstly, I have provided some evidence from years of watching England/GB v Australia plus the on-file voting records of Australia plus their attitude toward referees who don't ref their way.
You haven't provided any, and admit you haven't. So if you have no evidence what are you basing your view on?

Secondly, my allegation is not personal nor does it affect minorities who have had to struggle tremendously just to get equality. And many still do around the world (see the current story in the U.S. of a religious registrar who won't register gay marriages) and there is still plenty to do here.

My saying the Aussies try and get refs who favour them is not even on the same planet as you saying James Child only gets big games because he's gay.

You also still haven't answered the questions I put earlier.

Is it a sub-conscious favouring of Child or RFL policy?

If they were so happy with him he'd constantly be getting the top matches though. He hasn't reffed a single semi final or final so they clearly DON'T think he's one of the best.

It's obvious throughout the year to see who the RFL think are the best refs by what games they are given. Child was well down that list in 2012/13/14 and yet every so often they'd throw a whopper of a game that belied his ranking. Or do the RFL give Wigan vs Saints to the ref who conducts himself the best back at Red Hall nowadays.



That's because he possibly wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't gay. He might be in the Tim Roby position of never having gotten a matchup between two of the Big 4.

As for you two going on about "but you aren't criticising other refs and their appointments"......again I'll repeat, this thread is about James Child, that's why I'm discussing James Child. If you want to talk about Silverwood or Bentham's appointments then knock yourself and start a thread. The reason people talked about Ash Golding on the "liability Golding" thread is because the thread was about.......Ash Golding......understand???

But people weren't just arguing that refs should be neutral......people were calling Aussies cheats and had determined that the reason was solely to help them win.......it probably was but their's no evidence for that, just people's opinion.

Hang on. WTFF. I thought this entire sodding thread was about James Child getting given big games by the RFL.
Which is it? Does he get lots of big games or not?

You don't think how a referee conducts himself the rest of the week matters? Of course it does. In the same way as how a player conducts themselves in training matters. Maybe, just maybe, that's why they throw him a big game every so often. That would seem to make more sense than whether he's gay or not.


So you're repeating the allegation? Whilst admitting you've no evidence at all to back it up? Tim Roby was behind Child in the pecking order wasn't he?


The issue is linked. In the same way as whilst discussing Golding on the Golding thread people also discussed other players. Stop being daft, you've really dug yourself deep into this one haven't you. You'd have been much better off just admitting it was a bit of a daft comment 20 odd pages back but you couldn't admit it.

So why do other refs who perform just as poorly as Child also get big games? Y'know, the ones who aren't gay.

people would have argued the same had the team been Kiwi as well as the ref.

Only idiots thought the australians wanted to cheat, many were comfortable that they wanted the game refereed to interpretations which suited them

But there is evidence for the Aussies wanting refs that help them, again you are confusing evidence with fact. There was the way the game was refereed and the last minute try disallowed. That is at least some evidence even if it's not fact.


Finally we're getting somewhere.

Even an opinion has to be based on something.
For instance there were differing opinions on Ian Kirke in his last couple of years at Leeds. Some thought he was useless, some thought he still had value as a safe hands break for Peacock. Regardless of anyone's viewpoint both opinions had evidence to put forth for their view because people had seen him play and formed their opinion based on that evidence. The same goes for those who might think the Aussies pick their own refs to help them, or indeed those who take the opposing view.

With James Child you admit you know of no evidence for this yet claim it to be your opinion. This is why people are saying it is a prejudiced or preconceived view.

Because that is the very definition of a preconceived view:

[ipreconceived adj
(Of an idea or opinion) formed before having the evidence for its truth or usefulness[/i

I'm not at all, I wanted to talk about James Child and OTHER people started to bring other refs into it because they couldn't answer the ones I asked about James Child.



Apart from the 57 times people have screamed "Proof", let me guess use response. A fact isn't proof.



It wasn't a throw away comment though was it, not until I pointed out the double standards of you not being able to prove it. I actually you being one of the most vocal after that four nations game accusing Aussies of cheating so they wouldn't lose. If that's not your theory as to why they did then what is your theory....don't sit there and pretend you now don't have one.



So you can have a view that's not universally agreed or fact, but I can't.



No, I admitted I haven't provided fact. I provided evidence of Child getting gigs that belied his position and experience and haven't been given to refs of similar standing. That you don't like this evidence doesn't stop it from being evidence. If an Aussie came along and disputed your claims does that make your evidence void?



Suggesting someone would cheat to win is quite personal.



I agree it affect minorites and don't think for a minute I don't think it's not a serious issue.....lout that doesn't mean an issue should be ignored. If 5 white lads beat up a Asian lad we highlight it, If 5 Asian lads beat up a white lad should we keep shush about it because of minority struggles?



It is though, it's exactly the same. You've accused somebody of an appointment for reasons you can say are fact.



I don't know, Much like you don't know why the Aussies picked Sutton. Difference is you're allowed to accuse some people but not others.

I have provided evidence with the games he got and ones other refs didn't. That you don't like or accept it doesn't make it evidence.

Some people will argue that Hall's no try was the correct decision, does that make you evidence void?