Printer - are you determined to consistently claim black is white?

You've previously admitted you provided no evidence and had none to back up your view.
Now you claim you do.

You claimed James Child got lots of big games, then claimed that he only got thrown 1 or 2. Now it's back to he gets lots of them again.

You claimed it was a sub-conscious act on behalf of the RFL. Now you don't know.


What you aren't getting is that the evidence that you now say is evidence but what wasn't before, that James Child gets big games, isn't evidence of him being favoured because he's gay.

If everyone agreed with you he got more big games than other refs of the same standing then THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF HIM BEING FAVOURED BECAUSE HE IS GAY.
It's only evidence that the RFL favour him over other refs of the same standard. Not the reason WHY he is favoured. As I said before there are many more plausible reasons as to why he is favoured more than other refs of the same standing.

So please, please, stop digging yourself further and further down this ridiculous hole. You used to post sensible stuff but this is just utter batsh|ttery.

Have you caught the Smokey disease of mis-reading or twisting what I write just to be able to have a counter argument???

The sub-conscious, I never said it WAS, then WASN't, I've said it COULD be.

When I said I didn't have evidence. That was I didn't have evidence that they do give him games because of his sexuality (much as you don't have any evidence that Asussies pick refs solely to help them win). The evidence I did have is was that they've booked Child in a very inconsistent way to other referees and on that evidence I've formed an OPINION. The exact same as your evidence of Hall's no try leading you to your OPINION of Aussie refs.

Right from the very start I've always said it is my OPINION, I've never said anyone has to agree with it and I've never claimed it to be fact. I've shown why I come to my opinion with details of his IMO strange and inconsistent booking.

Again one last time for everybody so it can hopefully sink in. My view on Child is my OPINION, not FACT.....just like 'Him's' claim on Aussie refs is opinion not fact, based on evidence that some others would disagree with.

Yes, your statement is opinion. It is a homophobic and bigoted opinion based upon prejudice. It is based up on the preconceived notion that the RFL would treat a gay person favourably because gay people are treated not on their merits but as their sexuality. The preconception that that would take the form of inconsistent match appointments to the big clubs. The preconception that had Child been straight he wouldn't have been appointed to the games he has. Even if we accepted your very tenuous evidence that Child has been inconsistently appointed, you have not a shred of evidence outside your preconceptions of anything else.

Nobody thought it was a statement of fact because it is clearly an idiotic notion. Everyone is comfortable with it being your opinion. Your view of reality. Yours is a prejudiced view coloured by preconceived notion that gay people get special treatment.

Your prejudice allows you to form your opinion that Child is the beneficiary of special treatment based on no evidence of special treatment, simply the fact he has refereed some games between the big four, which you don't think he should have, and you believe this to be an expression of favourable treatment which you are happy to put down to him being gay. Your prejudice, backed only by a very tenuous evidence of inconsistent appointment allowed you to make a pernicious and insidious allegation against someone you didn't like and use their sexuality to demean them and their achievements.

Just a couple of final points from me, as this is going in circles....

1 - Of course it is opinion, and it's one you've every right to disagree with

2 - Positive discrimination unfortunately exists in the real world - it's not discriminatory to raise the question of if it's happening or not in RL - if you're not allowed to ask the question without being classed as a homophobe, how can it ever be stopped - in this day and age of supposed 'equality', there should be no need for it, and jobs should just be given to the best candidate - and the question here is 'is James Child the best candidate for big SL games' - most people would say not (based purely on his history as a referee - not his sexuality)

3 - You keep opening it up to 'gay people' to suit your 'homophobe' claims - the question has never been about 'gay people' getting preferential treatment, it was just about why James Child, a notoriously poor ref gets big (and usually televised) SL games - as most would say his refereeing ability doesn't justify it.

4 - in response to point 3, we suddenly seem to have found a load of people defending Child's ability as a ref and saying he's one the best we have - I've never seen this opinion from people on the numerous historical threads throughout RLFANS bemoaning the performance of Child after he's ruined countless games.... Funny people are now defending his ability when the prickly subject of his sexuality has arisen..... Could that be..... Positive discrimination????

1. A bigoted opinion is not any better than a bigoted expression of fact.

2. Why, in the face a all evidence to the contrary do we think that gay people are disproportionately promoted beyond their capabilities? There is 1 gay referee and 1 gay player in our game and you want me to believe that positive discrimination is a problem we need to call out? Furthermore you want us to suspect that that those very few who are gay and make it should be suspected as beneficiaries of positive discrimination?

We have had 1 gay referee in our century long history as a game. You are going to have a hard time spinning this as a problem of positive discrimination.

3. It is not me treating Child on the basis of his sexuality. It is those claiming he is a beneficiary of it

4.actually you haven't. You have found a lot of people who accept. On his performances. That he is probably one of our top 6 refs and more experienced than most. Because we have a very very very shallow pool of talent for referees. Because of the way they are treated as tiny amount of people chose to become referees. So few that Child not being a good ref and him being one of our best are not mutually exclusive.

BINGO. So now we are here, 33 pages on and still waiting, but what are these many plausible reasons why he is getting preferential treatment? It has been asked so many times, and still no answer, yet you are now saying there are many. I am totally open to hear them and see how they work out, but nobody wants to say them.

The only FACT we do know is that the RFL proudly state that they will give preferential treatment in order to achieve equality. So why is it a problem to suggest that this preferential treatment for equality is down to sexual orientation? And that the preferential treatment is to ignore incompetence on a consistent basis? why are you homophobic to suggest this reasoning?

Where do the RFL state they will give preferential treatment to achieve equality? Are you seriously suggesting the RFL is using Child as a means of achieving equality in sexual orientation - seriously!! Why no female referees at the top level then?

Even for you that notion is completely bonkers.

I have no idea how the RFL allocates refs to game, I kind of assumed they drew names of refs and fixtures out of a hat or some similarly random process. Can anyone enlighten me as to how it is actually done?

People on here say Child has no rapport with players - could it be that he is not prepared to put up with their on field cheating like say Thaler. Thaler has always struggled with the ten metres and still does perhaps the players like him more because in an attempt to let the game flow he allows greater transgression of the rules?

Millions of more plausible reasons have been given.

I have to ask. Where do the RFL proudly state that they will give preferential treatment?

You are homophobic to suggest this reasons because you would need to have that prejudice for the reasoning to make sense.

If we down start from a point that that RFL would give Child preferential treatment for being gay and we don't start from a point where that would take the form of ignoring incompetence on a consistent basis, and we don't start from a point where that looks like what you think you are seeing, then your reasoning is nonsense. You need prejudiced preconceptions to suggest that reasoning.

What is more ridiculous about this attitude towards child is when you remember that Ganson managed to oversee the magic weekend debacle by not only ignoring protocol to give Sinfield the penalty, but then completely missing Tansey being offside as on field ref and then managed to forget which player he was watching in the Hull derby to do it all over again as VR.

Richard Silverwood was publicly criticised by our club for randomly deciding to referee one of the biggest games of the year to entirely different interpretations

Ashley Klein had a petition with hundreds of names on asking for his firing

St Helens refused to have Ian Smith referee their games and he didn't get a saints game for a long long time.

And while Ben Thaler is held up as one of our best refs now. In fact many hold him up as comfortably the best referee in SL. A few years ago there were moans and groans when people found out Ben Failure was the referee.

I have already quoted it from the RFL page a few pages back. Under Equality they state they will achieve equality, and that it does not mean people have to be treated the same in order to achieve equality. Their wording is the need for equality may require unequal effort to ensure it is achieved.

How else do you read that? No doubt something completely different to try and fit a different agenda.

So when people can reason that an individual is not performing in his role on a consistent basis, and over a long period of time, what are the reasons for Childs position?

Its a shame they don't operate that same way at grass roots level too, where many a kid with talent wanting to play the game is turned away because their parents can not afford to pay for it. But of course maybe that isn't the equality they are looking for.

Where? infact rather than your massive over reaction, just give one, not a million, just one.

Naff all to do with not putting up with cheating he ignores most of it dependent on who he's favouring plus he has awful communication skills & he lacks consistency imo he refs like he has to prove he's in charge which isn't needed.
The final penalty on friday night is a perfect example of his "style" when Sinfield asked who had knocked on his response was "i don't know" so when KS asked him how he can give it then and asked him to check the response was Penalty don't talk to me like that!

This is actually a really good point, and would have been a better argument for the likes of Smokey TA to have used rather than push his agenda. I can understand this, perhaps Child himself feels due to the prejudices that their is extra pressure on him to do this, and that is the errors happen.

It still doesn't change the point raised all those pages ago, but would be a better reason to explain the RFL position.

Except Child had already achieved "equality" well before his sexuality was a public matter. He was one of a handful of full-time referees appointed by the RFL. He was already getting high profile games in SL.

Let's flip this round shall we? Why hasn't he refereed Grand Finals? Why hasn't he refereed Challenge Cup Finals?

Surely if the RFL were purely promoting him to big games on the basis of his sexuality he would have had one of those in the five years he's been a full-time official?

Why hasn't he been sent by the RFL as a neutral referee to do Anzac Tests or Tri/Four Nations or World Cup games?

Ganson got plenty. So did Silverwood. And Bentham. And now Thaler. All these referees are getting major finals ahead of James Child. Is it because they are straight?

Now do you see how absurd your logic is?

That is easy to answer. Because he is consistently poor, and incompetent. How can you have a major final managed by someone that poor? it opens up many avenues for claims after.

At no time have I mentioned games of any magnitude concerning this ref. What I want answering is why the RFL ignore his consistent incompetence over a long period of time, that is what is more relevant. Yes Ganson had bad games, yes Silverwood has bad games, but none have consistently put in such poor performances over a long period of time.

As I said on the other page which was a good point from rhinoms, although not intended for that, maybe Child is as bad as he is because of the pressure he feels under to justify himself, because of the prejudices. But is that then a failing of the RFL not to resolve those issues?

So he gets big games because he's gay, but he doesn't get the biggest games because he's not good enough? Is that the basis of your argument that there is clearly some form of positive sexuality discrimination at work?

But people clearly aren't comfortable with it, in fact people like yourself are very very very uncomfortable with it otherwise it wouldn't have got the reaction it's got.



You continuously keep making it out that if I criticise Child's appointments that I'm attacking every gay person.....you're an idiot. Questioning one persons position because of his sexuality DOESN'T mean I'm questioning every employment of a gay person in the world.



Yawn.

How many times do I need to repeat before people stop fabricating comments, and you can go look back at every post I have made on here, my point is not on games awarded but on why his consistent poor performance is ignored.

My argument is that the poor performance is ignored and not dealt with in the same way it has been dealt with before, and how we as paying customers of the game should expect it to be dealt with. Whether he meets their equality desires shouldn't give what looks like preferential treatment, by not dealing with the issue.

It didn't need to be public for it to influence how the RFL treated him. If they knew it was enough.



Because at Cup Finals and GF and Internationals they've still been able to give him a gig as a touch judge which he's gotten over and over again over the years.

Why hasn't he reffed a final or semi final is a good question. Especially when he's randomly been decided good enough for Wigan vs Saints clashes and Leeds vs Wigan and Leeds vs Warrington matches for 4 seasons now, yet no semis or finals? Is it because when push comes to shove the RFL aren't that dumb to put him in there because they deep down don't see him as one of the top two referees and in a cup/playoff weekend they can't just shoehorn the guy who they think is the best referee away for the week to do Salford vs Hudds instead whilst Child gets the plum gig of Wigan vs Saints like when it's a league fixture.

If they send Thaler off to ref Wakey vs Hull whilst Child does Leeds vs Wigan it goes under the radar......they give Child Wembley instead of Thaler and people are saying "are you f*cking kidding me? That guy isn't one of the top refs"

He messes up a league game (as he does regularly) it's moved on from in a few days. He messes up Wembley or Old Trafford then it's different ball game all together and a move the RFL wouldn't even risk taking.

I have the same day job as Child, which prevents me from having the time to take issue with some of the bile you have spouted. But could you please expand on that last sentence which, on first reading, I find staggering.

So, despite such Machiavellian cunning on the part of the RFL, Child ends up reffing almost exactly the games he would be doing were he not gay. Astonishing.

People are comfortable that it is your opinion. They are uncomfortable that you think your bigoted and homophobic opinion should be freely expressed.

You have reduced James Child to his sexuality. Not me. You cannot argue that Child is treated differently solely because he is gay, then argue that this is specific to James Child. It isn't. It's specific to his sexuality.

How aren't you attacking every gay person? Your argument has been throughout that in your opinion positive discrimination happens (you defining this as a minority being promoted above their competency because of their minority status) ergo there is a chance the because James Child is a member of a minority community he has been promoted beyond his competency because of that minority status.
It isn't the fact that he is James child that you are arguing has seen him promoted beyond his competence but his minority status.

Is that what is said? or is it said that he would be handled differently due to his consistently bad performances?

At your own work, a team of four people, three pull their weight putting in consistently good performances, but one doesn't and effects results. Does your company not handle it?