Is this pointless topic still meandering on getting nowhere?
Mods please block it.
It's gone way beyond tedious.

So they're comfortable with my opinion, they're just uncomfortable that they've heard it.....yeah another good one Smokey.



No it's specific to him. You just want to have some morale highground self righteous rant defending every gay person on the planet.



Simple, by trying to focus solely on James Child until you start accusing of attacking every gay person breathing.



It isn't a opinion that positive discrimination happens, it does happen. Even those who don't think it's happened in this particular case of James Child would be bloody daft to say positive discrimination only exist in my opinion.....but you have.



Because we don't live in some world full of sunshine and rainbows. It'd be great if being from a miniority status didn't influence your position at work.....but it does, often negatively, sometimes 'positively'. Just because you don't want it to doesn't mean it doesn't happen and we shouldn't consider it. People attitudes to the differences between us might be changing, but people noticing the differences between us hasn't change.

You do realise that their's several on going thread on this board and you're free to start one yourself if you so please. If you know what happening in this thread and it's boring you can I suggest taking the radical step of not clicking on it.

Simple, if people in his workplace knew he was gay, thats enough to POSSIBLY effect how they treat him personally. Hell it could be in a negative way, or on this argument a positive way. Would they only be able to negatively discriminate against him if the RL community on the whole knew he was gay?

Yes ALMOST the exact same.

But not the same. As in treated differently.

So you and "they" are not fans of Voltaire (or more accurately Evelyn Beatrice Hall) then Smokey?

This conversation between the unwavering, has surely run its course. If it continues for another 40 pages, which it probably will, it will not illuminate or resolve any issues nor will it achieve more than being an embarrassment to this forum.

I was responding solely to the post I quoted - hence the quote.

As for your second question, I haven't worked for a company for many years. My recollection of the last one I worked for was that they employed a mixture of slackers, incompetents plus some pretty diligent workers (feel free to have a stab at which of the categories I best fitted

). Which is how I imagine many companies still operate and probably applies also to the RFL and its board of professional refs.

There is a pretty substantial difference between having the right to say something, and having the right to say things unchallenged.

I haven't called for any type of censorship or banning or anything of that ilk.

In which case, seeing as no new points have been made by either side of this "debate" in the last 30 pages, You have made your position clear as have Printer et al. So job done, no need for continuation? Please don't give me the bs about fearlessly refuting "homophobia", your rebuttals merely elicit a further defence of his position and visa versa.Too much heat not enough light generated. So avoid doing the same things and expecting different results

Walk away, you have eloquently made your points, democracy and the rule of law are saved, you can stop now.

PS Printer et al the above applies to you too

No you giant wazzock they are comfortable that it is your opinion. I.e nobody is stating it isn't your opinion. That doesn't mean they are comfortable with your opinion being ok.

No it isn't. You aren't stating James Child is getting special treatment because of he is James Child you are claiming he gets special treatment because of his sexuality.

focusing on James Child's sexuality. You're not smart enough to try these verbal gymnastics.

it is only in your opinion that it happens in he way you describe and the way you have alledged it has happened. If it isn't only in your opinion perhaps you can provide us some proof? Oh no you have already told us you have none.

No amount of fog knitting nor pathetic attempts at verbal gymnastics will alter the fact that you have alledged James Child has received preferential treatment based on his sexuality based on nothing but your preconceptions of positive discrimination. The word the English language uses to describe such an allegation is prejudiced.

and his responses are only confirming the idiocy of such a defence. Bringing to light these nonsense defences of such positions is the best way to destroy them. Sunlight is the best bleach.

And how's the battle going? 37 pages in, victory must be just around the corner?

























You're not the Messiah you're a very naughty boy.



But to avoid falling into the same trap as you I will offer no further contribution to this thread

He's like an irritable little child in the school yard is young Smokey. Having his little tantrum in the yard, others ask why, he responds Coz, they ask again, he says coz. Never get an answer just his way coz he says so.

People ask him to leave, he still wants the last word. You don't usually see child Bigots, but one for all here.

You think if you try hard enough people. Will forget what you said? That to protect your special friend you made some pretty ridiculous evidence less accusations based on Child's Sexuality.

They won't forget Gotcha.



bigotry, you wouldn't recognise it if it hit you in the face with Phil Daly

Victory happened decades ago my friend.

So was it agreed that Child is a e ref????

My special Friend? I am sure Printer will be pleased with that. I think you will find he needs no protection, he has done a good enough job himself showing you up for what you are.

I see you still haven't explained the fact of the RFL proudly declaring exactly what has been said on here, which you refer to above. Of course, the obvious could smack you in the face and you still wouldn't realise, as you would still be copying and pasting your next line from your textbook

I was referring to Mr hardaker who I'm sure is delighted to have your backing.

You have yet to provide the evidence that the rfl do proudly declare these things. Despite numerous people asking you. If it was Phil Daly who told you on have a good idea where you have gone wrong.

That's never been in doubt. What wasn't agreed is why he gets away with it, as only three people have offered a suggestion, anybody else just wants to believe that can't be the case rather than offer another option. At least they have had the decency though to declare that as their opinion, rather than shout incoherent wild accusations like one individual.

You could alternatively just go on the RFL website. But of course that mean you accepting your foolishness.

How does any of this have anything to do with Hardaker

Is Printer or SuperTed an alias for Hardaker?

No, what's being quite clearly implied by at least one person on this thread is that he gets big games purely to suit the RFL's inclusivity agenda, but not ones that are so big they will be too obvious to the fans.

Would you agree with that sentiment, or not?

You were attacking Child to protect your special friend hardaker you silly Billy.

Why don't you provide us with a link? Seems a pretty easy thing for you to do?

Not from me. My question as always been through this thread is that his consistently poor performances over a long period of time, have not been dealt with, and have with others in the past, and asked is it because it suits the RFL's equality agenda. And if someone had the decency to offer a reasonable reason other than that, then I could understand it.

And in what possible way does stating how bad Child has been over a long period of time offer any protection to Hardaker?

Forgive me if mistaken here, but hasn't Hardaker being punished for what happened with him? I am not sure he would be very grateful for the protection 15 months after the event



I quoted part of the RFL equality programme a few pages back, it's not hard to find.

Who would you have replaced him with, out of interest? Particularly given that one of British refereeing's bright young things has currently got himself on the RFL's naughty step.