Accuses others of thread drifting then immediately reveals he's brought up the Hardaker incident SIX separate times.....Jesus Christ.

It was directed at Monaghan, as confirmed by Monaghan in support. It was after all Monaghan that slapped him, which resulted in the comment. Whether you are outraged by the comment or not, it was directed at Monaghan.

But lets go with this fantasy you are now rewriting history on. The fact Child had nothing to do with why Hardaker was making any comment, doesn't it puzzle you why he would aim it at him? Had Hardaker called him or any ref a cheating Ba*****, what do you think would have happened? he would have been penalised and immediately sent from the field. So the fact that he according to you, aimed an homophobic comment at a homosexual referee, and that referee not only did not send him off, but didn't even penalise him, you don't think that tells you the story? you don't think that if Child really thought that, that it highlights even further incredible incompetence not to deal with it.

Let's be honest here, you are just trying to rewrite history because of your Hardaker led agenda, nothing more. This thread is about Child, not individual players, but Child.

Credit to Sal there.

It took him 20 odd pages to realise that this thread wasn't about Zak Hardaker but he hasn't given up and it looks like he's finally got what he wanted.

There's a message in there somewhere, kids.

Seems odd that Gotcha has denied this has anything to do with Hardaker when he was the first one to mention the incident.

Then blame James Child for is and call him a liar who was using his sexuality to gain attention.

Nobody else mentioned Gotchas special friend before he did.

Is this not about the Hardaker incident?

Doesn't this explicitly link the Hardaker incident and Gotcha and the printers bigoted accusation?

I see you are fabricating things again. I responded to someone elses post on Hardaker, a big difference.

No, I stuck to the point, you went off sideways rambling about paedophiles. Will give you credit though, you have got back on point with this post.



You can't prove an opinion.....otherwise it wouldn't be an opinion, it'd be fact and I've never claimed it to be fact. If you claim it's 100% wrong then you should be able to prove it wrong. I do THINK mine is right but I'm not saying it's 100% correct and I accept the possibility it might not be right (and no that's not backtracking that's just realising that an opinion can't be considered 100% correct)



Yet you're all so comfortable apparently


I knew what I was going to suggest would offend some people as I know some people like yourself are bed wetting PC brigade freedom fighting self appointed protectors of the gays. Still doesn't mean my suggestion is wrong, if you prove it was wrong you wouldn't be offended, you'd prove it and move on. Not spend 40 pages screeching Homophobic and Bigot continuously.



Go for it, knock your socks off, I'm not a sensitive bed wetter like yourself.



40 pages of frothing at the mouth from morale high rounders demanding proof or for me to retract what I said would suggest that they actually are.



I do have evidence that leads me to my opinion, that you don't agree with it doesn't make it no evidence.

Nope. Nobody mentioned it all before you put this in response to someone saying they didn't even know he was gay. I'd this not related to the Hardaker incident

Scrapping bottom of the barrel again? you really do fail on this thread mate.

You said "I was the first person to post about Hardaker". Now you put a quote up which is many pages on from the first mention of this name. Make your mind up, like I have said so many times on this thread, you are so obsessed in pushing your PC brigade agenda, you have no idea what is happening or really said around you.

You do realise that people aren't falling for this nonsense right? You do realise that when people are seeing your post they aren't thinking 'well what an erudite and we'll thought out argument' they are thinking 'Jesus christ. Has this moron really gone to so much effort to try and knit fog and distract people? Did they really think it would work? And this is the hill this w1t has chosen to make his stand on?'

It amuses me to watch you two chase your tails here. It must be how a cat feels when it plays with a mouse. Keep going though, this mound of addled arguments you are throwing out might have a good one you can stumble on if only you keep trying. (Lil tip, it doesn't)

That post is on page 4 and nobody had mentioned hardaker before hand. It's right here on this thread. Are you that delusional? That isn't healthy sweetpea

No I answered everything you wrote, because that's what I do, I actually read what other people write and respond to what they wrote.

I'm not like yourself or others who use little rants like this to disguise the fact that you won't/can't reply to what I wrote.

Consistently the likes of you and Sal have brought up other individuals when asked to explain Child (Silverwood, Alibert, Hardaker x 6, Bailey, every gay person)......all because the truth is you can't explain why Child gets the treatment he does. The 'best' you've come up with is that he could be some "relation to the lizard queen" or whatever nonsense or a million other pausible reasons COULD exist without exactly be able to name what they many other reasons are.

Some say the best form of defence is attack and it's quite obvious that's what you've done. Go on the offensive because you can't defend.

As has been shown by poster who have said ip this thread has come to a stalemate and neither side are backing down and it should be moved on with.....neither of us have "won". Yet I know that and aren't acting like I have, unlike you who again in a way of deflecting are posting stuff like the guff above like some sort of victory dance claiming everybody can apparently see through my posts and everybody thinks the same negative opinion of me as you. You and Sal keep talking about "caught us out" in reference to me and Gotcha.....without actually doing anything of the sort.

once again. I don't have to explain anything regarding Child.i don't need to defend anything. It is your allegation. Either prove it, retract it or such an allegation and the person making such a pernicious allegation will be treated with the contempt they deserve.

That people have engaged you is to their credit and patience. You seem to think it somehow strengthens your argument. It doesn't.

Even here you fall over your own hypocrisy. You have made an allegation behind which there is no evidence. You even mitigate the argument by claiming that you aren't presenting it as proof simply an opinion on something that could be happening. Yet your defence is that others haven't proven an alternative.

There are millions alternatives that have the same evidence you are relying on (I. E no proven altenative) him being a lizard relative of the Queen meets exactly the same standard of proof as your pernicious and homophobic assertion.

There are never any winners when people make the sort of baseless and offensive allegations you made. Some people will spend hours researching referee appointments to show nonexistent bias and prove themselves losers.

No it's a sign of the exact 'treat miniorities with kid gloves, wrap them up in cotton wool, scream homophobe/racist/sexist, tip-toeing from fear around questions involving miniority groups' that exists in today's world that I've been on about all along and shows why it is entirely possible to Child to be treat this same way by his employers.



That's because others like yourself are claiming IT IS WRONG, not that YOU THINK it's wrong. IT IS, if it definitely is wrong then you can prove it......can you finally spot the difference? Actually take time to think about it this time and not be in a rush to get to the end of the post just so you can deliver yet another mouth frothing high and mighty rant.



No saying they COULD be other reasons and not be able to name them isn't the same "evidence" as his sexuality being a reasonable assumption. Because his homosexuality IS KNOWN, which makes it a much more likely candidate than you hoping it could be some other unknown reason.

You see this paragraph here. It responds to nothing at all in the paragraph you quoted. That's because it isn't a response. Its your attempt to distract people.


No. Do you know the difference between falsifiable arguments and unfalsifiable arguments? Look it up and it will educate you to the childish fallacy you have fallen in to. It is impossible for me to prove it wrong because what you have made is an unfalsifiable argument. There is no evidence possible, no test, to statement, no number of confirming observations possible that could prove it. Even if we observed every single thing the RFL and James Child had ever done, it still wouldn't prove the negative you are not only asking for proof for, but using that absence of proof as an argument in your favour.

That is why it is incumbent on you to prove your allegation or retract it.

An example of the silliness of your argument is the famous argument called Russell's teapot. I could claim that there is a giant teapot somewhere orbiting the earth. You cannot disprove that. There is no level of evidence that you could create that would disprove that. Yet it would be idiotic for any of us to believe that it exists.




The fact he has a beard is known
the fact he is called James is known
the fact he has a birthday in July is known
the fact he is 32 years old is known
the fact he is a member of the Dewsbury and Batley referees society is known
the fact he a Super League referee is known
the fact he is a chartered surveyer is known

in fact we actually have real and tangible evidence of these things, far more proof than we have that he is even actually a homosexual.

That these things are known does not mean that it is reasonable to assume any of them have any effect on his appointments.

But in the real world, none of these things are likely to lead to positive discrimination taking place - sexual orientation can and does lead to both negative and positive discrimination... It's quite plausible for an organisation to give preferential treatment to show that they're not being discriminative - unfortunately that's the world we live in currently - the 'walk on eggshells' world where imbeciles like Smokey claim discrimination at the drop of a hat....

And can those alleging that has what's taken place in the case of Child prove it?

No, they can't.

Yet they will ask others to disprove it, and in the absence of anything to the contrary will scream that it's clearly the truth.

It isn't. Your premise is not plausible. It is not plausible that James Child gets the games he is given, is still a full time referee, or whatever the allegation wiggled to next, because of his sexuality. The lack of plausibility of such a thing requires strong evidence. That you think you may have anecdotal evidence of it happening does not mean A) it is such a regular occurrence that we can assume it a possibility with no further evidence or B) it is a plausible scenario in this case.

You aren't having to walk on eggshells at all. That is a pathetic argument. What you can't do, thankfully, is claim that a mans job and his achievements are not owned by him but because of his sexuality without good and convincing evidence. Because to do so is discrimination. That you think you no longer being able to make such accusations without good evidence is a bad thing says an awful lot about you. That you think YOU are the victim here by no longer being able to level baseless accusations says even more.

That both you and The Printer see positive discrimination as a scourge society needs protection from simply highlights the privilege you don't even know you have, and the privileged position from which you aren't even aware you are speaking.

True, you couldn't disprove it. So you couldn't sit there and say it's not possible........however you are saying Child being positively discriminated is not possible.




Yes but someone's name being James or being born in July has never had an influence in the way someone could be treated. Homosexuality has a proven history of discrimination in the workplace, mostly negatively but only you have your head in the clouds to think it doesn't happen positively.

To put sexuality on a par with a month of the year or a first name with potentially influencing how an employer could act is showing gross lack of knowledge on your part and living in a dream world of sunshine and rainbows that has no resemblance to the actual real world.

But for the 57th time for the hard of reading.......I'VE NOT SAID IT'S CLEARLY THE TRUTH.

Dumbasses can't tell the difference between what an opinion is and what a fact is.

It's not a "scourge of society" but neither is it just ok.

What would your opinion be if you went for a job and they offered it to a black man because they wanted to look inclusive, yet you were a ten times more qualified and suitable candidate?

Would you just toddle off home and say "oh well that's ok"......would you have been treated equal? Would the black man have been judged solely on his ability instead of his skin colour?

Quote ="ThePrinter"True, you couldn't disprove it. So you couldn't sit there and say it's not possible........however you are saying Child being positively discriminated is not possible. '" yes numbnuts, because as has just been explained in great depth to you. It would be idiotic for us to assume unfalsifiable arguments we cannot disprove are true. It is incumbent on those making the arguments to prove them. Something you have singularly and fairly spectacularly been unable to do despite over 30 pages of opportunity. Quote Yes but someone's name being James or being born in July has never had an influence in the way someone could be treated. Homosexuality has a proven history of discrimination in the workplace, mostly negatively but only you have your head in the clouds to think it doesn't happen positively. To put sexuality on a par with a month of the year or a first name with potentially influencing how an employer could act is showing gross lack of knowledge on your part and living in a dream world of sunshine and rainbows that has no resemblance to the actual real world.'" Uh oh, looks like you fell in to the not very subtly laid trap. It is demonstrably and statistically proven that children born in the summer have less involvement within elite sport. RAE or the Relative Age Effect is a statistically significant correlation between the month of birth and participation in elite sport. It has such an effect that our very own Jamie Jones-Buchanan has argued clearly and eruditely of the disadvantages he was subject due to his birth date being the 1st of August. Even to the point where he has argued that it is imperative that we change our youth structures to divide youngsters by height and weight and not by birthdate (whats that I hear, an action requiring uneven effort to promote equality) There is a clear and proven statistical correlation, in our game, between birthdate and chances of participating the top levels of our game. bit of supporting evidence for you ( I know that's a dirty word for you) www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18891749 Perhaps this is positive discrimination due to birthdate?

Quote ="ThePrinter"True, you couldn't disprove it. So you couldn't sit there and say it's not possible........however you are saying Child being positively discriminated is not possible. '" yes numbnuts, because as has just been explained in great depth to you. It would be idiotic for us to assume unfalsifiable arguments we cannot disprove are true. It is incumbent on those making the arguments to prove them. Something you have singularly and fairly spectacularly been unable to do despite over 30 pages of opportunity. Quote Yes but someone's name being James or being born in July has never had an influence in the way someone could be treated. Homosexuality has a proven history of discrimination in the workplace, mostly negatively but only you have your head in the clouds to think it doesn't happen positively. To put sexuality on a par with a month of the year or a first name with potentially influencing how an employer could act is showing gross lack of knowledge on your part and living in a dream world of sunshine and rainbows that has no resemblance to the actual real world.'" Uh oh, looks like you fell in to the not very subtly laid trap. It is demonstrably and statistically proven that children born in the summer have less involvement within elite sport. RAE or the Relative Age Effect is a statistically significant correlation between the month of birth and participation in elite sport. It has such an effect that our very own Jamie Jones-Buchanan has argued clearly and eruditely of the disadvantages he was subject due to his birth date being the 1st of August. Even to the point where he has argued that it is imperative that we change our youth structures to divide youngsters by height and weight and not by birthdate (whats that I hear, an action requiring uneven effort to promote equality) There is a clear and proven statistical correlation, in our game, between birthdate and chances of participating the top levels of our game. bit of supporting evidence for you ( I know that's a dirty word for you) www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18891749 Perhaps this is positive discrimination due to birthdate?

Such a thing would be illegal.

also if such a thing were to happen (which it doesn't with any kind of regularity because well...such a thing is illegal) how am I supposed to know I am ten times more qualified than said black man? How am I to know he has been employed solely on his skin colour?

Am I to assume this was the case? Because I would require some pretty strong evidence that such a thing had happened before I decided that this person had been employed over me on the colour of his skin.

Especially as it is, unfortunately, far far far more likely that I would get the job instead of him because of his skin colour.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"yes numbnuts, because as has just been explained in great depth to you. It would be idiotic for us to assume unfalsifiable arguments we cannot disprove are true. It is incumbent on those making the arguments to prove them. Something you have singularly and fairly spectacularly been unable to do despite over 30 pages of opportunity. Uh oh, looks like you fell in to the not very subtly laid trap. It is demonstrably and statistically proven that children born in the summer have less involvement within elite sport. RAE or the Relative Age Effect is a statistically significant correlation between the month of birth and participation in elite sport. It has such an effect that our very own Jamie Jones-Buchanan has argued clearly and eruditely of the disadvantages he was subject due to his birth date being the 1st of August. Even to the point where he has argued that it is imperative that we change our youth structures to divide youngsters by height and weight and not by birthdate (whats that I hear, an action requiring uneven effort to promote equality) There is a clear and proven statistical correlation, in our game, between birthdate and chances of participating the top levels of our game. bit of supporting evidence for you ( I know that's a dirty word for you) www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18891749 Perhaps this is positive discrimination due to birthdate?'" You haven't set a trap (you're obsessed with trying to convince yourself you've set traps and caught us out) You've just continued to embarrass yourself by again trying to put sexuality/race/gender on a par with a month of the year in how people view and treat them. Can't recall ever seeing a July Pride March.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"yes numbnuts, because as has just been explained in great depth to you. It would be idiotic for us to assume unfalsifiable arguments we cannot disprove are true. It is incumbent on those making the arguments to prove them. Something you have singularly and fairly spectacularly been unable to do despite over 30 pages of opportunity. Uh oh, looks like you fell in to the not very subtly laid trap. It is demonstrably and statistically proven that children born in the summer have less involvement within elite sport. RAE or the Relative Age Effect is a statistically significant correlation between the month of birth and participation in elite sport. It has such an effect that our very own Jamie Jones-Buchanan has argued clearly and eruditely of the disadvantages he was subject due to his birth date being the 1st of August. Even to the point where he has argued that it is imperative that we change our youth structures to divide youngsters by height and weight and not by birthdate (whats that I hear, an action requiring uneven effort to promote equality) There is a clear and proven statistical correlation, in our game, between birthdate and chances of participating the top levels of our game. bit of supporting evidence for you ( I know that's a dirty word for you) www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18891749 Perhaps this is positive discrimination due to birthdate?'" You haven't set a trap (you're obsessed with trying to convince yourself you've set traps and caught us out) You've just continued to embarrass yourself by again trying to put sexuality/race/gender on a par with a month of the year in how people view and treat them. Can't recall ever seeing a July Pride March.