Wow... some serious fog knitting going on now to try and pin he homophobia tag on another poster....

Read my words. I specifically used the word could, I am in no way suggesting it has happened in this specific example. That doesn't mean it couldn't.

There's a reason most job application forms ask about sexuality, race, religion etc, and it's because rightly or wrongly positive discrimination does happen.

To use an example that will no doubt cause less outrage, Catholic Schools prioritise both catholic children in terms of intake and Catholic teachers. Is this discriminatory?

Similarly, schools have to take in Children who are travellers, even if they are oversubscribed and having to turn other children away.

It can and does happen, both positively and negatively, based on sexuality and a lot of other things. I repeat to believe that it couldn't be a factor is naive. Like everyone else here I hope it isn't, but it could be.

It's so that it can be reported. Any information taken like that is, or should be, held anonymously and not as part of the application.

Wow, you've truly lost the plot Smokey.

Enjoy your crusade, you are fighting the good fight.

It would be interesting to know if those on this thread like loiner81, superted and Theprinter who are just asking a question, no ill will towards James Child and have absolutely no problem with his sexuality have made this accusation before? It would also be interesting to here their thoughts on when Hardaker did direct homophobic abuse at Child? As there is not a homophobic bone in their bodies and we should not read anything further in to their questioning no sir, surely they will have jumped to child's defence and condemned Hardaker for his actions immediately?

Gods work, crusades, fighting the good fight.... and you're earlier post accusing me of being "keen to tell on myself"
It's like you're trying to make a point here but don't want to come out and say it directly.

I couldnt. Not on the first Wednesday after Easter no less.

OK so now we've established that you're more than happy to spend 365 days a year online, insulting people... "keen to tell on myself" has no religious baring so let's focus on that. What did you mean when you accused me of that?

That you were keen to portray yourself in a certain way, even if that way wasn't positive.

As Smokey has said - those questions are asked for monitoring purposes and so that it can be reported on; I work in an industry that responds to LA tenders for example, and we have to be able to report our equality and diversity statistics in order to respond to those tenders.

It might also surprise and outrage you to learn that we also use the data to ascertain whether we are under-represented in certain areas; not so that we can positively discriminate, but so that we can use the information to find out if there are barriers - perceived or real - to people from minority groups applying to positions. That's how organisations root out institutional discrimination and make themselves better, and more representative of the communities they serve, and in which they operate.

And all of the examples you've cited are quite separate and distinct to this rather distasteful discussion about James Child - who it is alleged receives reduced sanctions for poor performance, due to his sexuality; none of which has actually been backed up by evidence, or with any knowledge of whether Mr Thaler's brief stint in the lower league was a sanction at all - or just part of the rotation. So it's an assertion about preferential treatment for Child, based on some manufactured scenario in which a Red Hall official says, "best go easy on Child or he'll play the gay card." Which is in fact homophobia.

It is 2017 - I'm surprised to have to be explaining this stuff to seemingly intelligent people.

Yes I'm sure that's the 'correct answer' that all companies give, and for some it'll be truthful, but you honestly it's true for every company out there? Next you'll be saying every company that makes an effort to 'go green' actually genuinely care about the environment and not just because it makes them look good to customers.

People accuse refs of cheating every week on here with no evidence because they don't agree with their calls, people have accused the RFL of 'jobs for the boys' many times without any evidence except not liking the appointment made. Don't recall seeing the same level, of any, outrage of "no evidence you can't say that" on them occasions.

Wow you really don't want to say it do you? Very cowardly.

If he made that claim, I'm pretty certain the same ones on here attacking the positive discrimination suggestions and the people who've said it.....would be the first people to attack the RFL demanding an investigation and that there's no place for negative discrimination. They wouldn't dare for a second try knocking Child saying he couldn't make that claim.

Now you can't use that argument that was in your head. We will miss out on your faux-indignation at being labelled as gay hating when you don't hate gays do you. You just think that we shod be open to the possibility the ones we don't like might have only achieved what they and because of their sexuality and you'll certainly be there to defend someone if they were to for instance use a homophobic slur in a workplace and criticise all these SJW's making a big deal about it.

I knew we'd get there eventually. Seems like you can now add me to Smokey's list of homophobic posters on RLFans.

What was it that gave me away as a "[igay hater[/i", Smokey?

Was it me saying I don't think we're seeing positive discrimination when it comes to James Child?
Or was it me calling you an SJW and calling you out for insulting anyone who has a different opinion to you?

are you saying you wouldnt expect the RFL to investigate? Or that Child should be 'knocked'? Or should be told he can't make that claim?

The previous poster who came up with the scenario said it would be ridiculous for Child to do it, not me.

This isn't the first time this allegation has been made by superted, it's not the first time you and the printer vociferously defended it. I also remember your reaction when Hardaker directed a homophobic slur at Child.

Odd isn't it how the not at all homophobic three think it more than fair to lob allegations of positive discrimination without any evidence but will diminish, obfuscate and defend actual discrimination which was proven and caught on camera.

I haven't called you homophobic, you are free to tell on yourself.

I also didn't call you a gay-hater I said that would be a label you would hide behind. Something you immediately proceeded to do. That's also why you wanted me to call you a homophobe and why you got so weirdly upset that I havent.

It would be ridiculous. It was a ridiculous scenario deliberately made ridiculous to show how ridiculous your scenario is.

I'm asking those questions on the basis of your response to that ridiculous scenario

I haven't vociferously defended anything, on this thread or any other similar threads so please stop lying. I even said I don't think we're seeing positive discrimination in this one. All i've really done is called you out for once again resorting to insults and calling people homophobic.

Your response to that is to call me a "gay hater". Nice.

What was my reaction over Hardaker? I doubt it was positive but it won't have been to call for him to be kicked out of the game and stoned to death either.



You're a very sad individual Smokey and I hope the mods of this board will finally take action as I really don't appreciate being labelled a gay hater or homophobic.

Mods, i'll report his earlier post then leave it in your hands.



.

So if Child claimed he was negatively discriminated on you'd think he was being ridiculous?

You were absolutely desperate to be called homophobic just so we could see this faux-indignation. Pathetic cry-bully tactics.



It's also hilarious to see your hypocrisy in trying to stand as a bulwark against insulting people who disagree with you.

I think we should all just agree what a great and upstanding citizen Smokey is, accept that anyone who dares to have a conversation about something he doesn't agree with is a discriminatory Luddite and lock the thread - there's no point continuing the discussion.

No I would expect the RFL to investigate. I wouldn't expect Child to be 'knocked' for making the allegation and I think he is allowed to make the allegation. These are the things you seemed to infer you wouldn t want. I'm asking you if the things you said the people attacking you would want

I[if he made that claim, I'm pretty certain the same ones on here attacking the positive discrimination suggestions and the people who've said it.....would be the first people to attack the RFL demanding an investigation and that there's no place for negative discrimination. They wouldn't dare for a second try knocking Child saying he couldn't make that claim[/i

Are different from what you would want?


I think the specific instance in that example was a deliberately ridiculous scenario.