Well said!

yes, it is deemed acceptable for society to mock Grahams hair colour but not Thomas' sexuality, history will tell you why.

And just because you want a broad brush applied to things that blatantly arent the same doesnt mean it is the right thing or even a sensible thing for the RFL to do.

and Racism and Homophobia arent 'flavour of the month' only someone with a supreme level of ignorance would describe them so. It isnt flavour of the month to try and change the attitudes which have led to, and STILL do lead to the horrors of homophobia, it is simply the right thing to do.

just as an addition you might like to read this to highlight what other clubs do and what cas failed to do and why their moaning simply paints them in a bad light www.therhinos.co.uk/news/14464.php

just as an addition you might like to read this to highlight what other clubs do and what cas failed to do and why their moaning simply paints them in a bad light www.therhinos.co.uk/news/14464.php

Quote ="SmokeyTA"just as an addition you might like to read this to highlight what other clubs do and what cas failed to do and why their moaning simply paints them in a bad light www.therhinos.co.uk/news/14464.php'" Shock horror, Leeds Rhinos website praises...........................Leeds Rhinos! My cynical mind suggests they are preparing a defence already. However, they are still subject to RFL investigation so there must be grounds for this.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"just as an addition you might like to read this to highlight what other clubs do and what cas failed to do and why their moaning simply paints them in a bad light www.therhinos.co.uk/news/14464.php'" Shock horror, Leeds Rhinos website praises...........................Leeds Rhinos! My cynical mind suggests they are preparing a defence already. However, they are still subject to RFL investigation so there must be grounds for this.

History will tell you that just as people used to tell racist jokes on the t.v, one day it won't be acceptable to joke about 'ginger' people. Peoples attitudes change (evolve if you like) over time but rarely does right and wrong, just because the media hasn't latched onto the subject YET, you and others like you say it's ok just don't insult gay or black people. Try and get your head out of history books, try and think for yourself. If somebody is acting in a hatefull manner to somebody else does the specifics of the insult matter?

What unlike shock, horror Cas website complains how hard done by it's been? No difference apart from the fact they seem to be doing something before the fine unlike Cas.

Yes...If it gives someone a chance to have a dig at Castleford.

No...If it seems that Leeds fans might be the offenders.

I think that's about right.

Most of the things leeds say they do there castleford do to- adverts in programme, text service, information on website, announcements before the match and half time, cctv and undercover stewards.

As far as i'm aware we dont have bag checks (but i've never tried to take a bag in so i wouldnt know for sure) and we have no influence on the bars in the surrounding area.

The bit about banning leeds supporters that commit offences at other ground is interesting though, did any of the hundreds of leeds fans throwing bottles on the pitch at cas get banned?

I can't believe you actually typed that.

Ridiculous statement.

if you want it to change, change it.

Racism and homophobia arent media conspiracies, they are real things. It is disrespectful for you to compare the real hate and real horrors done in the name of homophobia and racism to what is only a chant about James Grahams hair, there is no further depth in it than that.

And get your head out of your ar3e, the chants about Graham werent hateful nor representative of real hateful attitudes, homophobic and racist chants are.

and yes, the specifics of the insult matter, it would be stupid to pretend that words dont have differing meanings or power behind them, it is the very reason for their existence

Quote ="pyeman"Most of the things leeds say they do there castleford do to- adverts in programme, text service, information on website, announcements before the match and half time, cctv and undercover stewards. As far as i'm aware we dont have bag checks (but i've never tried to take a bag in so i wouldnt know for sure) and we have no influence on the bars in the surrounding area. The bit about banning leeds supporters that commit offences at other ground is interesting though, did any of the hundreds of leeds fans throwing bottles on the pitch at cas get banned?'" It would appear that Leeds have been taking these actions for quite a while now judging by this post on their website www.therhinos.co.uk/news/5577.php www.therhinos.co.uk/news/5535.php How long have Cas had these acivities in place? I know that there is a debate around what happened at the game re James Graham but it would appear that Leeds have evidence of taking actions going back some time. The part I find most interesting is that from reading the statement on the Cas website it indicates that they are appealing that the fine is disproportionate rather than disagreeing with the findings, so are Cas agreeing with the findings but appealing the penalty? i.e. "We are however appealing against the disproportion of the fine compared with the charges put forward."

Quote ="pyeman"Most of the things leeds say they do there castleford do to- adverts in programme, text service, information on website, announcements before the match and half time, cctv and undercover stewards. As far as i'm aware we dont have bag checks (but i've never tried to take a bag in so i wouldnt know for sure) and we have no influence on the bars in the surrounding area. The bit about banning leeds supporters that commit offences at other ground is interesting though, did any of the hundreds of leeds fans throwing bottles on the pitch at cas get banned?'" It would appear that Leeds have been taking these actions for quite a while now judging by this post on their website www.therhinos.co.uk/news/5577.php www.therhinos.co.uk/news/5535.php How long have Cas had these acivities in place? I know that there is a debate around what happened at the game re James Graham but it would appear that Leeds have evidence of taking actions going back some time. The part I find most interesting is that from reading the statement on the Cas website it indicates that they are appealing that the fine is disproportionate rather than disagreeing with the findings, so are Cas agreeing with the findings but appealing the penalty? i.e. "We are however appealing against the disproportion of the fine compared with the charges put forward."

Who said media conspiricy? i said the media hadn't latched onto it yet. Just like in the seventies when racist jokes and programmes (love thy neighbour etc..) were acceptable until momentum built up in the media etc.. that socirty (quite rightly) decided that it no longer found it acceptable. The same happened with homophobic views, the same happened to irish jokes and the same will happen to weight and hair colour and whatever society/media get round to next. No doubt in the seventies mocking people for their skin colour was ordinary and not frowned upon to the degree it is now. BUT it was still wrong. It was wrong before the clampdown and it was wrong after. When the media/sociry get round to clamping down on subjects that you find ok to use as weapons at the moment, my guess is you will go along with the flow of opinion. This is why i say forget history, think for yourself is it right to discriminate on who we think needs to be defended and others should laugh off the insults?
Regerding 'flavour of the month' comment ,i'm not trivialisng the subjects, i hope my previous paragraph explains the term.

Quote ="Traffic"It would appear that Leeds have been taking these actions for quite a while now judging by this post on their website www.therhinos.co.uk/news/5577.php www.therhinos.co.uk/news/5535.php How long have Cas had these acivities in place? I know that there is a debate around what happened at the game re James Graham but it would appear that Leeds have evidence of taking actions going back some time. The part I find most interesting is that from reading the statement on the Cas website it indicates that they are appealing that the fine is disproportionate rather than disagreeing with the findings, so are Cas agreeing with the findings but appealing the penalty? i.e. "We are however appealing against the disproportion of the fine compared with the charges put forward."'" Most have these initatives have been going a few years though the cctv has had to be upgraded since last year. The club have agreed that the chanting took place and that it was wrong, what there appealing is the finding that they didnt take enough steps to avoid it (even though they take similar staps to most clubs) and the severity of the fine, as far worse icidnts such as players being attacked and pitch invasions have occured and got much smaller fines.

Quote ="Traffic"It would appear that Leeds have been taking these actions for quite a while now judging by this post on their website www.therhinos.co.uk/news/5577.php www.therhinos.co.uk/news/5535.php How long have Cas had these acivities in place? I know that there is a debate around what happened at the game re James Graham but it would appear that Leeds have evidence of taking actions going back some time. The part I find most interesting is that from reading the statement on the Cas website it indicates that they are appealing that the fine is disproportionate rather than disagreeing with the findings, so are Cas agreeing with the findings but appealing the penalty? i.e. "We are however appealing against the disproportion of the fine compared with the charges put forward."'" Most have these initatives have been going a few years though the cctv has had to be upgraded since last year. The club have agreed that the chanting took place and that it was wrong, what there appealing is the finding that they didnt take enough steps to avoid it (even though they take similar staps to most clubs) and the severity of the fine, as far worse icidnts such as players being attacked and pitch invasions have occured and got much smaller fines.

[url=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/3059188/Actor-Mickey-Rourke-to-play-gay-rugby-ace-in-movie.htmlThe circus continues[/url

Rascist jokes weren't acceptable (by the majority) in the seventies. The point of programmes like "Love thy Neighbour" and "Till Death do us Part" was to lampoon racist attitudes by showing how ridiculous they were.

They still used a lot of terminolgy that would be deemed unacceptable today, even in a lampooning fashion.

No, it wont. And it isnt because society hasnt bothered getting round to it that chants about James Grahams hair arent treated as seriously as Racism and homophobia, its simply because they arent as important.

Racist jokes werent clamped down on because they were 'flavour of the month' or that society decided one day that you couldnt make fun of someones colour. They were clamped down on because of a long and hard struggle for equality. These jokes werent the problem, it was they hate and the stereotyping they expressed that was. It was the words and phrases used which were indicative of actual racial hatred, of real and public beliefs of prominent people within society which were always, even then, abhorrent.

Homophobia has, and is travelling a similar line.

The battle against racism and homophobia isnt yet won. And this is why racism and homophobia are treated differently. Its niave to think that it isnt taking different forms, that the language isnt changing but still expressing the same meaning,that there isnt real unapologetic hatred of minorities and homosexuals out there. That there arent still lies and propaganda out there, trading on fear to divide people. And this is why racism and homophobia are treated differently, not because Gays or minorities have any more of a right to be protected from offence, but because these attitudes are still out there, because the hate is still out there, and thats what we, as a society, as a whole, need to protect all of us from. We cant let racist and homophobic attitudes go unpunished, not so gays arent offended but so the real hate is obvious, so the real hate cant hide behind a thin veneer of 'comedy' like Bernard Manning or practicalities like the BNP attempt.

Ginger, fatty, w@nker, whatever word you want to throw in there and label as discrimination isnt even relevant.

so to sum up, you don't really care how a person is hurt or offended or at least to you their hurt isn't as important as somebody that has racist or homophobic chanting. Sorry i don't like that discrimination against certain ethnic groups and hetrosexuals ( don't understand why discrimination isn't relevant, i thought that was the basis of your argument) but there again i don't like '[ipositive discrimination'[/i in other parts of society. Fairness for all.

you are right, i dont care if you are offended, Offence isnt really that important, nobody ever died from hurt feelings.

and again, you have, missed the point. It isnt important that Gareth Thomas was offended by the chanting, what is important is homophobic attitudes were expressed within rugby league. This is what we are campaigning against, not the chanting, but the attitudes expressed.

If I realistically thought that the anti-ginger chanting was expressing a hatred and discriminatory attitude the same as homophobia I would be just as much against it. I just simply dont for one moment think that that is the case.

=#8000FFDo you seriously think the chants were actually expressing homophobic attitudes as opposed to a bit of light heartedness the people thought were funny and a bit of a laugh? or do you think it was everyone in the stadium baying for him to be hung?

Were you saying the same about racist chanting a couple of decades ago?

=#8000FFCan't say I was around during them times, and I'm sure it got as terrifyingly bad as 15-20 chavs in the back of a stand, getting drowned out by just about everything make it impossible to everyone but the people stood near them, didn't it?

For sheer numbers, what Leeds were chanting at Graham was worse, what Hull FC fans chanted at Cooke was worse.

its a good job only an idiot would look at numbers as a judge of severity then isnt it.

nobody said it was terrifying, just homophobic

=#8040FFAnd how about how malicious the chants were? "we can see you holding hands" is more severe then "Die die Cookie die"?

Then you are as discimatory as the people you are arguing against.