You could have just said no, i wouldnt have levelled that accusation at a straight person.

Though its pretty obvious why you didnt want to...

More insults and accusations and on Easter Sunday morning no less.
Smokey, you're a class act.

you would think the hypocrisy of your posts would have dawned on you by your third post on here but obviously not.

And another one bites the dust..Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Well done Smokey. I think that's your first post in this thread where you haven't labelled someone a homophobe.
Give yourself a pat on the back.

Genuine question, is there any evidence for that? I honestly thought it was unconfirmed rumours.

How has this even got to 11 pages? It's embarrassing that it has even got this far.

SJW.

Anti-SJWs are the worst.

"It's his right to say that! It's freedom of speech!"
- Yeah but it's racist/sexist/homophobic
"You can't say that!"

I like the cognitive dissonance of insulting someone as being an 'SJW' 'On Easter Sunday morning no less'

This whole thread has to be the most embarrassing thing i have read in a long time.

For a sport that likes to think it is inclusive, there have been a few posts on here that are simply offensive and hurtful and reinforce an opinion RL is an old fashioned group of flat cappers, clinging on to the notion that children should be down the mines.

Some people need to take a long, hard look at themselves and what century they live in!



The next time you rant about why large blue chip companies ( like RBS. Arriva etc) do not get involved in RL and we get Foxy Bingo - read this thread!

Why this this wasn't locked days ago is beyond belief.

So do you think there's nothing dodgy or questionable about the 5th/6th choice referee getting awarded Leeds-Wigan, Wigan-Saints, Saints-Wigan in a 12 month period when he clearly wasn't earning those games with his performance or experience?

3 of our biggest league games and one of our poorest refs gets them all in 12 months?

Whether it's "dodgy" or not, I think a pair of pricks on an internet forum discussing the sexuality of someone they have never met, who has never discussed it publically and who clearly - absolutely rightly - has no interest in doing so is genuinely offensive.

If I'd suggested he was getting preferential treatment for a different reason - maybe that he's good mates with someone in the establishment and his sexuality had not come into the equation, would you be equally as offended?

No they're really not, as Smokey's pathetic posts on this thread have shown.

Well you'd already set the pace with page after page of insults, thrown at anyone who dared to have a different opinion to yours (like you always do on here), so I thought i'd join in.
Childish? maybe, but deserved? definitely.

How do you determine what are our biggest games? attendances, quality, reputation?

Did he get an international, a final or a semi final? I would suggest these are far bigger than a meagre league game

You truly are doing God's work.

He defines biggest games as what is most convenient for his argument. He measures them in a period time that is most convenient for his argument, and when even that doesnt show something significant, we rely on vague and insidious implications. Its as clear an example of confirmation bias as you are ever likely to see.

If we suggested negative discrimination based on his sexuality then would you be genuinely offended?

You really have to ask if games between Leeds-Wigan-Saints are our biggest league games? You're right, they have nothing on Widnes vs Salford.

And as pointed out previously he hasn't reffed a single semi final or final in his career.

It is proven fact that he has been discriminated against because of his sexuality.

Ahh - we can only discuss proven facts... that's going to make this place pretty boring if we can't all have and share an opinion or thought....

Truth is, you're the one discriminating - you're saying anyone who wants to discuss the potential for positive discrimination to have taken place is a homophobe...

I'd also suggest, if Child was straight and I'd questioned why he's getting favourable treatment without giving my opinion, you'd probably agree it seems odd... if I'd suggested maybe he's got friends in high places, you'd have been fine with that too - but as soon as I mentioned his sexuality, you're crying homophobe (despite me not once saying his sexuality has any effect on his ability) - all I've done is question if someone else (the RFL) may treat him differently because of it... You're treating this conversation differently to any other conversation we'd have about preferential treatment.

For future reference, suggesting homophobic things that definitely happened, happened: Not offensive
Making homophobic speculation based on your personal dislike of a particular referee: offensive.

And im perfectly comfortable discriminating against those who discriminate.
Then you would be wrong. Had you suggested any conspiracy regarding the RFL and refereeing i would have laughed. If i were so inclined i would have highlighted the fact that Robert Hicks, a referee i dont think is particularly good or in the class of Thaler or Bentham, has gotten finals and semi-finals i wouldnt have appointed him to AND in addition to being a referee he is also the RFL's head of legal and compliance, surely a possible conflict of interest. But im not. Cos i think refereeing is a difficult job very few people want to do and the ones we have are probably the best willing to do it.