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.

There is nothing homophobic about questioning whether the RFL could be guilty of positive discrimination....


Is this young lady racist for speaking out;

[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372940/Employed-I-black-Positive-discrimination-black-white-says-TV-presenter.html[/url

Positive discrimination happens - asking the question if it could be happening is not discrimination - it might be an uncomfortable conversation for some, but that's as bad as it gets...

You arent suggesting the hypothetical that RFL could at some undetermined time in some undetermined situation positively discriminate in an undetermined circumstance.

You are, purely on the basis of your dislike of him, alleging that one person, has the job they have, and is appointed the games he is appointed to, and is held to the standard he is held to on the basis of his sexuality.

Other than the 'on the basis of your dislike of him' (I don't know him personally, so have no thoughts on him as a bloke) - that's absolutely correct, that is what I am questioning and was hoping to see what other people's thoughts were - not a he said/she said over homophobia...

I notice you didn't answer about the young lady speaking out about positive discrimination....

Other peoples thoughts, including mine, were that your accusation was homophobic


For 2 reasons, firstly it was irrelevant. Secondly if you read the article, there are no quotes from that lady saying what the article said she had said, as is to be expected in the mail.

It's only irrelevant if it doesn't suit your rhetoric that if you dare ask the question about a specific example where positive discrimination could be taking place, you're homophobic/racist etc etc...

Anyhow - we'll clearly not agree on the subject, and you can believe what you like about my intentions, which is all fine...

I stand by my original point, Child gets treated differently IMO, and again, that 'could' be because of positive discrimination...

3 big games in a year? That doesn't seem excessive. I keep asking how his appointments compare to his peers but I keep getting ignored. Funny that. If he is getting disproportionate appointments then please show us some evidence to support that, and if you assert that this is because he is gay then please show some evidence to support that. Otherwise the only thing that looks dodgy is singling out a ref for his sexuality.

There's something faintly repressed about wanting to discuss James Child's sexuality for 14 pages. It's 2017 boys, hardly anyone cares any more.

It is disproportionate when he was like the 5th/6th experienced referee. Thaler reffed Wigan & Saints and Leeds & Wigan the last few weeks.....but he's reffed a GF, CCF, WCC, semi finals and England vs NZ internationals, so the RFL clearly see him as one of their best officials. Child hasn't reffed ANY of those latter games so the either clearly don't think he's good enough, or he's good enough but they don't give him the finals/semis/internationals.

Tim Roby wasn't getting these games even though a similar experience, Hicks only got his first Wigan-Saints game in 2015 in the Super 8's but then was given a playoff semi a few weeks later and finals the following year so clearly a consistency in how the RFL see him as one of their best officials even if people disagree with it. With Child there isn't that consistency that other refs get.

Why didn't you? There's as much evidence for that as there is for anything else. Ask yourself why you pinned it on his sexuality and not any other hypothetical scenario.

Does he get more games than the other refs? If so, what are the numbers? I feel like I'm ing in the wind with these questions.



I don't see the relevance to your argument of him not reffing semis and finals. If he was getting favourable treatment he'd be getting these even though he's not good enough. He doesn't get them because the RFL don't think he's good enough and you're holding that up as though it supports your argument. Or are you saying "he doesn't ref finals so he can't ref big league games"? If so, why not? Who decided that? It seems perfectly plausible that the RFL think he is at the level of big league games but no higher, unlike his peers.

I've shown he's been given more big games for his level/experience on the refereeing ladder but people want to ignore it's happenings.

Refs do not get big games shared out equally, they give them to their best most experienced refs, the ones that do semis & finals & internationals. Is it just random luck that Thaler has just done Wigan-Saints and Leeds-Wigan and not our 5th/6th most experienced referee? Or is it because he's a GF, CC, WCC, International experienced referee?

What is this excuse/fantasy that refs get big games shared out equally? It's not true, the best ones (as judged by their appointments to semis & finals) get them except for Child's token gesture appointments every few months.

Oh.

and who're you working for Smokey? The downtrodden, the oppressed or just anyone you can be offended on behalf of?

At this point I don't even know how many big games Child has reffed, let alone whether that is equal to, more than or less than his peers. All I know is that he has reffed more big games than you personally feel he is qualified for. It doesn't seem to be the most solid basis for a conspiracy theory.