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.

Can't believe this thread is still going\hasn't been locked.

Is it my imagination or is 2 supposed Leeds fans who are arguing with the rest of the world that a rumour about James Childs sexuality is an issue?

Is it a Leeds thing (after the Hardacher incident), a general Leeds thing or just a couple of morons?

Childs may be a rubbish referee, which would have been a valid topic to discuss, but this (as I said days ago ) is embarrassing.

Child was dropped from a SL round in March.

What constitutes a "big game" is subjective.

The OP has yet to define what is in their opinion a "big game" and where the cut-of point lies.

The OP has yet to offer any statistics to back up his claim on what % of "big games" Child has reffed compared to other referees.

The OP has no insight into how referees are selected for games.

The OP has offered no evidence at all really.

That is sexuality was brought into the equation points more to the OP's issues with homosexuality than anything else.

Daft thread.

Meh, it's a 'modern day internet' thing. There was a potentially valid point made (who knows without evidence) which can potentially be linked to a for lack of a better word, controversial topic. I don't know if Child is gay, I do know, in life that positive discrimination happens based on this and a plethora of other shall we say categories. We don't know for sure IF that is happening here, let alone WHY.

But what you get on the internet is people very quick to jump on the PC bandwagon, because it is seen as the right thing to do. Ths leads to people having to defend themselves and perpetuates the cycle.

For what it's worth, I don't think Superted is a homophobe, I also don't think we are in a place to confirm or deny that what he was suggesting has happened (even though it does happen in other walks of life). But the fact that a discussion can't be had without it devolving into 'this' is ridiculous, but sadly not uncommon on the internet.

Yes you got it, all of Leeds is homophobic. Moron.

Absolutely spot on.... Not to worry though....

And we were never going to get to position of proving it one way or the other, I just thought it was an interesting discussion point, but I also knew and accepted it would bring out the moral crusaders.

So you accept that without any evidence James Child's sexuality was linked to the RFL selection process and yet you assert that anyone who challenges this merely wants to be seen doing the right thing?

Just imagine for a moment James Child claiming that he doesn't get appointed to finals because he's gay. Imagine him saying "I've no evidence for it but I'm gay so that must be it." It would be ridiculous wouldn't it? Well, that's what's happening here, except there's not even any evidence that he gets too many games (or that he's gay, for that matter). What we have here is "James Child reffed Wigan v Saints and I don't think he's good enough for that, and I think he's gay so it must be that."

I am suggesting that we don't have any evidence to say that sexuality is linked to the selection policy of the RFL, but that it could be a factor, as it is in many companies in 2017. I am also saying that people who ask or suggest it could be a factor shouldn't be burnt at the stake as homophobic.

And yes I would think it ridiculous, but people do make that accusation in other walks of life, (I'm not in any way suggesting Child has). But In that example I wouldn't expect them to be belittled or shouted down in the way Superted has on here.

I am merely raising the point that grown adults should be able to have a discussion about all aspects of life without it devolving to this.

I'd also add that sexuality etc shouldn't have any effect on Child (or anyone else's) job/role, but it would be naive in the extreme to suggest it flat out COULDN'T be an issue.

Which unless I have misread it, is all Superted has suggested.

Sexuality clearly does have an effect on Child's job. He has been abused because of it and has had it alleged that he only holds the role he does because of it.

Superted hasn't questioned whether or not the possibility for positive discrimination exists. But, and not for the first time A specific allegation against a specific person has been made with 0 evidence to back it up. That is homophobic. It is textbook homophobia. It defines Child solely by his sexuality.

Even if we accept Child is the beneficiary of some form of positive discrimination (for which no real evidence has yet been presented) why only because he is gay? Are we pretending that white people have never benefitted from discrimination? Why not that he is a man?

So you would think it was ridiculous if it was the other way round, and are happy to say so, but don't think this is ridiculous and don't think it's Ok to say so.

If there's no evidence that he is treated differently because of his sexuality, then why draw that conclusion? If you saw a Muslim being treated favorably would you assume it was BECAUSE they were Muslim? How about a black person? A disabled person? If you would then yes, that indicates that you define those people merely by their "othering" characteristic.

I wonder how many of those who agree that because positive discrimination in favour of gay people can possibly exist, and James Child is gay, it isn't homophobic to suppose he is the beneficiary of positive discrimination would disagree that because black people can possibly commit crime and Kallum Watkins is black it isn't racist to suppose he is a criminal.

The original and somewhat bizarre suggestion was that he doesn't get dropped after what the OP perceives as errors, because he's gay; are you now suggesting that he was appointed to the job in the first place because of his sexuality?

And I'd be interested to know of the 'many' companies, for which you also doubtless have no evidence, but for whom sexuality is a deciding factor in their recruitment decisions in 2017.