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.

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.