Why? Because you don't agree with someone's view? Should point out this isn't a criticism or pointing the finger at Child because he isn't the one who makes the match appointments or denotes refs. it's pointing the finger at the RFL and those who control the referees. This site regularly has people pointing the finger at the RFL and accusing them of all sorts yet people are saying the definitely couldn't be guilty of positive/negative discrimination of an employee? The same RFL that is called corrupt and inept week in week out on here?

Claiming something is to do with someone's sexuality with flimsy circumstantial evidence only shows someone's existing prejudices.

Thinking people who you don't know personally are homophobic based on a single internet thread only shows someone's existing PC ways.

Do you think the RFL isn't in any way capable of positive/negative discrimination?

you say that like in some way its an insult

well he was bloody awful for both teams today. a cracking game which he did his best to spoil with some, frankly, bizarre, decisions

He totally lost control of the game and what game he watches sometimes I have no idea.

It didn't really matter in the context of the game but have you any idea what he binned Manu for late on?

a tip tackle someone side but I didn't have a great view. 20 odd pens, 3 sinbinnings yet no real niggle in the game. crackers

What do you mean by "tell on themselves" Smokey?

Maybe, maybe not. I don't personally think we're seeing positive discrimination when it comes to James Child but it wouldn't be a huge shock to me if stories came out backing up what the OP said. This could've been discussed without the OTT outrage from several posters and Smokey having to throw insults around left, right & centre, like he always does when he's trying to avoid questions or change the direction of a discussion.

Superted, genuine question, are you homophobic?

Absolutely not - a persons gender, race, sexuality, religion has no bearing on my thoughts towards them. I have absolutely no issue with James Child and the way in which he lives his life (other than being a pretty pedantic and hopeless ref). For what it's worth, if Child was black, I'd be asking the same question - some people will no doubt find that offensive and claim I'm also a racist - which would be real funny.

I've seen positive (and negative to be fair) discrimination first hand in my working life on numerous occasions - A quick example, recruiting for a role within the business where the majority of people doing the same job are white, straight males - whilst not given an explicit instruction, we were advised to prioritise applications from those who do not fit into that same demographic, 'its good
for diversity' - the innuendo was very much forget who's best for the job, let's get someone black, female, gay etc who might not be the best applicant, but who can do the job.

it happens, and IMO it's potentially at play here. I may well be wrong, but something doesn't seem right on why he seems to get the big games, despite ruining them more often than not, which is why I believe he is then not trusted with finals - give him the odd big game with a relatively low consequence if he/when he farks it up so we look inclusive, but keep him away from big games because he's useless.

I think we should be able to discuss subjects like this without claims of homophobia, racism etc for daring to raise the subject!

Thanks for answering the question so honestly. I dont agree with everything you said and im not convinced its true in this case but i do have personal experience with the rfl and positive discrimination that was blatant.

You happy to share your experience? Might add to the debate (for those who are actually interested in talking about the subject, rather than mud slinging).

What you'd need to demonstrate is whether the RFLs internal performance review system has treated someone differently than someone else for similar circumstances. Whilst both referees gave a sin binning rather than dismissal we do not know if this was the only factor that led to one referee being dropped and the other not. I'm sure that those involved would have an idea if their employer was clearly treating people differently or not.

I do not see sufficient evidence in the public domain to say whether positive discrimination has occurred.

Absolutely agree - without being on the inside, you'd never know for sure - we'll never get a difinitive answer on here, but that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't discuss the potential for it to be happening.

On the limited info we do see, IMO based on his performances and what we know of the Ferres/Westwood incident in particular, it looks like he's getting preferential treatment to me - but absolutely agree we can't know for sure, and am absolutely fine that others will feel the opposite to
me and think that all is above board.

You haven't dared to raise the subject. It isnt brave of you to insinuate someone else only has the job they have because they are held to a lower standard than you are because they are 'other'.

The homophobia you are guilty of is not 'hating gay people' it is treating them differently because of their sexuality. It is viewing them as other. In your example you assume that because all of your other colleagues are 'straight white males' they all got their jobs purely because of their talent. They are the standard, the base, and their experience is the norm. Anyone deviating from that norm may have received a helping hand to get there.

Perhaps there is a reason why a majority of people doing that job were 'straight white males' though i would have to ask, how on earth do you know all of those people are straight? how did you know which of those applying for the job were gay? Can you tell on sight? Why didnt it occur to you to question whether this large amount of people all from the same demographic were getting the same job? Why didnt occur to you to question whether these 'straight white males' were being the beneficiary of 'positive discrimination'? it seems far more likely considering it is the most privileged demographic in the history of the world.

Perhaps you are a beneficiary of discrimination.

The homophobia is borne out of your assumptions. Your assumptions that Child gets more big games than he should your assumption that the RFL view him to be less competent than his colleagues and your assumption that he is 'other' and biggest of all your assumption he is gay and your lack of the same standards and judgement on his colleagues you presume to be straight. What makes it worse is that you havent even bothered to check if its true, you havent researched his history, compared it to his colleagues, you don't even know if if there is any significant difference between what he is appointed to and what he should be.

Ian Smith was not a good referee, he like Child refereed big regular season games but not play-offs, finals etc. You don't question whether he is a beneficiary of positive discrimination because of his straightness, or his whiteness. Why?

Not sure why I'm entertaining you on this, but I will all the same... it's you who are making assumptions to try and take some moral high ground...

In my example, I know the majority (see, I didn't say all) were straight white (and middle aged actually, but I didn't add that) males because they worked for me, so I know them, and know their personal circumstances relatively well... the manual job they do is a job that generally attracts blokes of that demographic - that's not homophobia, racism or anything else, it's a historical fact... I see you focussed on the gay applicants to try and suit your argument - clearly this could not be identified through an application form, though gender certainly can, as can race for some... I'd also say yes, with certain individuals (not all), you can tell they're gay through sight (plus if they already work within the organisation, you may already know them as a person to know their sexuality)... either way, none of that should have an impact in any recruitment process... but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen... Our own Police and Fire Services activiely profile and recruit based on diversity targets - are you suggesting that doesn't happen?

I'll throw another little example at you whilst I'm on one... There is a certain individual who works in the same organisation as me who has a history of making formal claims of discrimination whenever he doesn't get his own way - he raised a formal grievance based on discrimination because he was denied annual leave when the holiday quota for the day was already full - he didn't succeed with his grievance, but he's pulled the card on a number of occasions.... I have seen his manager avoid dealing with numerous behavioural issues with this individual because 'it's not worth the hassle' - he knows as soon as he gets tough with him, there'll be grievance process that nobody has the time or desire to get involved in....

I'm in no way saying James Child is a person who'd pull that sort of card, but it does happen, and some people/organisations will treat people differently because of this... in the real world, it happens... Some people are wrong uns - not because of their race or sexuality, just because... And unfortunately, these people do make false claims, or use their 'difference' to heir advantage, and it can make life difficult for everyone else.

As for Ian Smith, I didn't think he was that bad - I certainly don't remember him ruining lots of games, and he certainly wasn't as universally disliked as a ref by the players and fans as Child is - again nothing to do with race, age, sexuality - he was simply a million times better ref than Child.

Why is it historical fact? Why do straight white males do that job? Are people who arent straight white males not able to do it? Why would what a person likes to do with their genitals make them more or less likely to do that job? What is it about straightness that would attract them to that role?

The police and fire service are good examples because they have to actively recruit to diversify their workforce for the simple reason that what they had in place were barriers to a diverse workforce. It was discriminatory.

So your problem here is that there are protections in place to protect people from discrimination and to weed out frivolous claims of discrimination that are without merit and these procedures worked?

Youre not saying that Child is a person who would pull that card but you are comfortable insinuating he readily accepts a promotion above his talents because of 'that card'

You have the situation entirely ass-backwards. You argue there is a problem with people 'playing the card' and using their 'difference' to their advantage when it is far more likely that people of a minority race, or sexuality don't report the discrimination they face precisely because they are worried people will think they are 'playing the card', that their achievements will be lessened or denigrated, that they will become defined by the difference and their lives become incredibly difficult. You argue that these people get preferential treatment when the fact is that the opposite is true much much much more often.

You havent bravely dared to question the orthodoxy, you arent valiantly fighting against political correctness, you havent brought a subject in the light that needs be discussed, you have made a pathetic allegation against someone you don't like and used their sexuality to question their competency and integrity. There is nothing more to what you are doing than that.

Let me ask you this. If it turns out the rumours are wrong and Child isnt gay. Would you think that his sexual orientation had anything to do with his appointments? Or is it only gay people at whom this accusation can be leveled?

It's a historical fact because over the years, the job has been carried out in the majority by white straight males - of course people who are not part of this demographic can do the role, historically though, this has not been the case - Are you seriously trying to suggest that certain jobs do not have a historical typical demographic? It doesn't mean anything about who could do the job, just who historically has... and yes, like the Police and Fire Service, the organisation have identified this and are trying to change this through future recruitment strategies - that is positive discrimination... it might be being done with the best intentions, but it's positive discrimination all the same...



Nowhere have I said anything of the sort, keep trying to pin me down as a homophobe though, be careful you don't get a nose bleed at those lofty moral heights though... it is simply an example of how frivolous claims can and do impact on some people's judgements, which can lead to 'different' treatment of said individual (could be positive or negative discrimination).


You're talking as though I'm blaming Child for anything - I'm not... Again trying to portray an image of me that simply doesn't exist (other than in your perpetually morally outraged mind). I'm not saying he 'accepts' anything, Im saying the RFL are potentially treating him different, that's completely out of his hands.



Keep trotting out this line, it doesn't change a thing - I like the fact that you seem to think you know better than I do why I posted this - now as much as you're enjoying trying to play the bigger and better man, this thread isn't about you or me. I have not once throughout this whole thread (or ever) claimed that Child's sexuality has any bearing on his competency or integrity - I could quite easily be offended that you keep making up such lies. I've made no allegation against Child whatsoever (though I have expressed an opinion that I don't care for his refereeing ability), I have simply asked the question of if the RFL may be treating him differently....

I'll not be responding to you again about me or my intentions of this thread, if you want to discuss the actual topic then great, but I ain't here to justify myself to anyone - particularly not someone with your intentions. You've clearly made your mind up on the type of person I am, and that's fine with me - you have no impact on my life, so let's stick to talking about the topic.

im saying that we live with the legacy of a society which was exclusionary to anyone but straight white males. Im saying that this legacy is 'positive discrimination' in favour of straight white males. Im saying there is a good chance that the role you are talking about is traditionally filled with straight white males because of the inherent bias towards them.

When you say the police and fire service 'positively discriminate' they dont. The efforts they make to attract minorities are necessary because their structures are inherently biased towards straight white males. But you don't see this bias, only the efforts rectify it and in that an evening of the playing field becomes 'positive discrimination'.

It had no effect. As you said, it failed.

Nope. You don't get to denigrate his performance and accuse him of being the recipient of undeserved preferential treatment then also look at him as the victim.

You have used his sexuality to question his competence and his integrity. You have accused him of being an incompetent, promoted above his station, relying on his sexual preference to get by. This thread is solely about you. It isnt about James Child because none of your accusations has any basis in fact or reality. It is a conspiracy invented by you.

Try as you might to pretend that because you arent saying he is a rubbish ref because he is gay that you arent using his sexuality to question his competence and integrity. You continue to do so.

James Child doesnt need to justify himself to anyone. Particularly someone with your intentions. You have clearly made up your mind on what type of person he is. And its not fine. You are being picked up on it.

Ill ask you again If it turns out the rumours are wrong and Child isnt gay. Would you think that his sexual orientation had anything to do with his appointments? Or is it only gay people at whom this accusation can be leveled?

Spot on, people see the question and immediately and incorrectly think you're attacking gays when in reality you're questioning an organisation and how they operate.

If Child was consistently one of the best referees and got given big leagues consistently but no semis/finals and me and you came on here suggesting negative discrimation then we wouldn't be getting abused and criticised.....but suggest positive discrimination and it all changes.

Again, and hopefully without Smokey trying to derail away from the question.....do people honestly think the rfl AREN'T capable of taking someone's sexuality into account when they deal with them whether it be positive or negative?

We haven't even established that he is appointed to a disproportionate number of big games compared to his peers! If he is there could many legitimate reasons why - eg. minor injuries to other referees, unavailability of other referees, logistical reasons such as travel costs - and there could also be many illegitimate reasons. You don't know.

So you don't know if he gets the wrong number of games let alone why he gets them but have made the claim that his sexuality gets him favourable treatment. And you don't see why that's pretty offensive?

Has James Childs confirmed his sexuality? If not then why ask the question about positive discrimination? It says more about how the OPs mind works more than anything else. Even if he was gay, is there any proof of discrimination of any form never mind because of his sexuality?

It's not rumours - he is gay... and if you read my posts for what they are, instead of going on some crusade to 'out me' as a homophobe, you'll find the answer....

I'm sure all the gay folk out there will be eternally grateful they've got you fighting a non-existent battle for them though... well done sir...

Yeah, I've never heard anything about James Child being gay prior to this thread, it's not as if he has been touted as the sport's first gay official or something in which case the OP might have had at least some sort of justification for his weird argument.