Well, i personally will be paying close attention to the next trooping of the Colours down in London, and the slightest hint of the word Queen in any broadcast, will reduce me to a quivering heap of outraged incandescence!

Unless Prince Edward is there of course.....

Allegedly.

Read my lips, this thread is ....... ....!

BAN HIM!!!

No




We already have done

My question was how can you legislate for one group of people being allowed to use any specific word, when another group of people are castigated for using the same word. Again I repeat how can you legislate for that. Either the word is not to be used by any with the same consequences for all, or the word is acceptable and suitable for free use by all. Any other case would be seriously prejudicial to those "not allowed" to use the word. Who gets to choose which group of people can use the words in question and who not?

This whole thing is a complete storm in a teacup...

You don't legislate for who can or cannot use a particular word, you legislate against the offence that the use of a particular word MAY cause to someone.

We have a virtually unlimited right to free speech in this country but equally there is a right for anyone who may have been offended to seek redress through the justice system.

Surely that is not too difficult a concept to grasp?

Legislating against the use of specific words by anyone is not too difficult a concept to grasp, however you were the one that introduced the concept of shouting from a car window in Chapeltown, so presumably you would campaign against that as much as you do the choice of word that Zak Hardaker may have used?

To be honest like I say this whole investigation is a complete waste of time. The use of language like this in this context doesn't even prove that there was intent to bring the sexual orientation or preference of any of the individuals in this case into question, never mind portray those of such sexual preference in a negative manner. It's a sad state of affairs when we are focusing more on what a player may or may not have said, and where no one complained at the time, than the game itself.

I'm offended by that. Despite having done it before myself and not quite knowing why I'm offended.

But I'm offended nonetheless.

I now need to tell everybody how offended I am and will verbally abuse you on social media, but if I see you in person I'll just walk past without saying a word.

Even though I'm not sure why I'm now hugely offended when previously I wasn't, I won't be satisfied until you're banned for a very long time.

He was wrong to say it first time round and had a slap on the wrist, 2nd time round is plain stupidity and I wouldn't be surprised to see a much larger ban.

This thread seems to be looking at if it is right or wrong to use language people may find offensive and this is a good argument for the first ticking off. However, once the RFL had decided that this wasn't something they wanted in the game (which is understandable with the RESPECT campaign) there is no excuse and you should expect the punishment if you repeat the exercise so soon after your ban has finished.