Not according to Stephen Fry

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f--g what"

Have you thought about changing seats?


Get over to the VT quickly there's a thread about faux outrage from Saints fans who were tantalised by Skysports with the Hubcap before having it cruelly snatched away. Oh the humanity!

Just seen it, for the love of god.

Sky have apologised to Saints because some fans actually put in complaints that they felt Sky were purposely trying to humiliate them by showing the guy put the hubcap in the box and walk off.

World is going stupid.

i knew as did others on here.
i couldn't care less if he's gay or straight he's still a fkin rubbish referee!

Did you? Never heard it previously.

Couldn't care either. But would have been helpful if the players knew, may of avoided the problem.

He only actually came out publically though after that incident. Posting picture of his partner on facebook to highlight it.

i think it was well known in RL circles. i was told 2/3 years back by a RL employed gentleman

I blame the twittering generation


and the PC brigade for interferring with natural selection

...to which the next question should be "Why, why are you offended, what is it that causes such a powerful emotion in you, powerful enough to make you express it verbally rather than just thinking it".

If they can't explain that emotion then they don't know the meaning of the word and its simple bandwagon jumping.

Leeds are disingenuously creating a process defence which many Leeds fans have predictably rallied around. Who wouldn't rally around when there's a witch-hunt afoot against one of our own? But who cares about process? What really matters is did Hardaker commit an offence or not? I suspect he did, and the "it's only on-field banter/sledging" argument is weak and simplistic in a contemporary context. In the scales of offence this time compared to last the word/words were slightly less offensive, were slightly less viscously spewed out and, of course were not directed at a referee.

Personally I would have sacked him last time. Having not done so then it is difficult for the club to now, even before the defence they put out. He may be the best young player in the league but lesser players would have gone for what he did and there should be no exceptions.

There is also a culture aspect to this - Leeds have been strong under Sinfield's leadership for the past decade partly because, fundamentally, they were good people working hard and that helped create a strong team bond. The "good vs evil" divide in the league by Andy Wilson on SL Backchat reference Leeds and some other clubs vs Wigan does not relate to on-field thuggery alone. Imperfect, less dedicated individuals have gradually been weeded out of Leeds. Once again, Hardaker should be no exception.

I'm surprised at you.

Would you ever ask a black guy why he felt offended when called a "ni**er"? Or even ask why someone else might take offence at the word?

The fact that I wouldn't be bothered in the slightest at being called a puff, prick or whatever, does not prevent me from finding such names pejorative and I feel under absolutely no obligation to explain to you or anyone else why that is so

What, so because Hardaker has previously and might have again blurted out a gay insult in anger on a rugby pitch this is some sort of proof that he isn't dedicated or hard working?

Oh dear.