In your world it does. It appears you are more offended than the Homosexuals in society. And I am sure they don't need you for their unofficial spokesperson.




Surely it is only right to put the true position, rather than made up position to suit your agenda here. Just a slight difference to the wording, but a massive difference to the position.

An investigation is in place to look into "alleged" homophobic comments. Nowhere have the RFL said what they think he said, and without that, there is no way you could say they agree with you.

Only homosexuals should be offended by homophobia? What is this 1950? A spokesman for the homosexuals in society? You think they are one homogeneous community that get together, decide their position and put out a statement on it? What is this 1950?

do you actually understand the words you write? What would the RFL be investigating if they had already concluded he had said it? They are investigating homophobic comments, not foul and abusive language. Because those things are different things.

I used to have this fella down as intelligent. I know he rubs people up the wrong way, but I never thought he was challenged in that way.

He has got so excited over this topic that the above, quite clearly shows I was wrong to assume intelligence.

Read again what I said, where you posted your first comment above.

To your second comment, I repeat again there is an investigation into an "alleged" homophobic comment. So yes the words are clearly understood that are written. You are just so caught up in your own hole you are digging, that you are frantically coming out with comments no relevant. So in answer an investigation is taking place to see if there was homophobic comments made, not because they have already decided, unlike you.

To be clear. I am happy enough for the RFL to deal with it as they see fit, as long as that is consistent going forward. You are judge, jury, and executioner, before anything is even proven as said.

I always like to see a post littered with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors questioning my intelligence.

I havent in any way 'decided' Hardaker has said those words, i have been careful not to.

Its sweet to see you jumping to young Zaks defence so quickly, and being so keen to dismiss others as 'knob jockeys'. Are you aware of the term 'transference'?

And there we have It, the sign of a lost argument. Still slipping down that hole you dug.




Really?



So you hadn't decided what he said?



The RFL agrees with you, yet you haven't decided what he said?



So they had already decided, and agreed with you? yet you now say you haven't decided. That makes perfect sense Smokey.

Why not just admit it really. You dug yourself a hole and you had to keep to it, not realising you would lose face so much.

Do people often point out your ad hominem insults are filled with spelling mistakes and poor grammar?

yes sweetheart,



HTH

No, what i actually said was

The RFL agree with me that a homophobic slur is not foul and abusive language, it is an offence in and of itself. It isnt the same as calling someone a moron, wit or a c'nt or a jackass or any of the multitude of words which must be directed at you on a daily basis. I make no comment on his guilt or otherwise.

Bloody hell, and somebody accused me of fog knitting. That post from Smokey above, is the most pathetic post every on this board.

And full of lies, to say he now said "Allegedly" after I had posted to him three times with the word, and he still insisted the RFL agreed with him. Unbelievable.

Like I said Smokey, you have lost a lot face with this.

You do realise that because its written you can go back in the thread and check yeah? its all there.

Im actually astounded that even after having having it explained to you, you still dont understand the difference between what i said, and what you thought i said.

You really dont know your ar5e from your Phil Daly do you?

Smokey, anybody only has to look at this very page of the thread, to see you are talking nonsense.

I can only ask again, are you aware of the term 'transference'

I am aware of the term d1ckh3ad mentioned a lot to your posts. Just saying like.

Wigan v Leeds in the Challenge Cup Final 2011.

People mention things to my posts. W13rd.

Yes I imagine some individuals will be involved in both. But how many incidents have you heard of referred to the Compliance Department???

Papers aren't always correct you know. Say for arguments sake Child hasn't reported it, but several dozen people complain to the RFL about it with the incident on video being banded about......do you think they'd ignore it and say sorry can't do anything as the ref didn't hear it?

To be fair that was as plain as day, how many people actually saw this Hardaker thing at the actual time?

This thread:

[url=http://s490.photobucket.com/user/thebloodbath/media/handbags.jpg.html[/url

And fully justified too. There was absolutely no doubt over what happened on that occasion.

You can't really argue with this, can you?

According to [url=http://media.therfl.co.uk/docs/On%20Field%20Compliance%20Sentencing%20Guidelines%202014-Final.pdfthis document[/url it is standard practice, when incidents have not been acted upon during the match or picked up on by officials during the match or via TV footage by the match review panel. The Compliance team will refer the incident on to the tribunal if appropriate. So far as I can gather from reading the operational rules and the guidance on homophobic language, the Compliance team simply oversees the whole disciplinary process, which makes sense given its name. Anyone can report homophobic (or racist/sexist/etc) language to the Compliance team although there are procedures open to follow as an alternative for fans (reporting to the stewards, direct to the club, etc). Upon receiving a report an investigation will be undertaken and an appropriate course of action taken, which may or may not include sanctions. If the guilty party is a player and that course of action is to take the case to the disciplinary panel then if they are found guilty they can receive a Grade E to F ban (5 to 8 matches). There is a specific sanction band for homophobic/racist/sexist/etc language and behaviour.

Seems clear it didn't have to be Child who reported it

You asked when it was and I told you.

Wasn't this your question
"When was the last time we had something like this though, with videos all over the web and lynch mobs out for blood?"

He rightly got fined by the club and the RFL.

Smokey is your full time occupation engaging in quote off's on here? because every single f*cking thread I see you in you're dissecting people posts practically word by word.

I wouldn't be suprised if you had a lawyer go over the wording of your posts before hitting submit, just to make sure there's no post or argument you can't twist and wriggle your way out of, with enough quotes and posts of course.

Not quite the same though is it, the above was a cut & dried case of a player acting like a total ****with the photo leaving no one in doubt whatsoever. Unlike that 10 second video that's currently doing the rounds.

Let the powers that be sort it out. That's their job isn't it?

It didn't, no. It could have been another player.

Interestingly, not according to the Urban Dictionary. [urlhttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=faggot[/url



Not to mention the earlier reference I provided stating the term was acceptable if used by homosexual men. Of course, many traditional dictionaries say it is an offensive term though, interestingly, not a homophobic term.

So I've provided a plethora of authorities which say the word may or may not be offensive but you've provided none that say it's homophobic apart from it is because you say it is.

That's another thing about language, it can and often does change and words that were not originally offensive can become so and words that were offensive can become less so. The younger generation do use the term faggot in a non offensive way as described in the Urban Dictionary. Think about the word Bitch. Many people now refer to their bitches including women talking about their girlfriends. People have taken ownership of a previously offensive word and taken the offence out of it, like that gay community has done by their own use of the word "fag" (fag hag etc).

Think about calling someone or something crazy. Fairly inoffensive but what about the connotations and stigma with the mentally ill? What about calling someone or a situation lame? Would that cause outrage? What about the negative connotations with disability from which that word originates?