Your words. Verbatim.

Like Gotcha said, why are you having this argument with yourself and putting our names into it?

And this is exactly one of the issues. You try and have a debate about positive discrimination in reference to homosexuality and you inevitably get one guy come along saying we would be fine with Watkins and JJB being racially abused.

This is the type of fear factor that issues around miniority groups now evoke. At the slightest hint of anything people queue up to claim you're homophobic, racist and sexist all in one go. Exactly one of the main reasons why positive discrimination happens, people worried about being labelled by these PC campaigners.

No that was a suggestion.

You've read that as me claiming its fact.

That none of us can prove what the RFL mindset is should've been obvious is wasn't posted as a fact, but you don't stop to think rationally.

who, out of the rest, are better, and have the experience Child does?

Your choice by the way consists solely of Robert Hicks. The only other full time ref is joe cobb, in his first year as a full time ref.

Is Robert Hicks that much better than James Child that we should seriously question whether Child's appointment is because of his sexuality?

You are a coward as well.

It is an insidious and homophobic accusation and you arent even brave enough to make it properly

You say positive discrimination (though it is entirely different from your original claim) like we should accept it as a terrible thing. Like the reason it happens is through fear of being labelled or to avoid being called racist.

Firstly, positive discrimination is incredibly rare, and not what you are talking about.

Secondly It also isnt always a bad thing.

thirdly It isnt a response to a fear of being called racist, but a deliberate action to redress inherent structural bias.

Well, this descended quickly

No I'm just reasonable enough to say that although this is what I think, I accept its only a maybe because we don't have proof.

You on the other hand think your position is fact despite equally not knowing the thinking of the people of the RFL.

Not significant? You said it was the "elephant in the room". Implies great significance, I'd have said.

if only we were all so reasonable as to lob demeaning and denigrating accusations at a man doing his job anonymously on message boards. To outright state we believe his achievements arent his but a sop to his sexuality with no evidence whatsoever.

I still haven't seen this said anywhere by Printer, or anyone else. Not one person has questioned his rise to full time referee. The only judgement has been made on his performances whilst a full time referee.

But of course reality doesn't appear one of your strong points, judging by this thread.

This is the most embarrassing thread I've ever read on here, and that's saying something.

Yeah significant in general, you said it was significant to me personally.

Hell if the guy was head and shoulders the best referee ever week I'd be the first to say he should be getting the CCF and GF.....even though I'm such a massive homophobe apparently.

Apparently wanting the best person for a job is a crime nowadays.

I, like you & everybody else on this forum (I suspect), do not know whether positive discrimination has occurred in this case. Your question is therefore hypothetical. I prefer to discuss facts & opinions.

there you go.

Lets not forget. It gets worse



Not only does Child get preferential treatment because he is gay. He also lies about being a victim of homophobia for attention.