The RFL are investigating a charge of homophobia. Not foul and abusive language. As for the police, ask them.

Insults are part and parcel when on the pitch. What if. Hardaker had called a rival player's mother a "sl*t". Would you or anybody on here be remotely bothered by this? Yet probably the player it was aimed at would find that more offensive than being called a faggot himself. Context dear boy, context.



Ok 2/3rd of people don't like team sports. OFTEN because of homophobic bullying, often.....how much does this word OFTEN cover? That's a pretty loose conclusion. Not really a number of percentage.

How many gay people did they ask? 2/3rds of thousands is quite a lot. 2/3rds when they asked 10 people isn't really.

When gay people play team sport do you honestly believe they don't throw insults around too?

Slightly off topic but my experience of HR is that they take common sense and replace it with BS legislation, which serves to hinder a business. As I said the directors at our gaff believe in the culture we have and recruiting people with the right stuff, as people and workers.

Well then you should be quoting Rogues Gallery, not me. I didn't compare the two. But he was right to bring it up, try reading the thread properly instead of coming in all guns blazing just because you thought someone had dared have a go at your idol.

Nice way to massively play one down and defend it while playing the other up though.

homophobia, like racism cannot be part and parcel of our game. The whataboutery is irrelevant. You dont have the right not to be offended. You do have the right to an environment free from homophobia, racism and discrimination.

So your answer to those questions would be, i dont believe the University of Cambridges evidence and will dismiss those concerns, even though that statement is taken verbatim from a press release put out by this very club.

HR do seem meddling and a lot of fannying about, whilst things are fine then they are just an annoyance. But if you ever need them, you will be glad they are there. I would also hazard a guess that when your directors say they dont have a HR team, they do, its simply outsourced.

And as i say, they often have cake, or at the very least some sweets

1600 children were asked in the stonewalls 2012 school report. So not a small number.

I "don't have the right not to be offended". Dear boy, I have the right to feel however I want about the situation. Or do we have to follow your opinion? Doesn't the same freedom you're fighting for mean I'm free to think however I want.

Again would you be offended/bothered if Hardaker called a player's mum a "sl*t"? That you haven't replied to that part clearly shows that you wouldn't be, yet he's offended someone with his words. Just ones that don't bother you as much, hypocrisy much.



No but nice try, I didn't say I don't believe them. I inquired into the figures. "2/3rds" and "often" are fairly loose.

Mate - you work in Australia, the commute would be a right bitch.

You could work on the plane?

i think you read that statement in the wrong way. You can be offended, not offended anything you want.


actually i answered it. You dont have the right not to be offended as in You dont have the right to ban anything just because it offends you. You do have the right to an environment free from racism, homophobia and discrimination. You are allowed to be offended, you are allowed to be offensive. You are not allowed to be racist, homophobic or discriminatory.

Its why i will get in to a lot less trouble for calling a black guy a d1ck than a n1gger, a Jew a t0sser than a kike, a middle eastern person a silly billy than a sand, a muslim a c0ck than a raghead, or a person generally a tit, than a faggot.


yes, you focussed on and questioned the statistics as a means of avoiding addressing the question. 1600 children, 2/3rds of them is 1067. Often means frequently.

Quote: G1 "Interestingly, not according to the Urban Dictionary. rlhttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term 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?'" Southpark. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_F_Word_(South_Park)

Quote: G1 "Interestingly, not according to the Urban Dictionary. rlhttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term 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?'" Southpark. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_F_Word_(South_Park)

Well done on seeing the number someone else put for you.

1600, bit rounded isn't it. Did they have one more kid to interview and say sorry we've reached 1600 now no more.

The things with studies and surveys like these it that they go out looking for the answers they want. Stonewall is hardly going to come back and say we interviewed 1600 kids and only 5% said they had trouble with team sports and acceptance. Doesn't help them make a splash. That's why terms like "often" and 2/3rds are used instead of solid numbers.

(That btw is not me saying the actual figure is 5%, I'm just making an point so no need for any "do you really think the figure is that low" cries of outrage.)

Also 1600 children, sorry but how many children are openly gay back in school?

We had a young lad that worked with us a while ago and he used to refer to anything that was a bit sh*t as 'gay'. He used the term towards software, cars, shoes, in fact anything that he generally disapproved of.

Now he wasn't being homophobic in any sense of the word, it's (apparently) what the young-uns say these days. Weather gay people took offence to it was a different matter, but there was absolutely no homophobic connotations meant, in fact when we raised the point with him he seemed surprised that what he was saying could have been offensive to gay people.