Make up your mind, you just quoted two posts ago that is was said that he only got his achievements because he was gay. I said this has never been said, it hasn't. You then produce a few quotes which still don't show that, but actually show exactly what I said, that the questioning was on his competence as a full time ref.

You appear off the rail here in your ranting. Like I said reality does not appear your strong point.

So what company is it you work for again?

I know for a fact it doesn't happen at the company I work for as they want the best people and would do everything they can to keep within UK employment laws.

Just like to know so I can avoid applying for a job there!

Although maybe if I was gay it might be a good place to apply for a job?

I can't believe you think the RFL actively pursue a positive discrimination policy. In fact that's quite an accusation to make. Hope you've got some strong facts to back it up.

Just because some parts of society act in a certain way doesn't mean the rest of us should or do.

HucknallLoiner works for The RFL

So what you're saying is that a comment is only pejorative when in a particular context? That's a very ambiguous outlook don't you think? Isn't context subjective depending on which side you are look at a situation from?

Oh and please don't add a particular view point (however veiled) to my posts just because it suits your argument.

Just out of interest, how many people have you polled from the LGBT community on which you base your opinion for what is or isn't acceptable for them?

You were the one who mentioned it. As stated, it had never crossed my mind. So definitely of greater significance to you than to me.

I've not called you a homophobe btw.

Oh, you were stupid enough to think that you could pretend Child 'getting the gigs he does' wasnt one of his achievements.

I work for a fantastic and diverse company - it's a great place to work, one of the 'top 20 companies to work for' actually....

I've not actually said I think the RFL are in this case, what I have said is that it's not homophobic for someone to put the question out there.... Child is terrible, he's still getting not only Super League games, but too often the best games of the round - and don't forget he's now doing games from the new Super 8 - so he must by those rights be in the top four refs we have if the games are chosen based on ability...? I don't think it's unreasonable or homophobic or discriminatory for someone to question why Child would get the better games when he is consistently poor, and certainly not in the top four refs... Positive discrimination exists out there, these circumstances wouldn't be completely out of the realms of possibility on that front, so it's a fair discussion point for me... Not being able to discuss the potential situation without being labelled a homophobe is ridiculous and very narrow minded....

.

Im sorry but its not a fair discussion point to speculate on the basis on nothing but your opinion of him as a referee that James Child gets preferential treatment because of his sexuality. It really really isnt fair.

It isnt fair on James Child, and it isnt fair on any gay person who may wish to referee.

You are basically arguing that it is fine to speculate that any gay person, in any role, is possibly only there based on their sexuality. That we should assume that they may only be there because of their sexuality.

I think Steve Ganson was a terrible referee who had obvious and clear failings in the performance of his job. I think there were constant failings in how he performed that he just didnt improve on. Steve Ganson was responsible for many high profile errors including breaking refereeing guidelines to award a match winning penalty.

Nobody would suggest that the continued employment of Steve Ganson was down to his lifestyle. Yet to do so for James Child is fair game?

Yet statistically, a straight white man is far more likely to be the recipient of preferential treatment, and a gay man is far more likely to be a victim of discrimination than the beneficiary.

Life isn't fair sunbeam. We live in a world were people are treated differently for their differences. Usually people associate that with negative discrimination but nowadays positive discrimination does exist even if you don't want to accept it. We shouldn't avoid talking about controversial or uncomfortable subjects just because some get uneasy when they read or hear them. In the Premier League, Clubs are being suggested of racism because they don't have any black managers in the league....is it fair to accuse ALL club owners of potential racism because of that?



No, nobody is saying that ANY gay person in ANY role is only there because of their sexuality. That's another distortion of other people's argument from yourself in an attempt to make the poster look homophobic. We are talking about this one case, not ANY gay person in ANY employment. We should be allowed to discuss it without being accused of attacking every gay individual in the world.



The RFL are often accused of a "jobs for the boys" attitude. If you want to start up a thread about Steve Ganson's employment then go for it. This thread however is about James Child.



Yes that's true they are less likely to be the beneficiary......but less likely doesn't mean zero chance.

Which company?
Answer the question. You have admitted that you and your "diverse" company have breached UK employment law so what is the company's name?
I will avoid them at all costs.

It's not often I say this but...
I agree entirely with Smokey.

Is there any evidence, any whatsoever, even hearsay, to suggest James Child is considered one of the top refs because he's gay?
I haven't heard or seen any.

I don't see the RFL or refs department pushing any kind of agenda in this regard. If they were then we'd see a lot wider diversity of referee and official at the RFL. As it is, the RFL is very much a white, working class organisation. Because that's the sport it represents (not due to any discrimination, just that's the traditional societal background that RL has and still does appeal to).

If Child were the beneficiary of positive discrimination why wasn't it widely known about his sexuality when he first became a pro ref? What's the point of positive discrimination if no-one knows about it?

If anyone can supply any sort of evidence whatsoever then I'll consider it. Until then I'll assume the claim to be utter batsh|ttery that was probably made in the heat of the moment but now can't be backed away from.

life not being fair is not a justification for you being bigoted and homophobic.

If its acceptable to level that accusation at James Child it is acceptable to level that accusation at anyone. The principle applies throughout not just against people you dont like.

'jobs for the boys' is entirely different that someone being promoted beyond their competency because of their lifestyle. Even you have had to find another reason bar his sexuality which is why you have brought 'jobs for the boys in to it' because even you with your limited intelligence see how idiotic it would look to apply the principle you are applying to a gay person, to a straight one.

But it highlight how such an accusation with no further evidence comes from a place something other than logic and reason reside.

Ahh good old Smokey, can't think of an intelligent reply to the point made so reverts back to shouting homophobe and bigot in the hope people won't realise he couldn't think of a counter argument.



But that's not what you said, you claimed that by attacking James Child we are attacking ALL gay people in ANY job. To claim that questioning one gay persons employment is to question every gay persons employment is stupid.



Yes I know "jobs for the boys" is something completely different because not every person will be positively discriminated for the same reason. One case might be because of someone's sexuality, one might be "jobs for the boys", one might be skin colour, one might be gender. To say I need to include sexuality in every case of discrimination whether negative or positive is showing your complete lack of understanding on the matter.



Or it can come from living in the real world and not having my head in the clouds like you who was claiming only a few pages back that positive discrimination doesn't even exist.