Stonewall didnt do the survey, the University of Cambridge did. Stonewall simply used the statistics, and THIS VERY CLUB put out a press release using those exact words, verbatim.

So now we have impugned the honesty of Stonewall, The University of Cambridge and now seemingly questioned the existence of these 1600 people, is there anything else you would like to do before actually addressing the experiences of these children?

What evidence do you require before these peoples experiences matter? How many kids and how solid do the numbers have to be before you put the victims of homophobic bullying ahead of defending an RL player (allegedly) shouting homophobic slurs out of frustration?

We were happy to say this [iLeeds Rhinos and England international hooker Shaun Lunt said Lets follow it through.

and thats probably a very common experience. People use the word 'gay' sometimes just as a synonym for lame, kids call each other fags any time they arent 100% masculine. Mostly without any semblance of homophobic intent. if you were a young gay man then your experience of that word and those attitudes is probably a little different.

Stonwall interviewed 1600 children, right. 1.5% (statistically) of whom are gay, that's 24.

no, they interviewed 1600 gay students. Im not sure how much 1576 straight children had to add to a report on the experiences of gay students

Wonder what Mel Gibson would contribute to this thread?

Drunken anti-semitism and an air of unpredictability? Patsy Kensits boobs? Diplomatic Immunity?

OK, my bad - but where the hell did they find 1600 gay students from. They must have asked over 100,000 students if they were gay.

That's one hell of a survey.

Yeah cool story.

Point is you can read all the surveys and watch all the programmes on the subject of gays and homosexuality. Those are designed to get to an obvious pre-set answer.

Try living though. As one of the youngest on this board and thus people coming out more openly and earlier than previously around me I think the biggest injustice and homophobia is coming from the likes of you and others on here that are rushing to protect gay people just because of one shout of abuse to a RL player.

Maybe it's not me defending Hardaker, maybe it's actually me not thinking gay people are so precious that they'll be wounded by anybody using the word fag or gay or poof in every single type of context. Perhaps just perhaps they're thicker skinned than some on here give them credit for and have more pressing issues concerning their sexuality than one RL player calling another RL player a fag.

But no let's instead make out that they'll be switched off RL for life because of that one Hardaker incident.

maybe a bit off topic, but I was in M&S and there was an old guy with his carer looking at trousers. The carer picked up a a pair of brown trousers to which the old guy said "I don't need another pair of n*gger brown trousers". I have no idea if this man was a racist or was just using and old term for a shade of brown. I was shocked at the loud use of an offensive term in the middle of a store but was not offended as I am not black and I wasn't buying trousers.

What. The. Actual. Fuck.

@Mods: How is the Printer not banned yet?

You write in very authoritative terms though it would seem there's no substance to much of what you say. You said the law considered the word to be a homophobic slur. I'll again ask you for your authority for that because you haven't provided one.

You claimed the RFL believe that word to be a homophobic slur. Why do you think that is the case?

You're just typing things now without any thought, information or knowledge.

The RFL are not investigating a charge of Homophobia either. They're investigating allegations he made homophobic comments. Do you understand the difference?

I think I have adequately demonstrated an arguable case that the words used, in context, considering intent, environment and taking into account the differing definitions of the word that there was absolutely no homophobic slur whatsoever, even if Zak said the words it is alleged he said.

Now I suspect he will be found guilty and possibly fined simply because the RFL have to act to appease knee jerking over sensitive, faux outraged citizens such as yourself but that is not something anyone should be proud of or consider any real progress whatsoever.

I think this comment demonstrates your ignorance. Do you understand that the police don't make the law?

I get called a slaphead all the time playing rugby. I don't take offense because I am comfortable with the situation which I am genetically pre-disposed to.

Where is a line drawn between what is offensive, and not acceptable, and what is ok?

Gingers?
Fat people?

I would guess that the major differentiator would be the said groups being subject to severe persecution in the past.

As with other insults the problem is not the word, its the context. That should be what the panel look at (assuming that they can prove what word was said)

Kensit was tidy, back in day.

This thread is going round in circles, quite ridiculous ones at that.

Gotcha, you took it too far with this

See you in 24 hours.

As for the rest of you, wait until the RFL investigation has concluded.