So he gets big games because he's gay, but he doesn't get the biggest games because he's not good enough? Is that the basis of your argument that there is clearly some form of positive sexuality discrimination at work?

But people clearly aren't comfortable with it, in fact people like yourself are very very very uncomfortable with it otherwise it wouldn't have got the reaction it's got.



You continuously keep making it out that if I criticise Child's appointments that I'm attacking every gay person.....you're an idiot. Questioning one persons position because of his sexuality DOESN'T mean I'm questioning every employment of a gay person in the world.



Yawn.

How many times do I need to repeat before people stop fabricating comments, and you can go look back at every post I have made on here, my point is not on games awarded but on why his consistent poor performance is ignored.

My argument is that the poor performance is ignored and not dealt with in the same way it has been dealt with before, and how we as paying customers of the game should expect it to be dealt with. Whether he meets their equality desires shouldn't give what looks like preferential treatment, by not dealing with the issue.

It didn't need to be public for it to influence how the RFL treated him. If they knew it was enough.



Because at Cup Finals and GF and Internationals they've still been able to give him a gig as a touch judge which he's gotten over and over again over the years.

Why hasn't he reffed a final or semi final is a good question. Especially when he's randomly been decided good enough for Wigan vs Saints clashes and Leeds vs Wigan and Leeds vs Warrington matches for 4 seasons now, yet no semis or finals? Is it because when push comes to shove the RFL aren't that dumb to put him in there because they deep down don't see him as one of the top two referees and in a cup/playoff weekend they can't just shoehorn the guy who they think is the best referee away for the week to do Salford vs Hudds instead whilst Child gets the plum gig of Wigan vs Saints like when it's a league fixture.

If they send Thaler off to ref Wakey vs Hull whilst Child does Leeds vs Wigan it goes under the radar......they give Child Wembley instead of Thaler and people are saying "are you f*cking kidding me? That guy isn't one of the top refs"

He messes up a league game (as he does regularly) it's moved on from in a few days. He messes up Wembley or Old Trafford then it's different ball game all together and a move the RFL wouldn't even risk taking.

I have the same day job as Child, which prevents me from having the time to take issue with some of the bile you have spouted. But could you please expand on that last sentence which, on first reading, I find staggering.

So, despite such Machiavellian cunning on the part of the RFL, Child ends up reffing almost exactly the games he would be doing were he not gay. Astonishing.

People are comfortable that it is your opinion. They are uncomfortable that you think your bigoted and homophobic opinion should be freely expressed.

You have reduced James Child to his sexuality. Not me. You cannot argue that Child is treated differently solely because he is gay, then argue that this is specific to James Child. It isn't. It's specific to his sexuality.

How aren't you attacking every gay person? Your argument has been throughout that in your opinion positive discrimination happens (you defining this as a minority being promoted above their competency because of their minority status) ergo there is a chance the because James Child is a member of a minority community he has been promoted beyond his competency because of that minority status.
It isn't the fact that he is James child that you are arguing has seen him promoted beyond his competence but his minority status.

Is that what is said? or is it said that he would be handled differently due to his consistently bad performances?

At your own work, a team of four people, three pull their weight putting in consistently good performances, but one doesn't and effects results. Does your company not handle it?

Is this pointless topic still meandering on getting nowhere?
Mods please block it.
It's gone way beyond tedious.

So they're comfortable with my opinion, they're just uncomfortable that they've heard it.....yeah another good one Smokey.



No it's specific to him. You just want to have some morale highground self righteous rant defending every gay person on the planet.



Simple, by trying to focus solely on James Child until you start accusing of attacking every gay person breathing.



It isn't a opinion that positive discrimination happens, it does happen. Even those who don't think it's happened in this particular case of James Child would be bloody daft to say positive discrimination only exist in my opinion.....but you have.



Because we don't live in some world full of sunshine and rainbows. It'd be great if being from a miniority status didn't influence your position at work.....but it does, often negatively, sometimes 'positively'. Just because you don't want it to doesn't mean it doesn't happen and we shouldn't consider it. People attitudes to the differences between us might be changing, but people noticing the differences between us hasn't change.

You do realise that their's several on going thread on this board and you're free to start one yourself if you so please. If you know what happening in this thread and it's boring you can I suggest taking the radical step of not clicking on it.

Simple, if people in his workplace knew he was gay, thats enough to POSSIBLY effect how they treat him personally. Hell it could be in a negative way, or on this argument a positive way. Would they only be able to negatively discriminate against him if the RL community on the whole knew he was gay?

Yes ALMOST the exact same.

But not the same. As in treated differently.

So you and "they" are not fans of Voltaire (or more accurately Evelyn Beatrice Hall) then Smokey?

This conversation between the unwavering, has surely run its course. If it continues for another 40 pages, which it probably will, it will not illuminate or resolve any issues nor will it achieve more than being an embarrassment to this forum.

I was responding solely to the post I quoted - hence the quote.

As for your second question, I haven't worked for a company for many years. My recollection of the last one I worked for was that they employed a mixture of slackers, incompetents plus some pretty diligent workers (feel free to have a stab at which of the categories I best fitted ). Which is how I imagine many companies still operate and probably applies also to the RFL and its board of professional refs.