Not from me. My question as always been through this thread is that his consistently poor performances over a long period of time, have not been dealt with, and have with others in the past, and asked is it because it suits the RFL's equality agenda. And if someone had the decency to offer a reasonable reason other than that, then I could understand it.

And in what possible way does stating how bad Child has been over a long period of time offer any protection to Hardaker?

Forgive me if mistaken here, but hasn't Hardaker being punished for what happened with him? I am not sure he would be very grateful for the protection 15 months after the event

I quoted part of the RFL equality programme a few pages back, it's not hard to find.

Who would you have replaced him with, out of interest? Particularly given that one of British refereeing's bright young things has currently got himself on the RFL's naughty step.

Well, I have to be totally honest there and say he would have been one of my choices. But let's not forget that has only happened in the last few weeks. What we are talking about on this thread is over a long period of time, not just the last few weeks. But I do think Crashley and Leatherbarrow are at a level where they should be given an opportunity to take Childs role. Crashley for me was the best ref of that bash weekend.

I 100% accept that the RFL have themselves in a hole by limiting the pool of Super League refs. What I don't accept is that in Childs case the poor performances have being going on too long to continually ignore it.

The fact that you are too blinkered to see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. It is perfectly clear, and I don't think that wrong, but it is wrong when you use the same goals to not deal with something that is not working.




You know very well that was an answer to someone asking the question, who had another agenda. But then again, considering the scrapping the barrel responses you have made so far, it doesn't surprise you don't understand

By reffing in the championship. Then when he gained more.ecperience he got a few SL games as VR. Then a few games in SL as on field ref then a full time ref.

A process crashley has yet only complete.

James Child in this month's League Express



Those posters who are complaining about Child's performances and linking his sexuality should ask if they're helping or hindering.

It was never in doubt that he was a rubbish referee......until an explaination was given that made people uncomfortable even to consider could be possible for a slight second. Then suddenly he became the bestest referee ever to grace RL ever. What this thread has shown is that some peoples version of equality is to treat minority groups like fragile little children that need treating with kid gloves and wrapped up in cotton wool and if anybody asks a tough question about one persons homosexuality it apparently means he's attacking every gay person on the planet and is probably a member of the Ku Klux Klan who'd love it if Watkins was racially abused. All the self righteous ranting from the other side is just smoke to disguise that they actually can't properly explain Child's position.

Some have "hoped" that' I'll retract what I said for my own sake. B*ll*cks they aren't bothered about "my sake", they want me to retract it because THEY HOPE it's not true. Problem is they can sit their and sprout morale highground view and they can sit their and tell themselves that the RFL wouldn't act in that way and they can be 99% percent confident that it doesn't happen. But no matter what, they know they can't disprove it and that makes them uncomfortable and angry. They hope I'll retract what I say because that'll be the closest they get to closure, if they can sweep it under the carpet and pretend that the guy who said it never said it. If he didn't say it, then it doesn't exist and we can all pretend the world is sweetness and light and bad things don't happen. Like you said people "want to believe that it isn't the case" because the possibility that it could be the case unsettles them greatly. Their concern isn't so much for James Child but for their own peace of mind.

whilst bigots do be bigotting, and we can't stop you doing so. The idea that anyone has a duty to disprove your pernicious and insidious allegation is idiotic childish nonsense. Worse than that, it is idiotic childish nonsense that has already been dealt with.

You don't have a DUTY to disprove. You just WANT to and have continuously tried, for your own sake more than Child's.

Congratulations on missing the point by a level I didn't think possible.

The point being I could sit here and allege you are a paedophile, and rightly, unless I provide proof of that allegation, it would be dismissed and treated with the contempt it deserves. And rightly people would be offended that I had made such a pernicious and insidious allegation without any evidence.