Problem is, the ones with this disgust/offence/anger/whatever at Hardaker have been fine to have a go at him and especially others like myself.

The OP was one fuelled by the original thread. The OP tried to make out that I said "I have the right not be offended by homophobic abuse"......I clearly did not say this yet he and others have tried to paint people that haven't been offended by this incident as ignorant, misguided, uniformed, privileged, inexperienced homophobes.

BTW a quote I not only didn't make but haven't received an apology upon pointing out as erroneous.....at least Hardaker has done that. Seems you can incorrectly try and paint someone homophobic but a straight man can't call another straight man faggot in the heat of the moment without it being blown out of proportion.

The OP coming as well from a poster who said I should be banned on the other thread. If anything a ban should be the other way round with the amount of times some have labelled people ignorant and homophobic and whatnot on here. I think for people trying to defend people and their choices they should tread carefully with the way they're judging people on here that don't agree with them.

Is that an irrational fear of listening to Gloria Gaynor songs?

I think the issue is that you have stated you are not offended- fine. You have no personal reason to be offended. What you are failing to do is recognise that others ARE offended. Not just bandwagon jumpers as some insensitive souls have claimed - but through their experiences find the comment unacceptable. cod'ead is comfortable with his sexuality and obviously has the strength and the support he needs to NOT be offended- good for him! But as someone who works with youngsters I can tell you that using words like this can be extremly hurtful and damaging to someone trying to understand their sexual feelings.

No I understand others have been offended, but when I or other have claimed not to be offended we get words ignorant aimed at us. It is possible to not be offended by that incident and not be ignorant.

You did claim that people were reacting OTT to this incident- you weren't offended, others were deeply offended, claiming their reaction is OTT could be seen as ignorance by them.
Of course in an ideal world, free of persecution, we should be able to use any words we like without risk of offence. We don't live in an ideal world, we live in one where people are condemned for their sexuality, race, religion and disability-so why not just remove certain words from daily vocabulary which are used in some instances to do so and then we have no need for any offence to be taken.

For me, any argument about whether the word was homophobic is removed when you put the word "f***ing" in front of it. At which point it becomes perjorative.

The issue of offence is a different one. There are lots of places you could use it in jest and nobody would be offended, including around a lot of gay people. I know a few who use "fag" and "gay" as insults. The key to that is that it only works in private conversations. You can't shout it in public, because it does offend some people.

Am I offended by it? No. Should it be shouted in public? No.

I still think, however, that the bigger issue is that a word that people have had to live with as part of homophobic abuse has slipped into casual use. In that sense people advocating huge bans should, in my opinion, be asking whether Zac Hardaker's crime is unusual, or whether getting caught is unusual. I share some people's suspicion that there's some very contrived outrage around this case.

The approach of punishing people for unthinkingly saying naughty things is outmoded and ineffective in my opinion. I'd prefer to use this as a chance to get people to reflect on the connotations of the word 'fag' and make the 'punishment' a bit of community service.

I've seen months and months of work with problematic racist views undone by heavy handed judicial rulings too often. It breeds more resentment, not more understanding.

Personally I agree with you -I don't think a huge ban is helpful in this instance- but given that the RFL have written rules in place I think it will happen. If getting caught using the word is more unusual than using the word then that's something people should reflect on. The club and the RFL should now try to use this incident in a positive way to get people to think about words they allow to casually appear in their vocabulary.

thats surely not irrational?

I'm OK about listening to her stuff now but at first I was afraid, I was petrified.

I am what I am.

Very apt.

Ok – I’ve read the OP a couple of times now and as far as I can tell they’re saying that not being gay is a privilege.

It may be looked at in that way but this is surely contextual?

If not being gay in a predominantly straight society is a privilege then it stands to reason that being white in a predominantly white society is also a privilege. Likewise being able-bodied or Christian or any sector of society where one is in the majority also makes one privileged.

So if you are white and able-bodied you are privileged, but if you are also gay you are not.

How can you be privileged in one respect but not in another?

I’m confused!!

They aren't saying not being homosexual etc is a privilege- they are saying that not being homosexual puts you in a privileged position as your sexuality isn't questioned.

I think that was explained quite well a bit later in the thread.

Brilliant humour, amidst a serious and interesting debate. Moved to make my first post after some years lurking and a few more years supporting.

To me a storm in a teacup has been created here with a lot of people getting overly PC. A young lad said something in the heat of the moment which he now regrets. He didn't stalk a gay person in the street and assault him in a "hate crime", he said a couple of offensive words that are being blown out of all proportion by certain people. What if a known gay player called James Graham a ginger c!?!, Or asked a certain player who'd been poking his wife recently, that's OK cause the rules say so. It's only OK because the RFL deem certain kinds of abuse to be fairer than others, unfortunately discrimination in its' own right. It's also OK to mock certain clubs supporters for their sexual preference of breeding amongst related family members, inbred, 6 fingers on their hands etc. People need to calm down and accept it for what it was, a spur of the moment comment that hurt nobody. If anyone seriously claims they've been damaged by that they need to take a long hard look at themselves.