He never actually said you couldn't have an opinion.

And TBH using the subject of rape in a facetious way leaves you with very little moral high ground on what Hardaker said.

Find one statement where I said you can't have an opinion. You have made up a lie.

You look stupid.

While I think this is a bit of a witch hunt without any evidence really other than people doing some ametur lip reading the above isn't totally true. If you were to say the alleged word in the street not aimed at anyone or anyone who is homosexual it's still an offence. Anyone by law can be offended by the language used doesn't have to be a homosexual person.

I do believe this is being blown out of proportion with little actual evidence and with it hitting national Media can see a big ban coming which if I was hardaker would see the end of my SL CAREER would be heading to the NRL.

No players or the ref appeared to take offence. I think someone said it erlier but I am guessing the complaint is by some fans and I would guess the motivation is more to do with getting him a ban rather than being offended.

If he has said it then he deserves some punishment but it appears to me he is being hung with some very ropey evidence at the moment

You think the word woman is a sexist slur?

Hardaker (allegedly) used a homophobic slur. Its pretty obviously different to words which arent slurs. There obviously isnt the same level of offence attached to Ginger. If people were calling Long a on the pitch then they should be in the same position.

I think we are kidding ourselves if anyone wants to pretend we know as a society there are words which are offensive and can't be used. We actually have a legal obligation in some regards. If you think a word might be one of those words, dont use it. its not complicated. Im fine with players throwing generic insults at each other and im confident that Hardaker meant it in that way, just a word thrown about. However that word isnt to be used in that way. It is exclusionary. We arent an exclusionary sport.

Dead right! A few numpties have tried to twist my posts. But what you said is the whole thing in a nut shell. Zak should get the punishment he deserves based on nothing but the facts. But the bull $hit fest generated by many is nothing short of pathetic.

If it's not then why is the word woman (or girl) used to to describe someone being a bit soft? Or any other sexist language for that matter.
I said it's not about the actual word, but then of course you haven't answered the actual point of my post you've confined it to the word I used as an example. Which is typical of you.

As for legal obligations, then we have to ban every swear word used on the pitch. They're all against Section 5 of the Public Order Act.

If we aren't an exclusionary sport, why are we (in your opinion) allowed to exclude women?

Do you now see my point?

And the point about consistency?

could faggot actually be fat git?

And maybe I'll apologise for being crass when people stop defending Hardacker.

I love the guy as a player and I don't want to see him on the sidelines, but the lad has a questionable attitude and homophobia is something personal to me and this incident disappoints me.
Not angry as it could be a genuine throwaway comment but I hold this word just as strong as the N word and he should be made an example of.
Do I say this to weaken an opposition side? No, if this was a Wire player id actually be MORE vehement in my condemnation, I was actually holding off a little because it was an opposition player as I feared reactions like sgtwilkos.

That is absolutely not true at all. It is not an offence to use that word at all. Infact, police up and down the country when breaking up fights on a Friday/Saturday nights in city centres, will hear those terms and worse repeated many times over.

Same term used many times over on school playing fields, and laughed at by parents.

If you used racist behaviour against someone it applies to, then that would be a different story. If you used the terms to someone who is actually homosexual in a way showing hatred because of their orientation, then it is a different story.

IF what as been reported is what Hardaker as said, he should be sacked like what would happen in any reputable work place. However it's a big IF that he actually said those words. Everyone needs to remember innocent until proven guilty!

No! where have I defended him. You are bull $hitting again. I've questioned the motivation of fans reactions, nothing else. I gave the opinion it has little to do with a gay slur and a lot to do with a witch hunt to get a bloke band as he plays for a rival, which is pathetic.

I think the main issue about this is not that Hardaker (allegedly) used the word, but the fact he (and others) think it was perfectly ok to do so as some sort of generic insult. Given the amount of positive publicity Leeds Rhinos were involved in with their Stonewall game whre the media said
"The Rhinos are taking over from the Sheffield Eagles as the Rugby Football League’s LGB&T champions." you would think he had learnt something.

Stonewall Deputy Chief Executive Laura Doughty said: ‘Sadly a recent University of Cambridge survey for Stonewall’s School Report 2012 shows two thirds of gay young people don’t like team sports, often because they face homophobic bullying on the pitch and in the changing rooms. Governing bodies and sport teams can help change that by following the RFL’s and the Rhinos’ lead in tackling homophobia and celebrating equality.’

Now its very difficult for the RFL and the Rhinos club to ignore this given they were happy to take on the positive publicity including hardaker posing for pictures in the special shirt - so they do have to act upon this IF hes found guilty.

I think this alleged incident highlights how society is at the moment where casual insults are thrown around without thought. Ignorance is NOT bliss.

Firstly, there is no direct evidence yet about what words were said. All those assuming they know what was said by watching the clip would do well to watch the youtube clip I posted on the first couple of pages.

Secondly, if he has said the term that is being bandied about then it's not very nice. However, language and offence caused by language is an absolute minefield.

For example, the Cambridge dictionary defines the term "faggot" as

"a gay man. This word is considered offensive when it is used by people who are not gay" rlhttp://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/faggot_1?q

Now, leaving aside any issues about whether it's acceptable for one demographic to have free use of a word whilst others can't, the term "fag" is often widely used by homosexuals particularly those who proudly have a "fag hag". Does anybody accusing Zak know his sexual preferences? If Zak likes to "take it in the mudwhistle" (urban dictionary definition of faggott) rlhttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term he's got free reign to call anyone on the pitch that, apparently. Like I Said, minefield.

I very much doubt any Warrington players were offended by what it is alleged was said. I very much doubt the referee was offended as he took no action and, AFAIK didn't put in his report. So, we know someone, somewhere watched a video and was, apparently, offended. Well, it turns out I am fat and bald. The next time someone on television uses the words "fat" or "bald" should I take offence? Stevo often takes stick on super league broadcasts for his bald head. Should the RFL be policing that?

Maybe everyone should grow the f*ck up and realise people, all of us, have silly little prejudices and say things that perhaps we shouldn't be and that is just human nature. Zak has not, AFAIK, allowed any alleged prejudices to influence his actions to the detriment of others. He's not persecuted a minority group. It's alleged he said a potentially derogatory term to someone on a rugby pitch in the heat of battle. Big frikkin deal.

No your wrong. It can be anyone who takes offence. Doesn't have to be the person it's aimed at and if I as a 3rd party believed it to be a hate incident then that is how it has to be treated.

So that is that then. Lad is not entitled to a defence because you think you know what he said, who he said it to and how it should be interpreted. Nice.

If it's all the same to you, I'll continue to defend him.