I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking what will be deemed a controversial signing and what won't. Will players that have broken the law be deemed controversial?

"controversial
giving rise or likely to give rise to controversy or public disagreement."

Most likely then.

You compared two players, one with outspoken views the other with multiple convictions for assault, you tell me which is the most controversial.

Going off that definition, someone moving between Wigan and St Helens ala Gary Connolly wouldn't be allowed either.

I detest religious bigotry but I would also defend a person's right to say what they think regardless of whether it offends people or not. We are entering dangerous territory if somebody can be stopped from entering SL because they hold an unfavourable opinion. How do you define controversial? Who decides if a player is controversial enough to hold a vote on? What gives SL bosses the right to decide what the collective SL watching community thinks is unacceptable? The result of any vote would depend on the personal views of each person voting, making it subjective. Elstone says "As a sport, we have an impressive and enviable track record when it comes to equality, diversity and inclusion and we will continue our great work in those areas." Diversity of what though? Does diversity of opinion not count? You have to take these things to their logical conclusion.

I think we should all take a vote on whether IF should or should not be allowed to play in SL, the winners can then take the moral high ground or low ground depending on your views and then the admin can lock the thread once and for all.

He is right, we do have a track record for inclusion. We welcome drug cheats, recreational drug users, people who like to knock their missus about and alcohol abusers with open arms.

I asked a question. Hudds1895 then compared the misdemeanours of the several players I mentioned who have a negative history and IF stating that he hasn't broken the law. That would lead me to believe he doesn't see the signing as controversial as that of a possible convicted criminal.

The question I am asking (as are many others) is simply, who decides what is controversial and what isn't.

If you are welcoming people of different race, creed, colour, gay etc, you cannot then welcome people who OPENLY oppose those groups.
You cannot claim to be "diverse" is you employ people who openly hate certain groups within your group of employees.

Everyone is entitled to THINK whatever they wish. However, when those views become publicised and against your stated objectives (diversity, inclusivity etc), as an employer (or governing body) you would be opening yourself up to all sorts of claims. It's not rocket science, it's common bloody sense.

My old boss used to say, "what you get up to in your own time, is your business", which is still the case.

If players posted images of themselves with Nazi flags or kicking the out of someone, they would be, quite rightly held to account.
Equally, they could do these things privately and assuming they weren't reported or caught in the act, nothing would happen.

There is a significant grey area with religion and UK law, as many religions have issues which are against the law of the land but, these do seem to be allowed to carry on "on religious grounds". Which one should prevail ? the law or, personal belief ??

Ultimately, people should not be condemned for their beliefs, however, when their belief flies against what is accepted within the law, everyone needs to tread carefully.

Personally, I'm a little surprised that more hasn't been made of IF's comment about the bushfires being punishment for gay sex and marriage.
Which for me is a comment from medieval times.

Just to confirm my opinion on it, I don't think he should have been allowed to sign. If a fan shouting abuse like that at Keegan Hirst say then he would be banned from most grounds for life.

The problem now, as I've said, is what is considered to be a controversial signing and what isn't?

People seem to have completely forgotten the fuss kicked up when these signings happened.

Spot on that Wrenners,I totally agree with you on this.

Me too!

Yes, good summary.

You must recall that this country has been Christian for centuries (although currently observance has waned) but gay sex was illegal until relatively recently. So when it comes to conflict between belief and law then things get difficult. That said I cannot see it is an offence to say something without the intention of causing direct harm to a individual.

Hell Awaits
Bush Fires are punishment from God

Paganism and tne occult go back further than Christianity, should we start dunking suspected witches, sacrificing virgins, reinstate the rights of First Knight?

The "man" is abhorrent.

Well according to Phil Clark, Samson was a character from Greek mythology. I wonder how a religious Christian fundamentalist would react to such a faux pas.

It's OK, Barrie Mac thinks Delilah is someone Tom Jones had a crush on.

Until the last few years Rugby League, throughout its history, has been a fine example of stoicism , going back to the original split, the Vichy and the ongoing interference and shunning by the RFU and others. This stoicism has long been admired by many outside the sport and manifested itself and was a part of the character of many involved within the sport and the sport itself.

It is of course a cornerstone of stoicism , and a fine trait amongst reasonable humans, that offence is only taken and not given. Therefore the current brouhaha over Mr Folau's silly comments, whilst in the employ of the Australian Rugby Union, is disappointing to say the least.

To be offended by Mr Folau you would first have to actually care what they guy has to say or opine about anything, not sure why anybody would, and secondly would actually have to believe, in the 21st century, that the silly stories of religion and a hell are in fact true, unless of course you take offence at ancient fairy tales.

The sport , if it felt necessary, should have just called his opinion for what it is, a silly , childish , unintelligent point of view. Turn it back on Mr Folau, educate any people that need it, that he is spouting nonsense. His personal views are clearly not the games views and any reasonable person can see that, including any reasonable sponsors, although quite why any sponsors of Hull KR (as Mr Hudgell seems to be the self appointed arbiter of thought crime) would withdraw their support because of the daft opinion of a player on another team in another country, expressed only to those who wish to hear or read it, whilst he was in another sport in yet another country , I am really not sure.

As many have stated, silly opinions are not in the same sphere as physical harm or other criminal offences. As far as i am aware there has been no singling out of an individual or personal insult or defamation (on Mr Folaus part anyway). There are many within the game of a religious nature who , because of their adherence to said idiocies, will share the same opinion of Folau but have not publicised it, including some very highly paid and high profile players. Are SL going to appoint a Witchfinder General (perhaps the aforesaid Mr Hudgell, employer of Joel Tomkins, Ben Cockayne, Todd Carney, Paul Cooke, Dane Tilse et al) to root out all those of bad opinions and ostracise them?

If we are going to ban people or ostracise them for daft opinions there will not be that many left on the field or off it, and of course the game would be bankrupt very quickly.

What a bizarre comment.

He was sacked by the ARU and not given a gig by any club in the NRL and yet you think that we "need" such players.

His PUBLICISED views are the polar opposite to the stated aims of "inclusivity" in the sport of RL.
You are right that there are plenty of players who may be equally as "daft" in their views but, they have the good sense to keep them private and well away from the media (especially social media).

It's strange how our wealthier competitors in Union and the NRL can manage without but we (most notably Catalan) cant.

You can't assume that accepting someone with a particular view is the same as accepting that view, and people can claim whatever they want but it doesn't make them right.

There's a lot of philosophical nonsense being talked here - and of course someone has to trumpet the new religion of the professional bigot, 'Freedom of speech' - which we all have, within the limits of the law. All fine and dandy - have a medieval and antiquated opinion about homosexuality; think it all you like; think really really hard about what homosexuals do with each other in the privacy of their own relationships and bedrooms if you really want to - but the second you start *talking* about it in a public forum, you are accountable for what you say, and a decent employer, aware of the concept of vicarious liability, will have a view about that, and be entitled to act on that view. Catalans Dragons have opted not to do that - and by extension, have involved both the RFL and SL, and the wider sport.

The conclusion to draw here is that Catalans Dragons care more about their ability to win a game, than they do about the values, feelings and inclusiveness of the RFL, SLE and the sponsors, supporters and fans of the game of RL. Some people are ok with that - perhaps because they've never been oppressed due to their sexuality - but most aren't - which is encouraging.

Stoicism my ar$e - that just means, "man up gays, don't take it personally."

Of course, when you cut through all the guff and bluster around this, the idiocy and nonsense of what Folau posted , halfway down , in response to a direct question , on a many commented Instagram post , that could be read by 0.002% of the population(and that he publicised himself no further and that you would have to want to search or look for to be aware of , and of course make a special effort to be offended by), and the rush of virtue signalling on the other side, then the middle ground of the law and reasonable people is left.

Mr Folau of course sued the Australian Rugby Union, for $14million (£7.5 m) over the termination of his contract as they had no leg to stand on. The ARU, of course "aware" of the law, settled with Mr Folau and he, himself, received an apology from THEM.

How many settlements do you think it would take to drain the much less rich SL or RFL of all funds??? We are not a rich sport by any stretch, reliant on TV money for the present full time status. It would be bleak. I am more than certain that Mr Hudgell et al know this and it is all bluff and bluster. Perhaps a blanket ban on social media for all players is the only way to prevent any future occurrence of any thought crime of any kind and the subsequent displays of jellyfish behaviour.

That's usually where I stop reading - because it's become one of the go-to phrases of the RW nutjob brigade, who appear to have succeeded in turning the world on its head, whereby caring about other people is something to be derided.

However:



The simple solution of course, would be to not employ him in the first place - rather than place the sport in the invidious position of having to deal with his odious bigotry after the fact, when he is already employed and in a position to raise a claim.