I challenge you to put up that policy that states exactly what you have put. Because I have read through and it ineed gives no mention of hair colour, size, or cults.

What is he doing about it? Other than moaning about a fine one club got for abuse?

I'll keep playing devil's advocate here until somebody attempts an answer

If there are homophobic chants heard at the racecourse ground Wrexham

Who gets fined ?

If there are homophobic , racist or sexist chants heard at say the KC stadium , the LSV or the Stobart stadium

Who gets fined ?

The rfl respect policy does use the phrase 'no form of discrimination will be tolerated'.

Last time i checked that meant 'we wont allow any sort of discrimination against anyone, no matter what form that discrimination takes'

Name your source Gotcha,
you are wrong btw

So the home fans must support the away team equally?

Thanks Hopie, saved me the time. It's an RFL respect policy, not British law, and it is under that respect policy that Cas were found to be guilty.

As i've said already, my posts aren't to distinguish between gingerism, homophobia and the rest. The use of the gingerisms as an example was to show that under the RFLs own policy, the one they have accused cas of breaching, every other clubs fans are breaching this very same policy. Of course i'm against racist and homophobic chants, at no time have i tried to make out i wasn't or that gingerisms are worse, equal, better than homophobic chanting. The point, one last time, is that gingerism is against the RFL policy because it is abusive, especially if in the same sentance as the words "you're just ginger fat, barsteward". This thread is about Cas being fined and in my opinion singled out for this fine, as per the RFLs own statement. Abuse is abuse under the RFL policy, ginger and gay.

I'm also not suggesting that Leeds and every other club should now be fined £40k. I'm suggesting the RFL are wrong to fine Cas if they are to fine Cas alone. IMO you can also go into the fine further and question what else Cas could do to stop the chanting given everything they have quoted in their appeal statement.

Can you explain which of those you highlighted werent subjective?

Ill give you a clue, its [igender, age, race, disability, religion, faith, sexual orientation[/i everything else is down to a subjective judgement. This is because gender, age, race, disability, religion, faith, sexual orientation are viewed by normal people and society in general as bigger issues than someone mocking James Graham

everything else you have listed is a subjective judgement, it seems the RFL have excised the same subjective judgement of almost everybody else in the world and decided that calling James Graham for being ginger isnt in the same league as calling Gareth Thomas for being gay

so you arent saying that gingerism and homophobia are the same, and you arent saying that leeds should be fined for chanting about gingers.

But you are saying because leeds werent fined for chanting about gingers Cas shouldnt be fined for homophobic chanting, even though you arent saying anti-ginger and homophobic chanting are the same, but then you are saying abuse is abuse whether ginger or gay?

you do realise how ridiculous and contradictory that is dont you? If anti ginger chanting and homophobic chanting arent the same then the chanting on Saturday is completely irrelevant.

it depends on the situation, the fans of the club doing it, and the response of the club

I take it you mean away fans making the chants, if so surely the stewards of the home club are responsible for crowd safety etc. I would suggest that the home club if like Cas (as found by an independent panel) did not take all reasonable steps to either stop or take measures to identify and take action against the people making the chants (including working with the away club to take all necessary steps)

Quite clearly Cas were not in anyway responsible for causing the chanting but surely responsibility for taking all reasonable steps to stop the chanting rest with the club?

Three key things for me in this whole issue which would show that Cas took steps:

1. There's a lot of mention about two chants being drowned out by the PA system but no mention of what was actually being said or broadcast over the PA system i.e. was it drowned out by the respect message or just announcing an interchange? Big difference if the only reason the chants were drowned out was by events in the game rather than the trying to drown out the mindless few who were chanting?

2. There were stewards on the corner of the stand, what actions did they take i.e. if the answer to point 1 is that the club broadcast the respect message what actions did the supervising steward or club officials request of the stewards in the area?

3. What activities have been taken since the night in question? Any mention in subsequent programmes or the official website clearly and unequivocally stating their dis-satisfaction at the people concerned?

To be honest, looking at this and trying to be subjective rather than defend my own club, the RFL Respect policy clearly states.
1 No person/s attending a match shallUse offensive or obscene language to any player, coach, referee, touch judge, official or other spectator."

One might argue over actually how offensive it is to chant about James Graham being ginger, but the Respect Policy clearly states that "[iobscene language to any player[/i" is not condoned, and I'd suggest the word b*****d comes into this category. Unless of course anyone would like to suggest that this word is not obscene?
Likewise, the above quote also directly identifies obscene language towards the referee is in breach of the Respect Policy, and unless anyone would argue that the word w****r is not offensive or obscene the chanting towards the referee clearly breaches the policy.

Therefore, to me, Leeds Rhinos supporters (and therefore the club) breached the RFL Respect policy on two counts, and therefore investigations should be made by the RFL into these.

An obscenity [i(in Latin obscenus, meaning "foul, repulsive, detestable"icon_wink.gif, is that which offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious; ill-omened.[/i

would you really want to argue that the prevalent morality of the time, would judge the Graham incident as profane, taboo, indecent, abhorrent or disgusting as the Thomas incident?

Are you suggesting the words "b*****d" and "w****r" are not abusive and/or obscene? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.