does that happen? in real life?

Yes, I told you before it does and linked to a report, but here's the details again...

rlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sophie_Lancasterrl

Common sense anyone?

is being a Goth a race, gender, age, faith, sexual orientation or disability?

You've not answered Smokey's question though: did anybody consider the murdered girl 'not hurt' because she wasn't "a certain race,gender, age etc....."

which was your claim.

why is warning them better than fining them?

Dont want to get into one of your cut and paste-athons where you argue black is white and up is down so i'll just say this, the rfls respect policy does state that 'NO FORM of discrimination will be tolerated' not certain types of discrimination are allowed and other arent. It also states 'harassment and aggresive behaviour will not be tolerated' so the rfls own respect policy states that these actions will not be tolerated. If no action is taken then that is tolerating these actions and thats the problem people have is the rfl pick and choose when they are going to apply the respect policy, which means you might as well not have one.

Pyeman, it's pointless trying to argue this case with Smokey.
He is right in many ways - nobody is claiming that the chanting at the Leeds-Saints game was as serious as homophobic chanting. However, he struggles to understand the Respect Policy. His examples of "race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, or faith" are just [iexamples[/i of unacceptable chanting and not an exhaustive list. Even when you quote the Respect Policy to him which clearly states that ANY abusive or obscene language is against the Respect Policy, he just doesn't get it. When we discussed this issue some time ago, he even claimed that the words "b*****d" and "w****r" were not offensive and are acceptable in today's society!
He can put forward some good points, but at the end of the day diverts the issue when he is shown to be in the wrong.

edit: to make it a bit simpler for you,

regardless of what you believe to be discrimination, regardless of any of your attempts to try and confuse the issue in an inane attempt to defend your own club, regardless of the arguments introducing gingers, fatties etc, regardless of the strange argument being made that whilst no-one actually believes the offence Leeds or Hull committed being the same as the one Cas did they should be punished the same for some yet to be declared reason.

Here is what is expected of the clubs, here is the general principles as applicable to the clubs of the RFLs respect policy. Copied verbatim.


In order to uphold these values participants in the game of
Rugby League - players, parents, spectators, coaches, match
officials, other volunteers and administrators of all ages - should:

• Discourage all instances of unsporting behaviour, foul or
illegal play, or acts of violence, both on and off the field.

• Respect the rights, dignity and worth of every person
regardless of their age, ethnic origin, gender, special needs,
including learning and physical disabilities, class or social
background, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, marital
status, pregnancy, colour or political persuasion.

• Accept the moral and legal responsibility to implement
procedures to provide a duty of care for children, safeguard
their wellbeing and protect them from abuse and poor
practice

• Condemn the use of recreational and performance enhancing
drugs and doping practices; their use endangers
the health of players and is contrary to the concept of
fair play.


now this is an exhaustive list of the principles of what is expected of the clubs.

Nowhere here does it mention anything regarding general abuse, or general 'discrimination' it mentions specifically, clearly exhaustively what is expected of the clubs. Cas failed to do this, there is no argument to defend them or lump other clubs in with them.

Smokey, you are digging your hole deeper. I refer you to the e.g element of your quote. This list is not exhaustive but just gives [iexamples[/i of discrimination that can be referred to the RFL.
This chanting is now under investigation by the RFL, so it must have been refered to them and they must feel an investigation is appropriate.

i have simplified it above for you.

I have given you an exhaustive list of what the RFL expect from clubs and by extension their supporters. They were also given advice of what to do should their be an incident. Cas didnt do it.

I don't think anyone (certainly not me) is arguing that Cas managed the chanting well and did not deserve punishment.
Again, as your arguments are pulled to pieces, you simply try to change the point you are making. You have also 'edited out' parts of your post that actually contradict your own argument when highlighted (unfortunately for you it does not edit it in my quote!), which just makes you look daft.