No, but you'd get a harsher sentence for the first.

I just think Smith (or the writer, whoever, but it seems like it was smith implying) that using a case of abuse of a gay man as a precedent. If, for example, a club had been charged for calling Gleeson for the bet scandal, or Hock when he comes back then you can say there is a preceded. I just think it was a mistake to even claim that both types of abuse should be dealt with in the same way.

Homophobia is disgraceful and should result in serious consequences. Shouting out abuse at a man who would have been arrested had he done that act here is a different matter.

And for the poster who claimed that he must be gay as he's arguing this point, grow up.

No they wouldn't, but your point is irrelevant. Your argument doesn't work. Why would anyone even need to mention the action taken on the 1st offence when discussing whether you'd be prosecuted for the second? It just isn't relevant. Why would someone describe a homophobic assault as forming a precedent for how the 2nd offence would be prosecuted - they're different cases and the homophobic assault offence would be prosecuted as a hate crime and the sentence would be much more severe. There's no valid reason for the comparison, unless all you're saying is that the police prosecute assaults. But that's obvious so it still begs the question of why you'd mention offence 1 when discussing offence 2 in the first place...

ABUSE IS ABUSE IS ABUSE

Whether it be homophobic, racial, dog bothering, chinchilla breeding, dove tailing with a blunt saw.

For the last time

He's not saying homophobia and dog sex are the same he's saying that

There is a precedent set for chanting that is beyond what is deemed acceptable in a modern civilised society which involves a fine for said offenders

Most of it by you. Even your own fan's admit Smith wan'ts saying they're the same. Let it go FFS. People have been fined for going overboard with abusive chanting before and if it goes too far again then it could be looked at under the RFL rules. No comparison with being gay is made whatsover. Please ask soembody to explain this to you as you have great difficulty at grasping. Smith even said he expect's abuse and Joel does.

who deems what is acceptable?

Society. The man in the street.

That's why you can drop an occasional f bomb on TV but you can't use the c word.

Thats not true, as homophobic chanting is illegal and so is racial. but calling someone for letting a dog munch on them isnt illegal so who decides if it goes too far?

You cant drop a f and more than a c as people will complain if offended so will end up the same.

each week someone from the RFL picks up a yellow pages.... they then proceed to close their eyes, flick through the pages and randomly put their finger on a name.... this person then gets to listen to recordings of the top 3 rated pieces of abuse (as chosen by a specialist RL celebrity panel) from the weekends games.

IF the person deems the abuse to be unacceptable, the relevant clubs will be fined £10,000 more than the amount won on the previous days 'deal or no deal'.

Come on moderators: any chance we can ban the Wigan bumders off here?

Although I'd suspect Deano (as in Torvell and Dean I suspect) would pot an e-mail off to his local MEP claiming it as a breach of the European Free Speach Charter going off his record of ever so slight over-reaction.

don't encourage them (the RFL), they'll take this idea on
after all, they use the same procedure with foul play on the pitch, don't they

incase anyone from the RFL is reading and taking notes.... please find an idea for the first weeks celebrity panel below

Graham Norton
Elton John
Bob Carolgees

I would think all 3 know where the fine line between abuse and humour is.

is bob carolgees gay?

no but he does put parts of his body.....I'd better stop