Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 5:07 pm  

loiner81 wrote:

And fully justified too. There was absolutely no doubt over what happened on that occasion.

You can't really argue with this, can you?

You asked when it was and I told you.

Wasn't this your question
"When was the last time we had something like this though, with videos all over the web and lynch mobs out for blood?"

He rightly got fined by the club and the RFL.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 5:11 pm  

Smokey is your full time occupation engaging in quote off's on here? because every single f*cking thread I see you in you're dissecting people posts practically word by word.

I wouldn't be suprised if you had a lawyer go over the wording of your posts before hitting submit, just to make sure there's no post or argument you can't twist and wriggle your way out of, with enough quotes and posts of course.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 5:23 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

You asked when it was and I told you.

Wasn't this your question
"When was the last time we had something like this though, with videos all over the web and lynch mobs out for blood?"

He rightly got fined by the club and the RFL.

Not quite the same though is it, the above was a cut & dried case of a player acting like a total ****with the photo leaving no one in doubt whatsoever. Unlike that 10 second video that's currently doing the rounds.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 5:26 pm  

loiner81 wrote:

Not quite the same though is it, the above was a cut & dried case of a player acting like a total ****with the photo leaving no one in doubt whatsoever. Unlike that 10 second video that's currently doing the rounds.

Let the powers that be sort it out. That's their job isn't it?

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:11 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

Seems clear it didn't have to be Child who reported it

It didn't, no. It could have been another player.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:19 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote: Faggot isnt a swear word. It is a homophobic slur. Interestingly, not according to the Urban Dictionary. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=faggot In these times not really used if somebody is really a homosexual mostly used instead of calling somebody stupid or a loser. Not to mention the earlier reference I provided stating the term was acceptable if used by homosexual men. Of course, many traditional dictionaries say it is an offensive term though, interestingly, not a homophobic term. So I've provided a plethora of authorities which say the word may or may not be offensive but you've provided none that say it's homophobic apart from it is because you say it is. That's another thing about language, it can and often does change and words that were not originally offensive can become so and words that were offensive can become less so. The younger generation do use the term faggot in a non offensive way as described in the Urban Dictionary. Think about the word Bitch. Many people now refer to their bitches including women talking about their girlfriends. People have taken ownership of a previously offensive word and taken the offence out of it, like that gay community has done by their own use of the word "fag" (fag hag etc). Think about calling someone or something crazy. Fairly inoffensive but what about the connotations and stigma with the mentally ill? What about calling someone or a situation lame? Would that cause outrage? What about the negative connotations with disability from which that word originates?

SmokeyTA wrote: Faggot isnt a swear word. It is a homophobic slur. Interestingly, not according to the Urban Dictionary. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=faggot In these times not really used if somebody is really a homosexual mostly used instead of calling somebody stupid or a loser. Not to mention the earlier reference I provided stating the term was acceptable if used by homosexual men. Of course, many traditional dictionaries say it is an offensive term though, interestingly, not a homophobic term. So I've provided a plethora of authorities which say the word may or may not be offensive but you've provided none that say it's homophobic apart from it is because you say it is. That's another thing about language, it can and often does change and words that were not originally offensive can become so and words that were offensive can become less so. The younger generation do use the term faggot in a non offensive way as described in the Urban Dictionary. Think about the word Bitch. Many people now refer to their bitches including women talking about their girlfriends. People have taken ownership of a previously offensive word and taken the offence out of it, like that gay community has done by their own use of the word "fag" (fag hag etc). Think about calling someone or something crazy. Fairly inoffensive but what about the connotations and stigma with the mentally ill? What about calling someone or a situation lame? Would that cause outrage? What about the negative connotations with disability from which that word originates?

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:12 am  

G1 - I assume Zak has contacted you to conduct his defence if this goes to a Tribunal? Judging stereotypically from his tats etc I'd suggest you do all the talking.

[Ex-Swarcliffe Rhino]

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:38 am  

Frankly I'd rather let the relevant authority's deal with the "alleged" abuse, rather than a bunch of amateur lip readers.

South Park has an episode called ""The F word" that deals with this furore quite aptly.

I'm also sure most folk can find an internet site called YouTube and put in BAD NFL LIP READING. Try it.

Before anyone starts either, I don't condone any abuse of any kind either, I just prefer to make up my own mind after seeing/hearing ALL the evidence.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:42 am  

loiner81 wrote:

Not quite the same though is it, the above was a cut & dried case of a player acting like a total ****with the photo leaving no one in doubt whatsoever. Unlike that 10 second video that's currently doing the rounds.

No, it's not quite the same. One was a kid sticking 2 fingers up at the people who had been verbally abusing him and also booooood him whilst playing for his country. Silly thing to do and he rightly got fined.

The other is about an investigation that is taking place. IF found to be guilty is on a different level and will be very harshly dealt with. There is no doubt he said something which on the face of it appeared to be a homophobic term. That is for the people conducting the investigation to decide. IMO from the little evidence I have seen it is impossible to judge exactly what was said and who it was aimed at. The investigation will have access to several camera angles and expert lip readers to help them come to a conclusion.

For those who are blaze about the seriousness of the alleged incident and want to talk technicalities it could come under the category of 'Hate Crime' depending on what evidence is submitted and the statements of those involved. It could also be a storm in a tea cup. As RG said let the powers that be decide.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:12 am  

Eastbourne Warrior wrote:

One was a kid sticking 2 fingers up at the people who had been verbally abusing him and also booooood him whilst playing for his country.

...and this is where you lose all credibility.

Yes Tomkins was boo'd while playing for England
Yes the game was played at Headingley
Yes the boo's came from the Southstand

But the Southstand was full of supporters from every (and I really mean every) team in the SL and a majority of the other professional clubs - not solely Leeds fans (thus proving that everyone hates Tomkins, not just Rhinos supporters).

So did Tomkins subsequently stick the V's up at every other teams supporters? No - just Leeds.