Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:34 pm  

Fat Boy wrote:

Really??? Call someone a c*nt, fanny, prick, dick, knob, bast*rd, tw*t, ars*hole, sh*thead, or cock and not even the merest hint of being mentioned in the ref's report but call someone a puff and the world is up in arms.

What is this sport coming to?

I grew up with the ethos "stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me", nowadays it's "stick and stones may break my bones but words will get me in a lot deeper sh*t".

Do you genuinely not see the difference between generic insults and insults that could potentially insult a specific group of people,i.e.discrimination?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:35 pm  

To flip it around to Yellow Giraffe and others.

If Hardaker receives a not guilty verdict would you accept it as proof he didn't say it? Or would you think they either just haven't been able to prove it or they didn't want to shed bad light on the sport?

Even if you yourself can say honestly you'd accept a not guilty verdict you must admit that you know MANY others who do think he's guilty wouldn't accept it.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:36 pm  

frepneyboy wrote:

To be fair you have a point, to an extent.

What about Suarez in the World cup. Was it a bite, well the answer is, its the 3rd time hes done it.

I'd say the RFL know why ZH was booted from the World Cup squad, was it just a "booze up" with Hock?

Don't get your point re Suarez? He admitted it was a bite. Zak hasn't

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:37 pm  

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

Do you genuinely not see the difference between generic insults and insults that could potentially insult a specific group of people,i.e.discrimination?

But does the word "puff" really discriminate against gay men? Has anyone else asked them because I have.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:38 pm  

Fat Boy wrote:

... oh and while I think on, Jonathan Ross' house band were called Four Puffs and a piano. Do you think ITV would air a show with the house band being called Four N*ggers and a piano?

Gay men really don't mind being called puffs, well the ones I know don't at least.

Thats some edit there

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:39 pm  

Fat Boy wrote:

Really??? Call someone a c*nt, fanny, prick, dick, knob, bast*rd, tw*t, ars*hole, sh*thead, or cock and not even the merest hint of being mentioned in the ref's report but call someone a puff and the world is up in arms.

What is this sport coming to?

I grew up with the ethos "stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me", nowadays it's "stick and stones may break my bones but words will get me in a lot deeper sh*t".

couldn't agree more. brough called bentham a f*cking cheating w*nker during a sky game this year. everybody watching heard it. the RFL ignored it, apart from a few posts fans ignored it.
that was far worse than calling someone a puff!

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:40 pm  

Fat Boy wrote:

But does the word "puff" really discriminate against gay men? Has anyone else asked them because I have.

Shall we look at some other terms used in the English language to describe some groups in society?

No, i wont, i'll get banned, but you might think they are ok.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:42 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

To flip it around to Yellow Giraffe and others.

If Hardaker receives a not guilty verdict would you accept it as proof he didn't say it? Or would you think they either just haven't been able to prove it or they didn't want to shed bad light on the sport?

Even if you yourself can say honestly you'd accept a not guilty verdict you must admit that you know MANY others who do think he's guilty wouldn't accept it.

If he has found not guilty I would happily not say a word on the matter and move on.

I watched the game live and after the first viewing I immediately turned to the mrs and commented that he called Flanagan a puff. Having seeing the replays I do believe he said it.

However if he is found not guilty then it's case closed for me. That doesn't necessarily mean I'd believe he didn't say it though.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:45 pm  

frepneyboy wrote:

Shall we look at some other terms used in the English language to describe some groups in society?

No, i wont, i'll get banned, but you might think they are ok.

Again you are trying to make me out to be something I'm not, your track record really coming through here.

We're talking about the word "puff", don't try and introduce a different element to the argument... then try and tar me with said element.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:48 pm  

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

However if he is found not guilty then it's case closed for me. That doesn't necessarily mean I'd believe he didn't say it though.

Well there you go right there

Either way now due to the cack handed dealing of it neither result is going to convince many to change their original opinion.

Even if it's a not guilty verdict I admit that doesn't 100% prove that he didn't say it.