Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:13 am  

Wire Yed wrote:

You missed the point, my point was based on sgtwilko saying I'm not allowed an opinion.
I was being facetious and using an extreme point to make my facetious statement.

He never actually said you couldn't have an opinion.

And TBH using the subject of rape in a facetious way leaves you with very little moral high ground on what Hardaker said.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:14 am  

Wire Yed wrote:

You missed the point, my point was based on sgtwilko saying I'm not allowed an opinion.
I was being facetious and using an extreme point to make my facetious statement.

Find one statement where I said you can't have an opinion. You have made up a lie.

You look stupid.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:18 am  

Gotcha wrote:

It isn't about taking offence. Was the person it was aimed at actually homosexual? that would be more to the point.

The comparisons with the Cas fans couldn't be further from the reality. Cas fans openly chanted derogatory comments about an openly homosexual player, with the intention of insulting that player because of who he was.

While I think this is a bit of a witch hunt without any evidence really other than people doing some ametur lip reading the above isn't totally true. If you were to say the alleged word in the street not aimed at anyone or anyone who is homosexual it's still an offence. Anyone by law can be offended by the language used doesn't have to be a homosexual person.

I do believe this is being blown out of proportion with little actual evidence and with it hitting national Media can see a big ban coming which if I was hardaker would see the end of my SL CAREER would be heading to the NRL.

No players or the ref appeared to take offence. I think someone said it erlier but I am guessing the complaint is by some fans and I would guess the motivation is more to do with getting him a ban rather than being offended.

If he has said it then he deserves some punishment but it appears to me he is being hung with some very ropey evidence at the moment

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:28 am  

Him wrote:

Yes. Unless you think sexism doesn't exist and hasn't in the past.

You think the word woman is a sexist slur?

My point is not about the actual word, my point is why would sexist language be acceptable if homophobic isn't. If we think use of the word "woman" to belittle/take the mick out of someone for being soft is acceptable why aren't other words that are used for the same reason?

There's an awful lot of foul and abusive language used on the pitch, especially in tight games with incidents. I've heard plenty and been told about plenty of such language from players.

If we (as a sport) are going to punish Hardaker then we also have to punish every incident of what could be described as "discriminatory" language and at the moment that isn't happening.
For instance, James Graham was regularly insulted for being ginger (by opposition players).
Sean Long was called a travelling friend. Etc
I'm sure there's plenty of other examples, including some I know were heard by match officials.

They haven't been punished.
If we are cleaning up the language on the pitch then fine, I think we'll struggle a bit to enforce it entirely but as long as it's a consistent approach then great.

Hardaker (allegedly) used a homophobic slur. Its pretty obviously different to words which arent slurs. There obviously isnt the same level of offence attached to Ginger. If people were calling Long a travelling friend on the pitch then they should be in the same position.

I think we are kidding ourselves if anyone wants to pretend we know as a society there are words which are offensive and can't be used. We actually have a legal obligation in some regards. If you think a word might be one of those words, dont use it. its not complicated. Im fine with players throwing generic insults at each other and im confident that Hardaker meant it in that way, just a word thrown about. However that word isnt to be used in that way. It is exclusionary. We arent an exclusionary sport.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:32 am  

Ferdy wrote:

the complaint is by some fans and I would guess the motivation is more to do with getting him a ban rather than being offended.

Dead right! A few numpties have tried to twist my posts. But what you said is the whole thing in a nut shell. Zak should get the punishment he deserves based on nothing but the facts. But the bull $hit fest generated by many is nothing short of pathetic.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:34 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

You think the word woman is a sexist slur?

Hardaker (allegedly) used a homophobic slur. Its pretty obviously different to words which arent slurs. There obviously isnt the same level of offence attached to Ginger. If people were calling Long a travelling friend on the pitch then they should be in the same position.

I think we are kidding ourselves if anyone wants to pretend we know as a society there are words which are offensive and can't be used. We actually have a legal obligation in some regards. If you think a word might be one of those words, dont use it. its not complicated. Im fine with players throwing generic insults at each other and im confident that Hardaker meant it in that way, just a word thrown about. However that word isnt to be used in that way. It is exclusionary. We arent an exclusionary sport.

If it's not then why is the word woman (or girl) used to to describe someone being a bit soft? Or any other sexist language for that matter.
I said it's not about the actual word, but then of course you haven't answered the actual point of my post you've confined it to the word I used as an example. Which is typical of you.

As for legal obligations, then we have to ban every swear word used on the pitch. They're all against Section 5 of the Public Order Act.

If we aren't an exclusionary sport, why are we (in your opinion) allowed to exclude women?

Do you now see my point?

And the point about consistency?

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:35 am  

could faggot actually be fat git?

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:37 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

He never actually said you couldn't have an opinion.

And TBH using the subject of rape Iin a facetious way leaves you with very little moral high ground on what Hardaker said.

And maybe I'll apologise for being crass when people stop defending Hardacker.

I love the guy as a player and I don't want to see him on the sidelines, but the lad has a questionable attitude and homophobia is something personal to me and this incident disappoints me.
Not angry as it could be a genuine throwaway comment but I hold this word just as strong as the N word and he should be made an example of.
Do I say this to weaken an opposition side? No, if this was a Wire player id actually be MORE vehement in my condemnation, I was actually holding off a little because it was an opposition player as I feared reactions like sgtwilkos.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:44 am  

Ferdy wrote:

If you were to say the alleged word in the street not aimed at anyone or anyone who is homosexual it's still an offence. Anyone by law can be offended by the language used doesn't have to be a homosexual person.

That is absolutely not true at all. It is not an offence to use that word at all. Infact, police up and down the country when breaking up fights on a Friday/Saturday nights in city centres, will hear those terms and worse repeated many times over.

Same term used many times over on school playing fields, and laughed at by parents.

If you used racist behaviour against someone it applies to, then that would be a different story. If you used the terms to someone who is actually homosexual in a way showing hatred because of their orientation, then it is a different story.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:49 am  

IF what as been reported is what Hardaker as said, he should be sacked like what would happen in any reputable work place. However it's a big IF that he actually said those words. Everyone needs to remember innocent until proven guilty!