Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:50 am  

Wire Yed wrote:

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.

No! where have I defended him. You are bull $hitting again. I've questioned the motivation of fans reactions, nothing else. I gave the opinion it has little to do with a gay slur and a lot to do with a witch hunt to get a bloke band as he plays for a rival, which is pathetic.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:51 am  

I think the main issue about this is not that Hardaker (allegedly) used the word, but the fact he (and others) think it was perfectly ok to do so as some sort of generic insult. Given the amount of positive publicity Leeds Rhinos were involved in with their Stonewall game whre the media said
"The Rhinos are taking over from the Sheffield Eagles as the Rugby Football League’s LGB&T champions." you would think he had learnt something.

Stonewall Deputy Chief Executive Laura Doughty said: ‘Sadly a recent University of Cambridge survey for Stonewall’s School Report 2012 shows two thirds of gay young people don’t like team sports, often because they face homophobic bullying on the pitch and in the changing rooms. Governing bodies and sport teams can help change that by following the RFL’s and the Rhinos’ lead in tackling homophobia and celebrating equality.’

Now its very difficult for the RFL and the Rhinos club to ignore this given they were happy to take on the positive publicity including hardaker posing for pictures in the special shirt - so they do have to act upon this IF hes found guilty.

I think this alleged incident highlights how society is at the moment where casual insults are thrown around without thought. Ignorance is NOT bliss.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:52 am  

Firstly, there is no direct evidence yet about what words were said. All those assuming they know what was said by watching the clip would do well to watch the youtube clip I posted on the first couple of pages. Secondly, if he has said the term that is being bandied about then it's not very nice. However, language and offence caused by language is an absolute minefield. For example, the Cambridge dictionary defines the term "faggot" as "a gay man. This word is considered offensive when it is used by people who are not gay" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/faggot_1?q=faggot Now, leaving aside any issues about whether it's acceptable for one demographic to have free use of a word whilst others can't, the term "fag" is often widely used by homosexuals particularly those who proudly have a "fag hag". Does anybody accusing Zak know his sexual preferences? If Zak likes to "take it in the mudwhistle" (urban dictionary definition of faggott) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=faggott he's got free reign to call anyone on the pitch that, apparently. Like I Said, minefield. I very much doubt any Warrington players were offended by what it is alleged was said. I very much doubt the referee was offended as he took no action and, AFAIK didn't put in his report. So, we know someone, somewhere watched a video and was, apparently, offended. Well, it turns out I am fat and bald. The next time someone on television uses the words "fat" or "bald" should I take offence? Stevo often takes stick on super league broadcasts for his bald head. Should the RFL be policing that? Maybe everyone should grow the f*ck up and realise people, all of us, have silly little prejudices and say things that perhaps we shouldn't be and that is just human nature. Zak has not, AFAIK, allowed any alleged prejudices to influence his actions to the detriment of others. He's not persecuted a minority group. It's alleged he said a potentially derogatory term to someone on a rugby pitch in the heat of battle. Big frikkin deal.

Firstly, there is no direct evidence yet about what words were said. All those assuming they know what was said by watching the clip would do well to watch the youtube clip I posted on the first couple of pages. Secondly, if he has said the term that is being bandied about then it's not very nice. However, language and offence caused by language is an absolute minefield. For example, the Cambridge dictionary defines the term "faggot" as "a gay man. This word is considered offensive when it is used by people who are not gay" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/faggot_1?q=faggot Now, leaving aside any issues about whether it's acceptable for one demographic to have free use of a word whilst others can't, the term "fag" is often widely used by homosexuals particularly those who proudly have a "fag hag". Does anybody accusing Zak know his sexual preferences? If Zak likes to "take it in the mudwhistle" (urban dictionary definition of faggott) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=faggott he's got free reign to call anyone on the pitch that, apparently. Like I Said, minefield. I very much doubt any Warrington players were offended by what it is alleged was said. I very much doubt the referee was offended as he took no action and, AFAIK didn't put in his report. So, we know someone, somewhere watched a video and was, apparently, offended. Well, it turns out I am fat and bald. The next time someone on television uses the words "fat" or "bald" should I take offence? Stevo often takes stick on super league broadcasts for his bald head. Should the RFL be policing that? Maybe everyone should grow the f*ck up and realise people, all of us, have silly little prejudices and say things that perhaps we shouldn't be and that is just human nature. Zak has not, AFAIK, allowed any alleged prejudices to influence his actions to the detriment of others. He's not persecuted a minority group. It's alleged he said a potentially derogatory term to someone on a rugby pitch in the heat of battle. Big frikkin deal.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:53 am  

Gotcha wrote:

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.

No your wrong. It can be anyone who takes offence. Doesn't have to be the person it's aimed at and if I as a 3rd party believed it to be a hate incident then that is how it has to be treated.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:55 am  

Wire Yed wrote:

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

So that is that then. Lad is not entitled to a defence because you think you know what he said, who he said it to and how it should be interpreted. Nice.

If it's all the same to you, I'll continue to defend him.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:57 am  

Him wrote:

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.

it isnt, it is a word sometimes used to describe things which are feminine.

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.

you can say its not about the actual word. You can be wrong.

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.

this isnt the case at all. No word is illegal. The use of homophobic slurs, unpunished, within a work place would be a failure to provide a safe workplace free of discrimination.

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

we dont exclude women. Women are allowed to play, in fact it is part of the criteria for our sport Enland funding. Men and Women are banned from playing contact sports together for safety reasons.

Do you now see my point?

And the point about consistency?

i see your point. It is wrong. It isnt inconsistent to treat different things differently .

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:00 pm  

Ferdy wrote:

No your wrong. It can be anyone who takes offence. Doesn't have to be the person it's aimed at and if I as a 3rd party believed it to be a hate incident then that is how it has to be treated.

Yup, I once defended someone wrongly accused of such things. His accusers, made demonstrably false accusations. Because, as homosexuals, they were consideedr minority victims of hate crime, the police had no discretion but to make an arrest which, they told me, they would not have done had the accusations not been made by a minority given the demonstrably false nature of the accusations.

Welcome to "equality" 21st century style.

Footnote. The accusers lost a big civil case and received a warning for wasting police time.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:04 pm  

Oh brilliant, another argument where Smokey insists that black is white.

Yeah, you win another one Smokey. I can't be @rsed when you do stuff like this.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:08 pm  

G1 wrote: Firstly, there is no direct evidence yet about what words were said. All those assuming they know what was said by watching the clip would do well to watch the youtube clip I posted on the first couple of pages. Secondly, if he has said the term that is being bandied about then it's not very nice. However, language and offence caused by language is an absolute minefield. For example, the Cambridge dictionary defines the term "faggot" as "a gay man. This word is considered offensive when it is used by people who are not gay" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/faggot_1?q=faggot Now, leaving aside any issues about whether it's acceptable for one demographic to have free use of a word whilst others can't, the term "fag" is often widely used by homosexuals particularly those who proudly have a "fag hag". Does anybody accusing Zak know his sexual preferences? If Zak likes to "take it in the mudwhistle" (urban dictionary definition of faggott) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=faggott he's got free reign to call anyone on the pitch that, apparently. Like I Said, minefield. I very much doubt any Warrington players were offended by what it is alleged was said. I very much doubt the referee was offended as he took no action and, AFAIK didn't put in his report. So, we know someone, somewhere watched a video and was, apparently, offended. Well, it turns out I am fat and bald. The next time someone on television uses the words "fat" or "bald" should I take offence? Stevo often takes stick on super league broadcasts for his bald head. Should the RFL be policing that? Maybe everyone should grow the f*ck up and realise people, all of us, have silly little prejudices and say things that perhaps we shouldn't be and that is just human nature. Zak has not, AFAIK, allowed any alleged prejudices to influence his actions to the detriment of others. He's not persecuted a minority group. It's alleged he said a potentially derogatory term to someone on a rugby pitch in the heat of battle. Big frikkin deal. I think all this is irrelevant. I think the the question is do we want the image of RL to be one where Homophobic language goes unpunished. Do we allow peoples 'silly little prejudices' to exclude others, and do we want potential fans, players and sponsors to think that our game excludes homosexuals, allows homophobia to be expressed freely within it and go unpunished. Do you we want a 15/16/17 year old kid struggling with his sexuality to think this game isnt for him? Lets not pretend we exist in some progressive nirvana and fat, bald, ginger are the same as homophobic slurs. We have plenty of fatties, plenty of baldies, and even some gingers playing pro RL We have 0 openly homosexual players in our pro game. Statistically we should have at least 30 or 40. Perhaps some gay people dont like being called faggots, dont like seeing others being called faggots and dont want to be involved in a game where a high profile young player (if true) can throw around homophobic slurs, or a game where people can't tell the difference between a word used to bully, attack, discriminate against homosexuals and generic terms of abuse.

G1 wrote: Firstly, there is no direct evidence yet about what words were said. All those assuming they know what was said by watching the clip would do well to watch the youtube clip I posted on the first couple of pages. Secondly, if he has said the term that is being bandied about then it's not very nice. However, language and offence caused by language is an absolute minefield. For example, the Cambridge dictionary defines the term "faggot" as "a gay man. This word is considered offensive when it is used by people who are not gay" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/faggot_1?q=faggot Now, leaving aside any issues about whether it's acceptable for one demographic to have free use of a word whilst others can't, the term "fag" is often widely used by homosexuals particularly those who proudly have a "fag hag". Does anybody accusing Zak know his sexual preferences? If Zak likes to "take it in the mudwhistle" (urban dictionary definition of faggott) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=faggott he's got free reign to call anyone on the pitch that, apparently. Like I Said, minefield. I very much doubt any Warrington players were offended by what it is alleged was said. I very much doubt the referee was offended as he took no action and, AFAIK didn't put in his report. So, we know someone, somewhere watched a video and was, apparently, offended. Well, it turns out I am fat and bald. The next time someone on television uses the words "fat" or "bald" should I take offence? Stevo often takes stick on super league broadcasts for his bald head. Should the RFL be policing that? Maybe everyone should grow the f*ck up and realise people, all of us, have silly little prejudices and say things that perhaps we shouldn't be and that is just human nature. Zak has not, AFAIK, allowed any alleged prejudices to influence his actions to the detriment of others. He's not persecuted a minority group. It's alleged he said a potentially derogatory term to someone on a rugby pitch in the heat of battle. Big frikkin deal. I think all this is irrelevant. I think the the question is do we want the image of RL to be one where Homophobic language goes unpunished. Do we allow peoples 'silly little prejudices' to exclude others, and do we want potential fans, players and sponsors to think that our game excludes homosexuals, allows homophobia to be expressed freely within it and go unpunished. Do you we want a 15/16/17 year old kid struggling with his sexuality to think this game isnt for him? Lets not pretend we exist in some progressive nirvana and fat, bald, ginger are the same as homophobic slurs. We have plenty of fatties, plenty of baldies, and even some gingers playing pro RL We have 0 openly homosexual players in our pro game. Statistically we should have at least 30 or 40. Perhaps some gay people dont like being called faggots, dont like seeing others being called faggots and dont want to be involved in a game where a high profile young player (if true) can throw around homophobic slurs, or a game where people can't tell the difference between a word used to bully, attack, discriminate against homosexuals and generic terms of abuse.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:08 pm  

Him wrote:

Oh brilliant, another argument where Smokey insists that black is white.

Yeah, you win another one Smokey. I can't be @rsed when you do stuff like this.

i havent in any way argued black is white, simply that you were wrong.