Why did League Express print this?

[Phil]

8 hours ago, David Shepherd said:

Might want to read about the origins of Fascism in Italy. Even in Britain, it's roots were in the Labour Party. Labour MP Oswald Mosely being the most (in)famous of that disagreeable bunch.

He was also a member of the conservatives so it’s pretty disingenuous to claim fascism’s roots lie within the Labour Party 

[Ivarr the Boneless]

10 hours ago, Number 16 said:

No.  Every supposed contrary view (and who decides that?) does not need immediate refutation. That is censorship. Leaving something 'hanging' is not an acceptance, it's Free Speech. Something the left, and many on here, object to.

The current government, far from left wing, has just passed some very tough laws around the right to protest. Protest is clearly a use of your freedom of speech.

A dislike of free speech is not owned by either end of the political spectrum. There are people at both ends who consider free speech to be good for their supporters and bad for others. Always has been, always will be.

[gingerjon]

15 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

The original letter is appalling. Even before women were able to pick up a ball there have been many female heroes of RL who have played a big part in the development and administration of RL, particularly at grassroots level.

It is his right to make fact free assertions backed up by his own prejudice and have them published without challenge.

Apparently.

[Chris22]

We pride ourselves on being a game for all. If you have no interest in women's rugby, then fine. But I struggle to understand why it upsets people so much that women have the right to play sport.

[Chris22]

Of course, League Express has a history of promoting bigoted views, such as when they published an openly homophobic letter. 

One of the reasons I decided to stop purchasing the paper. You may call that cancel culture, but I call it finding more efficient ways to spend £1.50 per week.

 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

3 hours ago, Eddie said:

I’m not at all political Phil, and don’t want to be dragged into this debate, but yes fascism from its founding was a form of socialism.  

If you think about it, fascism isn’t a more hardcore version of conservatism (low state control, personal responsibility), it’s the complete opposite, so it’s wrong for it to be called ‘far right’ in the same way that ‘far left’ is a more hardcore version of the Labour movement for example. To my mind on the political spectrum the ‘far right’ and ‘far left’ (as they’re rather lazily called) have much more in common than either of them has with the centre ground.

Neither do I want to get dragged into this debate Eddie but I will put my two pence in. 

The political spectrum does not have just two extremes to it like people lazily think. There are 4. As well as right and left you have North and south as well. Right and left only refer to the economic policy of a country. North and south are what determine the governmental structure. These are the ones the layperson in the street ignore. North is fascism which is simply any form of absolute government that completely controls its country and south is anarchism which is the complete opposite of course. 

To have a communist system you have to have a fascist government to maintain the system and enforce it on people. If you had a Liberal democracy trying to impose far left policies people would just vote them out of power. If you had an anarchic system people would just ignore the communist policies. This is why fascism has more in common with socialism than capitalism because a completely free market economy isn't controlled by government at all and so a fascist government is certainly not extremely right wing. They can be slightly right wing, allowing a little free enterprise but there will still be a lot of state controlled, nationalised industries as there was in Nazi Germany. 

On the political spectrum, Hitler was actually centre ground when it came to economic policy and extreme North when it came to government. Thatcher's government was actually far more right wing than any fascist government was. Most modern governments are centrist due to being free markets but having many state funded areas as well such as emergency services, state schools, social heathcare etc. etc. 

Probably could explain further but my shifts over at work now and I'm off home to some pork pies.

Edited August 25, 2022 by The Hallucinating Goose
Spelling

[Dave T]

11 hours ago, yipyee said:

Because quite rightly they are chosing to voice every point of view.

Once we start silencing some people for their views it becomes a very different world that I don't want to be part of...

It would be very easy to get your posts censored and you banned on this forum,  LPL won't allow certain views to be heard here. 

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It would be very easy to get your posts censored and you banned on this forum,  LPL won't allow certain views to be heard here. 

This site literally bans people for being too pro rugby union on the main boards (and is right to do so).

[Jughead]

17 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

Of course, League Express has a history of promoting bigoted views, such as when they published an openly homophobic letter. 

One of the reasons I decided to stop purchasing the paper. You may call that cancel culture, but I call it finding more efficient ways to spend £1.50 per week.

 

Wow. 

Admittedly, I don’t read many of the letters in League Express and just run my eye over them. There are some very good contributors on the letter page but there are a few that slip through occasionally that are terrible and pretty bad.

[amm]

We’ll it’s certainly achieved it’s aim, getting everyone to read it, although it’s failed too because everyone is reading it here rather than the site itself.

clickbait fail

thread likely to get moved to political or closed

well done fellas, you’re my heroes

 

[David Shepherd]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

He was also a member of the conservatives so it’s pretty disingenuous to claim fascism’s roots lie within the Labour Party 

Not really, his movement was gestated during his time in the Labour party.

[JohnM]

15 hours ago, Jughead said:

When it’s clearly bigoted, unwelcome in this age and offensive, it’s not something that should be published. 

Demeaning the achievements of others based upon their sex is pretty disgraceful and has nothing to do with “cancel culture”. 

Demanding that the media must not  publish views contrary to yours  is just one part of "cancel culture." 

It's clear from the posts on this public forum that the letter-writer's views are not shared by (m)any...and to my mind, that's how these things work...through discussion,  disagreement and ridicule.

Women's rugby is not for me, so I just keep out.

Incidentally, unless anyone knows otherwise, why assume this guy is old?

 

[Jughead]

7 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Demanding that the media must not  publish views contrary to yours  is just one part of "cancel culture." 

It's clear from the posts on this public forum that the letter-writer's views are not shared by (m)any...and to my mind, that's how these things work...through discussion,  disagreement and ridicule.

Women's rugby is not for me, so I just keep out.

Incidentally, unless anyone knows otherwise, why assume this guy is old?

 

That doesn’t give free reign to print absolutely anything because it’s free speech or whatever, does it? 

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Demanding that the media must not  publish views contrary to yours  is just one part of "cancel culture." 

It's clear from the posts on this public forum that the letter-writer's views are not shared by (m)any...and to my mind, that's how these things work...through discussion,  disagreement and ridicule.

Women's rugby is not for me, so I just keep out.

Incidentally, unless anyone knows otherwise, why assume this guy is old?

 

I think the interesting point here is around why the letter was published,  not written. Plenty of people hold views like this and that others disagree with. 

But I'm not sure Martyn would publish a letter from a Yawnion fan criticising RL and saying its not original Rugby or similar. 

For an RL paper to publish stuff just basically attacking a form of RL is odd. Particularly without Ed comment. 

[David Shepherd]

3 minutes ago, Jughead said:

That doesn’t give free reign to print absolutely anything because it’s free speech or whatever, does it? 

Perhaps they should, for no other reason than to disrupt the hive mind of correct think.  Some of the replies to this thread would indicate that we are becoming a society of drones lacking the capacity for independent thought.

[Dunbar]

19 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Demanding that the media must not  publish views contrary to yours  is just one part of "cancel culture." 

Writing a letter to a Rugby League newspaoer suggesting that women shouldn't be showcased in the hero's section and the women's Challenge Cup final shouldn't be at Wembley is also a part of "cancel culture".  And if that cancel request had never been made then this conversation wouldn't be happening.

[RigbyLuger]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think the interesting point here is around why the letter was published,  not written. Plenty of people hold views like this and that others disagree with. 

But I'm not sure Martyn would publish a letter from a Yawnion fan criticising RL and saying its not original Rugby or similar. 

For an RL paper to publish stuff just basically attacking a form of RL is odd. Particularly without Ed comment. 

And when women's RL is something which can bring more eyes to the game, which is good for everyone.

[Gav Wilson]

32 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Perhaps they should, for no other reason than to disrupt the hive mind of correct think.  Some of the replies to this thread would indicate that we are becoming a society of drones lacking the capacity for independent thought.

Some of us just enjoy and appreciate women playing rugby league.

[RigbyLuger]

2 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

Some of us just enjoy and appreciate women playing rugby league.

You are a woke sheep.

[Martyn Sadler]

49 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think the interesting point here is around why the letter was published,  not written. Plenty of people hold views like this and that others disagree with. 

But I'm not sure Martyn would publish a letter from a Yawnion fan criticising RL and saying its not original Rugby or similar. 

For an RL paper to publish stuff just basically attacking a form of RL is odd. Particularly without Ed comment. 

Many of our Mailbag letters attack some aspect of Rugby League, which reflects the views of Rugby League supporters generally, both good and bad.

Referees tend to be the biggest target followed by the game's administrators.

If one person happens not to like Women's Rugby League, then that is his right. I'd be surprised if we received any letters in support.

If a rugby union fan wants to write a letter to us criticising Rugby League on virtually any grounds, I would be happy to publish it, although I doubt whether many dedicated union fans read League Express.

When it comes to Women's Rugby League, we dedicate a full page to that form of the game every week. League Express is by far the best thing to read if you want to be informed about the women's game.

I would also point out, from observing this thread, that bigotry is any contrary opinion that we don't happen to share.

[Gav Wilson]

2 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I would also point out, from observing this thread, that bigotry is any contrary opinion that we don't happen to share.

 

Bigotry is prejudicial or discriminatory behaviour towards a certain demographic, which is exactly what that letter is.

[DOGFATHER]

15 hours ago, glossop saint said:

The writer doesn't follow women's rugby league. He has no idea who the female player is. Do you? Do you know the level of ability of the player?

Do you only judge hero's by their ability? Not their guts, or attitude, leadership, courage, conviction, determination, perseverance? Based on your post I can confidently say that you are not a hero.

Surely the reason the female player was interviewed, is down to the level of existing interest and/or LE trying to tap in to new markets by enticing new readers to buy a copy of the paper? After all they are a commercial enterprise.

If the readership was not interested in the said player, then the paper would be unlikely to have published an interview with her. 

The arguments raised in your post, could equally be made for boys under 11s, 13s, or 15's for example. Or indeed part time or amateur players  They could have all of traits listed above, yet are unlikely to be portrayed as a hero's and as widely publicised. Why is that? 

 

[John Drake]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think the interesting point here is around why the letter was published,  not written. Plenty of people hold views like this and that others disagree with. 

But I'm not sure Martyn would publish a letter from a Yawnion fan criticising RL and saying its not original Rugby or similar. 

For an RL paper to publish stuff just basically attacking a form of RL is odd. Particularly without Ed comment. 

The letter writer is criticising League Express for giving prominence to Women's Rugby League by including a female player in the RL Heroes feature.

He's entitled to his opinion, but given LE does give that level of prominence to Women's Rugby League, including regular weekly coverage of the game, (as does Rugby League World every month) I'm struggling to see how anyone on here could imagine that anyone at LPL might agree with it.

It's a reader's opinion. That's why it is in the mailbag. Letters published in newspapers are reflective of the views of the individual who wrote it, no one else.

Other readers are free to write in and challenge it. That's how letters pages generally work.

[Gav Wilson]

5 hours ago, John Drake said:

The letter writer is criticising League Express for giving prominence to Women's Rugby League by including a female player in the RL Heroes feature.

He's entitled to his opinion, but given LE does give that level of prominence to Women's Rugby League, including regular weekly coverage of the game, (as does Rugby League World every month) I'm struggling to see how anyone on here could imagine that anyone at LPL might agree with it.

It's a reader's opinion. That's why it is in the mailbag. Letters published in newspapers are reflective of the views of the individual who wrote it, no one else.

Other readers are free to write in and challenge it. That's how letters pages generally work.

Playing the long game here JD... I see you! 

[John Drake]

2 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

Playing the long game here JD... I see you! 

I'm just baffled by some of the OTT stuff being posted in this thread.

Also, I'd encourage everyone to get the latest issue of Rugby League World n'all! 

https://www.totalrl.com/whats-inside-the-new-rugby-league-world-issue-476-sept-22/