Well the suggestion is that he brought it up as a way to detract from the likelihood that this is a legitimate allegation. It was ill-informed because all incidents have to be case by case and people already know that it's an allegation only. Richard Foster wasn't disagreeing that it needs to be proven. He was stating the obvious in saying that something has clearly gone on. Stewart couldn't wait to shut that down each time. The reaction is down to the fact that people believe he's putting hatred first. I do agree with his point, but I don't believe he'd apply it so vigorously in other instances, where a different club was involved. Some are exaggerating it beyond that because of how they feel about him, yes. I'm not though, the above is the basis of it and that is an opinion I share
Wasn't saying otherwise. Was simply stating a fact. We all know he is now most likely lying after being caught out, like the player involved, as well as their club.
Regardless of what Rangers fans think of Stewart personally, I think it is crass for him to be rounded on and for his perfectly logical viewpoint to be jumped on and misinterpreted in such a way. The subject matter is far too important for the man to be played rather than the ball. Everything is based on the assumption that he hates Rangers. so if that is the starting point then anything he says is going to be jumped on no matter if it makes perfect sense or not.
Yep and that is ultimately the problem he has caused himself. He did the same with the racial abuse Morelos received at Celtic Park a year ago, which doesn't help his case. The point he was making was unnecessary. Everyone on the show was referring to the incident as alleged racism. Not factually proven racism. If he still wants to re-iterate that, then do so mildly if you want, but he waffled on for a couple of minutes about it and brought in a totally separate incident which was to supposedly vindicate him. Surely you can admit that's the wrong approach? Others including Rio Ferdinand and Anton Ferdinand seem to be suggesting that he is victim blaming. I'm not suggesting anything near that. I don't feel sorry for him in a situation which is self-created though. Just don't bring up the Gardyne incident, which is unrelated. I wonder why he didn't bring the Morelos incident (also unrelated) up?
Stewart can be clumsy at times in the way he goes about his arguments and could probably cause a fight in an empty house, but on his comments on this incident alone, I don’t see why there should be such a reaction. Going by what you have said, it’s more about the fact that it’s him who is saying it rather than what he has said, but football fans in general are incredibly hypocritical. They lambast the media for sensationalising things yet jump on every comment or opinion they don’t like, then there is the inevitable pile on. The Gardyne incident is more relatable because it was players accusing another player of saying something untoward that ended up not being proven. That ties in with the point he was trying to make.
No it's partly to do with how unnecessary his point was. Why did he need to spend 2 minutes straight, making it? Did anybody state that it had already been proven? Don't agree on the Gardyne incident. It's no more relevant than the Morelos one, in that it isn't. Everything has to be individually case by case and it was irresponsible at best, for him to bring that up. One could be forgiven for believing that he wanted the incident to be spoken about less.
The Gardyne incident is entirely relatable to the evidence based part of his comments because it is more recent in the memory and because it is one player’s word against another. Whether he should have spent less time talking about this is another matter.
Separate incidents, but an element of it is comparable which is why Stewart rightly or wrongly mentioned it.
Thats absolutely fine if you believe that, but it’s incorrect to say that that there isn’t an element to the incidents that are comparable.
Which would be why I didn't. To defend the position of someone who thinks it's ok to compare such cases though, in the manner which Stewart did, is also the incorrect thing to do
This is where it comes down to interpretation. You are saying Stewart is trying to ‘defend’ the player which I don’t believe he is. To me he was advising a bit of caution rather than instantly believe that there was a racist remark, and also why he mentioned the Gardyne incident, because in that case nothing was proven. As I say, if people disagree with him then that’s their prerogative, but the reaction to me is way over the top.
No I'm not. I've made all of my points very clear and that isn't one of them. I've said you are defending Stewart in comparing totally separate cases in the manner which he has done. That's equally up to you. He is reaping what he has sowed in my opinion.
Yes, I am absolutely defending his right to not steam in and instantly deem a player guilty until more evidence presents itself, and also to highlight another incident as to the reason why caution should be displayed (because nothing was proven). He has neither defended the player accused nor said racism didn’t occur.
None of this disputes any of what I've said at all. Other than talking about totally unrelated incidents. At this point you're just extrapolating my point so that you have something to try catch me on. Either address the point actually being made or find someone who actually disputes any of the above to argue with. Stewart is getting what he deserves. Feel sorry for him all you want
This is your problem. You can’t seem to debate something in here with a Celtic fan without assuming they are trying to set a trap for you. It’s a very paranoid and childish outlook to adopt. No point going any further with this for that very reason. You really would be far better served sticking to Rangers only forums if you can’t have an adult debate with opposing fans without resorting to childish pish.
You couldn't be more wrong. I've debated things with even yourself in the past and come to much more amicable differences in opinion. That was because on those occasions you weren't trying to insist that I disagreed with something which I had clearly stated, I did not. That's not the case this time, which is why you're now (ironically, childishly) throwing your toys out of the pram. I'm being totally adult about it. I'm not telling you you've said something which you didn't. It's only you doing that. Even at that, I'm just calmly stating that I won't allow that and calling you out for it. No childishness about that at all. Why so defensive? No paranoia involved. I'll quote where you've falsely claimed I was making a point in the next post for you.
I haven't done this. I was and quite clearly still am not, saying this. Admittedly you weren't saying I disagreed with either of these points, but you said it in a way where it'd make one wonder if that was your suggestion. I obviously, again clearly, don't disagree with them. Again, all false and some of our own past disagreements are proof of it.
