Jump to content


Site Contributors
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


stewarty last won the day on February 1

stewarty had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

242 Excellent

1 Follower

About stewarty

  • Rank
    I know nothing, nothing!


  • Location


  • Interests
    Rangers, Golf, Cricket, F1


  • Twitter

Recent Profile Visitors

378 profile views
  1. Which is of course a choice you are free to make... All I'm saying is that having read the article a couple of times, and putting myself in the shoes of her HR department at work, there is zero there that you could realistically pin on her as being detrimental to her employer, not least because it doesn't mention who that is. She isn't speaking on their behalf, and the language used is clever enough to avoid saying too much that is overly controversial.
  2. Fair enough - I'd agree that its couched in words that are clever in the sense that she isn't saying too much, even as far as to say her opponents might agree with the words written plainly, whilst not quite revealing what we suspect is her real opinion.
  3. In the sense that we have been debating, yes. Its a figure of speech.
  4. Agreed. because when you look at the substance of what Findlay is quoted as saying in that piece, they are actually quite moderate and things I think the likes of Gonzo might also agree with... " What does she think of the now traditional approach to tackling sectarianism? “It’s a cover-up. It’s a determined and sustained campaign by successive administrations to refuse to identify what is happening to our community. “People have peddled this false equivalence for too long. Why are we called Call It Out? We are saying ‘call it what it is’. Equally, if you see an example of anti-protestant bigotry, call it out, call it was it is. Don’t lump it together.” This new mood dislikes the old messaging, that anti-Catholic and anti-protestant prejudice are, as characterised by Findlay, "two cheeks of the one arse". Findlay is scathing about charities such as Nil by Mouth, which she believes have misdiagnosed what used to be called Scotland’s Shame. The charity, she said, has had a "poisonous impact on all of this debate".
  5. You're reaching. She didn't say that. Whether we like it or not, there is a body of evidence that shows there has been institutional bias against Irish and catholics in the past. What Findlay has offered is an opinion that it is still apparent in Scotland today. We can all think she's making much more of this than is necessary, but is it really such a controversial statement? There's clearly some debate that can be had here, but on whether Findlay's employer should be binning her for that particular quote? Realistically - all that will do is cost you a lot of money in court and a hefty dose of reputational damage.
  6. Whether we like or agree with her is irrelevant. What she has said there can't be construed as in any way detrimental to her employer as far as I can see... So what are they going to do about it? I would imagine it would all be grist to the mill if they tried.
  7. stewarty

    Portrait Exhibition

    Its a shame you let an idiotic comment get in the way of valid points you might have made then...
  8. stewarty

    Today’s MotM

    Candeias was MOTM for me. Although I thought McCrorie played well and gave us a bit more drive, that we lacked when he came off.
  9. At the risk of going into bat for Findlay, something I have no desire to do...I think you are reaching. "Jeanette Findlay throws her head back in a long throaty guffaw. The academic has just been asked if there is institutional discrimination against protestants in Scotland. It takes her a while to catch her breath. “You can say I laughed, wheezed and spluttered my tea,” she says. “You can say I nearly died.” Eventually, still giggling, she gets to her answer: individual protestants, she reckons, may well suffer prejudice but there is no systemic bias against them." Take issue with her comment if you like but I don't see anything other than a strong view about a thorny subject, as I said above.
  10. stewarty

    Portrait Exhibition

    They do. But in one post you've now proven why its necessary for women and other groups to promote themselves in the very way you're railing against.
  11. stewarty

    Portrait Exhibition

    I think as the article points out - the vast majority of the women MPs will be hard working and attempting as best they can to represent their constituents in any way they can. I'm sure there will be examples where they do not, but that's life and they will face the ballot box or deselection soon enough, if that is the case. Just like male MPs. I don't disagree that equality of opportunity is clear - and of course there are some careers that different genders will occupy predominantly. But to quote your original post: "Breast feeding, tears and emotional outbursts are desperately needed in the political sphere, if we are to succeed as a nation." What a crock of shit, mate.
  12. stewarty

    Pacific Quay Musings?

    Good shout - I too was very confused by this and noted that the BBC had copied the error. It would be pretty crazy for them to get caught out like that though, given they surely have access to the live feeds for the purposes of putting together highlights.
  13. stewarty

    [FT] Rangers 1 - 0 Hamilton (Candeias 3')

    Definitely. Agree with a lot of the points various folk have made. But the relative time spent working with this group has to be one of the biggest factors limiting us this season, adding to the lack of quality in certain areas - for quality; read movement/decision making/ final ball / scoring
  14. stewarty

    Portrait Exhibition

    So what is it about celebrating the role of women MPs in positively influencing political discourse do you find challenging? Is it when they help their constituents or try to encourage more young women to pursue a career in politics? Bear in mind that, as the article points out, women still only account for around 30% of MPs - so the inequality here, is clear. But perhaps I've missed the point?
  15. To sack her for holding strong views on a thorny subject would likely equate to the kind of discrimination that she is allegedly campaigning against. If she was to bring her employer into disrepute, that may be a different issue.

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.