James McClean M Wrexham b.1989

[Littlest Hobo]

It's a sorry state of affairs when a player feels compelled to release a public statement "explaining himself" for the absence of a political symbol on his football jersey. In saying that, fair play to James for this unfortunately necessary but positive gesture and for yet again standing up to what has come to be known as "poppy fascism". Are others who might personally feel similar as brave and principled? He has often been mocked by his bitter detractors as immature, brash and even thick, but that letter is exceptionally graceful, respectful and considerate (of his club, his fans, those killed at war as well as during the Troubles, and his own community). With eloquence, intelligence and maturity, it offers as complete and thorough an explanation as should be necessary for those who still feel that non-poppy wearers should have to explain themselves for making what ought to be no more than a simple personal decision in a modern democratic society. To be honest, I found his words quite moving. It's lovely to hear a footballer speak so forthrightly and positively about what he believes in for a change. I have a great admiration for James' spirit and attitude anyway, but my respect has only grown for him this evening. Good man, James!

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/07/1415400338303_wps_6_BOLTON_ENGLAND_NOVEMBER_0.jpg

Nicely put danny. i agree entirely with your post. I have alot of respect for james mc clean following this.

[ArdeeBhoy]

But do you reckon he even wrote it? And still being slagged elsewhere by unionist gimps and other fools...

[paul_oshea]

No way did he write it even with the Mr whelan for authenticity. Still though the thought process was there.

[ArdeeBhoy]

You'd like to think so, but the media annd crediting both McClean & Whelan rather too much. Plus they still get slated by the usual morons...

[DannyInvincible]

But do you reckon he even wrote it? And still being slagged elsewhere by unionist gimps and other fools...

There's no doubt he got a bit of help, but what's wrong with that? Doesn't even Barack Obama get assistance with conveying particular messages in his speeches? And then commended or lambasted for his words? I often have people proof-read stuff I'd write myself if I was thinking of publishing it or whatever. What is important is that he released a message of which he can be proud and by which he can stand without feeling of shame. They're words from his heart. The statement conveys James' thoughts on the matter and leaves no room for doubt. He's not as stupid as people think either.

A good few seasons back, I was heading to a Derry match away to Shels in Tolka and, on the supporters bus down, ended up sitting beside a civil young lad from Creggan whom I didn't know and who was telling me he was playing for Institute at the time. He didn't drink at all; wouldn't even take one of my cans! Obviously we chatted away for the four hours down and back. I always remembered the fella because he left a mark with me and I'd always say "alright" to him any time I saw him about Derry after that. He seemed to have taken something from the conversation as well and was interested in what I'd had to say. It only dawned upon me a few years later when he started making a name for himself in the League of Ireland that it had been James I'd been sat beside on the bus. Even back then, he had struck me as very focused, driven and disciplined. Those qualities require intelligence too.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Heh, fair enough Danny, nice story, you Doire boys on the ball as ever.

[geysir]

The hidden message in Danny's story is that civility in the Creggan is an almost unknown commodity.

My opinion hasn't altered about James, I had respected his opinion and moral courage over this issue. The (now) open published letter has taken it a step forward to explain his actions in more detail and the letter shall remain as a reference in any debate. It doesn't matter that much that he will still be the target for ignorance and hostility, but he should have garnered a good deal more respect for his actions and have fewer commentators and fans telling him how to act and behave, according to their beliefs.

[tricky_colour]

I though it had gone down quite quietly in the press however he is on the from page of the Daily Mail today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2826306/I-m-not-anti-British-wearing-poppy-act-disrespect-people-Derry-born-footballer-James-McClean-says-anger-Bloody-Sunday-decision-shun-poppy-embroidered-shirt.html

However the vast majority respect his decision so it was a good move on his part.

[DannyInvincible]

The usual suspects, the Telegraph and Daily Mail, are making out there's some major controversy here. Has he really sparked a national fury (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/wigan-athletic/11217808/James-McClean-sparks-fury-by-refusing-to-wear-poppy-during-Wigan-Athletics-defeat-by-Bolton-Wanderers.html)?... No. Meanwhile, everyone else in the real world, or those with an ounce of human understanding, acknowledge that this shouldn't be such a big deal; that he is being entirely reasonable in his courage and fortitude.


Finally James has issued statement which explains his position. While it is of no shock to those who know his situation, it might stop the criticism from at least those educated enough to listen. I know Danny you vehemently disagree with me, but I feel if this statement had been released two years ago, idiots like Bryson may not have been able to continue to create political mileage out of it.

Ah, they get mileage out of it even now. They'll always be out seeking to be offended by whoever's not conforming to their world-view. If it's not James, it'll be someone else they're condemning. It's how their fragile, validation-deprived egos operate. It doesn't matter what James does, so long as he sticks to his principles, as is his civic right. I mean, there should never be an obligation upon someone to explain their stance on something personal like this to uncompromising dolts of whose business it is absolutely none anyway. It would be wrong to consider this a "better late than never" statement on James' part; he never should have had to feel the need to release such a statement in the first place.

Oddly (or maybe not... he is a peculiar character), Lachey appears to have re-setup his Twitter within the past few days in preparation for this, presumably so he can, once again, leech off the back of the potential attention. Although, he did make sure to first rather desperately tweet virtually every mention he could find of himself in the media, both positive and negative, over the last few years, or ever. It's all publicity, isn't it?... How can James be liable for such unsettled behaviour?


The hidden message in Danny's story is that civility in the Creggan is an almost unknown commodity.

It's there. It might be somewhat concealed under the oppressive, paranoiac and Troubled smog of the legacy of decades of surveillance and social deprivation, but it is there alright. Maybe it's unknown because people just don't want to know about it. :)

[bennocelt]

Ah they'd assimilate or **** off back to Scotland.

Remember the whole chats in history about the Normans becoming more Irish than the Irish themselves. It could happen again. With you know, some delusional Irish guys.

What, we already have them down here, they tend to wear blue shirts, ha ha:p

[Olé Olé]

That statement/letter was incredibly persuasive, I feel. I think anyone with an ounce of empathy would be able to comprehend his reasoning.

Yeah, it was probably written by someone else but I'm sure he contributed heavily. It'd have to be written by a professional who would leave nothing open to being misconstrued. That's not a sign of James being stupid. It's more a sign that there are a lot of stupid people about and these stupid people happen to be loud.

[Fixer82]

Fair play to McClean. Very well articulated and hopefully will shush a few ignorant Irish voices/apologiests down here who say it's for WW1 alone and we should all wear them. To those people I say 'NEVEEEEEEEERRRRRR!!!!'

[gastric]

The usual suspects, the Telegraph and Daily Mail, are making out there's some major controversy here. Has he really sparked a national fury (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/wigan-athletic/11217808/James-McClean-sparks-fury-by-refusing-to-wear-poppy-during-Wigan-Athletics-defeat-by-Bolton-Wanderers.html)?... No. Meanwhile, everyone else in the real world, or those with an ounce of human understanding, acknowledge that this shouldn't be such a big deal; that he is being entirely reasonable in his courage and fortitude.



Ah, they get mileage out of it even now. They'll always be out seeking to be offended by whoever's not conforming to their world-view. If it's not James, it'll be someone else they're condemning. It's how their fragile, validation-deprived egos operate. It doesn't matter what James does, so long as he sticks to his principles, as is his civic right. I mean, there should never be an obligation upon someone to explain their stance on something personal like this to uncompromising dolts of whose business it is absolutely none anyway. It would be wrong to consider this a "better late than never" statement on James' part; he never should have had to feel the need to release such a statement in the first place.

Oddly (or maybe not... he is a peculiar character), Lachey appears to have re-setup his Twitter within the past few days in preparation for this, presumably so he can, once again, leech off the back of the potential attention. Although, he did make sure to first rather desperately tweet virtually every mention he could find of himself in the media, both positive and negative, over the last few years, or ever. It's all publicity, isn't it?... How can James be liable for such unsettled behaviour?



It's there. It might be somewhat concealed under the oppressive, paranoiac and Troubled smog of the legacy of decades of surveillance and social deprivation, but it is there alright. Maybe it's unknown because people just don't want to know about it. :)

Danny, it's better late than ever. For two years there has been a void left by his silence which has left him open to ongoing criticism and his 'reasons' have been explained by many of the idiots mentioned in this thread. With the release of this statement he has gained understanding and maybe a lot of respect from some quarters. To say he should not feel the need to release such a statement is highly idealistic. I am sure Whelan told him he had to, something Sunderland should have initiated two years ago. Such explanations end all innuendo and make it easier to concentrate on what they are paid to do, play football. Clubs do not want side issues affecting their brand, particularly highly emotive ones like the wearing or not of the poppy. I would say good work Wigan, Whelan and McClean!

[ArdeeBhoy]

That statement/letter was incredibly persuasive, I feel. I think anyone with an ounce of empathy would be able to comprehend his reasoning.

Yeah, it was probably written by someone else but I'm sure he contributed heavily. It'd have to be written by a professional who would leave nothing open to being misconstrued. That's not a sign of James being stupid. It's more a sign that there are a lot of stupid people about and these stupid people happen to be loud.
Word.

[DannyInvincible]

Danny, it's better late than ever. For two years there has been a void left by his silence which has left him open to ongoing criticism and his 'reasons' have been explained by many of the idiots mentioned in this thread. With the release of this statement he has gained understanding and maybe a lot of respect from some quarters. To say he should not feel the need to release such a statement is highly idealistic. I am sure Whelan told him he had to, something Sunderland should have initiated two years ago. Such explanations end all innuendo and make it easier to concentrate on what they are paid to do, play football. Clubs do not want side issues affecting their brand, particularly highly emotive ones like the wearing or not of the poppy. I would say good work Wigan, Whelan and McClean!

Left him open to ongoing criticism in what way? That would imply the ongoing criticism might be valid; that he's doing something morally suspect or transgressive, no? You acknowledge that the criticism is totally unreasonable, right? He's simply not wearing a poppy. There is no obligation upon him, or anyone, to do so. And I'm sure the best way for clubs to avoid such political side issues affecting their brand in future would be to keep highly emotive politics out of football... ;)

I can see the practical benefit of releasing the statement, certainly - there are a lot of stupid people around - but it should never be considered his moral responsibility to explain to uncompromising thickos an entirely reasonable personal and private choice.

By the way, his cross to assist McManaman, launched to a chorus of boos, was a good'un. :)

[osarusan]

Left him open to ongoing criticism in what way? That would imply the ongoing criticism might be valid; that he's doing something morally suspect or transgressive, no?

I don't think it does.

The letter was well and carefully written - it will reduce / dilute the criticism he receives, and serve to highlight the stupidity of those who continue to make baseless criticism of him. It's exactly what I was hoping he'd do a year or two ago.

I get that he shouldn't need to explain himself to anybody.

But the point I made then (and now) is that he can say nothing and get insulted by morons, or make some kind of comment/statement, and hopefully make his own life a bit easier.

[tricky_colour]

Maybe Ed Milliband could get James to do his PR?

[gastric]

Left him open to ongoing criticism in what way? That would imply the ongoing criticism might be valid; that he's doing something morally suspect or transgressive, no? You acknowledge that the criticism is totally unreasonable, right? He's simply not wearing a poppy. There is no obligation upon him, or anyone, to do so. And I'm sure the best way for clubs to avoid such political side issues affecting their brand in future would be to keep highly emotive politics out of football... ;)

I can see the practical benefit of releasing the statement, certainly - there are a lot of stupid people around - but it should never be considered his moral responsibility to explain to uncompromising thickos an entirely reasonable personal and private choice.

By the way, his cross to assist McManaman, launched to a chorus of boos, was a good'un. :)

Granted there is no moral responsibility, however, the team is bigger than individuals and I am sure that was the point Whelan and Co. would have made to him.

[Roberto]

For somebody who is steadfast in his refusal to wear the poppy, he's joined precisely the wrong clubs to do it. He'd be much better off in London. Still, credit due to James and Dave Whelan for addressing it publicly rather than sweeping it under the carpet. Clearly it's a matter very close to Whelan's own heart too.

Yeah, I'm sure supporters of teams like Chelsea, Millwall and West Ham would respect his choice

[Stuttgart88]

There are plenty of English commentators in more liberal / enlightened publications who are getting increasingly concerned at the "my poppy is bigger than yours so I'm a bigger patriot" type of competition that poppy wearing has become. I think it's actally much more of a show of nationalism than it is a sign of respect these days, or rather a fundamentally benign and well-intended gesture has been hijacked by the nationalistic Right to the extent that now this is the most visible variant of the tradition.

I have worn one for about 7 or 8 years now, but I'm almost certain I won't wear one this year. Against this, my wife, only an occasional poppy wearer herself (and a Tan as Bonnie would call her :) ) says that if I did wear one it'd be the best statement, a poppy being worn by an Irishman is clearly the antithesis of this UKIP / Right wing of the Tory party / Squaddie interpretation of the tradition.

[BonnieShels]

There are plenty of English commentators in more liberal / enlightened publications who are getting increasingly concerned at the "my poppy is bigger than yours so I'm a bigger patriot" type of competition that poppy wearing has become. I think it's actally much more of a show of nationalism than it is a sign of respect these days, or rather a fundamentally benign and well-intended gesture has been hijacked by the nationalistic Right to the extent that now this is the most visible variant of the tradition.

I have worn one for about 7 or 8 years now, but I'm almost certain I won't wear one this year. Against this, my wife, only an occasional poppy wearer herself (and a Tan as Bonnie would call her :) ) says that if I did wear one it'd be the best statement, a poppy being worn by an Irishman is clearly the antithesis of this UKIP / Right wing of the Tory party / Squaddie interpretation of the tradition.

I merely single out the team for such offensive statements.

Incidentally, have you considered a white poppy as an alternative?

[Stuttgart88]

Hey, I've called her worse!

White poppy. Good idea. Where can I get one?

[Fixer82]

As McClean says, if it were only for WW1 and WW2 there'd be no real problem.
But it's for all British soldiers in all wars. Which will inevitably become a jingoistic celebration of British imperialism.
Celebrating the Black and Tans who burnt Cork to the ground, the soldiers in Gibraltar who shot Mairéad Farrell in the back, Bloody Sunday (Dublin and Derry), the collusion of the 1974 bombings of which there is hardly any doubt, the list goes on.....Why any Irishman would wear a poppy is beyond me, for these reasons.
Also, the poppy is (supposed to be) for victims of WW1, but only the victims that were on the right side.
To the best of my knowledge it's not to commemorate any young German soldiers who were sent out to war.
Where's the peace in that?
Commemorate only one side of poor young lads who got caught up in the most unnecessary war there ever was.

If people feel the need to wear a poppy I would urge them to wear a purple or a white one and not one that has been steeped in every war Britain has been in since 1914.

[Fixer82]

And before anybody gets it in there about respecting their family etc, my own great grandfather served in WW1.
I imagine most people in Ireland have a family connection somewhere with WW1

[BonnieShels]

I would actually wager that my lily-livered ancestors didn't at all get involved in the Great War. Too busy selling fruit in Dublin to be worrying about those things.

Stutts, Not really sure where one would get such an item. No doubt the liberals of Islington will point you in the right direction.

EDIT: Here's a good starting point. http://www.ppu.org.uk/whitepoppy/

[Fixer82]

I would actually wager that my lily-livered ancestors didn't at all get involved in the Great War. Too busy selling fruit in Dublin to be worrying about those things.

Stutts, Not really sure where one would get such an item. No doubt the liberals of Islington will point you in the right direction.

EDIT: Here's a good starting point. http://www.ppu.org.uk/whitepoppy/

ha ha

[bennocelt]

Talking about war dead, when in Germany a while ago stumbled across a war memorial for their dead. Funny, in that we are so used to listening to one side of the narrative.
2187

[DannyInvincible]

There are plenty of English commentators in more liberal / enlightened publications who are getting increasingly concerned at the "my poppy is bigger than yours so I'm a bigger patriot" type of competition that poppy wearing has become. I think it's actally much more of a show of nationalism than it is a sign of respect these days, or rather a fundamentally benign and well-intended gesture has been hijacked by the nationalistic Right to the extent that now this is the most visible variant of the tradition.

The whole concept of Remembrance Sunday and what it stands for is akin to the celebration of a type of founding myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth); it's modern-day Britain's version of a national myth, isn't it? A lot of it is illusory and propaganda-centred. If it was simply about remembrance, why the overt pomp, self-congratulation and militarism of the ceremonies? It's really as much about "commemorating" or validating present and future wars, or ensuring a steady future supply of "heroic" cannon-fodder and public good will, in other words.

Of course, all nations have their myths. We have the Easter Rising memorial ourselves, whereby the state/government of the day rather hypocritically on an annual basis glorifies separatist action and force that had anything but broad national support in 1916, whilst simultaneously roundly condemning, from an uninvolved distance with great sanctimony, action or force of a similar nature in the more recent past in the north. Because "things had been different back then"... 2016 will be fascinating.


As McClean says, if it were only for WW1 and WW2 there'd be no real problem.

Therein lies the myth (or grand lie) though: that the two "glorious" World Wars in particular were somehow unique and different from all other wars waged throughout history and especially by the headquarters of the British empire; that those whose lives were wasted died in the entirely virtuous pursuit and safeguarding of freedom, rather than for the vested imperial interests of the establishment in charge of a crumbling empire trying to cling on to whatever global/continental power and influence it desperately could during a time of great geopolitical upheaval.

Poppyfest peddles a fanciful but dangerous official narrative and attempts to stifle legitimate debate; valid concerns and questions over war (and past military escapades) are dismissed under the cloak of jingoistic remembrance for "our boys", for how could any reasonable person take issue with the remembrance of the (very neutral) "fallen" who fought and sacrificed themselves for the freedom of generations following?... If you have an issue with the poppy, the implication is that you have a sociopathic problem with the very notions of humanity and empathy. It's quite a social taboo to question even the merits of the World Wars around this time of year. Even my old Wigan-supporting manager in work, an otherwise intelligent and considerate type who wasn't at all ignorant, couldn't get to grips with the notion that someone like James McClean might or could have a valid issue with wearing a poppy. He screwed up his face and would wonder "what McClean was playing at" or would suggest "it was a bit much" or that McClean "was just being a bit of a d*ck".


Celebrating the Black and Tans who burnt Cork to the ground, the soldiers in Gibraltar who shot Mairéad Farrell in the back, Bloody Sunday (Dublin and Derry), the collusion of the 1974 bombings of which there is hardly any doubt, the list goes on.....Why any Irishman would wear a poppy is beyond me, for these reasons.

And still no admission of British Army collusion in the murder of innocents in the north. I'd be of a similar position myself, but it's not simply because we're Irish that legitimate questions can be asked about what the poppy represents. British people can rightfully question it too, and many do, thankfully, as Stutts mentions. I'd further find it tantamount to familial treachery to wear one, but if other Irish people can see some other meaning in the poppy, that's their prerogative.


Also, the poppy is (supposed to be) for victims of WW1, but only the victims that were on the right side.
To the best of my knowledge it's not to commemorate any young German soldiers who were sent out to war.
Where's the peace in that?
Commemorate only one side of poor young lads who got caught up in the most unnecessary war there ever was.

But, but, but, as well as British casualties, the fallen from the colonies are also being remembered this year. They're very keen to stress their memory too now, lest they had ever been forgotten...

To remember the deaths of those on the "wrong side" would be to explicitly acknowledge and regret their killing, which isn't really in line with the official narrative - "if the war was right, those killings were justified" - or I get the impression it certainly isn't something that the British establishment would want at the forefront of the British public's consciousness anyway, so collateral of that nature is kind of swept under the carpet.

[DannyInvincible]

'Football should be proud of McClean's brave anti-poppy stand': http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/james-mcclean-comment-football-should-be-proud-of-mccleans-brave-antipoppy-stand-9849973.html


There is little more rousing or life-affirming than a man or woman standing tall for his or her beliefs. So take a bow James McClean, who for the second time as a professional footballer chose not to join his team-mates in the national display of commemorative poppy wearing when Wigan met Bolton on Friday night.

At least as impressive as his conviction was the powerful letter he penned beforehand to Wigan’s chairman, Dave Whelan, articulating his position. In less than one page of A4, 25-year-old McClean rescued the reputation of the literary sportsman from the pre-Christmas pap peddled by a raft of ubernames in tiresome autobiographies.

Understanding the emotive pull of the red flower of Flanders, McClean must have known he would be booed by the mob. While a Sunderland player two years ago he refused the poppy in a match against Everton.

But no amount of petty hatred fuelled by wholesale ignorance was going to shift him. McClean is an Irishman from a divided city, connected down the generations to a centuries-old struggle against injustice and oppression.

...

[Olé Olé]

Richie Sadlier's article in the Sunday Indo had a relevant little bit in it yesterday. He said that he was an injured 18 year-old at Millwall heading into the ground on match day to watch his club in the league. As he walked in the Den he was harrassed by a group of Millwall support who shouted at him "IRA c*nt."

Quite mental behaviour by some of his own fans. At 18, he was unlikely to have irked his own supports for any reason so the attack was completely unprovoked, regardless of the content of the attack. The content was utter lunacy also. Probably no point in me or Sadlier highlighting this, now that I think of it. Imbeciles like these should be ignored. I would imagine that these men have moved over to UKIP or suchlike party after the death of football hooliganism!

What makes that even more mad, is that I'd hazard a guess that Steven Reid, Tim Cahill and Lucas Neill were some of the integral members of the Millwall squad at the time and all have some Irish heritage.

[DannyInvincible]

As he walked in the Den he was harrassed by a group of Millwall support who shouted at him "IRA c*nt."

I hope he didn't take two years to explain himself to them like procrastinating James here!

[Gather round]

1. As others say above, the broader issue here in England is increasing obsession with the Military, to the point where it's become a fetish. Traecable back to the start of the Afghan- Iraqi wars, I think. Maybe a sign we're ever more in thrall to America?

2. Few could deny McClean has nerve- he could easily have just followed the crowd of other Irish, German, Japanese, Arab players etc. etc. in English football.

3. Obviously he didn't write the letter, the test is whether he really believes the sentiments. If so, and he doesn't return to the childish comments on social media, great.

4. The comments Ritchie Sadleir mentioned (I've had similar myself at English grounds), while obviously unpleasant, are neither imbecilic nor irrational. There was a War of sorts for nearly 30 years; you can't just expect everyone to agree that the Irish Republic and its self-styled Army had nowt to do with each other.

[Stuttgart88]

As per 1 above this is becoming increasingly acute in rugby where England /RFU have the army abseiling from the stands at games, the army giving out the match ball, the very close association with a Help for Heroes (in itself, benign) and then the recent use of the Victoria Cross in the actual team kit. As if England was the only (rugby) country to have an army that lost lives or fought in these big wars.

[jbyrne]

3. Obviously he didn't write the letter


how is it obvious?

Anytime i have seen him interviewed he seems quite level headed and articulate. Even if it was at least influenced by others it was still issued under his name so he must approve with any input others provided.

[Stuttgart88]

To be fair, that had all the hallmarks of a PR agent, albeit one paid to articulate what James views are.

[bennocelt]

Richie Sadlier's article in the Sunday Indo had a relevant little bit in it yesterday. He said that he was an injured 18 year-old at Millwall heading into the ground on match day to watch his club in the league. As he walked in the Den he was harrassed by a group of Millwall support who shouted at him "IRA c*nt."

Quite mental behaviour by some of his own fans. At 18, he was unlikely to have irked his own supports for any reason so the attack was completely unprovoked, regardless of the content of the attack. The content was utter lunacy also. Probably no point in me or Sadlier highlighting this, now that I think of it. Imbeciles like these should be ignored. I would imagine that these men have moved over to UKIP or suchlike party after the death of football hooliganism!

What makes that even more mad, is that I'd hazard a guess that Steven Reid, Tim Cahill and Lucas Neill were some of the integral members of the Millwall squad at the time and all have some Irish heritage.

Not least the fact that Millwall have a lo of supporters with Irish heritage as well, but from what I have heard they have moved on to disliking people with brown skin these days.


http://youtu.be/SNqA9XDCWDQ

[DannyInvincible]

2. Few could deny McClean has nerve- he could easily have just followed the crowd of other Irish, German, Japanese, Arab players etc. etc. in English football.

Why be a lemming though? He believed in something and stood up to undue social pressure. He should be proud of himself for that. For others, the symbol may not possess the same connotations as it does for James. If others want to wear one or don't have the care or guts to make a stand, that's their call and no indictment of James. As an aside, I think it was a good thing in a general societal sense as it at least demonstrated that not everyone is prepared to passively sleepwalk into the Americanised military-obsessed society over which you express anxiety in your first point.


3. Obviously he didn't write the letter, the test is whether he really believes the sentiments. If so, and he doesn't return to the childish comments on social media, great.

Even if he didn't write the letter, why wouldn't be believe the sentiments of his statement? He's not on Twitter any more, but I don't think prior comments he might have made necessarily contradicted his statement anyway.


4. The comments Ritchie Sadleir mentioned (I've had similar myself at English grounds), while obviously unpleasant, are neither imbecilic nor irrational. There was a War of sorts for nearly 30 years; you can't just expect everyone to agree that the Irish Republic and its self-styled Army had nowt to do with each other.

That spelling is worse than a Jeff Stelling pronunciation!

When you were getting called similar to an "IRA c*nt", you didn't think those slinging it at you were being ridiculous, or unduly presumptuous at the very least?

What's the implication of your final statement there exactly? That the Irish state and the IRA were intertwined, and, as a consequence, that all Irish citizens or anyone with a connection to Ireland should reasonably and rationally have expected legitimate cries of "IRA c*nt" to be shouted in their direction? Who could blame those doing the shouting? The recipients of the abuse were Irish, after all... No way. That's simply validating ill-informed buffoonery.

[Gather round]

Re the answers to my points above:

2 To clarify, I meant McClean's nerve positively: I admire it, actually.

3 Obvious that he didn't write the letter, because a) it was in the style of a PR statement, and b) I've seen enough of his social media posts to distinguish them from a)

4 My suggestion was pretty explicit. The IRA and wider Irish state/ nation/ whatever were linked (not intertwined) during the Troubles by a minority of people in Britain, whether because of personal involvement, crude prejudice, ignorance or what you rather sneeringly call buffoonery. For the better-informed, factors like the refusal to extradite suspects or even Articles 2 and 3 may have played a part.

Apologies to RS for that typo. I used to work with a namesake of his ;)

[Olé Olé]

3. Obviously he didn't write the letter, the test is whether he really believes the sentiments. If so, and he doesn't return to the childish comments on social media, great.

4. The comments Ritchie Sadleir mentioned (I've had similar myself at English grounds), while obviously unpleasant, are neither imbecilic nor irrational. There was a War of sorts for nearly 30 years; you can't just expect everyone to agree that the Irish Republic and its self-styled Army had nowt to do with each other.

As regards 3, I've made this point already but I'll make it again and respond to this. Of course the letter had to be written by a professional because the wording of it had to be so precise to withstand the intentional misinterpretation of anything James would utter on this matter. There are numerous posters on this forum who are clearly eloquent in their use of English and wonderfully expressive regarding their opinions (I don't intend to insult anyone by stating this) that would really struggle to write a letter like this without it being torn to shreds subsequently by some similarly eloquent and expressive posters. This McClean letter was clearly forged by a professional because the only critcism that those willing to criticise McClean (like yourself) are able to level at it is that very point; it was written by a professional.

In relation to 4, this is 1997 we're talking about. This is an 18 year-old teenager employed by their own club. What's not imbecilic or irrational about that kind of slur on a teenager going to a football game?
Also, the use of the wording "self-styled"? I know you're referring to the Irish Republican Army and the IRA being "linked", but being "self-styled" seems to infer that some of their tactics/style would be supported by a large portion of Irish people (including Richie Sadlier? I doubt it).

[Gather round]

the only critcism that those willing to criticise McClean (like yourself) are able to level at it is that very point; it was written by a professional

Er, I didn't criticise it (the letter) at all. I said it would be "great" if he really agreed with the sentiments.


What's not imbecilic or irrational about that kind of slur on a teenager going to a football game?

The slur probably wasn't aimed at him personally. Innocent guy, wrong place, wrong time.


Also, the use of the wording "self-styled"? I know you're referring to the Irish Republican Army and the IRA being "linked", but being "self-styled" seems to infer that some of their tactics/style would be supported by a large portion of Irish people (including Richie Sadlier? I doubt it)

The Provos deliberately represented themselves as the authentic voice of the Republic: blame them for the link.

Do you seriously think the IRA didn't have widespread support? Look at their election results.

[Olé Olé]

Er, I didn't criticise it (the letter) at all. I said it would be "great" if he really agreed with the sentiments.

He signed his name to it, sent it to Dave Whelan and agreed it be made public.



The Provos deliberately represented themselves as the authentic voice of the Republic: blame them for the link.

Do you seriously think the IRA didn't have widespread support? Look at their election results.

That's a tough one now, I must say. What political party do you refer to? I don't see Sinn Fein receiving 'widespread support'.

[Stuttgart88]

They certainly didn't during The Troubles, which is when the IRA actually existed. I think GR is stopping to a low level here, and not really in keeping with his usual style of comment.

[tetsujin1979]

keep it on James' letter lads, any further off topic posts will be moved to the Current Affairs forum

[Gather round]

He signed his name to it, sent it to Dave Whelan and agreed it be made public

Sure. As I suggested, the test is whether his future comments match the letter or his rather different past comments.

[DannyInvincible]

Sure. As I suggested, the test is whether his future comments match the letter or his rather different past comments.

Do past comments contradict the contents of the letter?


The slur probably wasn't aimed at him personally. Innocent guy, wrong place, wrong time.

... And wrong nationality, it would seem.

Sadlier's Irishness wasn't the personal feature with which they were taking issue? How could it not be personal?

[Fixer82]

Re the answers to my points above:

2 To clarify, I meant McClean's nerve positively: I admire it, actually.

3 Obvious that he didn't write the letter, because a) it was in the style of a PR statement, and b) I've seen enough of his social media posts to distinguish them from a)

4 My suggestion was pretty explicit. The IRA and wider Irish state/ nation/ whatever were linked (not intertwined) during the Troubles by a minority of people in Britain, whether because of personal involvement, crude prejudice, ignorance or what you rather sneeringly call buffoonery. For the better-informed, factors like the refusal to extradite suspects or even Articles 2 and 3 may have played a part.

Apologies to RS for that typo. I used to work with a namesake of his ;)

A Unionist pedant. How unusual.

Of course, GR is right. A young 18 year old learning his trade deserves to be intimidated because he happened to be born in a certain part of the World

[Charlie Darwin]

A Unionist pedant. How unusual.

Of course, GR is right. A young 18 year old learning his trade deserves to be intimidated because he happened to be born in a certain part of the World
He's not saying he deserved to be intimidated, Fixer. He's saying it's understandable that a grown man would feel like that as it's virtually impossible for anybody to distinguish between a spotty teenager from Ballinteer and the Irish Republican Army.

[Fixer82]

He's not saying he deserved to be intimidated, Fixer. He's saying it's understandable that a grown man would feel like that as it's virtually impossible for anybody to distinguish between a spotty teenager from Ballinteer and the Irish Republican Army.

Of course, how remiss of me.
Sadlier, of course, was up to his neck in it all. Fenian scum!!!!

[DannyInvincible]

Wasn't there a story of Sadlier having supported Rangers as a boy in rebellion? It all makes sense now. What an elaborate decoy to conceal what he was really up to all along.

[Charlie Darwin]

Wasn't there a story of Sadlier having supported Rangers as a boy in rebellion? It all makes sense now. What an elaborate decoy to conceal what he was really up to all along.
Yep: http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/footballs-senseless-bigotry-hasnt-gone-away-you-know-26726387.html

Kind of funny imagining the scene of 13 year old daring to go against the grain in the notoriously hard-drinking fenian battleground of Ballinteer, but I suppose he had to jazz it up a bit.