The reason he didn't wear one is because he was free to choose either way, as the club confirmed in a statement. Martin O'Neill didn't wear one on the touchline either but there's not been so much of a storm about that little fact. It's double standards. McClean's an easier target as the media like to frame him as a contentious figure, if not an unruly simpleton, in order to sell papers. This is easier because he wears his identity on his chest and comes from relatively-deprived Creggan. Attempting to frame the refined and enlightened O'Neill of Kilrea, who passed up his law education at Queen's University in order to sign for Forest after an academic education at St. Columb's College, in the same boat simply wouldn't wash. Should either have to explain their "actions" in further detail beyond not wearing the thing? Why should either have to face the media? It's nobody else's business, frankly.
McClean is obviously passionate about his identity. There's nothing wrong with that. If people take issue with outward manifestations of that identity, that's indicative of a wider social problem rather than a personal problem with McClean per se.
McClean is obviously passionate about his identity. There's nothing wrong with that. If people take issue with outward manifestations of that identity, that's indicative of a wider social problem rather than a personal problem with McClean per se.
Apart from when it comes to whether or not they choose to wear a poppy...


Comment