Will we be having the same discussion the same time next year and what can be done to make sure there is not so much fuss when he doesn't wear it again?
Printable View
Will we be having the same discussion the same time next year and what can be done to make sure there is not so much fuss when he doesn't wear it again?
Here's one DannyInvincible; leave me out of it. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Could it have been handled better? What would have amounted to good advice, in your opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by gastric
And James cannot be held accountable for such extremism that takes issue with his identity and personal politics.Quote:
In terms of my mentioning of extremists I was referring to the fact that, for some, such 'Anti British' behaviour must be met by threats of violence which isn't a first for James.
That's a funny one alright. What did he make of his Celtic team-mates?Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman
In relation to point one, tell me if the club have released an official statement clarifying his reasons for his actions? Has he faced the media to explain why he fels so strongly about this issue? I am sure all Premiership clubs would have a media manager whose job it would be to carry out such duties.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
On the second point, of course he is not accountable for the actions of others. However, how many players after such a short career in the spotlight, can claim to have had two death threats, however, silly they might seem after the event? Caution and good management is what he needs and as he can't manage himself, I would suggest the club needs to intervene to help him.
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.
Agreed about his passion and his right to choose. However, there is an issue which you seem to be skirting around. Police investigating a death threat and you say it is no one's business? While you may know a lot about the eligibility issue, you really don't understand the roles of public relations in such issues. Press conferences clear up issues. Remember this is going to raise its ugly head again next year and any decent PR person would be trying to clear it up now and the obvious way would be for James to explain his position. This would make it harder for the media to target him again next year and might even create some understanding of him among a very ignorant British public on such issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Commenting on O'Neil's degree and where McClean comes from shows your understanding of the issue, but how does this help the British public understand? It's okay to be academic about such issues, but think first about the realities which your last post seemed to ignore.
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that a statement would validate the fascistic and obnoxious idiocy. Where would one draw the line if McClean/Sunderland got into the business of making a statement every time a member of the public or some journalist took issue with something? Having to maintain a public diary of sorts would merely act as further distraction for the player. Besides, there's nothing stopping the media from doing a bit of background research themselves. They're supposed to be good at that sort of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by gastric
Well, it'd be great for all of us if everyone understood each other, but that's never going to be a reality. If the British public lack knowledge on a certain issue, it's not McClean's responsibility to educate them.Quote:
Commenting on O'Neil's degree and where McClean comes from shows your understanding of the issue, but how does this help the British public understand? It's okay to be academic about such issues, but think first about the realities which your last post seemed to ignore.
Be fair. The British public have always been generally ignorant on the subject of Ireland...
A similar article in the Sunday Life caused quite a furore at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman
The SL journalist, a staunch "Bluenose", was given poetic licence by Feeney to write the piece.
The IFA became directly involved - I understand Feeney was required to give an account.
I know this, as I was contacted by the IFA to profer an opinion on the issue, given a role I had at that time which involved close liason with the Community Relations Dept within the IFA.
Feeney was not best pleased, and it strained his, previously good, relationship with the journalist for a time.
Warren Feeney had no issues whatsoever playing with players from a different cultural background to himself.
:rolleyes: Apart from when it comes to whether or not they choose to wear a poppy...
Yer Man Cody would seem to me to have some mental health issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by SolitudeRed
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...t-me-dead.html
What a knob.
"It's vital our fans get under Boruc's skin because he has proved that when he lets things get to him, he is prone to make the odd mistake"Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman
To be fair, Warren called that one spot on.
Artur Boruc, Artur Boruc, Ulster's Number One.:D
Legend.
Surely that would, or should, be, Pat Jennings...
;)
You mean Shay Given .....Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8752/imageix.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Aye, he made all the difference.
Artur's howler in front of the Kop Stand at Windsor Park will never be forgotten to Northern Ireland fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sullivinho
Artur's a cult hero to us - fondly sung about on our travels.
Good call that was, Warren.:cool:
God, it must be desperate being a NI fan!Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
I thought Martin O'Neill went to my old school St. Malachy's In Belfast.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I think he changed schools from St. Columbs to St. Malachy's or vice versa. He definitly went to both.Quote:
Originally Posted by co. down green
Correct - he started at St Columbs in Derry, then moved to St Malachys when his family moved from Kilrea to Belfast
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucky-O'Hare
That's right. O'Neill attended both. Had forgotten that. He boarded at St. Columb's and was in the same year as my da, whom he beat in the annual handball final one year. O'Neill then moved on to St. Malachy's before my da had the chance to re-challenge and make amends. Was running scared, clearly; the whole family! :p
Out of curiosity, have you got a name for the journalist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
I've got the whole article for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGKyne
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/su...-14209018.html
You need to put all this into context. This is bigger than just the poppy issue. James has expressed comments on social media which have aggravated many people, leading to a death threat. He may be passionate and I do respect him for his stance of not wearing a poppy, but he is also a loose cannon who needs to be managed in what he puts out there. Some journalist who wants to create a sensational story will soon manipulate his actions to their own end. He needs to clarify his beliefs and his position on such issues, possibly by a prepared statement, to end this ongoing controversy. As I mentioned before journalists will be falling over themselves to sensationalise this story next November. If he issued a prepared statement, it would leave hopefully no one in any doubt as to what he believes. Lastly, McClean does have a responsibility to explain himself to the British public as he lives and works there. To suggest otherwise is wrong. When you have had the Police become involved twice in death threats, it is the British taxpayer who is paying and I would suggest that they like the general public have the right to know why this has occured and that measures are in place to ensure it doesn't occur again.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
He did put his poppyless jersey up for auction and donated the money to charity, which I suppose was an attempt to subdue the storm somewhat.
Anyway, would McClean explaining that he'd opted out of wearing what he perceived to be a contentious symbol due to the stigma attached to the poppy in Ireland, along with the past actions of the British Army in his home town, have made much of a difference? I read through the posts on the Sunderland forum and a couple of posters highlighted this as the possible reasoning behind his decision, but the rest of them weren't having it, such was their blind outrage. They still interpreted McClean's failure to wear a poppy as an insult, so what can you do?...
Sorry, can't agree with that at all. It's a preposterous suggestion actually. McClean hasn't engaged in any criminal act(s). He doesn't have to explain himself to any member of the public. From where does this apparent obligation to explain himself to the public arise? Can't get my head around that at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by gastric
Not that it matters, but I think Ger O'Brien mentioned the he'd set up getting the jersey before the match and resultant storm. Ger didn't know what he was getting himself in for if that was the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Absolute tosh!Quote:
Originally Posted by gastric
OWC would give you a years free membership for that assertion.
James McClean is under no obligation to make any statement about his political beliefs, any more than any footballer.
It occurred because there are stupid people who think the man deserves death threats for his fashion choices. If anyone should be making declarations, it should be the people making the threats, not the target. There can be no "measures" to prevent it other than the shut-down of social media or the enforced wearing of poppy labels for sportspeople - neither of which is acceptable solution.Quote:
When you have had the Police become involved twice in death threats, it is the British taxpayer who is paying and I would suggest that they like the general public have the right to know why this has occured and that measures are in place to ensure it doesn't occur again.
Wikipedia.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Jon Snow is a decent sort, he does not just toe the line like most other journalists.Quote:
He refuses to wear any symbol which may represent his views on air; in the run up to Remembrance Day, he condemned what he called 'Poppy Fascism' because "in the end there really must be more important things in life than whether a news presenter wears symbols on his lapels".[
Same goes for Channel 4 in general, I remember once mistakenly complaining about their use of a rather discredited (to my mind) expert (which all the other channels used), they wrote back saying they no longer or had never used him (can't remember exactly).
There is also an interesting bit here:-
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/newsr...m-7263001.html
andQuote:
He said he would wear no symbols, while on air, claiming it was a matter for his private life. In the processs he criticised the BBC's decision to let Fiona Bruce wear a necklace with a cross on it.
Quote:
The BBC recently came under fire after it was revealed that bosses had agonised over whether to let Fiona Bruce wear a necklace with a cross while on air.
BBC executives feared her jewellery might cause offence by suggesting a religious affiliation and could compromise the Corporation's image of impartiality.
Which kind of raises an interesting point.
The point is, should presenters on the BBC be allowed to wear poppies?
Because it compromises their image of impartiality.
Perhaps if they were not allowed it might help end poppy fascism.
Also people have I think have lost their jobs because they wore a cross, but that may have been on the
grounds they were jewellery, however I bet the very same places allowed and indeed expected their staff to wear poppies!!!
So it seems to me they would have to either ban wearing all symbols of anything or allow people to wear whatever they liked. Which could lead to newsreaders turning up for work wearing Nazi armbands!!
Absolute nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by gastric
The right not to wear a Poppy (including any member of the "British Public") requires no explaination - it's a free choice. Whilst his reasoning on the matter might be interesting, he is certainly under no obligation to explain himself to anyone.
The Police are involved because of death threats made against McClean - one such threat, we know, came from a British Citizen.
When a British Citizen breaks the Law in the United Kingdom, it is the British Taxpayer who pays the bill to see that the lawbreaker is dealt with through due process.
Those dishing out death threats are the lawbreakers - not those who choose not to wear a Poppy.
The only explainations required will be those of the lawbreakers - in front of a Judge.
My understanding is that the BBC employ a ban on their World service presenters wearing such symbolism. Or that used to be the case anyway: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...g-poppies.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
He is the only premiership footballer who opted out of wearing a symbol and is now getting death threats for it.
Was he the only one?
Was there not one or two others?
He was the only player not to wear one, at least according to firebrand Colin Murray. Although Murray has been known to get things wrong in relation to McClean in the past...
Is it not the case that Martin O'Neill was not wearing one at the beginning of the game, while John O'Shea had the audacity to appear poppyless in the second half?
That's true, although I think O'Shea just made a change into his replacement jersey for reasons unrelated to the poppy on his original one.
O'Neill wore a poppy after the game and O'Shea wore a poppy for the first half.
McClean wore no poppy
Are people still talking about the ****ing poppy? jesus...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Thanks, I was not aware of the ban I don't remember hearing about it at the time, I'd expect there to be a fuss
about that kind of thing, but I don't suppose many people in the UK watch the world service.
Interestingly FiFA have banned the poppy!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/15652356Quote:
David Cameron calls Fifa's England poppy ban 'absurd'
Quote:
David Cameron has called the ban on England's footballers wearing poppies on their kit "outrageous".
Fifa rules mean teams cannot wear shirts carrying political, religious or commercial messages.
The prime minister says the decision not to allow players to wear poppies during England's friendly with Spain on Saturday is "absurd".
He said: "Wearing a poppy is an act of huge respect and national pride. I hope Fifa will reconsider."