Have you got quotes to back up these claims? What's so contentious about the second charge? I'm not sure I fully understand it; is it to suggest he was in some way involved?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Printable View
Have you got quotes to back up these claims? What's so contentious about the second charge? I'm not sure I fully understand it; is it to suggest he was in some way involved?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Quotes would be fair in relation to the first claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I can't see how the second claim is so contentious.
You've stated yourself the third claim is a grey area (but a quote to back up the statement would be fair too).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
1 Deleted comments on Twitter and Facebook, as you know perfectly well. Often using the 'someone stole my phone' gambit. We had a similar discussion when Paddy Barnes starting spouting off at the Commonwealth Games, if you remember?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ole Ole
2 I'm pretty sure McClean hasn't any idea who sent those bullets, so shouldn't blame a large group of NI fans. Whereas if he does know, he should contact the Police.
3 See 1. He was quite specific about the modern conflict. I was answering your assumption about his critics: it isn't necessarily idiotic to link modern and historical paramilitarism.
Causing a stir on Twitter? This isn't like James McClean at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by James McClean's Twitter
:bulgy:
Hey, don't actually have a problem with him expressing an opinion (even it's very obviously a bit of a troll job) but he's also completely wrong - a council motion (the 100th in my lifetime) ain't officially name changing anything.
This allegedly refers to the set of initials shared by Kirk, his siblings and his child.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olé Olé
What are they renaming it- county Coleraine?Quote:
Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton
I thought you were joking there for a minute but my curiosity got the better of me: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...r-KB-baby.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
It's speculated that KB stands for King Billy after William III, Prince of Orange. Baffling.
I think you're reading a meaning into his alleged declarations that might be overly rigid and stringent. Bear in mind, I have not been presented with any evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
You sure you're not confusing him with Shane Duffy (whose story may well have been true, for all we know, as it's hard to see how any public figure would see tweeting "up the ra!" as a good idea - even if it was St. Paddy's Day! - but you could see how a young prankster in his company - in a pub? - might have, in his innocence, thought of something like that as amusing)? Have you got the text of James' tweets even or how did they go? Either way and just to add a bit more context; it's not something I'd personally approve of, engage in or condone, as I can appreciate its obvious contentious, insensitive nature and triumphalist connotations, but I have often heard "up the ra!" being thrown around casually in jovial settings (bars, pubs, drinking gatherings and the like) as either a joke or in celebration of something trivial and completely unrelated by young people from Derry who would know very little of armed conflict and would - perhaps naively or even ignorantly - mean no offence to Protestants. I'm pretty sure I've even heard it used in this context in an Irish pub in Manchester. This may be a genuine surprise, but it's used in the same way as a phrase like "for the win!" or something like that might be. People have obviously become desensitised to it and so it is no longer meant or intended to literally celebrate the armed struggle of the IRA. It's just a phrase. Obviously, I can appreciate why its use even in this more innocent guise would be ill-advised given its nature, but to accuse someone of being pro-IRA on the basis of having casually thrown it around would be erroneous without some other supporting evidence, I feel.
Ah, he was accusing NI fans of sending bullets? Well, many people were doing that (and still do), probably because it seemed like the intuitive thing to do without much further thought about it, but fair enough, I recognise that the sending of bullets could very easily be a "false flag" operation, if you will - malicious republicans intent on stirring a bit of trouble and giving NI fans a bad name might have done it - but if McClean accused NI fans, it's hardly indicative of strictly setting out to cause offence; probably more indicative of looking at the matter rather superficially or mono-dimensionally without thinking too deeply or critically about it.
In what way was he quite specific about the modern conflict?
Daily Record sanitises story of player banned for sectarian tirade.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/gre...ctarian-tirade
I'm not preparing a legal case against him. Merely summarising his antics on social media. No rigidity nor stringency involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Actually it's quite easy- just combine hardcore opinion, a few drinks, social media and at best the understandable arrogance of a young footballer.Quote:
it's hard to see how any public figure would see tweeting "up the ra!" as a good idea - even if it was St. Paddy's Day!
He said 'ooh ah up the ra, their marty mac is my granda'.Quote:
In what way was he quite specific about the modern conflict?
Or maybe that was when Kirk Clubfoot nicked his phone in the Rotherham Utd social club.
Alternatively, Roy Greenslade overeggs it as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
If the Daily Ranger had wanted to sanitise whatever Broadfoot did*, they'd have ignored the story. Not least as the player and club agreed no further comment.
* Presumably more than call him a cheating fenian b*stard- threats of assault or worse, I'm guessing?
What a Plonker ! Not talking about James here.
just in the interest of balance - i've never heard it used in this way bar by 14 or 15 year olds in turners cross many years ago. i would dispute that it's used in the same way as 'for the win' type expressions.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
whether intended as a joke or not, it is offensive.
I would have thought it was mainly a northern (possibly a Derry) thing for obvious reasons. I'd be surprised if I heard it in the south. Forgive me, I'm not sure where you're from, but do you frequent the north yourself or would you be familiar with the terrain? I'm not denying its insensitive nature (even though it's used more dumbly than maliciously), just adding context to how I've heard it being casually used. If you've heard it used that way at least once, I'm not sure how you can dispute that it might be used in such a fashion. Perhaps "for the win!" isn't the best comparison to draw or example of an equivalent type of phrase. I'm trying to think... Maybe it's more accurate to say it's akin to phrases/terms such as "lethal", "deadly" (is that still used in the south? I remember my cousins from Navan always used to use it as an exclamation of approval or positivity) or "up ya boy ya".Quote:
Originally Posted by zero
ah fair enough - i'm from cork; i think it was the part about hearing it in manchester that threw me off.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
in any case, mcclean will have to modify his behaviour somewhat - rightly or wrongly - if he doesn't want this kind of attention.
Ah, it was northerners, don't you know!Quote:
Originally Posted by zero
I'd like to think mainstream British society would be mature and enlightened enough to tolerate dissenting (and lawful) traditions and opinions, but it sadly appears not to be so.Quote:
in any case, mcclean will have to modify his behaviour somewhat - rightly or wrongly - if he doesn't want this kind of attention.
Have you never come across the version of the Field of Athenry where some folk tend to shout "Sinn Féin" and "IRA" in between the lines of the chorus? I've heard it a lot down through the years. Not by the sharpest of folk, admittedly. And I'm from the very south too.
Praising paramilitary groups whether they are the UVF, UDA or IRA, even in jest, is highly moronic in my opinion and footballers should be held to a higher standard when they do it.
What I don't understand is why English football fans think it is okay to chant "F the I.R.A." Don't get me wrong. I agree with the sentiment, but the idea of Irish football fans chanting "F the U.V.F." or "F the U.D.A." is anathema to me, as it should be.
It seems to sum up the myopia in certain quarters. They can brood over how they have been wronged, but there seems a precise lack of introspection on how they have contributed to social affairs in NI.
http://insideireland.ie/2015/07/25/o...divide-108788/
Sport must unite rather than divide.
10 match ban for Broadfoot for an aggravated foul mouthed abuse tirade aimed at McClean :D
That's an incredible breakthrough in making such a verbal abuse charge stick and piling on the unprecedented punishment, along with an irony, it's official - 'McClean is a protected species'.
Aye, it's pretty common. To be honest, and I don't think I'd be exaggerating, but if 'The Fields of Athenry' came on or was sung in your average city centre pub in Derry, I'd be more surprised if I didn't hear those additional bits from at least a few revellers. In fact, the inclusions would probably be louder and more broadly embraced the closer you were to the end of the night. Whether people in the south realise it or not, the modern IRA, for all their misdeeds, were never quite taboo within northern working-class nationalist communities in the same way northern republicanism was shunned by the southern establishment. The IRA weren't operating out of a vacuum and for many disenfranchised working-class nationalists/Catholics north of the border - where the political climate and dynamic was and is completely different - the IRA were seen as communal protectors of sorts. Not to generalise too crudely, but where there wasn't explicit support, there might perhaps have been sympathy and tolerance. When Sinn Féin began contesting elections in the north in the early '80s - at the height of the IRA's campaign - they won around 45 per cent of the nationalist vote, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olé Olé
It has also been suggested that the SDLP were able to prosper and progress constitutionally off the back of the IRA's militant threat; that is to say that the SDLP's negotiating position would have been fatally weakened had there been no threat of militancy from a separate nationalist source pushing for similar demands in furtherance of nationalist interests. That's not remotely to say that the two would have been in some sort of cahoots - they weren't - nor am I necessarily agreeing with the theory as I'm not sure I'm qualified to offer an in-depth opinion on it, but it is an interesting argument all the same and not all that radical. It also happens to be one that has been advanced with regard to Martin Luther King (purportedly profiting from the threat of the Black Panthers) whilst it has been suggested that Mahatma Gandhi had the luxury of being able to petition peacefully because others (independent of his movement) were twisting the arm of the British through physical force, thus rendering, from Britain's perspective, Gandhi's position a more appealing position with which to bargain.
From igniting, peddling and sustaining the responsibility-relieving "two quarrelling religious tribes" myth to disingenuously passing the buck of historical enquiries to Stormont (as if the history of the place has nothing to do with one of the conflict's main players), Britain's approach of feigned aloofness has indeed been intriguing.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
Very good read. One of the better, more thoughtful piece I've read on the matter.Quote:
For anyone interested, I offered my own two cents on it all here in a bit more detail than what I've already written in posts on this forum: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com...disengagement/
I've had two comments from Codey Lachey already! They're worth a read: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com...-1/#comment-45 :bulgy:
He's calling McClean anti-fascist like that's an insult!
His twitter profile - which he put at the end of his comment - says he's a "proud fascist".Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
I didn't click on the link, so I missed that. I guess that explains why he thinks anti fascism is a bad thing
"McClean is talentless anti-English war mongering, anti-fascist I.R.A supporting scumbag ***** hates our country and our queenand our history but happy to “earn” the Queens pound to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds paying tax to the British government which then indirectly funds the best army in the world the British army he’s a hypocrite of the highest order I ****ing detest him I hope he drops dead or someone ends his career or worse …"
That's pretty priceless:D
Like he wasn't paying taxes to Her Maj's government when he was with Derry! That level of vitriol really doesn't point to a well person!!
There's so much wrong with this post I don't know where to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
No one mentioned anything about the Poppy.
Plenty of people have had a go at Clarkson over his actions about the Falklands number plate H982FKL. The BBC said it was just people jumping to conclusions. Personally I think Clarkson knew what he was doing.
English players have respected the Argentine anthem even in Mexico 1986. Argentine players in England wear the Poppy during November.
Sammy Marrow explained what happened. A DCFC fan posted a link to an interview he did. It's on this thread. Plus we all know McClean's background. This is the debate, is he right to stick to his beliefs or are those beliefs out dated and in the past?
People have mentioned the tragedies of both sides. McClean is a Republican so people will point out that the IRA carried out attacks on innocent people just like the British Army and the Unionist groups.
As it has been said, they play national anthems before games in America. Charleston Battery probably thought they were carrying out a nice gesture and didn't know it would upset one person. They probably never heard of James McClean never mind his beliefs!
Aye but James did nothing wrong.
I think it's a valid question. West Brom have taken a dim view of McClean's stance. They have seen the controversy that enveloped the game in America. Maybe they don't want another month of it when the season has actually began.Quote:
Wolfman
RE: Clarkson. It just proves it is a one way street with these people. Clarkson deliberately provokes an entire nation and unnecessarily dredges up something that happened over a quarter of a century ago to offend people - because he thought he could get away with it. Hundreds of thousands of people sign petitions to reinstate him to the BBC. Why are they so uproarious when a footballer (and citizen of the United Kingdom) quietly pays a respectful tribute to the memories of people - some his family personally knew - who were massacred by the British Army? It's hypocritical.
OK. I'll give you that.
Sammy Morrow did the same thing as James McClean, but he wasn't bombarded with dribbling bile and histrionics. I know he had his reasons and I respect that. Why can't McClean's reasons be respected? Why should their beliefs be any more important than ours?
McClean is not a member of the I.R.A. It's a bit of a stretch to compare his actions to atrocities the I.R.A committed and/or atrocities paramilitary forces and The British ARMY committed against his people.
I know. This has been said ad nauseum. I didn't know this in the middle of the night when this story broke in Europe! I know it now. I think it's ridiculous. I have been to friendlies involving Italian & Spanish teams in America and they didn't play anthems then so it aroused my curiosity.
Drop the Clarkson angle on this discussion, it's completely irrelevant. As has been pointed out, after an investigation by the BBC, he did nothing wrong. The car was selected by researchers, some of whom weren't born when the Falklands War took place, and its number plate was deemed an unfortunate coincidence.
Charleston Battery did not act disrespectfully in any way, this is not up for debate.
McClean's decision not to wear the poppy is relevant to this, but any further debate on the wider implications of wearing a poppy by the general public is to be moved to the politics forum/
I'm really surprised this is such a big deal. hE
He didn't face the flag of the UK but bowed his head in respect.
What's the issue here?
Too many footballers go with the flow and are completely ignorant of politics, history or current affairs and will happily pose with soldiers for propaganda photos. I respect him for sticking by his beliefs.
What did he bow his head in respect of?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixer82
In respect of the fact that a national anthem was being played I guess, just not his.
You don't bow your head to show respect to a national anthem.
Bowing your head in respect is a sign of mourning. It's not appropriate in this instance.
The more I look at it the more it looks a little childish from McClean. I know he has his reason and he has his beliefs but I still feel that it was an act of defiance. IMO, it takes a bigger man to forgive (forgiving isn't the same as forgetting) and face the flag an show respect. It shows solidarity.
The bowing was showing a disengagement obviously but can you not disengage in a respectful way? If he was chewing gum and blowing bubbles while doing some pre-match stretches it would have looked far more disrespectful.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
It takes an even bigger man to finally let this go.Quote:
Originally Posted by GypsyBlackCat
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
At least it would have been more honest and showed his true feelings. Honesty is what we always want, right?
Chewing gum would have been more disrespectful.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
That doesn't make turning away and bowing respectful.
As Ronnie Reagan joked about Gerald Ford, "You can't expect him to walk and chew gum at the same time".Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
(Ford's reputation for clumsiness was as a result of his new presidential guard of honor not realising he was left-handed: so that when he and they turned to acknowledge the salute, everyone bumped into each other :D )
Matter of opinion I guess. I would see his actions as being respectful of the fact that an anthem was being played, while obviously having no respect for the anthem itself. I'm not sure how necessary it was to turn away, but bowing the head would seem like a very natural way to respectfully disengage, like the NI guys in the team photo.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu