James McClean M Wrexham b.1989

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

I think he changed schools from St. Columbs to St. Malachy's or vice versa. He definitly went to both.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Not Brazil

A similar article in the Sunday Life caused quite a furore at the time.

The SL journalist, a staunch "Bluenose", was given poetic licence by Feeney to write the piece.

---

Out of curiosity, have you got a name for the journalist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGKyne

Out of curiosity, have you got a name for the journalist?

---

I've got the whole article for you.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/su...-14209018.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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.



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.

---

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.

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?...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gastric

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.

---

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 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.

---

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 gastric

Lastly, McClean does have a responsibility to explain himself to the British public as he lives and works there. To suggest otherwise is wrong.

---

Absolute tosh!

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.

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.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

Jon Snow (who refuses to wear the poppy on air) in solidarity with McClean: https://twitter.com/jonsnowC4/status/270540827242164224

---

Wikipedia.

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".[

---

Jon Snow is a decent sort, he does not just toe the line like most other journalists.
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

Quote:

---

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.

---

and

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!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gastric

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.

---

Absolute nonsense.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

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.

---

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.html

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

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.html

---

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!!

Quote:

---

David Cameron calls Fifa's England poppy ban 'absurd'

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/15652356

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."

---