James McClean M Wrexham b.1989

[tricky_colour]

I think the FA or whoever is in charge follow FIFA's example and ban any thing other than the name and number
on a players shirt as it puts them under pressure to support something they may not agree with.

Might cause a problem with black arm bands though, but even then a player might have a reason for not
wearing one under certain circumstance and then they are put in the spot light and we get the same kind
of nonsense so id' ban them too.

If the club want to do something fair enough, ie minutes silence. Slight problem with minutes applause
because a player might not want to clap. So I'd go for applause from crowd and silence from players,
a nice political fudge.

[tricky_colour]

Are people still talking about the ****ing poppy? jesus...

Yea lets get back to his goals!!!

[strangeirish]

Yea lets get back to his goals!!!

I think he's reached his goal of being a Twitter ****...

[ArdeeBhoy]

As in what exactly...

[Sullivinho]

As in what exactly...

[BonnieShels]

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/15652356

I remember that hullaballoo last year.

All England players ended up wearing black armbands with a small poppy stitched on them.

[gastric]

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.

While I stick to the main points I made, I would agree the last point was particularly stupid and I deserved the flak I copped. Perhaps the lesson in this for me is not to submit a comment while you have 27 17 year old cherubs sitting in front of you!

[tricky_colour]

I remember that hullaballoo last year.

All England players ended up wearing black armbands with a small poppy stitched on them.

Ah yes I think I vaguely remember that now, the drink seem to have taken it's toll over the years, hic :P
But I guess fudging the issue kept it from becoming a more memorable incident.

However that was a bit of a cheat by England and as I suggested the wearing of black armband by players
should also be banned fro similar reasons.
It avoids all sort of tricky issues, for example some players might actually, for whatever reason, be glad to see
the back of the particular departed. Another more likely reason would be who is deserving of the wearing of
black armbands, it avoids having to snub certain departed people of being not quite worthy of the honour.

[SwanVsDalton]

Perhaps the lesson in this for me is not to submit a comment while you have 27 17 year old cherubs sitting in front of you!

Are you Professor Cupid teaching a class at Love High School? Your identity becomes thornier by the moment.

[gastric]

Are you Professor Cupid teaching a class at Love High School? Your identity becomes thornier by the moment.

Seriously when I first read your post I thought you wrote 'hornier' which added to the nature of your remark scared the crap out of me! Unfortunately, I am told I am very good at teaching the ones that 'John West rejected' so life is always eventful!

[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/15652356

I remember that nonsense last year. If I recall correctly, it all acted as a convenient distraction for the FA from some other issue that was pressing upon them, for England had never worn the poppy on their jerseys around the 11th of November in all the 93 years before that; indeed, "Terrygate" had been raging in the media at the time. Interesting summary of it all here with a healthy dose of sarcastic cynicism: http://daveboyle.net/analysis/war-mi...-from-the-hip/

And so it ends. 93 years of England’s ignominious and unpatriotic failure to wear poppies on their shirts comes to a deserved end, and a nation can rest easy, safe in the knowledge that now football has fallen into line, people will actually start wearing poppies for the first time ever. Or something like that.

...

Never mind that the Chief Executive of the British Legion said “The Legion never insists that the poppy be worn or insists that others allow it to be worn.” But who cares what that pen-pushing pinko thinks, when there’s a jingoistic juggernaut on the move. Either stay still and be run over, or get onboard and watch it magically become a bandwagon.

It also raises the issue of what is and is not deemed commercial, political or religious. Essentially, that's an arbitrary decision that is adjudicated upon within the domain of FIFA. For example, we wore black arm-bands against Italy at the Euros on the anniversary of the Loughinisland massacre in 1994 and in memory of all victims of the Troubles. Some argued that was political whilst others, and FIFA evidently, saw it as a worthwhile humanitarian gesture. If, say, the German team, for whatever reason, sought to remember fallen members of the Waffen-SS through the wearing of similar armbands at some point, it might pose some thornier moral issues for FIFA, but who's to know how they would adjudicate. I could see how a prohibition on the wearing of armbands in such an instance could leave them open to criticism for inconsistency and the practicing of double standards.

FIFA, ever alive to opportunities to play the pantomime villain for their friends in the English press pack refused, citing their blanket ban on all commercial, political and religious messages on the shirts worn in matches which take place under their jurisdiction.

FIFA rightly have long-standing rules in place, mindful of the power of the game to be used to further dark agendas, and equally mindful of the nature of political matters to be judged very differently depending on where one stands. Would that they have been in place in 1938 to save England’s players from being advised to give a Nazi salute before playing Germany.

But sadly – for many, many more important reasons than this – FIFA are perhaps the last people on earth to be able to survey the high ground of principle from their strong fortress of legitimacy.

What FIFA actually practice is the highest and most powerful example of politics of all – the ability to decide what is and is not political. Behind the canard that sport and politics shouldn’t be mixed lies the pure power to decide what is and isn’t political, and so what will, and will not be tolerated in mixing with sport.

Racism was political – and not to be mixed with sport – when the old guard stonewalled developing world pressure to tackle apartheid. The new guard who understood that sensibility changed tack, and now FIFA’s stance is that anti-racism isn’t political and can be mixed with sport. It’s a welcome change, of course, but on no level can it be seen as apolitical.

Commercial matters are most definitely not political in FIFAland; certainly not how FIFA ensures host countries for world cups give them carte blanche to pretty much do as they commercially please, and rewrite their laws and tax codes. It also isn’t political to allow national teams to display the logo of the kit manufacturer, a commercial message if ever there was one. Adidas, after all, would expect nothing less from the people they groomed for power back in the day.

[DannyInvincible]

While I stick to the main points I made, I would agree the last point was particularly stupid and I deserved the flak I copped. Perhaps the lesson in this for me is not to submit a comment while you have 27 17 year old cherubs sitting in front of you!

Do you still maintain that McClean publicly explaining his rationale would make a difference to many of those who interpreted his non-wearing of a poppy as an insult? Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but I suspect that ignoramuses with fascistic tendencies wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in listening to his side of the story, never mind changing their attitudes because of it.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Another view. Of sorts.
Or old news.

http://www.wsc.co.uk/wsc-daily/1154-...o-wear-a-poppy

[DannyInvincible]

Another view. Of sorts.
Or old news.

http://www.wsc.co.uk/wsc-daily/1154-...o-wear-a-poppy

"By Ed Upright". Fitting.

[ArdeeBhoy]

It certainly makes Lachey look like a simpleton.

[DannyInvincible]

A sports update from Pure Derry:

SPORT

Some die-hard English football fans continue to issue death threats to Derry footballer James McClean, following his choice not to wear a poppy last week. "It's disgraceful and insulting. Our armed forces were responsible for stopping an imperialist empire from taking over the entire world!" said Terry Tipton from Britain.

Britain, the imperialist empire who previously took over the entire world, remained unavailable for comment.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Great minds think alike...

[SkStu]

He really just needs to do the right thing at this stage and apologise to the British people.

[Sullivinho]

I believe a small, floral display of contrition would also aid in mending bridges.

[tetsujin1979]

or time served in the armed forces?