James McClean - More Controversy

[Albert]

I don't agree. Players are representing the club and community, so it stands to reason that there are a whole host of individuals who fans don't want representing their teams for various non footballing reasons.

Also, can we ditch the patronising fallacy that only Daily Mail readers are the only people who would care about this?

You're right, there are plenty of flagbangers who read other rags. 

[McRainy]

I don't agree. Players are representing the club and community, so it stands to reason that there are a whole host of individuals who fans don't want representing their teams for various non footballing reasons.

Also, can we ditch the patronising fallacy that only Daily Mail readers are the only people who would care about this?

The patronising tone is directed at some of the comments above, not at you personally. 

I agree that there is a debate to be had about who is suitable to be in the high profile role of professional football. As I've argued on here before, I would certainly draw the line at players convicted of serious crimes, and I think there should be clearer contractual guidelines around what is deemed acceptable behaviour. 

That is a very different matter from dictating what should be a question of personal conscience. As others have said, the way forward in a case like McClean's is for the club to respect his beliefs, and avoid putting him in compromising positions. It is not acceptable in 2015 to expect everyone's values and allegiances to conform with those of the establishment. 

[Duracell]

Though McClean is entitled to protest, I think this one wasn't really worth it. Not wearing the Poppy is absolutely fine in my book and a far more effective statement, and it's more obvious what he's protesting - the actions of our armed forces and foreign policy. Not facing the flag of St George doesn't quite have the same effect, and suggests he's as confused about what he's protesting against as a lot of people are on this thread.

But then again, who am I to comment, I've not lost a family member through Bloody Sunday. Maybe more posters on this thread should read up about it before commenting - imagine if another nation's armed forces fired bullets at your friends and family, including those fleeing and helping the wounded.

If plying my trade in that country set up myself and my family in the best manner possible, I could play there, and get on with the people there no problem. But asking me to pay respect to the nation's armed forces and the divisive flag which represents so many of the route causes of the incident would be a tricky one.

The "I know we shot at your family once, but come on stop making such a fuss about it James" argument doesn't really sit right with me.

[bcnram]

Though McClean is entitled to protest, I think this one wasn't really worth it. Not wearing the Poppy is absolutely fine in my book and a far more effective statement, and it's more obvious what he's protesting - the actions of our armed forces and foreign policy. Not facing the flag of St George doesn't quite have the same effect, and suggests he's as confused about what he's protesting against as a lot of people are on this thread.

But then again, who am I to comment, I've not lost a family member through Bloody Sunday. Maybe more posters on this thread should read up about it before commenting - imagine if another nation's armed forces fired bullets at your friends and family, including those fleeing and helping the wounded.

If plying my trade in that country set up myself and my family in the best manner possible, I could play there, and get on with the people there no problem. But asking me to pay respect to the nation's armed forces and the divisive flag which represents so many of the route causes of the incident would be a tricky one.

The "I know we shot at your family once, but come on stop making such a fuss about it James" argument doesn't really sit right with me.

I don't get the 'another nations armed forces' comment. They were UK forces in the UK. The crazy acts on Bloody Sunday are another (and shocking) matter. Personally, I don't believe that he is entitled to protest in that manner whilst working. What he does in his own time is entirely a matter for him so long as it does not cause embarrassment to his employers, fellow employees and their customers.

 

[McRainy]

I don't believe that he is entitled to cause embarrassment to his employers  

 

Selectively edited to ask, is this what it comes down to? You are setting the 'embarrassment' of a football club against the grief and outrage of victims of Bloody Sunday? Really?

It is the British Government and armed forces, and all those who try to whitewash their actions, who should feel embarrassed. This includes those who seek to gag McClean for justifiably reminding us of that shame. 

[bcnram]

Selectively edited to ask, is this what it comes down to? You are setting the 'embarrassment' of a football club against the grief and outrage of victims of Bloody Sunday? Really?

It is the British Government and armed forces, and all those who try to whitewash their actions, who should feel embarrassed. This includes those who seek to gag McClean for justifiably reminding us of that shame. 

I don't get the 'another nations armed forces' comment. They were UK forces in the UK. The crazy acts on Bloody Sunday are another (and shocking) matter. Personally, I don't believe that he is entitled to protest in that manner whilst working. What he does in his own time is entirely a matter for him so long as it does not cause embarrassment to his employers, fellow employees and their customers.

 

I have thrown the unedited comment back in to at least try and give some credibility to your comments. I have referred to Bloody Sunday above as crazy and shocking.

James McClean was not even born at the time of Bloody Sunday, it was 43 years ago. Did he turn away from the flag at the recent Ireland v England match? If the German flag had been flown at last nights friendly should the Derby players have turned their back on it because Grandad was shot at by the Germans, or the Luftwaffe dropped a bomb on the family home? Why did he make such a fuss about not wearing the poppy on his shirt instead of just doing it quietly and without comment?

The fact is that this particular individual is using those deaths in Londonderry and elsewhere in the Province to bring attention on himself. It is a disgraceful half-witted act of self promotion that should be sickening to those who were involved at the time and believed in what they were doing (even though they were terrorists and largely involved in criminal acts). 

This episode is nothing to do with McClean reminding anyone of any shame that the military should have, and everything to do with pathetic attention seeking, encouraging mock horror from those such as yourself.

 

[Albert]

I have thrown the unedited comment back in to at least try and give some credibility to your comments. I have referred to Bloody Sunday above as crazy and shocking.

James McClean was not even born at the time of Bloody Sunday, it was 43 years ago. Did he turn away from the flag at the recent Ireland v England match? If the German flag had been flown at last nights friendly should the Derby players have turned their back on it because Grandad was shot at by the Germans, or the Luftwaffe dropped a bomb on the family home? Why did he make such a fuss about not wearing the poppy on his shirt instead of just doing it quietly and without comment?

The fact is that this particular individual is using those deaths in Londonderry and elsewhere in the Province to bring attention on himself. It is a disgraceful half-witted act of self promotion that should be sickening to those who were involved at the time and believed in what they were doing (even though they were terrorists and largely involved in criminal acts). 

This episode is nothing to do with McClean reminding anyone of any shame that the military should have, and everything to do with pathetic attention seeking, encouraging mock horror from those such as yourself.

 

I think it's a bit unfair to compare the situation to the Germans post WWII. It is not the same flag, the government of the time was completely dismantled, the country was put through a nightmare and was divided for a generation or more and nobody credible would spend their time whitewashing. That is almost entirely the opposite of the situation discussed here. 

Equally, 43 years seems like a lot now, but picture it from his point of view, on the front line so to speak in Derry, growing up in a family that was most likely impacted. Issues in the area weren't confined to 43 years ago either. The fact that it makes you uncomfortable for what is in this case a non-action, and possibly not even something planned ahead of time, speaks volumes of what the problem actually is. 

I can't believe anyone in their right mind would judge him for such a simple gesture, such a thing should never have happened pregame in the first place, and with his history the club should have done something about it ahead of time. To call it "self-promotion" in this case is also quite bizarre. Can people not bring attention to their own concerns by simple non-violent action now? Is it "shameless self promotion at others' expense" if a player supports a charity?

Just because you disagree, doesn't mean that he shouldn't protest. Rightly or wrongly he should be allowed to abstain in such situations, and to be perfectly blunt about it, he should never have been put in that position in the first place.  

[McRainy]

This episode is nothing to do with McClean reminding anyone of any shame that the military should have, and everything to do with pathetic attention seeking, encouraging mock horror from those such as yourself.

 

You either have some special ability to read other people's motives better than they can themselves, or you just have a rather predictable and tedious political axe to grind. 

In any case, I'll leave you to your 'mock horror' at at a footballer's 'disrespect' for a flag. 

[Duracell]

I don't get the 'another nations armed forces' comment. They were UK forces in the UK. The crazy acts on Bloody Sunday are another (and shocking) matter. Personally, I don't believe that he is entitled to protest in that manner whilst working. What he does in his own time is entirely a matter for him so long as it does not cause embarrassment to his employers, fellow employees and their customers.

You do get the 'another armed forces' comment, you're just choosing not to. Just imagine that in your view those forces are not representing you.

I also wonder what type of protest doesn't cause some form or embarrassment or offense? But again, we're not talking about a protest here so much as a gesture not made. Key difference there - it's the media that have chosen to make the embarrassment to the club, not James McClean. If the media hadn't drawn attention to it, we wouldn't know about it.

James McClean was not even born at the time of Bloody Sunday, it was 43 years ago. 

So it's got nothing to do with him, then?

This episode is nothing to do with McClean reminding anyone of any shame that the military should have, and everything to do with pathetic attention seeking, encouraging mock horror from those such as yourself.

The first part I perhaps agree with, McClean obviously has some sort of issue throwing himself into being overwhelmingly patriotic to the flag, but for goodness sake - let's get a sense of perspective here. He chose not to face a flag in a bizarre Americanised show of patriotism in front of a small crowd in an early pre-season football match. 

Elements of the media have had it in for him ever since he decline to wear a Poppy, and the whole "storm" cause by a bloke who failed to turn at a 45 degree angle and face a piece of fabric is, I agree, pathetic.

[bcnram]

I think it's a bit unfair to compare the situation to the Germans post WWII. It is not the same flag, the government of the time was completely dismantled, the country was put through a nightmare and was divided for a generation or more and nobody credible would spend their time whitewashing. That is almost entirely the opposite of the situation discussed here. 

Yep, I totally agree

Equally, 43 years seems like a lot now, but picture it from his point of view, on the front line so to speak in Derry, growing up in a family that was most likely impacted. Issues in the area weren't confined to 43 years ago either. The fact that it makes you uncomfortable for what is in this case a non-action, and possibly not even something planned ahead of time, speaks volumes of what the problem actually is. 

It doesn't make me uncomfortable, I think it is comical.

I can't believe anyone in their right mind would judge him for such a simple gesture, such a thing should never have happened pregame in the first place, and with his history the club should have done something about it ahead of time. To call it "self-promotion" in this case is also quite bizarre. Can people not bring attention to their own concerns by simple non-violent action now? Is it "shameless self promotion at others' expense" if a player supports a charity?

I most certainly stand by this being little about the history and everything about James McClean. 

Just because you disagree, doesn't mean that he shouldn't protest. Rightly or wrongly he should be allowed to abstain in such situations, and to be perfectly blunt about it, he should never have been put in that position in the first place.

I am quite happy for him to protest about whatever he wants, but I don't think this was the time or the way to do it. 

[bcnram]

You either have some special ability to read other people's motives better than they can themselves, or you just have a rather predictable and tedious political axe to grind. 

In any case, I'll leave you to your 'mock horror' at at a footballer's 'disrespect' for a flag. 

Thank you - appreciated x

[bcnram]

 

You do get the 'another armed forces' comment, you're just choosing not to. Just imagine that in your view those forces are not representing you. I am more of a factual kind of guy really, I could imagine that I am Irish but I am not (well not entirely anyway :-) ).

I also wonder what type of protest doesn't cause some form or embarrassment or offense? But again, we're not talking about a protest here so much as a gesture not made. Key difference there - it's the media that have chosen to make the embarrassment to the club, not James McClean. If the media hadn't drawn attention to it, we wouldn't know about it. The media reported it, that is what they do, they help me fill in a quiet afternoon.

So it's got nothing to do with him, then?

The first part I perhaps agree with, McClean obviously has some sort of issue throwing himself into being overwhelmingly patriotic to the flag, but for goodness sake - let's get a sense of perspective here. He chose not to face a flag in a bizarre Americanised show of patriotism in front of a small crowd in an early pre-season football match.  Nobody believes more than me that the Americans have an unhealthy sense of patriotism. It might have been better if he just looked at the floor. I suspect that it was only because it was in flag happy America that he did it. If it was WBA playing in Genoa he would not have bothered (although he would have had to not bother twice as it is the same flag).

Elements of the media have had it in for him ever since he decline to wear a Poppy, and the whole "storm" cause by a bloke who failed to turn at a 45 degree angle and face a piece of fabric is, I agree, pathetic. Again, he could have not worn the poppy and few would have given a damn if he had done it quietly. But no, in a huge act of 'I'm James McClean please take notice of me', he made sure it was fully published. 

[Albert]

[this post has no content that isn't quoted, below is what he said, numbered for ease of reply]

1. Yep, I totally agree

2. It doesn't make me uncomfortable, I think it is comical.

3. I most certainly stand by this being little about the history and everything about James McClean.

4. I am quite happy for him to protest about whatever he wants, but I don't think this was the time or the way to do it. 

1. Nothing really to be said here

2. You think it's comical because of what you assume his intentions to be. You don't seem to address the idea that he may actually be passionate, and not be after "fame" as you seem to suggest

3. Which again requires your interpretation which appears to be based on minimal evidence

4. How should he do it then? It is non-violent, doesn't disrupt anything or harm anyone. If anything, judging by the reaction, it's actually the perfect demonstration on how to protest something. 

[bcnram]

2. You think it's comical because of what you assume his intentions to be. You don't seem to address the idea that he may actually be passionate, and not be after "fame" as you seem to suggest

3. Which again requires your interpretation which appears to be based on minimal evidence

4. How should he do it then? It is non-violent, doesn't disrupt anything or harm anyone. If anything, judging by the reaction, it's actually the perfect demonstration on how to protest something. 

2/3. His sporadic actions are not the actions of someone who is passionate about something. His selective actions and subsequent invited publicity are the actions of someone who is seeking attention for himself. I accept that coming from a family with an alleged history of terrorism and living in a Catholic ghetto may have stirred a hint of resentment.

4. But what is he protesting about? Ulster is beautifully peaceful, their are many Catholics in positions that they were not before, the people are wonderfully friendly and the country is somewhere that everyone should visit if they can. Or is he just seeking attention for himself 

[Highgate]

I don't get the 'another nations armed forces' comment. They were UK forces in the UK.

Surely you allow people in Northern Ireland to decide their own nationality, whether that be British or Irish. McClean identifies as Irish, therefore the British Army is that of another nation. That would seem to be pretty straightforward. 

I tend to agree with an earlier poster, this was a fairly unnecessary protest on McClean's part in my view.  As much as i support his poppy protest, if would be nice if he, as a Northern Ireland nationalist, could have faced the flag here with a view to leaving the conflicts and bitterness of the past behind.

[bcnram]

Surely you allow people in Northern Ireland to decide their own nationality, whether that be British or Irish. McClean identifies as Irish, therefore the British Army is that of another nation. That would seem to be pretty straightforward. 

I tend to agree with an earlier poster, this was a fairly unnecessary protest on McClean's part in my view.  As much as i support his poppy protest, if would be nice if he, as a Northern Ireland nationalist, could have faced the flag here with a view to leaving the conflicts and bitterness of the past behind.

No of course not, if he lived across the border in the South then the army would be that of another nation. He lived in the UK (as he still does) so it was the army of his own country (which makes their actions pretty grotty to be honest). Up until about 10 years ago any citizen of Ulster could automatically claim Irish citizenship and go and live there if they chose to. As far as I am aware neither he nor his immediate family chose to do so.

[McRamFan]

Surely you allow people in Northern Ireland to decide their own nationality, whether that be British or Irish. McClean identifies as Irish, therefore the British Army is that of another nation. That would seem to be pretty straightforward. 

I tend to agree with an earlier poster, this was a fairly unnecessary protest on McClean's part in my view.  As much as i support his poppy protest, if would be nice if he, as a Northern Ireland nationalist, could have faced the flag here with a view to leaving the conflicts and bitterness of the past behind.

The issue James has is that he doesn't want to be a NI citizen, he want NI returned to the Republic, after all it was originally one of four provinces  of Eire.

[Highgate]

The issue James has is that he doesn't want to be a NI citizen, he want NI returned to the Republic, after all it was originally one of four provinces  of Eire.

He is entitled to want that if he wishes, anyone is...as long as they don't turn to violent acts to achieve it. 

[StaffsRam]

The issue James has is that he doesn't want to be a NI citizen, he want NI returned to the Republic, after all it was originally one of four provinces  of Eire.

The issue that James has is that the majority of Northern Irish folks disagree with him.

[SuperRams!!!]

Just let him do what he wants, doesn't really affect anyone else but him to be honest. However not wearing the poppy is a bit ridiculous.