|
Post by greyman on Jul 12, 2019 9:50:11 GMT
His obituary from The Times
Acting school had changed almost everything about Freddie Jones, including his voice and posture, but he would not change his name. “I hung on to it: it’s an instant contact with my roots,” he said. “There are limits beyond which I will not go — every whore has his price.”
Jones was a character actor. Interviewers enjoyed describing his face. “A chin on the verge of wobbling, eyes that can’t help searching for the exit, a round pink face that threatens to blur into a howl, like a Lucian Freud painting,” wrote one. “A breadfruit in mourning,” declared another. “A dented doughnut,” wrote a third. His clothes were distinctive too: he favoured a large, black fedora, and could be seen striding purposefully about the sleepy Oxfordshire town of Charlbury, where he lived for 30 years, with a multi- coloured scarf and long cape flying out behind him. Then there was the voice; it had the texture of ancient woodwork.
He acted in more than 70 films and made many more appearances on stage and on television. Although he did not become a professional actor until the age of 28, he made up for it by working as a soap star until well into his eighties. Along the way he worked with Clint Eastwood, David Lynch and Federico Fellini. Coffee laced with whisky helped to cheer him through grey mornings.
He was a romantic. While filming the 1968 Granada television series The Caesars in Manchester, the cast would drink bottles of champagne into the small hours while Jones declaimed poetry, occasionally inserting his own and making his companions guess the poet. “I’d listen and say, ‘Oh, late Forties, early Fifties . . . a bit Dylan-ish, but not Dylan . . . someone not really very good . . . I know, it’s you!” recalled Philip Mackie, later head of Granada Films.
Jones’s introduction to acting was romantic too. Bored stiff by a job in ceramics, his life was changed by a girlfriend who would cycle out to see him where he lived — in a hut in the middle of an orchard — and who introduced him to a local drama course. One evening, after a lecture, the instructor asked him to wait behind. “I cannot understand why a man of your talents is in science,” she said. Stunned, he asked her to repeat herself “so I can carry the lines around with me in my heart”. He was so disturbed by her confidence in him that he lost all interest in his work and was eventually sacked. At a loss, he went home to his parents. However, drama school prospectuses started to arrive. The instructor had written to them on his behalf. He applied and was accepted.
Frederick Charles Jones was born in Longton, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, in 1927, the son of Charles Jones, who worked as a jollier on ceramic insulators, and his wife, Ida, well-known locally as a pub pianist. “She played piano the way most people play rugby,” Jones said, “as though she had a grudge against it.” Freddie grew up under the sulphurous pall of kilns of the Potteries, remembering “air so thick that you could chew it at times”. Many neighbours got by on odd jobs attaching spouts to teapots — they often could not afford shoes for their children.
He received what he called “my first sense of the total magic of the theatre” at the Theatre Royal in nearby Hanley, which he visited with the scouts. “Maybe it was something to do with the terrific dramatic contrast between the vividly lit stage and the dark bowels of backstage.”
On leaving the grammar school in Longton, however, there was parental pressure to get a white-collar job “with a pension”. He did a year at commercial school, then left to become an assistant manager at Woolworths. He later became a clerk in a colliery office and after that spent ten years in a ceramic research laboratory in Tamworth specialising in urinals.
There he was in charge of five assistants: it was a good job, but one that made him miserable. His evenings were spent at working men’s clubs playing cribbage. A late starter romantically, he was 25 before he finally got a girlfriend, “a thin and beautifully spoken little thing”, who convinced him to give acting a go.
After his drama course he was accepted by the Rose Bruford school in Kent, which he picked because he liked the look of the lake and the swans. It was “absolute happiness”. He stayed three years, ironing out his Potteries vowels (he “blushed furiously” when he first heard it on a tape recorder) only to later see the emergence of kitchen-sink dramas and other actors polishing up their best nasal Midlands accents.
His rise from there wasn’t meteoric. He worked in repertory theatre before joining the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), but did little more than carrying spears. He was given a lead part in John Whiting’s The Devils, but lost it after a screaming match with the director. He turned down another role because the script was “nonsense”.
However, he made his film debut in one of the RSC’s most celebrated productions, the Marat/Sade, directed by Peter Brook, and after a string of small television roles, including Corporal-Major Ludovic in Evelyn Waugh’s Men at Arms, finally came to prominence at the age of 41 playing Claudius in the 1968 Granada series The Caesars. His performance, with tic, stutter and limp — he put a pebble in his shoe — drew favourable comparisons with Charles Laughton’s in the unfinished cinema epic I, Claudius, and won Jones the best actor award at the Monte Carlo television festival.
More success in film followed, and in 1981 he made his first visit to Hollywood to work with Clint Eastwood on the Cold War drama Firefox (“I wasn’t nervous, I was bloody terrified,” he said). He became a favourite of the idiosyncratic director David Lynch and was cast as the cruel, freak show proprietor in The Elephant Man (1980). He went on to appear in the Lynch films Dune (1984) and Wild at Heart (1990).
Federico Fellini was the next crazed director to fall under his spell. Jones won the role of Orlando, the drunken narrator in And the Ship Sails On (1983), after Fellini took one look at his face and dissolved in ecstasies. “I felt I needed faces that could easily resemble those belonging to people who no longer existed and have vanished in the course of time,” Fellini later explained.
The two immediately hit it off — “he was like the brother I always wanted,” Jones said. “When we came to the last shot of the film I was so sad that I burst into tears.” However, working with Fellini was not straightforward. “He’s so inventive that he doesn’t give you much room to experiment. The unforgivable sin of any director is to suggest inflections and stresses. Fellini acts the bloody thing out in front of you beforehand,” Jones said. On top of that the sound was added later and Jones had to create his performance, line by line, in the dubbing theatre.
Jones married the actress Jennie Heslewood in 1965. He had fallen in love at first sight when he went to watch her in the final rehearsal of The Reluctant Debutante and saw her playing “this strange, eccentric creature”. Their three sons, Toby, Rupert and Casper, followed them into the profession. The eldest, Toby, made a successful acting career in Hollywood, starring in films such as Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011).
Over the years Jones specialised in television period drama, for which fate seemed to have created his rich, treacly voice and face, easily covered in whiskers. He was in Nicholas Nickleby (1977), The Mayor of Casterbridge (1978), Silas Marner (1985), Adam Bede (1992) and David Copperfield (2000).
In 2005 Jones joined the cast of the ITV soap Emmerdale, playing Sandy Thomas, who made his first appearance on the wedding day of his character’s son, Ashley. Jones left the show in 2008, but returned a year later and continued to play the role well into his mid-eighties.
Jones often returned to his home town of Longton. There, discovering that the down-to-earth locals were unimpressed with his flamboyant attire, he reverted quickly to a baseball cap. Nevertheless, they were proud of him — they erected a plaque in his name in Longton Town Hall and asked him to open the New Vic Theatre in Newcastle-under-Lyme. “My life now so very different to that of my early adulthood,” he once reflected, “but when I go back to Stoke now I’m accepted completely as I am, speaking the way I do.”
Freddie Jones, actor, was born on September 12, 1927. He died on July 9, 2019, aged 91
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jul 10, 2019 8:39:04 GMT
Nowt so queer as folk? Old saying now not appropriate? In that context 'queer' doesn't mean 'gay' does it? The problem some people apparently have about context is an old one on here.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jul 10, 2019 3:34:34 GMT
Leviticus 18:22 is the most often quoted anti-gay bible verse and says "Do not lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination". It is referenced in other parts of the bible but it's easily the most famous. Leviticus also bans tattoos, clothes made of mixed fabric, bowl-haircuts, growing more than one type of crop in a field, and gossip. That's before taking into consideration that if you believe in this sort of thing, that Jesus made the Old Testament's teaching obsolete as the "Golden Rule" overrides everything else, and for Christians, the OT exists purely to provide context for the new. And yet Paul's letters often conflict with the Golden Rule, Jesus says in Matthew's gospel that he's not there to challenge the old laws, and Christians still cherry pick bits from the Old Testament when it suits them. So when it comes to genuine morality, the best option is to stick to the Golden Rule and leave the Abrahamic religions out of it completely. People should keep their religions to themselves. That keeps things nice and simple about issues such as whether it's anybody else's business who other people love.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jul 6, 2019 16:09:59 GMT
It's ruining the sport and that's before clubs learn to game it. It's not a clear handball at all. Got away with one at the other end as well. Under the rules it IS handball. no idea what your first line means It's not even clear it hits her arm. I don't know what rules you think apply. My first line means that clubs will learn ways to use VAR to their advantage. I can guarantee this season we'll see marginal and dubious VAR decisions given because the ref will have that little voice of big club bias nagging in their ear while they're watching the replays.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jul 6, 2019 15:56:26 GMT
VAR been fine they just need to speed it up. They have done in the men's game. Rules don't change because it's England. Was handball, camera doesn't lie. No harm in looking at it from several angles which she did and got it right. Odd how the commentary saying that the Cameroon offside goal was tight but correct but the England one v USA was harsh and should have counted. Rules are rules. VAR been fine with the outcomes. It's ruining the sport and that's before clubs learn to game it. It's not a clear handball at all.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jul 6, 2019 15:42:32 GMT
Again a correct decision. She's clearly controlled it on her arm. It's not clear at all. It's why the ref watched it 12 times in slow motion and from three angles and was still guessing. VAR needs to go
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jun 14, 2019 1:50:29 GMT
And I liked her point about not allowing men to have a say too although she shouldn't have to say it. I can't believe that people were actually suggesting men shouldn't have a say in women's footie, it's supposed to be for everyone, just like the men's game. I think we all know what will be said if men aren't allowed an opinion on the women's game. All comes back to the stupidity of comparing the two games. And if the BBC and their ilk don't want sexist idiots making daft comparisons all the time, they need to stop doing it themselves.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jun 13, 2019 17:45:21 GMT
I swear I'll shut up after this, but the issue has been raised by Chelsea coach Emma Hayes in The Times today. I've cut and paste it below. Shrinking goals and pitches would improve women’s game. It is an interesting article that makes some very valid points but the counter argument could be that women are actually about the same size as the average man at the time the goal dimensions were agreed. When the "new" MLS was being set up the Americans were considering increasing the size of the goals because goalkeepers were now so big that it was considered too difficult to score. As a young lad there were plenty of keepers under 6 foot (and as small as a 5ft 8inches) around in the professional game. (Being a 5ft 8ins keeper myself, I took an interest in these things! ) England Internationals Eddie Hopkinson and Ron Springett were 5ft 10ins and 5ft 9ins respectively and in the 1970s Reading keeper Steve Death was only 5ft 7ins and Les Green (Derby) and Laurie Sivell (Ipswich) were both 5ft 8ins. Joe Corrigan (at 6ft 4ins) was seen as a bit of a freak when he first came into the Manchester City team and there were lots of knowing nods whenever he made a mistake. It will be interesting to see if this is still seen as an issue in 20 years time when the women's professional game has evolved and spread. Rather than people comparing it to men's football, a better comparison might be looking at how mens rugby union has changed in the 20 odd years since it turned professional and the change in size, fitness and mobility of the "average" player over that period. I agree and a point I raised earlier in the thread.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jun 13, 2019 16:15:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jun 13, 2019 16:14:20 GMT
The gloating from the USA during and after the game made me think of this. Yes! I couldn't help thinking of Big Nev's "well done, he's 13" at Owen either. I swear I'll shut up after this, but the issue has been raised by Chelsea coach Emma Hayes in The Times today. I've cut and paste it below. Shrinking goals and pitches would improve women’s gameThere is one obvious reason why women play on the size of pitches and goals that we see now. That is what we were given. And maybe no one ever thought to question whether it makes sense. But if you look at some other sports, someone must have decided one day that, actually, it would be daft to get women — average height in the UK 5ft 3in compared to 5ft 9in for men — to run over the same sprint hurdles in the Olympics. The women’s hurdles were made to be nine inches shorter, 33in compared to 42in. In women’s basketball, women use a smaller ball. I’m no expert on that particular sport but I imagine someone felt that with smaller hands, and less power, it made for a better game if the women were dribbling and shooting with an object a fraction more manageable. None of that means that sports have to make allowances for physical differences between men and women, or even should. But I hope those examples introduce a little factual perspective into a debate about the size of pitches and goals in women’s football which I believe is worth having. Far too quickly the response to any discussion like this is defensive. The debate is instantly closed down out of a misplaced fear that it will damage women’s football. When I first aired the idea, I was accused of undermining equality and trying to take the game backward. I saw some high profile figures saying “absolutely no way” before we had even had a chance to think it through. I am not seeking controversy. I just come from a place where we should always be questioning the status quo. Why is something done this way? Is there an alternative? Human evolution is pretty much built on testing assumptions, otherwise we would still be working on the basis that the earth is flat. Surely we all have a responsibility to keep thinking how we can improve the game, whether back pass rules or VAR. Or, in the last decade or so, comprehensively overhauling how kids develop skills by using smaller pitches and different formats. So let’s try to set emotion aside and consider some facts, like the average height of a goalkeeper in men’s football being at least 6ft 1in — latest figures put it as high as 6ft 3in in the Premier League — with women in the Super League around 5ft 8in. That is a significant disparity. Perhaps this height differential alone is a reason why, according to stats supplied by Opta, the average shot distance for the WSL is greater than the EPL (17.9m compared to 16.5m) with a greater proportion of shots from outside the penalty area (42 per cent to 38 per cent) even though women shoot with less power. You might think the women’s game would have fewer long-range efforts considering the power issue but, actually, there are slightly more goals scored from outside the box. Given the average height of goalkeepers, of course it makes sense to be more speculative, but it is not necessarily a good look for the game. How frequently we hear the criticism, even from advocates of women’s football, that the standard between the posts lets it down. But is this anything to do with the quality of goalkeeping or the basic science of size and space? I saw Carly Telford, who plays for me at Chelsea, suggest it is about improving how we coach goalkeeping and we can always do our best to work on agility and positioning. But unless we are going to scout for women only of very unusual height, this could be a persistent issue. I asked Opta to pull together statistics to see how else the game might differ between men and women. For example, there are more turnovers in the WSL compared to the PL (62 per 90 minutes compared to 54). The average possession time is 16.27 seconds in the WSL compared to 21.17sec in the Premier League. Why are the women losing the ball more frequently? The game is clearly less fast-paced and physical, yet there are more turnovers. Perhaps it is something to do with the teams being more strung out. I wonder if a slightly smaller pitch would make the women’s matches quicker, more intense while putting even more emphasis on technical quality. All of that could enhance the spectacle. Any sport has to think about its integrity but also, in a professional age, its appeal. This is not a knee-jerk response to the United States smashing Thailand 13-0, a record score in the World Cup, and any embarrassment for Sukanya Chor Charoenying, Thailand’s 5ft 5in goalkeeper. Generally, I think this tournament is showing how the smaller nations are getting stronger. Look at Holland, European champions, needing a goal in injury-time to beat New Zealand; Italy shocking Australia; Scotland putting England under pressure. We are seeing better coaching, more funding, and enhanced development across the world. And I want to explore how we can keep improving. Constructive debate should be encouraged. I don’t want to see men called sexist for daring to discuss how the women’s game is different. The facts are that, in all sorts of little ways, it is. We should be able to discuss why that might be good and bad.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jun 13, 2019 12:14:20 GMT
In terms of anthropometrics, women are where men were 60 odd years ago, leaving aside the other physiological differences, so maybe we just wait and improve the coaching and pool of players in the women's game. But I did feel for that Thai goalie. It was like watching a 12 year old. The short term solution is to stop comparing the two sports, obviously. Just enjoy them in their own right. That's an excellent point too, we're certainly getting taller (I'm 5ft 10 myself), and it's no surprise that the better female keepers are at least 5ft 9 if not taller. I felt awful for the Thai goalie too, I'm sure she was expecting to concede a lot of goals but not the very disrespectful aftermath. If the women can't respect each other and be gracious in victory against the minnows with few resources then maybe the only solution is to make the goals smaller and level the playing field a wee bit. Absolutely! It's like apples and oranges really isn't it, both enjoyable but different and some people only like one or the other. The gloating from the USA during and after the game made me think of this.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jun 13, 2019 11:15:03 GMT
There is some evidence that women have more stamina than men and are less prone to muscle fatigue so I don't think there's a problem with pitch size. The problem appears to be primarily one of the goal size in my opinion. I recall when my sons made the step up to play on full size pitches at age 11, how ridiculous it was watching kids trying to defend goals where pretty much any shot of any pace or above five and a half feet would go in. It was also an age at which girls could compete with the boys in terms of strength and speed. Like you, I think the comparisons between men's and women's football are entirely counterproductive and it's a shame to see the BBC in particular making them on a daily basis. I'm so torn on this. Goalkeeping is by far the weakest aspect of the women's game and a lot of that is definitely down to size. That being said, there are some good female keepers, just not very many. But you also have to remember that many of them haven't benefitted from top-level coaching and full-time training until very recently. And of course, some teams (such as Thailand) are still made up of, at best, semi-professionals with coaches of a similar standard to the players. I think I would prefer to wait a little longer and see how the improvements in coaching and fitness that come with players in quite a few countries now turning pro and training full time before making any big changes like goal sizes. But that's just my take as a fan of the women's game, and I can certainly see both sides of the argument. In terms of anthropometrics, women are where men were 60 odd years ago, leaving aside the other physiological differences, so maybe we just wait and improve the coaching and pool of players in the women's game. But I did feel for that Thai goalie. It was like watching a 12 year old. The short term solution is to stop comparing the two sports, obviously. Just enjoy them in their own right.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jun 13, 2019 10:44:55 GMT
I've enjoyed bits of what I've seen so far and I don't mean to knock women's football but surely it would be beneficial for everyone to alter the physical side of the game? Wouldn't smaller pitches, goals and possibly even shorter matches make it better for everyone? The physical side of it, from what I can tell, is what lets it down the most and surely if it's made "easier" it would be more enjoyable to play and watch. Technically, it also looks a bit off but I think that could be exacerbated by the physical side. I know we are trying to bring it in line with the men's game but I don't think these constant comparisons to men's football do anybody any favours - such as when Pep decided to correct the journalist who said it's the first time an English team would win a domestic treble by saying the "women had". It's just simply not the same thing. It seems like some are determined to have them on an even keel overnight which just won't happen. Men's football is streets ahead in terms of the overall spectacle. It's a physical game based on speed and power which, unfortunately because of genetics, will always be better suited to a male physique - especially if you have both sexes playing to the EXACT same physical parameters. I have no issue whatsoever with it being more accessible to all, shown more on television and hope it does grow in terms of attending spectators and media interest but t I don't see that the current set up really helps anybody. In sports like tennis and boxing, the physical side is taken into consideration to allow the women to compete to their full ability. I don't think 90 minute games on full sized pitches allows for the ladies to do that in football. There is some evidence that women have more stamina than men and are less prone to muscle fatigue so I don't think there's a problem with pitch size. The problem appears to be primarily one of the goal size in my opinion. I recall when my sons made the step up to play on full size pitches at age 11, how ridiculous it was watching kids trying to defend goals where pretty much any shot of any pace or above five and a half feet would go in. It was also an age at which girls could compete with the boys in terms of strength and speed. Like you, I think the comparisons between men's and women's football are entirely counterproductive and it's a shame to see the BBC in particular making them on a daily basis.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jun 13, 2019 8:45:03 GMT
It doesn't do any favours to the men's or women's game. It's daft and immediately begs the question of why they don't just let the men play the women, gloves off and see what happens. It's ridiculous. Ugh, why would they do this? Just as the women's game is starting to really carve its own niche in the world. So counterproductive. I don't think they should. It's just a way of highlighting how ridiculous the comparisons are. It's like saying that Leek Town under-15s scored more goals than Stoke last season so Leek Town u-15s are better than Stoke. Sports can only be judged on their own terms and the BBC are stupid for publishing this kind of drivel. We know what would happen if they played a USA men v women game and we also know what would happen if the men were rolling around and doing laps of honour after goal number 20 went in.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jun 13, 2019 8:17:08 GMT
It doesn't do any favours to the men's or women's game. It's daft and immediately begs the question of why they don't just let the men play the women, gloves off and see what happens. It's ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jun 12, 2019 10:03:53 GMT
To behave the way the US players and head coach behaved towards their obvious inferiors was IMO totally disrespectful. You can argue whether the US team should have shown a little compassion but to humiliate your opponents in such a way with all the whooping and Hollering as each goal went in was completely out of order in my book. It's really made me angry and left a very sour taste to be honest. I don't have any issue with them putting 13 past Thailand, it's a competitive game at a World Cup. But to celebrate the way they did at 8, 9-0 and so on, thoroughly humiliating and rubbing the noses of the Thai players in it? Absolutely disgraceful and not in the spirit of the game whatsoever. Shame on them all, including their coach who should have reined them in rather than joining in. Like I said, there are clear comparisons with the kids game when you see them lording it up over a goalie who's clearly unable to reach shots. The one thing we can learn from kids football is that the worst winners are always the worst losers too. Just wait.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jun 12, 2019 9:47:38 GMT
To behave the way the US players and head coach behaved towards their obvious inferiors was IMO totally disrespectful. You can argue whether the US team should have shown a little compassion but to humiliate your opponents in such a way with all the whooping and Hollering as each goal went in was completely out of order in my book. I have to agree. Like most people I've seen kids teams who have been involved in completely one sided games and without exception this kind of thing would not have happened or if it had, the winning coach would have reined it in. It's disgraceful.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jun 6, 2019 20:51:09 GMT
Kane has made one foul the rest he's just stood his ground and been stronger, we have looked better with him on than off. He is not allowed to push the defender using his body while the defender is jumping, if he wants the ball he needs to jump and take it but he waits for the defender to jump then push him while he is in the air, he is allowed to do this in PL but this is not allowed in soccer. What's soccer?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jun 3, 2019 21:53:14 GMT
This thread and the tactical innovation on it could revolutionise football as we know it.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jun 2, 2019 6:29:26 GMT
: So some blokes start fighting...... if it happens at a game half the people on here think that it’s ace... but as it’s someone they perceive to not like then it’s ok to pillar them .....if someone has gobbed off at him and he has cuffed them good on him Because drunk grown men brawling about something someone has said in broad daylight on the beach in a family resort during half term is 'good'?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 3, 2019 5:20:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 1, 2019 13:25:35 GMT
Wouldnt be surprised if he wrote that himself Making yourself look a bit of a twat here. A bit?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 1, 2019 10:39:29 GMT
You'd think they'd find some better brickwork to model them against. Typical , a grey wall possibly from a toilet used for cottaging by school teachers with brief cases. Only at Stoke Categorise under some people will moan about anything. What were you expecting? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Sydney Opera House? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically across the plain?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Apr 25, 2019 11:46:49 GMT
Not really, we were lucky to get a draw in half of them. And unlucky not to win the other half, obv
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Apr 15, 2019 7:59:31 GMT
At least there's some logic to butchering the language in this way. Don't get me started on the growing number of people who don't know the difference between bias and biased, using a noun as an adjective never mind a verb.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Apr 10, 2019 7:16:41 GMT
Looking forward to the suggestions of who’s next... Whoever it is gets three months to get us promoted then binned off by the Football Manager 19 experts on here. Then we do it again and again and again. Eventually we'll run out of options and appoint somebody like the OP who once got Forest Green Rovers to the Champions League Final.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Apr 9, 2019 18:49:36 GMT
clucas up front? afobe on the wing? fuck me He's playing a diamond
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 27, 2019 18:08:26 GMT
What other people do or don't do isn't really his problem. He was directly asked his opinion and gave it honestly. For your opinion to be consistent, when Mclean is asked what other players do, his response should be that it's up them. Same as it was with him. If Rice is eligible to play for Pitcairn, that should be his prerogative. Mclean's problem is clearly to do with the choice of England.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 27, 2019 15:54:03 GMT
It's obviously not a one way thing and I get that he should have had more support from the authorities. But quoting IRA members just makes things easier for those who have abused him. This latest comment will just add more fuel. James McClean could argue he was quoting a member of parliament though. It's a very tricky situation. I do agree he would be well advised to avoid additional controversy. I just don't happen to find these Declan Rice comments particularly controversial. They wouldn't be on their own. As for the Bobby Sands thing, Cromwell was an MP and then Lord Protector. I don't think that would let our English player for Derry City off the hook if he went around quoting him at the fans in response to them giving him stick. What I'm trying to say is that McLean would be getting a lot less stick if he wasn't rising to it and generally proving himself to be as thick as a whale omelette.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 27, 2019 15:32:25 GMT
Fair enough. I'm generally on McLean's side and I think he should be free to wear what he likes and think what he likes. But he doesn't do himself any favours. Somebody should sit down with him and create an alternative scenario in which an English protestant joins Derry City and turns his back on the tricolour, quotes members of the Parachute Regiment and mouths off about the English born players who have played for Ireland, then moans endlessly about the treatment he gets from fans. What came first though? A lot of the things he has been quoted as saying, the stuff that winds people up, have been said in response to the abuse in my opinion. He's a young man who has reacted. I agree with you that he has a right to wear what he does or doesn't want to. He made an eloquent and well reasoned statement at the time yet was he was vilified. I understand your frustration, I genuinely do. I do think the majority of it has been a reaction to immense provocation however. It's obviously not a one way thing and I get that he should have had more support from the authorities. But quoting IRA members just makes things easier for those who have abused him. This latest comment will just add more fuel.
|
|