Lifetime ban for Twitter user

kensutz

A so called Norwich City supporter was banned from the club yesterday for life after comments he made about James Vaughan and other players were picked up by the club. I'm glad we got rid of someone like that and think the ban is justified. Mark Bright even got in on the act yesterday too, which probably forced to club to act a lot quicker.

Story here

orourkeda

If clubs heard the comments that we, as football fans, made about most players we'd all be banned for life.

El Weirdo

Without knowing exactly what he tweeted, it's hard to make a judgement.

Jelle1880

Depends what he said, I know I've heard some outrageous stuff from fans but to ban them for that is too far.

stovelid

Unless it was something really bad - or confidential information - a lifetime ban sounds a bit OTT.

kensutz

Basically he was slating foreign players and black players. One of his tweets suggested that if you like any of them that you should go support Arsenal. Then he got into all this white supremacist stuff. He really went off on a rant but deleted them a day or two later. To slag off James Vaughan before he even signed was the final straw for the club.

Columbia

I agree with the action in principle, as the information is that it was something genuinely racial.

Then again, in the last couple of months an Everton fan has been banned from all matches for three years for calling Louis Saha "French", so it's hard not to suspect the PC brigade in these cases too, without knowing exactly what was said.

OhNoYouDidn't

I'm fundamentally opposed to racism in all forms, but you should only be banned from games if you misbehave at games. Unless he was using a club account this is OTT.

Fans gripe. Thats our right. Racist stuff is a no no, but where does this stop?

everdead.ie

Fair play to Norwich if you ask me tackle it here and it sets a precedent and let's everyone know racism won't be tolerated.

kensutz

One example since he deleted his account:

@David_Tree He's a f___ing useless chav. Did f___ all at Palace last season and he's another f__ing ni__er on the team we don't need.

To be honest he deserves the ban.

That_Guy

Deserves the ban to be honest. All clubs are part of the 'Kick It Out' campaign so I'm glad he got the ban.

There should be no place for racism in football.

kensutz

The Kick It Out campaign said it was the right decision. The whole incident has now turned into a police investigation to the guys tweets.

I feel for Norwich as this obviously effects their gate receipts.

OhNoYouDidn't

That_Guy wrote: »

There should be no place for racism in football.

But was it in football? It was his private Twatter account.

I do not want for one second to be defending racism, but this is the 21st century equivalent of talking down the pub. He is not a club official, he was not representing Norwich. He is a nasty turd, but where does this stop?

You should only be banned from going to games for something you do at games.

Sasquatch76

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

It was his private Twatter account

Twitter is not private. It's the very opposite of private. You publish your thoughts for the world to read.

kensutz

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel for Norwich as this obviously effects their gate receipts.

There's no need for us to worry about our gate receipts. Our gates are higher than half the Premier League teams of the past 2 years, that's even when we were in League One. One thing you can't question is our support.

That_Guy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But was it in football? It was his private Twatter account.

I do not want for one second to be defending racism, but this is the 21st century equivalent of talking down the pub. He is not a club official, he was not representing Norwich. He is a nasty turd, but where does this stop?

You should only be banned from going to games for something you do at games.

As the poster below says:

Sasquatch76 wrote: »

Twitter is not private. It's the very opposite of private. You publish your thoughts for the world to read.

The evidence is all there to see. Personally, I think it's a good precedent to set and will make people think twice before they decide to chant something racist at a game or type it on Twitter.

28064212

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But was it in football? It was his private Twatter account.

I do not want for one second to be defending racism, but this is the 21st century equivalent of talking down the pub. He is not a club official, he was not representing Norwich. He is a nasty turd, but where does this stop?

You should only be banned from going to games for something you do at games.

A football club is a private entity, they're entitled to ban whoever they want for whatever reason they want (except in contravention of discrimination laws)

OhNoYouDidn't

Sasquatch76 wrote: »

Twitter is not private. It's the very opposite of private. You publish your thoughts for the world to read.

I'm aware of what Twitter is.

Put another way, would you think its acceptible to ban someone for comments posted here?

OhNoYouDidn't

28064212 wrote: »

A football club is a private entity, they're entitled to ban whoever they want for whatever reason they want (except in contravention of discrimination laws)

It is very much not that simple. Similar to pubs, banning somone, even for a good reason, opens you up to a legal challenge, private property or not. And, to repeat, he is not someone I want to defend, but he would win a challenge to this with ease.

Are racist tweets on the T&C's for refusal of entry on match tickets?

That_Guy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Are racist tweets on the T&C's for refusal of entry on match tickets?

No, but it should be common sense.

kensutz

Anything posted on the internet is liable for prosecution no matter who did it.

parker kent

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

It is very much not that simple. Similar to pubs, banning somone, even for a good reason, opens you up to a legal challenge, private property or not. And, to repeat, he is not someone I want to defend, but he would win a challenge to this with ease.

Are racist tweets on the T&C's for refusal of entry on match tickets?

Surely like any establishment, they have a right to refuse entry? Presumably they don't want to be associated with people like him.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

It is very much not that simple. Similar to pubs, banning somone, even for a good reason, opens you up to a legal challenge, private property or not. And, to repeat, he is not someone I want to defend, but he would win a challenge to this with ease.

Are racist tweets on the T&C's for refusal of entry on match tickets?

If he has been banned by a "competent authority", then he is rightfully prevented from attending. The competent authority would be Norwich City Football Club.

I dont think he would succeed in any legal challange. This is a ban which has been issued outside of the contract engaged in by a punter and a club by virture of the purchase of a match ticket.

Equally, I have never seen an exhaustive list of what constitutes a valid reason to refuse entry to a football ground.

I can certainly understand your point of view regarding the prohibition of fans from enterin football grounds on the back of incidents which took place outside of the ground. However, there is a serious drive to boot racism from football, and Norwich City have made it clear that they will not accept its fans making racist utterances on the internet or in the ground if the name of NCFC is involved.

28064212

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

It is very much not that simple. Similar to pubs, banning somone, even for a good reason, opens you up to a legal challenge, private property or not. And, to repeat, he is not someone I want to defend, but he would win a challenge to this with ease.

A pub could easily ban someone if that person was publishing rants/accusations against it, and it would be entirely within their rights to do so

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Are racist tweets on the T&C's for refusal of entry on match tickets?

Nope. Neither is murdering the chairperson in their home, something else that wouldn't happen at the game

amiable

Its incitement to hatred of one of the clubs employees.

The club was correct IMO.

stovelid

Sounds like the club are publicly hanging him out to dry to make political hay.

Not saying he isn't a moron but it's a little dodge giving a life ban for an opinion not uttered in any definable club context.

OhNoYouDidn't

kensutz wrote: »

Anything posted on the internet is liable for prosecution no matter who did it.

Can you point me to the legislation that enables the Board of NCFC to prosecute people?

28064212

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Can you point me to the legislation that enables the Board of NCFC to prosecute people?

Can you point to the legislation that entitles this guy to admission?

OhNoYouDidn't

28064212 wrote: »

Can you point to the legislation that entitles this guy to admission?

Loads and loads of legislation. Think of it the same as a pub. Look at the hassle publicans have banning, for example, travellers.

They onus is on those denying access to a venue to have a good reason to do so. "He made racist comments on a social networking site" might not cut it in the real world. Whats next? "He criticised our season ticket price increase" "He had a go at our defending from corners"?

28064212

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Loads and loads of legislation. Think of it the same as a pub. Look at the hassle publicans have banning, for example, travellers.

Travellers have specific protection in the Equal Status Act. There are 9 characteristics (in Ireland) that you cannot discriminate against: gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race, member of the travelling community. And that's it. A club is perfectly entitled to ban on any other grounds, including criticising their employees

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

They onus is on those denying access to a venue to have a good reason to do so. "He made racist comments on a social networking site" might not cut it in the real world. Whats next? "He criticised our season ticket price increase" "He had a go at our defending from corners"?

They don't need a good reason, they just need a reason that isn't in contravention of the law

eagle eye

I think the punishment is wrong from the club. I think you need to have some way that the offender can redeem himself. In an instance like this I think the right idea is to place a temporary ban on the offender until such time as a more definitive punishment can be handed out. This way he can have opportunities to try and make up for what he has done in a positive way and have that taken into account by the club when they decide what to do.

I'd rather have the guy saying he is wrong and spreading that message to people who have grown up in a similar environment to him than to just ban for life.

Sir Gallagher

eagle eye wrote: »

I think the punishment is wrong from the club. I think you need to have some way that the offender can redeem himself. In an instance like this I think the right idea is to place a temporary ban on the offender until such time as a more definitive punishment can be handed out. This way he can have opportunities to try and make up for what he has done in a positive way and have that taken into account by the club when they decide what to do.

I'd rather have the guy saying he is wrong and spreading that message to people who have grown up in a similar environment to him than to just ban for life.

I think you could have a great straight to DVD movie on your hands their.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Loads and loads of legislation. Think of it the same as a pub. Look at the hassle publicans have banning, for example, travellers.

They onus is on those denying access to a venue to have a good reason to do so. "He made racist comments on a social networking site" might not cut it in the real world. Whats next? "He criticised our season ticket price increase" "He had a go at our defending from corners"?

You cant just say "loads and loads of legislation" and expect us to accept it as fact. In reality, there is no such legislation which would prevent the application of a prohibition on this guy entering Carrow Road, and you are incorrect to seek to conflate the clubs decision to ban this guy, with any race/gender/ethnic discrimination which may result in an individual from being banned from a place. Most football clubs are now willing to hand out long bans to fans who use bad language in their stands.

There is a significant difference between publicans seeking to ban travellers from their watering holes and what Norwich City F.C have done. You thin edge of the wedge argument does nothing for your proposition. You know well that there is no slippery slope as racist remarks are a very different thing to the normal, and longstanding banter which is part and parcel of the footballing experience.

Vurnon San Benito

I'm sure he'll survive.

el dude

Can we ban Mark Bright too please?

5starpool

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I'm aware of what Twitter is.

Put another way, would you think its acceptible to ban someone for comments posted here?

If someone was a guest on a tv show and made those comments do you think he would deserve to get banned?

If those comments were made here by a poster, then they would not get banned as their identity is not public, but they would sure as hell get sitebanned from here for those comments.

I think it can only be a good thing to set a precedent like this where you are clearly identifiable, whether it be tv, radio, print, or social media. Comparing twitter to something said down the pub is pretty stupid, tbh. The less mongs like this that are at games, the better.

eagle eye

Het-Field wrote: »

You know well that there is no slippery slope as racist remarks are a very different thing to the normal, and longstanding banter which is part and parcel of the footballing experience.

I suppose this really isn't the place but I'd like to know exactly what you are saying here. Using horrible words in an accusatory fashion to sugggest somebody leans a certain way sexually is just as bad as any ethnic or racist remark.

aidan24326

orourkeda wrote: »

If clubs heard the comments that we, as football fans, made about most players we'd all be banned for life.

Yeah but not everyone chants idiotic obscenities at games, and not many people slate a new player arriving at their club only because he's a 'n**ger'.

parker kent

eagle eye wrote: »

I suppose this really isn't the place but I'd like to know exactly what you are saying here. Using horrible words in an accusatory fashion to sugggest somebody leans a certain way sexually is just as bad as any ethnic or racist remark.

He clearly didn't mean that homophobic abuse was legitimate football banter. Singing "What a waste of money" is seen as acceptable. Abusing somebody based on sexuality, race etc is not acceptable.

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

You cant just say "loads and loads of legislation" and expect us to accept it as fact. In reality, there is no such legislation which would prevent the application of a prohibition on this guy entering Carrow Road, and you are incorrect to seek to conflate the clubs decision to ban this guy, with any race/gender/ethnic discrimination which may result in an individual from being banned from a place. Most football clubs are now willing to hand out long bans to fans who use bad language in their stands.
There is a significant difference between publicans seeking to ban travellers from their watering holes and what Norwich City F.C have done. You thin edge of the wedge argument does nothing for your proposition. You know well that there is no slippery slope as racist remarks are a very different thing to the normal, and longstanding banter which is part and parcel of the footballing experience.

Yes they do, because it happens, wait for it, IN THE STANDS. Thats my point. They don't try and ban you for using bold words in your own home or the internet.

The second piece in bold - when did Tweets or Twats or whatever they are called become 'part and parcel of the footballing experience'?

This is my point. What the man Tweets, appaling as it was, is not the business of NCFC as an organisation. You might as well ban people for conversations overheard in the pub. NCFC have no right, legal or moral, to police the internet postings of their fans anywhere other than official club portals, let alone punish off the back of them.

The only reason Norwich should look to ban anyone from games is if they misbehave at games. And there is a thin end of the wedge argument, wheter you like it or not. Should all BNP members be banned from football? Sinn Fein?

28064212

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

This is my point. What the man Tweets, appaling as it was, is not the business of NCFC as an organisation. You might as well ban people for conversations overheard in the pub. NCFC have no right, legal or moral, to police the internet postings of their fans anywhere other than official club portals, let alone punish off the back of them.

They aren't policing the internet postings of their fans, but they do have the legal right to ban them as a result of them. If they want to ban someone who said Delia Smith can't cook, they can do that too.

If you want to claim that they can't, link to the "loads and loads of legislation"

flahavaj

I think the club was dead right. If he's happy enough to come out with this stuff on a twitter account that makes him easily identifiable then he's hardly going to behave himself any better in the stands.

Its all very well to say "but where does it stop" and "where do we draw the line," - in my opinion you draw the line at open racism and there's nothing wrong with a club banning such types from their games.

OhNoYouDidn't

28064212 wrote: »

They aren't policing the internet postings of their fans, but they do have the legal right to ban them as a result of them. If they want to ban someone who said Delia Smith can't cook, they can do that too.

If you want to claim that they can't, link to the "loads and loads of legislation"

No, but I can l can point to experience. Rovers went and banned some hoolies for being bold. Hoolies went to solicitor. Solicitor took Rovers to arbitration. Rovers had not done it properly, specifically not allowed an appeals procedure, hoolies have to be let back in on a good behaviour bond.

Thats how it works in the real world. Football clubs DO NOT have an absolute right to arbitrarily ban fans. If you think they do, you are on cloud cuckoo land.

This man, repugnent as his comments are, has not in my eyes done enough to warrant a stadium ban, and remember in England, that has legal ramifications as you get a Football Banning Order by default.

flahavaj

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No, but I can l can point to experience. Rovers went and banned some hoolies for being bold. Hoolies went to solicitor. Solicitor took Rovers to arbitration. Rovers had not done it properly, specifically not allowed an appeals procedure, hoolies have to be let back in on a good behaviour bond.

Thats how it works in the real world. Football clubs DO NOT have an absolute right to arbitrarily ban fans. If you think they do, you are on cloud cuckoo land.

This man, repugnent as his comments are, has not in my eyes done enough to warrant a stadium ban, and remember in England, that has legal ramifications as you get a Football Banning Order by default.

What did the hoodies do specifically? Was it that photo with one of them cracking out a Nazi salute? Because that was more silly misguided thing done as a joke rather than the hardcore hate filled bile the Norwich fan has been posting.

If the same hoodies had gone on Twitter calling Rovers players n*ggers repeatedly would you feel the same way, or would you applaud the club for banning them from going to matches? Surely sense should prevail here - no club wants people like that in their ground.

28064212

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No, but I can l can point to experience. Rovers went and banned some hoolies for being bold. Hoolies went to solicitor. Solicitor took Rovers to arbitration. Rovers had not done it properly, specifically not allowed an appeals procedure, hoolies have to be let back in on a good behaviour bond.

"Rovers had not done it properly". In other words, Rovers didn't follow the right procedure, so lost the case on a technicality.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats how it works in the real world. Football clubs DO NOT have an absolute right to arbitrarily ban fans. If you think they do, you are on cloud cuckoo land.

*Sigh* You're right, they can't ban fans on the grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, being a transsexual, having just had a baby or being pregnant, marital status or age (UK Equality Act, 2010)

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

This man, repugnent as his comments are, has not in my eyes done enough to warrant a stadium ban, and remember in England, that has legal ramifications as you get a Football Banning Order by default.

Wrong again. If you are convicted of a football-related offence, you get an FBO. This guy hasn't been convicted of anything, he's been refused admission to a private property

OhNoYouDidn't

28064212 wrote: »

"Rovers had not done it properly". In other words, Rovers didn't follow the right procedure, so lost the case on a technicality.

But it puts into perspective your idea that any fan can be banned for any reason at any time....

28064212 wrote: »

*Sigh* You're right, they can't ban fans on the grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, being a transsexual, having just had a baby or being pregnant, marital status or age (UK Equality Act, 2010)

Agreed. But that list is not exhaustive.

28064212 wrote: »

Wrong again. If you are convicted of a football-related offence, you get an FBO. This guy hasn't been convicted of anything, he's been refused admission to a private property

All clubs centrally list all bannings. You don't need a conviction to be on it. Not even almost.

OhNoYouDidn't

flahavaj wrote: »

What did the hoodies do specifically? Was it that photo with one of them cracking out a Nazi salute? Because that was more silly misguided thing done as a joke rather than the hardcore hate filled bile the Norwich fan has been posting.

The guy in the photo doing the salute is as far from a hoolie as you can get.

Not the chaps I am talking about got in a spot of verbals with a club volunteer.

flahavaj wrote: »

If the same hoodies had gone on Twitter calling Rovers players n*ggers repeatedly would you feel the same way, or would you applaud the club for banning them from going to matches? Surely sense should prevail here - no club wants people like that in their ground.

I would like to think the people who matter at Rovers have better things to be doing than following Twitters. If someone like that was posting that at Rovers it would be self policed, as the dimwits doing the salutes were. I would be deepely unhappy with them, but I genuinely don't think its the clubs business

28064212

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But it puts into perspective your idea that any fan can be banned for any reason at any time....

No it doesn't. They can be. You just have to follow the correct procedure.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Agreed. But that list is not exhaustive.

Actually, that's exactly what it is. Those are the only protected characteristics in the UK. Source

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

All clubs centrally list all bannings. You don't need a conviction to be on it. Not even almost.

Well, you're right that you don't need a conviction. You're wrong about the central list:

Banning orders are issued by the courts following a conviction of a football-related offence, or after a complaint by the Crown Prosecution Service or a local police force. For an order to be issued, it must be proved that the accused person has caused or contributed to football-related violence or disorder and that an order will prevent them from misbehaving further.

Source. Nothing this guy did falls under that

keane2097

I imagine if I went and stood outside the local soccer ground with a megaphone and started racially abusing players I'd be banned from entering the ground as soon as anybody from the club heard me.

This is the exact same thing, twitter=megaphone; outside the ground = outside the ground.

It would be the same if I did similar outside McDonalds, or a pub or any other place.

If I was a worker/player in one of those places and a person who did that sort of thing wasn't insta-banned I'd fucking freak the lid at my employer.

Actually the more I think about it the more retarded the argument against the ban seems, and it was pretty retarded to begin with.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Yes they do, because it happens, wait for it, IN THE STANDS. Thats my point. They don't try and ban you for using bold words in your own home or the internet.

The second piece in bold - when did Tweets or Twats or whatever they are called become 'part and parcel of the footballing experience'?

This is my point. What the man Tweets, appaling as it was, is not the business of NCFC as an organisation. You might as well ban people for conversations overheard in the pub. NCFC have no right, legal or moral, to police the internet postings of their fans anywhere other than official club portals, let alone punish off the back of them.

The only reason Norwich should look to ban anyone from games is if they misbehave at games. And there is a thin end of the wedge argument, wheter you like it or not. Should all BNP members be banned from football? Sinn Fein?

Mea Culpa. The bad-language and banter example was sloppy.

However, it does not negate the point that there is no legislation which falls on the side of this "fan", nor is it appropriate to conflate what has heppened to this "fan" with discriminatory experiences of those covered under equal status legislation.

NCFC are not "policing" the internet. I believe we are coming at this from a position of ignorance, as we do not know the full story. However, if this "fan" professes his loyalty to NCFC on his twitter account, uses their crest as a decorative feature on his twitter account, or regularly tweets on matters, then it become their business if he chooses to proffer racist, or biggoted values in relation to the club. Most clubs and entites will fully support the stance taken by NCFC. No criminal sanction has been placed at his door. He has simply been told that he is not welcome at NCFC anymore. Be careful of attempting to this with some kind of employment law standard in mind. They are simply not the same.

Sorry the thin edge is no more than a strawman. Remember, membership of a political organisation, as allowed by law, cannot be a reason for discrimination. There is no discrimination in this case.