Preston fan gets lifetime ban for anti-royal tweets

M

Malced

Guest
If you Google ‘Preston fc lifetime ban’ you’ll quickly see the details behind the story.

A fan has written some tweets about the royal family which many folk will find offensive. The comments are certainly swimming against the tide of wider public opinion.

There’s one tweet where they ponder what would happen at PNE if they booed when there was a minute’s silence for the passing of the Queen.

I don’t like the tweets. They’re crude and disrespectful and anti-royal etc.

But……..I’m not sure I’m comfortable with a football club issuing a lifetime ban for someone making controversial tweets. They’ve not seemingly broken any laws, and there’s no apparent breach of club policies. This seems to be another overreach from an organisation. It infringes on free speech.

I doubt the lifetime ban will stand up to legal challenge. They’ve not done anything wrong within the football club, or at an away game. They’ve written a tweet.

I know it may seem like I’m defending the idiot here but I’m defending free speech and all that comes with it, warts and all. A football club doesn’t like anti-royal and strongly distasteful tweets so it issues a lifetime ban. It’s disproportionate in my view and besides that it’s not for a football club to make judgements and punishments on tweets unless they blatantly violate club policies. If they were calling for fans to invade the pitch or if they were arranging a fight with rival fans then it would be a breach of policies and/or law. But this is anti-royal sentiment and it’s not for the club to start punishing anyone they don’t agree with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m not sure how you’d ‘legally challenge’ this to be honest.

I mean if I said to you that I refuse to let you into my home because you don’t like Mayo, that wouldn’t be a particularly good reason, but you couldn’t legally challenge it…
 
It's absolutely disgraceful. They have every right to police chanting in their own stadium during games if they want to, although are also open to criticism of that. Banning someone for having opinions expressed completely outside of the football club, on a Twitter account, is completely ludicrous.
 
Is it disgraceful though? Really? (At worst it's a bit of an OTT reaction)

Presumably the Hemmings Family will have had some association with the Royal Family, given the racing connection etc.. So as much as this bloke is free to be as offensive as he likes and (it would seem) tag the club in his offensive tweets, they are also free to take exception to that and ban him if they wish.

I really don't think you can have it both ways.... The trouble is that people want to exercise their own 'freedoms' whilst getting all 'up their own bums', when other people choose to do the same.

Essentially as a society, you largely operate on a system of respect and reasonable tolerance for each other.... If you choose to step outside of that 'system of collective respect' then I really don't think you can have any complaints when other people or organisations don't afford you the normal courtesies that you failed to extend to them.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Come on x3. You're a clever chap. I'm sure you can work out what I'm talking about without having to be spoon-fed.
Click to expand...
Well firstly, there's no such thing...

But I'm not sure why one person's ability to express an offensive opinion, should trump another person's right to deny that person access to their premises.

Both parties are equally entitled and both must live with the consequences of their own actions....
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’m not sure how you’d ‘legally challenge’ this to be honest.

I mean if I said to you that I refuse to let you into my home because you don’t like Mayo, that wouldn’t be a particularly good reason, but you couldn’t legally challenge it…
Click to expand...

I’m no legal expert. But I would expect that there’s recourse through the judicial system.
Especially as a civil case. PNE are an organisation which has to conduct itself by certain standards and laws. As a football club they will have to fall into line with FA policies for example. I’m sure there’s many rules and policies associated with controlling fans and counter-acting racism and hooliganism. I’m sure there’s policies about when they would ban someone for their behaviour. They don’t just sit round a table and arbitrarily make it up as they go along when something they disapprove with comes to light. They have to consider things within their policies.
 
Malced said:
I’m no legal expert. But I would expect that there’s recourse through the judicial system.
Especially as a civil case. PNE are an organisation which has to conduct itself by certain standards and laws. As a football club they will have to fall into line with FA policies for example. I’m sure there’s many rules and policies associated with controlling fans and counter-acting racism and hooliganism. I’m sure there’s policies about when they would ban someone for their behaviour. They don’t just sit round a table and arbitrarily make it up as they go along when something they disapprove with comes to light. They have to consider things within their policies.
Click to expand...

I think it will be tested in court. As stated you I don't think you can arbitrarily ban people because you don't like them which is more or less what PNE have done.
Another overreaction
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’m not sure how you’d ‘legally challenge’ this to be honest.

I mean if I said to you that I refuse to let you into my home because you don’t like Mayo, that wouldn’t be a particularly good reason, but you couldn’t legally challenge it…
Click to expand...

Err you better check out the case law precedent (Mayo v Malced).
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Well firstly, there's no such thing...

But I'm not sure why one person's ability to express an offensive opinion, should trump another person's right to deny that person access to their premises.

Both parties are equally entitled and both must live with the consequences of their own actions....
Click to expand...
Well firstly, there's no such thing...

I think you've just scuppered any smidgen of credibility you might have had.
 
Malced said:
See the other thread about fascist state. Is that what you want to live in?
Click to expand...
No, but I also don't want to live in a country where outright offensiveness comes without any individual / personal consequences / responsibility either. As I've said, we all bumble along in life with a whole series of 'unwritten contracts' between ourselves.. A sort of live and let live arrangement, where our mutual respect and tolerance affords us all a decent life.... So (being topical) just like I wouldn't shout abuse at a funeral cortege of someone I didn't really like, I'd also expect the same courtesy to be extended to a funeral cortege I was involved in.

However... As I've said, if you choose to step outside of the boundaries of that mutual respect and understanding, whilst that might possibly be 'legally' OK, you also might need to accept that other people may choose to exercise their own freedom, not to afford you that respect.

So I don't think that 'Freedom of Expression' is some kind of free for all, that exists without consequence... It doesn't come without consequence within the law and it won't come without consequence in life either....

If I called the doormen on a nightclub a pair of dickheads, then I'd expect that they might not let me in... Simple as that really....
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The 'Human Right' that is protected is "Freedom of Expression" and that does not protect you from potential consequence.
Click to expand...
Even so. We can allow that nuance to pass for the sake of reasonable discussion.

Then again I could have just said 'f*ck off tw*t! Using...what was it?...freedom of expression.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
No, but I also don't want to live in a country where outright offensiveness comes without any individual / personal consequences / responsibility either. As I've said, we all bumble along in life with a whole series of 'unwritten contracts' between ourselves.. A sort of live and let live arrangement, where our mutual respect and tolerance affords us all a decent life.... So (being topical) just like I wouldn't shout abuse at a funeral cortege of someone I didn't really like, I'd also expect the same courtesy to be extended to a funeral cortege I was involved in.

However... As I've said, if you choose to step outside of the boundaries of that mutual respect and understanding, whilst that might possibly be 'legally' OK, you also might need to accept that other people may choose to exercise their own freedom, not to afford you that respect.

So I don't think that 'Freedom of Expression' is some kind of free for all, that exists without consequence... It doesn't come without consequence within the law and it won't come without consequence in life either....

If I called the doormen on a nightclub a pair of dickheads, then I'd expect that they might not let me in... Simple as that really....
Click to expand...

Yeah and I think you’ll find he didn’t call the club owners dickheads or conduct himself in an unruly manner at the club. So you’re example is not a good one.

What we all want and consider as nice or otherwise is subjective. That’s why we have laws and policies. Anything else falls under the category of ‘tough’.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The 'Human Right' that is protected is "Freedom of Expression" and that does not protect you from potential consequence.
Click to expand...
Maybe but the potential consequence should be commensurate surely?

Otherwise you find yourself in a Saudi Arabia situation.

“Of course you have freedom of expression and can post what you like on social media. But it may result in a prison sentence of 45 years”.

In which case you don’t really have freedom of expression at all.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Even so. We can allow that nuance to pass for the sake of reasonable discussion.
Click to expand...
If you say so... (given that sticking to the facts has damaged my credibility not yours 😉 )

So how do we balance the rights of ALL individuals... and why should we focus on the rights of one party over the other?

Malced said:
Yeah and I think you’ll find he didn’t call the club owners dickheads or conduct himself in an unruly manner at the club. So you’re example is not a good one.

What we all want and consider as nice or otherwise is subjective. That’s why we have laws and policies. Anything else falls under the category of ‘tough’.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it makes any difference Malced... I don't have any automatic right to access of any premises... I am allowed into the premises by virtue of a courtesy extended to me by the owner. And you're right we do have laws and policies... I'm just unsure quite where they fit into this situation. It's possible that there are some over-arching policies or principles that cover football clubs, which might place some legal requirement on the club.

However if not, then the Club is at liberty to refuse entry... And that right is no more or less worthy of 'protection' than the right of the individual to gob off.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Maybe but the potential consequence should be commensurate surely?

Otherwise you find yourself in a Saudi Arabia situation.

“Of course you have freedom of expression and can post what you like on social media. But it may result in a prison sentence of 45 years”.

In which case you don’t really have freedom of expression at all.
Click to expand...
We're talking about two competing rights though Mex (nobody is suggesting that anyone is being put into prison)...

We have a legal system and then we also have our own system of collective and individual morality. Within the context of our own system, we are free to choose to behave in a certain way (within the law) and others are free to react to our behaviour in a certain way (within the law).

And that really is my point here... You can't babble on about your own personal rights to go around behaving like an absolute knob head and then deny the rights of other people to treat you in kind. It is what it is..
 
I don't personally think social media is a place where you can be a wanker without consequence. There's a difference between the woke brigade and someone just being a racist etc. In this instance I think it's right but think PNE could have invited him in to discuss why, opposed to a letter.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Well firstly, there's no such thing...

But I'm not sure why one person's ability to express an offensive opinion, should trump another person's right to deny that person access to their premises.

Both parties are equally entitled and both must live with the consequences of their own actions....
Click to expand...
Preston have the right to do what they want. And they have. I, and others, are criticising that. They don't have freedom from consequence either.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
We're talking about two competing rights though Mex (nobody is suggesting that anyone is being put into prison)...

We have a legal system and then we also have our own system of collective and individual morality. Within the context of our own system, we are free to choose to behave in a certain way (within the law) and others are free to react to our behaviour in a certain way (within the law).

And that really is my point here... You can't babble on about your own personal rights to go around behaving like an absolute knob head and then deny the rights of other people to treat you in kind. It is what it is..
Click to expand...
Ah, the difficulties of liberty. The management of liberty will always be best controlled by a truly Liberal democratic country. Militant obsessives make for bad rulers and bad judges. I'd rather a country have endless debates about how best to manage tolerance than have an autocratic government that imposes 'the truth'.
 
About one in four are anti monarchy apparently, so not that far out of line with mainstream opinion, although still disrespectful to individual members of the family.
Not sure this decision would withstand a legal challenge.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
We're talking about two competing rights though Mex (nobody is suggesting that anyone is being put into prison)...

We have a legal system and then we also have our own system of collective and individual morality. Within the context of our own system, we are free to choose to behave in a certain way (within the law) and others are free to react to our behaviour in a certain way (within the law).

And that really is my point here... You can't babble on about your own personal rights to go around behaving like an absolute knob head and then deny the rights of other people to treat you in kind. It is what it is..
Click to expand...
Yes I understand your point. But I still think the “potential consequences” have to be proportionate to the “offence caused”. (And I accept both of those are subjective and am also talking ethics here rather than the current law).

Going back to the Trevor Sinclair thread - he made comments that a lot people found offensive. The “potential consequences” included demands he lose his job (as he did) and threats of violence. So as I said - if the consequences are so severe then it’s nonsense to say you have freedom of expression.

And, before someone says it, I accept that both sides of the political divide indulge in “cancel culture”, “wokery” and “victimhood”. Oh. And also hypocrisy.
 
foggy said:
Preston have the right to do what they want. And they have. I, and others, are criticising that. They don't have freedom from consequence either.
Click to expand...
Of course not... And it's possible that they may see a backlash from fans as a result... That's a decision they have made...I disagree with their decision, but I don't think it is wrong for them to be able to make that decision.
 
Could the fan have a civil case under the Equality Act 2010? Under what is termed protected characteristics it is discrimination for a service provider to deny you service due to your beliefs.
 
You can be banned from a shop or a pub even if you have done nothing wrong but the security staff or landlord don’t like the look of you and suspect you may be a shoplifter or a troublemaker.You can even be asked to leave a pub if you nurse the same pint for 3hrs and the landlord says you are not spending enough- happens all the time in Yarkshire.😜
 
Last edited:
Ormergod said:
Could the fan have a civil case under the Equality Act 2010? Under what is termed protected characteristics it is discrimination for a service provider to deny you service due to your beliefs.
Click to expand...
Being anti-royal isn't a protected characteristic though
 
Ormergod said:
Could the fan have a civil case under the Equality Act 2010? Under what is termed protected characteristics it is discrimination for a service provider to deny you service due to your beliefs.
Click to expand...
Think EA only applies to the state or anyone carrying out a function of the state. Not sure if republicanism would count as a valid philosophical belief either.
 
rockontommy said:
Think EA only applies to the state or anyone carrying out a function of the state. Not sure if republicanism would count as a valid philosophical belief either.
Click to expand...
Does it not apply to private traders and service providers then? I was under the assumption it did but I stand corrected
 
Ormergod said:
Does it not apply to private traders and service providers then? I was under the assumption it did but I stand corrected
Click to expand...
Don't think there's a legal obligation for private businesses under EA but may fall under other discrimination legislation where philosophical belief almost certainly won't be included. It seems harsh on the guy but they can run their business how they want is my understanding of the situation.
 
A young scots lad got arrested for calling out to Prince Andrew, "You are a sick old man." I've have used 'dirty'

One of our lot (we've been a group for about 25-30 years) flounced out of our WhatsApp matchday group because of, 'differing views' on the enforced national grief.

If one thing The Queen held was a need for tolerance and reconciliation. The knobbers are utterly wrong to ban the guy; its just a populist reaction in fear of being criticised by the overly powerful Daily Mail readers that our media propogates to maintain their status quo.
 
SeasideTerrier said:
A young scots lad got arrested for calling out to Prince Andrew, "You are a sick old man." I've have used 'dirty'

One of our lot (we've been a group for about 25-30 years) flounced out of our WhatsApp matchday group because of, 'differing views' on the enforced national grief.

If one thing The Queen held was a need for tolerance and reconciliation. The knobbers are utterly wrong to ban the guy; its just a populist reaction in fear of being criticised by the overly powerful Daily Mail readers that our media propogates to maintain their status quo.
Click to expand...
Surely 'tolerance' is a two way street?

"You tolerate my shit and i'll tolerate yours" as it were...

So how does that work when instead of being tolerant of a few days of national mourning (for the sake of those who want to participate) instead we have people who choose to be intolerant or in the case of this bloke, down right offensive.?

In the case of your mate... You think it's reasonable to describe him exiting your WhatsApp group as Flouncing and that it's reasonable to criticise him for doing so, yet you appear to be oblivious to or unable to acknowledge that his 'freedom to exit the discussion' is no different than 'your freedom to engage in it'... Essentially you've set your own 'right's or privileges above his.
 
I don’t think it’s worthy of a ban from the club personally. It’s in incredibly bad taste and he’s clearly a complete nobhead but I don’t think idiocy deserves a lifetime ban.

He did mention doing a nazi salute in the ground whilst tagging the club though, perhaps that’s enough to get a ban.

I can understand why PNE wouldn’t want to be associated with him but a lifetime ban seems a bit excessive.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Surely 'tolerance' is a two way street?

"You tolerate my shit and i'll tolerate yours" as it were...

So how does that work when instead of being tolerant of a few days of national mourning (for the sake of those who want to participate) instead we have people who choose to be intolerant or in the case of this bloke, down right offensive.?

In the case of your mate... You think it's reasonable to describe him exiting your WhatsApp group as Flouncing and that it's reasonable to criticise him for doing so, yet you appear to be oblivious to or unable to acknowledge that his 'freedom to exit the discussion' is no different than 'your freedom to engage in it'... Essentially you've set your own 'right's or privileges above his.
Click to expand...
x3BFC, tolerance is a spectrum and that is at the heart of my post.

The scottish guy was not 'down right offensive,'

You focus on the use of the verb 'to flounce' as being unacceptable - admittedly and understandably, you have no knowledge of the venacular of our group where the word is not seen a pregorative.

I dare not mention that it seems your keyboard has no comma key.
 
SeasideTerrier said:
x3BFC, tolerance is a spectrum and that is at the heart of my post.

The scottish guy was not 'down right offensive,'

You focus on the use of the verb 'to flounce' as being unacceptable - admittedly and understandably, you have no knowledge of the venacular of our group where the word is not seen a pregorative.

I dare not mention that it seems your keyboard has no comma key.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the 'Preston North End Fan'...

The Scottish bloke was just crass and insensitive, given the circumstances / setting.

If you're going to criticise my grammar it might benefit you to learn how to spell 🤣
 
In my opinion they’ve reacted (and overreacted) too quickly. They’ve taken offence and that’s understandable but they’ve not been proportionate.

This could have been handled differently. Eg they could have warned him about his conduct at the club and given some guidance on behaviour which would lead to a ban.

His words on Twitter themselves shouldn’t lead to a lifetime ban even though they’re strongly held views which others may find upsetting or uncomfortable.

By the way, the guy who shouted at Andrew should have been allowed to do so. It’s ok to protest peacefully. I’m not sure if he was dragged away or not, but it’s another case of free speech. It’s part of being British and liberation. We can all make judgements on how we are ok to chip away at that, but eventually it will be like North Korea where we are told when to clap and if anyone shows dissent they’ll be disappeared.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
I think it will be tested in court. As stated you I don't think you can arbitrarily ban people because you don't like them which is more or less what PNE have done.
Another overreaction
Click to expand...
Yes they can ,pubs and clubs etc can ban people for any reason they want.
On the plus side he won’t never have to watch them again 😂
 
Gods honest truth said:
Yes they can ,pubs and clubs etc can ban people for any reason they want.
On the plus side he won’t never have to watch them again 😂
Click to expand...

But pubs and clubs don’t ban someone for a Twitter message. They ban them for unruly behaviour or taking drugs in the toilets etc. They ban them for things they’ve done on or at the premises. They will have support from the local
authority and the police in such situations if needed.
Banning for a tweet they don’t like is completely different - it’s new territory- and yes it could well be legally challenged.
 
Malced said:
But pubs and clubs don’t ban someone for a Twitter message. They ban them for unruly behaviour or taking drugs in the toilets etc. They ban them for things they’ve done on or at the premises. They will have support from the local
authority and the police in such situations if needed.
Banning for a tweet they don’t like is completely different - it’s new territory- and yes it could well be legally challenged.
Click to expand...
www.coventrytelegraph.net

Man banned from casino at Ricoh after Twitter ''fat'' jibe

www.coventrytelegraph.net
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top