Blimey. I wonder if Arsenal would consider doing this?

[Burney]

Specifically to anyone involved with or who appears on Arsenal Fan TV

247

[Ash]

Specifically to anyone involved with or who appears on Arsenal Fan TV


The people running Charlton Athletic are preposterous ****s, tbf. Or were last time i looked.

[Burney]

The people running Charlton Athletic are preposterous ****s, tbf. Or were last time i looked.

I'm sure they are, a. However, they can't be any worse than the ****s involved in Arsenal Fan TV.

[Pat Vegas]

Specifically to anyone involved with or who appears on Arsenal Fan TV

247

Maybe but it's usually other fans telling people how to behave.

[Burney]

Maybe but it's usually other fans telling people how to behave.

I just rather like the idea of threatening to remove the season ticket from anyone who behaves like a **** on social media. If applied across the board, it would make the Emirates a much more pleasant place :cloud9:

[Brentwood]

Specifically to anyone involved with or who appears on Arsenal Fan TV

247

I'm sure there's more to this story than meets the eye. They wouldn't be this harsh if he was just moaning. Ha may have been encouraging people to misbehave at the games or something

[Mo Britain less Europe]

I just rather like the idea of threatening to remove the season ticket from anyone who behaves like a **** on social media. If applied across the board, it would make the Emirates a much more pleasant place :cloud9:


Four legs good, two legs baaaaad!!!

[Burney]

Four legs good, two legs baaaaad!!!

To be fair, as exercises in courageous free speech go, calling AW a senile French **** on twitter isn't exactly up there with Luther nailing the 95 articles to the Wittenburg church door, is it? Besides which, people do seem to forget that Arsenal Football Club is a privately owned business and, as such, has the right to refuse service to people who act like ****s. So issues of individualism and free speech don't really come into it, I'm afraid.

[Ash]

To be fair, as exercises in courageous free speech go, calling AW a senile French **** on twitter isn't exactly up there with Luther nailing the 95 articles to the Wittemburg church door, is it? Besides which, people do seem to forget that Arsenal Football Club is a privately owned business and, as such, has the right to refuse service to people who act like ****s. So issues of individualism and free speech don't really come into it, I'm afraid.

And thank god for Martin Luther!


:driving:

[Burney]

And thank god for Martin Luther!


:driving:

Indeed. I've always thought you'd suit a bowler hat and sash, a.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

To be fair, as exercises in courageous free speech go, calling AW a senile French **** on twitter isn't exactly up there with Luther nailing the 95 articles to the Wittenburg church door, is it? Besides which, people do seem to forget that Arsenal Football Club is a privately owned business and, as such, has the right to refuse service to people who act like ****s. So issues of individualism and free speech don't really come into it, I'm afraid.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist."

[Ash]

Indeed. I've always thought you'd suit a bowler hat and sash, a.

I think I'd rather rock the Hugenot look, tbh.

Here I am enjoying church at St Giles, while stepping over the drunken Irish hordes dwelling in the rookery.

https://abeautifulbook.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/16.jpg

[Bergkamp Was Best]

I'd personally tell them to shove it up their arses and support Palace instead :vsign:

[Burney]

I think I'd rather rock the Hugenot look, tbh.

Here I am enjoying church at St Giles, while stepping over the drunken Irish hordes dwelling in the rookery.

https://abeautifulbook.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/16.jpg

The drunken Irish hordes do look to be having rather more fun, though. What with the drinking and the tit-feeling.

[Burney]

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist."


You honestly think that a private company taking exception to what retards say about it on public media is an issue of civil liberties? :hehe:

[Ash]

The drunken Irish hordes do look to be having rather more fun, though. What with the drinking and the tit-feeling.

GPWM.

I once took a colleague to visit St Giles on a lunch break. She was a fanatical catholic who was keen to wax lyrical on the horrors of the reformation, oblivious to the irony that this was a church used by prods fleeing persecution in France.

[SWv2]

The drunken Irish hordes do look to be having rather more fun, though. What with the drinking and the tit-feeling.

Well it is Friday is it not?

[Brentwood]

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/justice_for_the_archway_one_arsenal_fan_mick_doher ty_s_emirates_ban_lifted_after_four_year_campaign_ 1_4654629

[Burney]

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/justice_for_the_archway_one_arsenal_fan_mick_doher ty_s_emirates_ban_lifted_after_four_year_campaign_ 1_4654629

Oh dear. :-( I'm prepared to bet that 'The Archway One' is a **** of ocean-going proportions and should be euthanised.

[Brentwood]

Oh dear. :-( I'm prepared to bet that 'The Archway One' is a **** of ocean-going proportions and should be euthanised.

ex boxer and member of the "bear's firm". Probably good as gold

[Mo Britain less Europe]

You honestly think that a private company taking exception to what retards say about it on public media is an issue of civil liberties? :hehe:

"A private company" exists within a society. A private company cannot ban blacks from going to a football game because it finds them offensive. Or gays. Or whatever.

Calling Wenger a c unt is pathetic but it's not illegal. Calling him a c unt at the stadium, if allied with causing a disturbance, may be grounds for warning or ejecting someone. But "a private company" - not what I support by the way, I support a football club which was there seventy years before Kronke was born - is not the Stasi and should not be policing the internet to see whether people are obnoxious (in their view) and should be banned from attending games.

Is there a ban on terrorists attending games (in their spare time naturally)? Murderers? Pedophiles? Simonists? Rapists? Counterfeiters?

[Burney]

"A private company" exists within a society. A private company cannot ban blacks from going to a football game because it finds them offensive. Or gays. Or whatever.

Calling Wenger a c unt is pathetic but it's not illegal. Calling him a c unt at the stadium, if allied with causing a disturbance, may be grounds for warning or ejecting someone. But "a private company" - not what I support by the way, I support a football club which was there seventy years before Kronke was born - is not the Stasi and should not be policing the internet to see whether people are obnoxious (in their view) and should be banned from attending games.

Is there a ban on terrorists attending games (in their spare time naturally)? Murderers? Pedophiles? Simonists? Rapists? Counterfeiters?

Black and gay people have the right not to be discriminated against in that way enshrined in law. You have a perfect right to slag off the club and how it's run, but they equally have a right not to let you in. If you spent a long time slagging off a restaurant in various media, would you expect them to welcome you in with open arms next time you turned up? Of course not. They would be well within their rights to tell you to **** off to Wimpy. Arsenal is no different.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

You confuse slagging off a personality with slagging off an institution. If I criticise a waiter at Wimpy who clearly hasn't washed in a decade, picks his nose and puts the deposit on your plate and spits in your face you think that gives Wimpy the right to ban you from all its restaurants?

[Burney]

You confuse slagging off a personality with slagging off an institution. If I criticise a waiter at Wimpy who clearly hasn't washed in a decade, picks his nose and puts the deposit on your plate and spits in your face you think that gives Wimpy the right to ban you from all its restaurants?

No. If you're criticising the way a company is being run, slagging off its owner and senior employees, attacking the product it offers and are basically devaluing its brand, it has every right to tell you to **** off.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

"It". Is that the Arsenal? Or the Kronke? It does indeed have the right to TELL you to **** off. It does NOT have the right to victimise and discriminate against you.

[Burney]

"It". Is that the Arsenal? Or the Kronke? It does indeed have the right to TELL you to **** off. It does NOT have the right to victimise and discriminate against you.

It is the commercial entity Arsenal Football Club, of which Stan Kroenke is the majority shareholder and chairman. And nobody's talking about victimising anyone or discriminating against anyone, simply refusing them service if they choose to publicly denigrate that entity.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

I think you will find your argument has no basis in law.

[Burney]

I think you will find your argument has no basis in law.

What the **** are you on about? You think a business is obliged to offer any customer service regardless of their behaviour? You're talking utter *******s.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Behaviour in their precinct they are entitled to patrol. They are not entitled to mount a security operation on the internet to see if someone has voiced a little criticism of one of their darlings and then ban them accordingly. And it is insane to suggest otherwise.

[Burney]

Behaviour in their precinct they are entitled to patrol. They are not entitled to mount a security operation on the internet to see if someone has voiced a little criticism of one of their darlings and then ban them accordingly. And it is insane to suggest otherwise.

Nobody's talking about hacking their mobile phones or reading their personal emails, just reading the - often libellous - utterances on publicly-available social media. That's not snooping, it's reading twitter or Facebook, ffs! If these cretins are too ****ing thick to realise what they write on social media under their own name can be read by anyone - including the people they're slagging off - that's their own stupid fault. Nobody's mounting a security operation, they're just reading stuff that these morons have put in the public domain.

Seriously, trying to turn this into some sort of pearl-clutching exercise about right to privacy really isn't working and is just making you look rather silly.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

There are remedies in law for libel. As you may know organisations have to behave equitably. This means that someone who is, say, threatening to decapitate Wenger would rightly be excluded from the Emirates. But to suggest that someone calling Wenger a cretin for, say, signing Stepanovs or Squillaci ahead of Bale can be banned from going to see a game is absurd.

[Burney]

There are remedies in law for libel. As you may know organisations have to behave equitably. This means that someone who is, say, threatening to decapitate Wenger would rightly be excluded from the Emirates. But to suggest that someone calling Wenger a cretin for, say, signing Stepanovs or Squillaci ahead of Bale can be banned from going to see a game is absurd.

The example you quote would indeed be an absurd over-reaction and would never happen. However, someone consistently saying that Wenger is not buying players in order to feather his own nest or is senile (both of which I've seen regularly here) is almost certainly libelling him. However, libel proceedings are expensive and suing your own fans is a bad look PR-wise, so it's much easier simply to exclude the perpetrators or threaten to do so.
You can be certain that somewhere in the ts and cs of a season ticket there is a bit giving the club the right to cancel it in the event of certain types of behaviour by the holder. That clause will almost certainly allow them to refuse renewal in the event of repeated abuse of their company or its officers.
At the end of the day, if the club feel strongly enough about someone's public utterances about it, they would be absolutely within their rights to withdraw or refuse to renew that person's season ticket.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Yes but you cannot be judge and jury in an unproven case so there would need to be a very clear unlawful act involved. To suggest Wenger is benefiting directly from a transfer (as was GG) would be libellous but to suggest he is skimping on transfers to justify his £8 million salary is a matter of opinion.

At the end of the day it's all about definitions. "Abuse", for example, is a term that might need to be proved in the light of the available evidence.

I have the feeling our club does not need further bad publicity and would only use this, if ever, in very extreme cases. There are already enough empty seats on match days without adding to them.

[Burney]

Yes but you cannot be judge and jury in an unproven case so there would need to be a very clear unlawful act involved. To suggest Wenger is benefiting directly from a transfer (as was GG) would be libellous but to suggest he is skimping on transfers to justify his £8 million salary is a matter of opinion.

At the end of the day it's all about definitions. "Abuse", for example, is a term that might need to be proved in the light of the available evidence.

I have the feeling our club does not need further bad publicity and would only use this, if ever, in very extreme cases. There are already enough empty seats on match days without adding to them.


there would need to be a very clear unlawful act

No there wouldn't. Not legally. They can exclude you because they just don't like you if they want. That is the privilege of a private business. They are not obliged to take business from anyone, as long as they are not seen to be discriminating on grounds of race, sex, age, religion or sexuality, they're golden.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

You can always make a case you are being discriminated against. The burden of proof would be on them to prove you have done something objectively seriously objectionable as opposed to something they dislike.

[Burney]

You can always make a case you are being discriminated against. The burden of proof would be on them to prove you have done something objectively seriously objectionable as opposed to something they dislike.

What 'burden of proof' are you talking about? They don't even have to give a reason not to take your business. In such a case you would have to prove discrimination. Good luck with that one if - as most season ticket holders are - you're a middle-aged white man with a reasonable income.

Look, you clearly have little to no idea what you're talking about and your attempts to get off the hook are getting boring now. You are wrong. Accept it.

[Ash]

They can exclude you because they just don't like you if they want. That is the privilege of a private business.

They would need to be careful though. Mo has a point. If they got rid of everyone they didn't like the place would be half empty if we assume a 50-50 split of +ve and -ve people. If we assumed a higher number of moaners, as you and Monts would argue, we might as well move back to Woolwich (The Valley might be vacant soon) and sell our ground to Spurs.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

You cannot be arbitrarily banned from going somewhere in a democracy. There has to be a reason, and it has to be a valid one. That's the nub.

Call me when the Arsenal ban someone for calling Arsene a **** on the net. Otherwise, hate to say this but I'm right.