[Albion] Albion fan issued with five game ban after social media post

[Gilliver's Travels]

That reads like a clause out of a contract of employment and if it were I'd understand it's validity. But as a customer it's not my job or responsibility to uphold the good name of a business ( and BHA is a business ) just because I buy their product. Basically that clause is utter bollocks and written by some corporate lawyer with about as much idea of customer service as I have of brain surgery.

My view entirely. We are all being dragged down a very slippery slope, far beyond anything ever envisaged by Orwell.

 

[Bold Seagull]

My view entirely. We are all being dragged down a very slippery slope, far beyond anything ever envisaged by Orwell.

 

[Goldstone1976]

... far beyond anything ever envisaged by Orwell.

I know - I’ve seen the cages that they fill with starving rats to affix to your face if you step out of line already. “Those?”, said the steward, “if you think that’s bad, wait til you see what we’ve got for you if you really upset us”.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

My view entirely. We are all being dragged down a very slippery slope, far beyond anything ever envisaged by Orwell.

This. Burning question for 2019 would appear to be: how do we stop the club disappearing up its own arse. They need to realise that the overwhelming majority of 'customers' just want to turn up and watch a game of football. PL seems to have turned the club's heads. Tho they'd do well not to alienate the real fanbase too much. They'll need them on the way down when the Twickers crowd has buggered back off whence they came and the STH waiting list has likewise slunk off into the sunset.

 

[Horses Arse]

You seem to be conflating a lot of very different situations into some kind of 'one size fits all' justice.

Not what I meant but can see it looks a little like that. Better expressed as BHAFC taking a line that is completely different to any other club. Perhaps that doesn't make it wrong, perhaps in 20 years time the next iteration of snowflaking will result in all football clubs being like this. If I'm alive in 20 years time perhaps I will think it's a fantastic development. At the moment I think it is completely shit.

Now in terms of conflating things to a one size fits all will this now mean that Hennersey is banned for 5 games for his Nazi salute with a further 5 game ban added to reflect the ridiculousness of his excuse?

 

[chaileyjem]

BBC now reporting , as this thread has speculated, that posts were about Cyrille Regis
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46807269

My point from earlier about transparency still stands. Agree that privacy is important here and some duty of care to the individual involved but complete lack of detail about what merits a ban, length or severity of punishment (why 5 matches not 1 or 10) , why so coy - if it’s a tweet - Why not say so ? . How does mitigation help (apologising, deleting, where shared)

The club are at the forefront of trying to stamp out abuse in all its forms which is impressive, but this would be stronger if they had a more open framework for how they are going to police and enforce it.

 

[Goldstone1976]

BBC now reporting , as this thread has speculated, that posts were about Cyrille Regis
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46807269

My point from earlier about transparency still stands. Agree that privacy is important here and some duty of care to the individual involved but complete lack of detail about what merits a ban, length or severity of punishment (why 5 matches not 1 or 10) , why so coy - if it’s a tweet - Why not say so ? . How does mitigation help (apologising, deleting, where shared)

The club are at the forefront of trying to stamp out abuse in all its forms which is impressive, but this would be stronger if they had a more open framework for how they are going to police and enforce it.

I’d agree that a more open framework would help make the club’s stance on combatting abuse/whatever stronger. Are you volunteering to design such a framework? And you just know that no matter how hard you tried to cover every eventuality, the first transgression wouldn’t be covered!

Witness this one - would you really expect a framework to cover “poor taste ‘jokes’ about upcoming opposition clubs’ dead legends”? And how would it differ if the culprit was 58 rather than 18? Or if the player was retired, but alive? Or if he weren’t a legend, but a journeyman?

Nope - the only practical way is to deal with such matters on a case by case basis and try to ensure at least some consistency in any punishment.

 

[lost in london]

I don't understand those of you that are anti twitter.

Twitter is a fantastic tool for whatever you want it to be.
The only gripe I have with it is it's very very bubble forming.

If you're bubble happens to be right-wing fascist propaganda there must come a time when you assume everybody thinks the same as you.

Much the same can be said if your bubble is Albion related, woolly liberal, cycling infrastructure, NFL, stone clearing, dumb drunk people proving why women live longer, you begin to believe everybody is a bit of a jobbie but harmless enough.

Stone clearing .., I haven't dared listen to the podcasts, have you?

 

[Brownstuff]

You seem to be conflating a lot of very different situations into some kind of 'one size fits all' justice.

Don't bring Fitz Hall into this

 

[Guinness Boy]

I’m not sure I like the precedent set here.

I can understand how the club felt it had to act given who was @ mentioned in the tweet but how do they know the circumstances behind the tweet? Does the poster have all his mental faculties? Was he drunk? Is he under 18?

As an example my son has an Instagram account. All his mates do too. He’s 12 and mainly posts football and particularly Albion stuff.

His account is request to follow and my wife follows him. We also regularly check the phone.

That didn’t stop him posting something quite stupid and then deleting it before we checked after a defeat. It was probably only up an hour but in that time his friend / a grassing little shit (delete as appropriate) screen shotted it and showed his mum. We therefore found out about the post via another mum, yet it wasn’t on his account when we checked.

Let’s just say for a second that he had mentioned the player he was unhappy with on the post, and maybe the club (he didn’t actually). Let’s say further that he attempted a 12 year olds standard of humour on it with a 12 year olds concept of what’s acceptable (again he didn’t). Even then the correct course of action is that I as a parent deal with it - such as grounding him, removing phone for a period of time, further restrictions on the account. That’s it, matter dealt with.

Surely the club has to be 100% confident that the account owner is completely able to hold responsibility for their actions before they become judge, jury and executioner? I say that because the content of the tweet suggests the writer was either juvenile or not all there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stat Brother]

Stone clearing .., I haven't dared listen to the podcasts, have you?

"In my vast experience
stones aren't going anywhere
until you take them
somewhere"

Richard K Herring


I'm emotionally crying, just writing that.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

That reads like a clause out of a contract of employment and if it were I'd understand it's validity. But as a customer it's not my job or responsibility to uphold the good name of a business ( and BHA is a business ) just because I buy their product. I shop at Aldi, I despise their parking rules and their use of the scammers Parking Eye. I have made my feelings very public what I think about it on the Aldi Facebook page ( well before I was banned from it and before I deleted my FB account ! ) and on numerous parking ticket forums. I still shop there but when I buy say my olive oil I'm not agreeing to uphold the 'good' name of Aldi - that's their job not mine.

Basically that clause it utter bollocks and written by some corporate lawyer with about as much idea of customer service as I have of brain surgery.

If you are just a customer then you are going to have to accept that the club can choose who it sells to. If you are more than a customer then you have a responsibility to uphold your club's good name. I'm in the latter camp and am pleased when I see any organisation taking a stand over cowardly unpleasantness on the internet.

 

[London Irish]

My sentiment towards the club is now at its lowest ebb since the Dick Knight takeover but even I would back Barber in taking a stand against truly garbage behaviour online

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I’m not sure I like the precedent set here.

I can understand how the club felt it had to act given who was @ mentioned in the tweet but how do they know the circumstances behind the tweet? Does the poster have all his mental faculties? Was he drunk? Is he under 18?

As an example my son has an Instagram account. All his mates do too. He’s 12 and mainly posts football and particularly Albion stuff.

His account is request to follow and my wife follows him. We also regularly check the phone.

That didn’t stop him posting something quite stupid and then deleting it before we checked after a defeat. It was probably only up an hour but in that time his friend / a grassing little shit (delete as appropriate) screen shotted it and showed his mum. We therefore found out about the post via another mum, yet it wasn’t on his account when we checked.

Let’s just say for a second that he had mentioned the player he was unhappy with on the post, and maybe the club (he didn’t actually). Let’s say further that he attempted a 12 year olds standard of humour on it with a 12 year olds concept of what’s acceptable (again he didn’t). Even then the correct course of action is that I as a parent deal with it - such as grounding him, removing phone for a period of time, further restrictions on the account. That’s it, matter dealt with.

Surely the club has to be 100% confident that the account owner is completely able to hold responsibility for their actions before they become judge, jury and executioner? I say that because the content of the tweet suggests the writer was either juvenile or not all there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point.

 

[Hampster Gull]

I get the posters who use analogies in other aspects of our life to say this is ok, they are good ones. That said I have no idea of what the club deem is unacceptable. They have chosen to make the ban public in a formal way but without saying where they have drawn the line. Due to that, and until more comes to light, there is little to learn from this and therefore I am in the camp that where sits very uncomfortably. Thumbs down

 

[hoveboyslim]

I’m not sure I like the precedent set here.

I can understand how the club felt it had to act given who was @ mentioned in the tweet but how do they know the circumstances behind the tweet? Does the poster have all his mental faculties? Was he drunk? Is he under 18?

As an example my son has an Instagram account. All his mates do too. He’s 12 and mainly posts football and particularly Albion stuff.

His account is request to follow and my wife follows him. We also regularly check the phone.

That didn’t stop him posting something quite stupid and then deleting it before we checked after a defeat. It was probably only up an hour but in that time his friend / a grassing little shit (delete as appropriate) screen shotted it and showed his mum. We therefore found out about the post via another mum, yet it wasn’t on his account when we checked.

Let’s just say for a second that he had mentioned the player he was unhappy with on the post, and maybe the club (he didn’t actually). Let’s say further that he attempted a 12 year olds standard of humour on it with a 12 year olds concept of what’s acceptable (again he didn’t). Even then the correct course of action is that I as a parent deal with it - such as grounding him, removing phone for a period of time, further restrictions on the account. That’s it, matter dealt with.

Surely the club has to be 100% confident that the account owner is completely able to hold responsibility for their actions before they become judge, jury and executioner? I say that because the content of the tweet suggests the writer was either juvenile or not all there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably not the best age to use at it clearly states in Instagram's T&Cs that Instagram requires everyone to be at least 13 before they can create an account, but I'm sure you know that already

 

[Goldstone1976]

I’m not sure I like the precedent set here.

I can understand how the club felt it had to act given who was @ mentioned in the tweet but how do they know the circumstances behind the tweet? Does the poster have all his mental faculties? Was he drunk? Is he under 18?

As an example my son has an Instagram account. All his mates do too. He’s 12 and mainly posts football and particularly Albion stuff.

His account is request to follow and my wife follows him. We also regularly check the phone.

That didn’t stop him posting something quite stupid and then deleting it before we checked after a defeat. It was probably only up an hour but in that time his friend / a grassing little shit (delete as appropriate) screen shotted it and showed his mum. We therefore found out about the post via another mum, yet it wasn’t on his account when we checked.

Let’s just say for a second that he had mentioned the player he was unhappy with on the post, and maybe the club (he didn’t actually). Let’s say further that he attempted a 12 year olds standard of humour on it with a 12 year olds concept of what’s acceptable (again he didn’t). Even then the correct course of action is that I as a parent deal with it - such as grounding him, removing phone for a period of time, further restrictions on the account. That’s it, matter dealt with.

Surely the club has to be 100% confident that the account owner is completely able to hold responsibility for their actions before they become judge, jury and executioner? I say that because the content of the tweet suggests the writer was either juvenile or not all there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice argument, and I don’t disagree with your fundamental point about a precedent having been set. I don’t even disagree with your assertion about not being sure you like it.

Do you sense a “but”?

But... in your second para you say “I can understand how the club felt it had to act given who was @ mentioned...”

Then, later, you assert “Even then the correct course of action is that I as a parent deal with it...”, even though, in that para, you don’t mention the @ mentions again.

These positions are mutually exclusive, surely? I would posit that the club acted precisely because because of the @mentions in the tweet.

In the case of your son, not only did he not @mention three corporate bodies, he also didn’t name the player or club. Chalk and cheese - the Albion wouldn’t have acted had they spotted it in the hour it was live. It was indeed a parental situation.

Separately, you talk about his age - well, given the fact his photo was attached to every tweet, they could see he was over the age of responsibility. Was he drunk? Who knows, and, I would argue, irrelevant.

All that said - I agree, it does set a precedent. Which is presumably why the press are now reporting it.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Probably not the best age to use at it clearly states in Instagram's T&Cs that Instagram requires everyone to be at least 13 before they can create an account, but I'm sure you know that already

Did you never watch a 15 film when you were 14 then? Have a pint at 17? Knock one out over Razzle in your teenage years?

I’d rather he used it and I checked and controlled it just like almost every other 12 year old in the country


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guinness Boy]

Nice argument, and I don’t disagree with your fundamental point about a precedent having been set. I don’t even disagree with your assertion about not being sure you like it.

Do you sense a “but”?

But... in your second para you say “I can understand how the club felt it had to act given who was @ mentioned...”

Then, later, you assert “Even then the correct course of action is that I as a parent deal with it...”, even though, in that para, you don’t mention the @ mentions again.

These positions are mutually exclusive, surely? I would posit that the club acted precisely because because of the @mentions in the tweet.

In the case of your son, not only did he not @mention three corporate bodies, he also didn’t name the player or club. Chalk and cheese - the Albion wouldn’t have acted had they spotted it in the hour it was live. It was indeed a parental situation.

Separately, you talk about his age - well, given the fact his photo was attached to every tweet, they could see he was over the age of responsibility. Was he drunk? Who knows, and, I would argue, irrelevant.

All that said - I agree, it does set a precedent. Which is presumably why the press are now reporting it.

I knew there was a but and I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. But my long-laboured point is that there are juveniles all over social media whether we like it or not and pretty much anyone can take out an account. In the examples I gave of under age or mental incapacity I’d expect that action to be the club having a quiet word with the parent / carer - acting as “the other mum” - rather than dishing out a ban. Followed by a call to both WBA and the FA to explain.

You can reasonably guess someone’s age from a picture but not to a precise age, nor can you gauge their circumstances and mental fitness to hold the account


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Oldman]

The club introduced the besmirching clause and specified specifically “conduct on social media” a while ago.

https://www.seagullstickets.com/scr...ocuments/html/tandc.html#membershiptandcs1718

Not sure I abided by these rules in the Archer/Bellotti era!