Clubs are private organisations who can exclude pretty much anyone they want subject to certain laws (as you have suggested) such as ones in relation to discrimination but the associated legislation has prescribed groups with protected characteristics and having a public order conviction certainly isn’t one.Sounds like bullshit to me.
Banning people for actions completely unrelated to attending football matches? I can’t see how clubs could reasonably enforce this without being accused of discrimination, ironically enough, other than to make everyone wishing to attend a match subject to a criminal records check.
Thought so misinformation eh!
They did. Iirc there was a thread on here a few months back regarding the EPL monitoring football fans content on social media and taking action against individuals for any unsavoury comments etc.Think newcastle banned someone last year for posting something on twitter that was anti-trans not related to football
Has he? I hadn’t noticed.You may have mentioned it already... :-)
Let’s get this right, they’re not protesters, they’re terrorists, influenced by very wealthy people, including certain politicians.
I think we're generally talking about people not convicted but with video evidence of them taking part in violence and disorder this week. I'm not sure what the threshold would be.Should someone convicted of any violence be banned? From abh to murder for example.or just right wing violence?
Wtf?
They tried to though didn't they. They were just a bit useless at it.it was mate the hotel has not been torched
I a stadium containing 50-60k you will be potentially rubbing shoulders with pretty much every sort of criminal you can think of.It's an interesting question.
I kind of agree with what you're saying, but also, I don't want to be sat next to any of c#nts who were involved.