'Fan of the Ban'. Guest Blog by 'The Rebel'

My thoughts on the Alex Thompson piece on clubs, freedom of speech, Shug Keevins and bans.. as below.
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/banning-journalists-time-football-clubs-grow/4798
 
‘Fan of the Ban’.
Seen a lot of chatter on journalistic freedom and the like recently.
Celtic fans agreeing and disagreeing with each other and others on the right or not of a club to use the banning order on the journalistic credential and would that then be a block on one’s freedoms.
Of course journalists will argue probably to a man or woman that it’s against the freedoms of the press, but then they would say that considering that’s how they make their coin and reputation.
Others though might argue that one’s home is one’s castle and how we manage our affairs are quite frankly, bugger all to do with them.
If your invited into one’s space then respect it, or ‘hit the road pal’ would in my opinion, be the beat from the feet on the street. Flashing a press badge to allow shitting on one’s parade, don’t really cut it for me.
I’m reminded of the neighbours we disliked as kids who always thought nobody could see them silhouetted at there windows peeking through the small opening between the curtains with phone in hand at every single noise or passer by.
The nosy neighbour that nobody, but nobody liked. ‘The snoop’.
Even the authorities got fed up with constant complaints every-time someone sneezed outside their windows. ‘But I’m a community vigilante’ made no difference, in fact it made it worse on the streets of the scheme, the respectable grass got short shrift I can tell you.
Bursts into song : ‘ We kin see you lookin oot ! ‘.
Look at the football grounds as an extension of those streets, for for the most part they are that extension, the street corner all but disappeared and moved lock stock and barrel to the fitba grounds.
Cue the press pass and the twitching curtains of respectable vigilante, paying nothing to enter but constantly taking the piss and all in the name of telling us what we see and hear for ourselves from our fellow fitba goers.
Does anyone actually think these folk know better or more about our enjoyment or upset more than our fellow supporters?.
Personally I don’t need some condescending egotist full of his own self importance acting like the oracle or the headstrong headmaster in primary school, telling me what is in fact glaringly obvious in an attempt to further his own career on the back of slaughtering the place I call home. Especially not for free!.
Deep breath, rant resisted with difficulty, so I head back to the debate..
So anyway it was chatted back and forth, the merits, ban or not, positions where taken either way, some that it would be a suppression of free speech and also possibly expression, but I have to say that I don’t get that or agree with that at all, I have to side with the alternate argument. Therefore, I am a fan of the ban.
You see, as I see it nobody is stopping him or her from scribbling their thoughts or beliefs or what they might discover according to their job status that may well be in the public interest.
Nobody is preventing said character from reporting what they might wish to report are they, how could they ?.
Outside the ground or indeed any owned property, the proprietor/owner would not have that influence unless provided by legal status through order of a court on complaint.
I don’t believe ownership of speech or expression could be a part of that wider remit being that said character was no longer making a nuisance of themselves on the premises. (  In this case I say thank God for that. )
One case in particular I can think of in recent times and is being discussed, has often had me wondering why it took the club so long and why this banning style so far has been limited to one journalistic individual ‘ no prizes for guessing’ albeit long overdue.
You see many supporters unlike the free press, have paid good money for many years and have been banned for life for arguably less damaging displays than some of those guys.
For me that’s wrong.
I see no reason for press immunity to the possibility of a swift life-term removal for any that are hell bent on damaging the good name of a club when purely seen as chief mischief maker with a personal bone to pick, as I believe this particular chap to be.
The words ‘Journalist’ and ‘Respected’ I take with a massive dose of hilarity in conjunction with some of these guys, this one in particular. Outside of journalistic circles I see no such evidence of this ability to be termed as journalism or indeed any such signs of respect, and to my mind certain ‘Journalists’ are no more than idle gossips, tittle tattle story tellers or frankly modern day sweetie wives who just love a blether, usually about somebody else.
Some in my book should have been presented with the life ban many moons previous and are allowed still to bang on with their freedoms to speak and express, as is their right, but they also expect to be allowed such activity which can be damaging to any institution, business or home, more so from within those actual premises and usually by the welcome mat invitation and as such should then be halted.
In fact banning orders from the football grounds should, again in my opinion, be winging their way in all haste to the relevant desktops as we speak. There are quite a few I would submit well worthy of those.
‘Yer not welcome to sample our delicious home made food only to force your fingers down your throat to vomit it back onto our laps, for a story on gastric flu buster’.
Perhaps it could be argued to be a restriction of sorts but I would say only on one’s freedom of movement.
After all it’s the club in question he/she is being refused entry into, just as a shopkeeper has the right to refuse to sell anyone or even prohibit access, usually it has to be said, with good cause.
Does the journalistic badge like some super hero comic strip accessory, supersede the rights of an owner to deny such access when he ‘the owner’ considers that access to have a serious detrimental effect on his/her business ?
I think not for that then is a restriction of his/her freedoms of choice. His human right.
To put it another way, what journalist or indeed citizen would continue to invite and welcome someone into their home or place of work who continuously decided to criticise their home or perhaps more unusually, to decide to squat and take a dump on their front lawn or dining room with amazing regularity, perhaps in front of friends,relatives or neighbours.
None after that first time, I would suggest.
So I apply the same logic. It’s not against freedom of speech or expression at all, it’s the protection of one’s property and good name, it’s sensible to safeguard your self respect. Being a journo i’m afraid is neither here nor there, they’re really not more important.
Nobody would invite someone to constantly criticise them, their home or their business, especially when they believe such a critique was forthcoming from an individual that the large customer base or family members strongly resented, disrespected and frankly couldn’t stomache and were believed to be working to an agenda, would they really ?.
No, not for me I’m afraid.
Freedom of speech is not impaired, nor is that freedom of expression. It’s clear those options are still very much open to the journalist or whoever, be it him or her reporting in speech and/or in writing.
Movement however I would agree has, can and no doubt will be restricted, and personally I find no problem with that at all.
The owner has a right and a duty to defend his product and property from perceived scoundrels or vultures desperate to pick over the bones of his own dislike whilst using the guise of press immunity. He has a right to listen to his majority customer base also.
If the journalist, he/she or for that matter anyone else, cannot behave according to set rules & regulation of said property, the owner or his customer ‘let’s say as in the case of the football club’ then like an unruly supporter his access to the stadium, the team, the business in any part, should most definitely be denied.
I have just used my freedom of speech and expression to assist in the removal of the movement of people who abuse that privilege at the club I consider home.
 
The Rebel

Comments

  1. I agree entirely. Tommo came up to look at and report on the succulent lambs. He was even physically threatened by one of them. We’ve stopped buying their product and still the reporting in one sided and we are still lumped in beside the Bluenoses and are looked on as the same as them. I am very disappointed with Tommo’s reaction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.