Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nu_matik

R.Bennett internal punishment over Twiiter remark

Recommended Posts

[quote user="step"]Can someone tell me what the hell it is suppose to say.

Twitter should built something in that wont allow anyone to tweet if they have had a few too many sherbets.

Typical, Ryan get his chance and did okay only to drop himself in it.[/quote]

According to the Daily Snail....http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2313738/Ryan-Bennett-charged-FA-angry-Twitter-exchange.html

What''s all the fuss about ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see both sides of the arguement... Ryan Bennett has a right to stand up for himself in public, this "innit blud" attitude clearly is someone trying to hard though.If Ryan wants to see how its done then perhaps a certain mr Huckerby can show him how to manage tweets properly.using "minimum wage muppetts" is a bit of a thick thing to say and proof that Footballers are detached from Reality.If Ryan wants to be the "Big man" then put his money where his mouth is... next season play for just £6.10 an hour....of course he wont do that.. because he wants to be the hard man on twitter calling other people "melts"if he really was a man of convicition he''d do it... He''ll see this.. so what say you Ryan "blud"? or am i  a Melt who by the way doesnt earn minimum wage. i''d certainly wager that if Bennett didn''t have football the job centre, a tracksuit and a staffy dog would be all he''d have to look forward to until the letter from Jeremy Kyle arrived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I work in a school and we all have to sign a social media code of conduct that essentially prohibits us form getting involved in stuff like this. There are 2 reasons for this - one is for our own protection as we can be disciplined for promoting views that would be unacceptable to say in school or for offering violence, and secondly the reputational Risk it causes for a school. If teachers are subject to these precautions it beggars belief to me that professional sportsmen, with all that media training, are not.

Just in passing, social media is not the harmless ''free speech'' tool that some on here like to portray. Some of the instances of bullying, harassment and mob hunting of children I have seen it promote would break a stone heart. I hate it with a passion - and if this is a pre-requisite of free speech then it appears to me that this freedom simply amounts to the freedom to abuse, taunt and vilify those who you dislike or disagree with. Which is underlined by this incident.

And to return to topic, I think Bennetts conduct in this is far from impressive and his deletion of his twitter account the best outcome by far.

Rant over!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Got to agree Killie

Twitter seems to offer numbnuts their chance to ''prove'' themselves to the World, but they are too thick to see that the majority of us are just shaking our heads in disbelief. The ''exchange of views'' on there, sometimes makes me embarrassed to share the top of the food chain, with some of these neanderthals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="killiecanary"]I work in a school and we all have to sign a social media code of conduct that essentially prohibits us form getting involved in stuff like this. There are 2 reasons for this - one is for our own protection as we can be disciplined for promoting views that would be unacceptable to say in school or for offering violence, and secondly the reputational Risk it causes for a school. If teachers are subject to these precautions it beggars belief to me that professional sportsmen, with all that media training, are not.

Just in passing, social media is not the harmless ''free speech'' tool that some on here like to portray. Some of the instances of bullying, harassment and mob hunting of children I have seen it promote would break a stone heart. I hate it with a passion - and if this is a pre-requisite of free speech then it appears to me that this freedom simply amounts to the freedom to abuse, taunt and vilify those who you dislike or disagree with. Which is underlined by this incident.

And to return to topic, I think Bennetts conduct in this is far from impressive and his deletion of his twitter account the best outcome by far.

Rant over![/quote]

I have to agree with this.   I think the term you use "mob harassment" is very good as it describes something I have come across on here - and it is easy to get dragged into something that is quite unpleasant.    Social media is open to all kinds of abuse, whether its kids cyber-bullying other kids through texting, twitter, facebook etc or to things on this messageboard which can be a very unpleasant place at times - especially if you are the one that is being targeted.   It is interesting to notice the ones that have commented on here about "free speech" and "standing up for yourself" - because if you stand up for yourself it just leads to more and more acrimony.     I think that the term self-responsibility is important too - something that those who think they can be as abusive as they like to somebody do not generally understand.    

Twitter is a ridiculous invention imo.  The time and mental energy some people waste in using this media could be better used doing something useful, like watching paint dry.  At least with message boards the regulation is more prominent and abuse can be limited.  Twitter is just too open a format. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="morty"]I thought Purple Canary was your actual name[:(]I take your points, but still stand by mine that just because they are footballers they shouldn''t be allowed to partake in whatever social media takes their fancy.[/quote]

 

My parents had a sense of humour, morty, but not to that extent...I agrree footballers shouldn''t suffer more limits than anyone else, but that points up the misconception about free speech and cyberspace. The truth is that in relative and absolute terms more people have more freedom of speech than at any time in recorded history. All that has happened is that the remarkably few laws and rules that used to apply to a tiny proportion of the population now apply to anyone with access to a computer. Libel is an easy example. It used to be a practical concern for a really very small number of people. Now anyone on this kind of message-board is at risk.Leaving the Bennett case aside, because he has not been convicted of anything, but the FA charge that is sometimes levelled against players - "the use of abusive and/or insulting and/or threatening words" - sounds very like the criminal offence of using "threatening, abusive or insulting words". So any footballer who breached that FA rule would also potentially have broken the criminal law that applies to anyone.And anyone who worked for a company in the public eye who published threatening  and/or abusive words would certainly face severe disciplinary action. You would be very lucky not to find yourself outside the building clutching your P45.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="morty"]I thought Purple Canary was your actual name[:(]I take your points, but still stand by mine that just because they are footballers they shouldn''t be allowed to partake in whatever social media takes their fancy.[/quote]

 

My parents had a sense of humour, morty, but not to that extent...I agrree footballers shouldn''t suffer more limits than anyone else, but that points up the misconception about free speech and cyberspace. The truth is that in relative and absolute terms more people have more freedom of speech than at any time in recorded history. All that has happened is that the remarkably few laws and rules that used to apply to a tiny proportion of the population now apply to anyone with access to a computer. Libel is an easy example. It used to be a practical concern for a really very small number of people. Now anyone on this kind of message-board is at risk.Leaving the Bennett case aside, because he has not been convicted of anything, but the FA charge that is sometimes levelled against players - "the use of abusive and/or insulting and/or threatening words" - sounds very like the criminal offence of using "threatening, abusive or insulting words". So any footballer who breached that FA rule would also potentially have broken the criminal law that applies to anyone.And anyone who worked for a company in the public eye who published threatening  and/or abusive words would certainly face severe disciplinary action. You would be very lucky not to find yourself outside the building clutching your P45.

[/quote]Again, I agree, to a point.What Bennet said was stupid, and considering they are warned about this sort of thing by the club, means he has no defence.But I think a lot of people forget that take away their job and riches, and these are just normal young guys, with all the character frailties that any "normal" person can have. So frankly its a load of old guff putting them on a pedestal, and expect them to be pillars of the community.Give me a George Best bad boy anyday!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="morty"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="morty"]I thought Purple Canary was your actual name[:(]I take your points, but still stand by mine that just because they are footballers they shouldn''t be allowed to partake in whatever social media takes their fancy.[/quote]

 

My parents had a sense of humour, morty, but not to that extent...I agrree footballers shouldn''t suffer more limits than anyone else, but that points up the misconception about free speech and cyberspace. The truth is that in relative and absolute terms more people have more freedom of speech than at any time in recorded history. All that has happened is that the remarkably few laws and rules that used to apply to a tiny proportion of the population now apply to anyone with access to a computer. Libel is an easy example. It used to be a practical concern for a really very small number of people. Now anyone on this kind of message-board is at risk.Leaving the Bennett case aside, because he has not been convicted of anything, but the FA charge that is sometimes levelled against players - "the use of abusive and/or insulting and/or threatening words" - sounds very like the criminal offence of using "threatening, abusive or insulting words". So any footballer who breached that FA rule would also potentially have broken the criminal law that applies to anyone.And anyone who worked for a company in the public eye who published threatening  and/or abusive words would certainly face severe disciplinary action. You would be very lucky not to find yourself outside the building clutching your P45.

[/quote]Again, I agree, to a point.What Bennet said was stupid, and considering they are warned about this sort of thing by the club, means he has no defence.But I think a lot of people forget that take away their job and riches, and these are just normal young guys, with all the character frailties that any "normal" person can have. So frankly its a load of old guff putting them on a pedestal, and expect them to be pillars of the community.Give me a George Best bad boy anyday![/quote]

 

Quite. The idea that footballers should be role models is one of the more amusing imbecilities of public debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
''The idea that footballers should be role models is one of the more amusing imbecilities of the public debate''

Sorry, but I disagree here. It''s not a case of whether they ''should be'' - the fact that they are is beyond dispute surely? And then the issue is what kind of role models they are.

My point would be that if we accept that they are to be in the public eye and have any transgressions widely reported, surely the club has to have a code of conduct on use of social media.

I agree with you both that just expecting a young man to be able to manage this sort of personal responsibility is not sensible. Hence my query about the level of media-related training young professionals receive...I don''t assume that they will be able to manage it naturally but I had assumed that the club would offer education and training on the subject? Especially with the 2 way communication twitter allows

I don''t by the way think that Ryan''s contributions were at the excessive end of the spectrum - ill - considered yes but not totally out of order. My worry is that the next one of these might be and I don''t want my club reduced to the level of some of the racist / Neanderthal levels that we have seen from certain Chelsea / Liverpool / Man U players.

Still think twitter is evil though - although I completely accept that may be influenced unfairly by the unfortunate cases I have had dealings with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="killiecanary"]''The idea that footballers should be role models is one of the more amusing imbecilities of the public debate''

Sorry, but I disagree here. It''s not a case of whether they ''should be'' - the fact that they are is beyond dispute surely? And then the issue is what kind of role models they are.

My point would be that if we accept that they are to be in the public eye and have any transgressions widely reported, surely the club has to have a code of conduct on use of social media.

I agree with you both that just expecting a young man to be able to manage this sort of personal responsibility is not sensible. Hence my query about the level of media-related training young professionals receive...I don''t assume that they will be able to manage it naturally but I had assumed that the club would offer education and training on the subject? Especially with the 2 way communication twitter allows

I don''t by the way think that Ryan''s contributions were at the excessive end of the spectrum - ill - considered yes but not totally out of order. My worry is that the next one of these might be and I don''t want my club reduced to the level of some of the racist / Neanderthal levels that we have seen from certain Chelsea / Liverpool / Man U players.

Still think twitter is evil though - although I completely accept that may be influenced unfairly by the unfortunate cases I have had dealings with.[/quote]So you think parents all over the land are pointing to blinged up, model knobbing, arm biting footballers and saying to their children "Young man, you will do well to emulate their behaviour"?Throw in the ones that have been jailed for assault and rape, and your notion that they are role models is looking slightly fanciful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="killiecanary"]''The idea that footballers should be role models is one of the more amusing imbecilities of the public debate''

Sorry, but I disagree here. It''s not a case of whether they ''should be'' - the fact that they are is beyond dispute surely? And then the issue is what kind of role models they are.

My
point would be that if we accept that they are to be in the public eye and have any transgressions widely reported, surely the club has to have a code of conduct on use of social media.

I agree with you both that just expecting a young man to be able to manage this sort of personal responsibility is not sensible. Hence my query about the level of media-related training young professionals receive...I don''t assume that they will be able to manage it naturally but I had assumed that the club would offer education and training on the subject? Especially with the 2 way communication twitter allows

I don''t by the way think that Ryan''s contributions were at the excessive end of the spectrum - ill - considered yes but not totally out of order. My worry is that the next one of these might be and I don''t want my club reduced to the level of some of the racist / Neanderthal levels that we have seen from certain Chelsea / Liverpool / Man U players.

Still think twitter is evil though - although I completely accept that may be influenced unfairly by the unfortunate cases I have had dealings with.[/quote]

 

The logic of that is that footballers need to be better behaved than "ordinary" members of the public, and I don''t believe that. Being famous is not a licence to behave badly (although some clearly think it is) but it shouldn''t mean they have to follow a stricter moral code than the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I don''t think parents are pointing to them and saying so - but the fact that they are high-profile does mean that their antics are widely reported. And as such they have a responsibility to at least do their best to avoid the kind of behaviour you are rightly pointing to.

Incidentally those that parents would like their children to use as role models are very rarely those that the children want to be like! Maybe the problem is that term ''role model'' - in my mind it has more to do with the influence that professional footballers can have on young minds - that is why every club now has a football in the community type arm, and why they do so much work in local schools (and incidentally NCFC are excellent in this line of work)

My point is, and remains, that the club ought to have a code of conduct (and I believe they do have) and that professional footballers need to be more careful when using social media as people in other professions need to, because it can be dangerous. Finally that I would be interested to know how much training young professionals get in media-related issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough - I can see that point has validity - although I don''t necessarily agree with you completely on it.

My main thought was about the nastiness that social media can cause - and the way the club ensures that it is used positively by players and how it supports them to avoid incidents such as this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="killiecanary"]Fair enough - I can see that point has validity - although I don''t necessarily agree with you completely on it.

My main thought was about the nastiness that social media can cause - and the way the club ensures that it is used positively by players and how it supports them to avoid incidents such as this.[/quote]The club is their employer, not their mum lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok - if I had posted the message that Ryan posted I would have been been breaking my employer''s code of conduct and been subject to various disciplinary procedures, up to and including dismissal.

Nothing to do with my mum, everything to do with my employer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="killiecanary"]Ok - if I had posted the message that Ryan posted I would have been been breaking my employer''s code of conduct and been subject to various disciplinary procedures, up to and including dismissal.

Nothing to do with my mum, everything to do with my employer.[/quote]That point for me has never been is dispute.But people somehow

trying to imply that footballers should be beyond reproach and pillars

of society is ridiculous, and frankly I find this whole thing a great

big fuss about not very much.No one died, no one got pregnant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the discussion of "role-models" - footballers are that, whether we like it or not.    Whether they are good role models or bad role models is the question.    As has been said, we would all like our footballers to be model professionals and I believe being in the public eye does increase the responsibility of a person to behave well.    That they don''t always behave well is obvious, but that doesn''t mean there shouldn''t be a pressure for them to behave responsibly. 

If you take the argument further, everyone is a role model of some kind, good or bad.    If we have children we accept that we have a responsibility to them to be good role models, or at least I hope we do.    Footballers are in the public eye and every word they say is latched on to - even if it is "I just hit it and it went in".   They are under the microscope so they have to be squeaky clean.   They have a responsibility because they are seen by so many impressionable youngsters and if they are not squeaky clean they have to be seen to be punished.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...