Football fan banned over GC posts after ‘Stasi’ Premier league investigation

[Justme56]

https://freespeechunion.org/football-fan-banned-over-gender-critical-posts-after-stasi-premier-league-investigation/

There is an article about this in the Telegraph but I don’t have an archived version so have posted this from the FSU site.

This has been covered in another thread a while ago but this is an updated story covering details on how the Premier League got involved! - There is a video floating around too.

Glad the FSU are supporting Linzi.

Unfortunately the ICO who are the regulator overseeing data protection law breaches are pretty ineffective generally, the head of the ICO John Edwards & ICO in general has a poor reputation amongst data protection professionals.

Link to tweet from Maya below showing where he stands on self id vs data protection principle of accurate recording of data
https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1647198928092233728

I'm not so sure that this would be a breach of GDPR. Private investigators (which is what the PL effectively are in this case) are permitted to collect and process data on individuals, without their consent or knowledge, when they have a legitimate interest in doing so. This covers a wide gamut of circumstances, from investigation into potential criminal offences to breaches of the organisations own rules. The fact that the PL presented a dossier of evidence to the police suggests that they could use the investigation of potential criminal offences as a defence, even if no offences were subsequently deemed to have been committed. As Linzi was a member and season ticket holder, they could also claim the "internal rules investigation" defence.

The EA/Forstater approach seems far more clear cut. In banning Linzi, it looks like they have discriminated against her for holding a philosophical belief.

If the ban is discriminatory then isn't it a breach of GDPR to use her personal info? It also seems a stretch to say they are protected by 'legitimate interest' when they are being used to harass a lesbian for being same sex attracted.

Attacking people then complaining when they fight back is an abusers tactic.

As a private business a football club can ban whoever they like from their property. If you read the terms and conditions that come with your season ticket they’ll say it could be withdrawn for breaching ground regulations but ultimately clubs give themselves the right to cancel a season ticket “in whole or part by the club without providing any reason”.

I have a strong suspicion that clauses like this are illegal. The plain fact is that in banning Linzi, the club has breached the Equality Act. You can test the truth of this quite quickly by asking: if the club had banned Linzi because she was black, would that be legal? Answer - No.

"I have a strong suspicion that clauses like this are illegal. "

It is mine too, in most cases, although there may be some legislation that particularly applies to football due to fan trouble.

As a private business a football club can ban whoever they like from their property. If you read the terms and conditions that come with your season ticket they’ll say it could be withdrawn for breaching ground regulations but ultimately clubs give themselves the right to cancel a season ticket “in whole or part by the club without providing any reason”.

I see parallels with the Ashers cake case. You can legitimately refuse to provide a service to anyone providing that you do not discriminate in doing so. The bakery could refuse to make a cake with a gay marriage slogan due to their religious beliefs but it wasn’t discrimination because they would have refused the request from any customer irrespective of their protected characteristics.

A football club can ban a supporter but in a case like this it is going to be hard to show that the ban wasn’t linked to a protected characteristic and so it is likely to be seen as discriminatory.

I think the GDPR claim might have some merit, there is no obvious crime that her behaviour can be linked to so for what purpose was the data being collected and processed and how was it proportionate?
As far as I know she wasn’t harassing an individual and you need an underlying offence for hate crime to apply as it is an aggravating factor to an existing offence not a stand alone offence.

I suspect a lot of stuff in the Football Spectators Act will conflict with the EA and GDPR. It’s up to courts to determine what get prioritised.

This. You can’t discriminate against a PC even if the contract does state “for any reason”.

Presumably that would be related to behaviour at or either side of a match rather than unrelated twitter activity.

Unless she’s been leafleting or sticking at matches. Perhaps there’s stuff we don’t know.

No it relates to all sorts of stuff I think. A lot of banning orders are handed out for stuff that is not directly related to football, often around racism and extremism. The act was aimed at making life hard for firms like the Chelsea Headhunters. So you could be a model supporter during a match but still get a ban for stuff you’ve done that is not related to football under the act.

I think the possible GDPR breach is if that Twitter account that made the fuss is using info obtained because the account holder works at the club. As I think they said they did.

When I read this thread title I made an assumption and was surprised that for once a man was being persecuted for stating the obvious.

Oh no, it was a gay woman being targeted, what a surprise.🙄Don't tell me that football fans, out of all demographics, don't believe any of the trans nonsense.

Thousands of football fans may have been secretly investigated by Premier League's 'Stasi spy agenc… https://mol.im/a/13046385 via https://dailym.ai/android

"Private investigators (which is what the PL effectively are in this case) are permitted to collect and process data on individuals, without their consent or knowledge, when they have a legitimate interest in doing so. This covers a wide gamut of circumstances, from investigation into potential criminal offences to breaches of the organisations own rules. "

I disagree there was a legitimate reason to carry out the level of investigation based off the back of what is clearly a malicious complaint (similar to what Rachel Meade endured). Breaching the organisation's own rules still has limits to what is acceptable to delve into. GDPR exceptions for carrying out the sort of investigation that the PL did here don't apply. There was no criminal act, there was no likelihood of Linzi committing a criminal act, and the claims that expressing her views, as bluntly as she did' was in any way close to qualification as a legitimate reason will unravel soon enough.

GDPR breaches like this was - and I'm clear this was a breach - are serious. Not only did they go way beyond a proportionate investigation, the information was then used to initiate a baseless police investigation. The information wasn't just gathered and collated, it was then used to harass Linzi. Thats so far beyond what the GDPR exceptions cover, I hope there are serious consequences for those involved.

IMO they've harassed a lesbian woman over her legally held & expressed views & tried to retrospectively justify that by hoping the police would conjure up something criminal to justify the egregious overreach. That backfired. They should get absolutely hammered over this.

"I think the possible GDPR breach is if that Twitter account that made the fuss is using info obtained because the account holder works at the club. As I think they said they did."

Well, that was info I wasn't aware of & just compounds what's gone on. FFS.

This needs to be absolutely hammered - the club, whichever employees are using the PL for their personal vendettas against people they disagree with & the PL for allowing their intel unit to be used in this manor. It's bloody outrageous.

There's already a precedent on expressing views that others may find shocking, offensive etc. & whether that would extend to being classed as unlawful - Kate Scottow went through hell & eventually got the right outcome & was exonerated for calling a man who claims to be a woman a 'pig in a wig'. Anything Linzi has said which anyone finds shocking or offensive is still lawful & doesn't come close to providing a legitimate reason for NUFC and/or the PL to go snooping around to gather her personal information & then use it to get the police to harass her over her blunt & lawful views & expressions of those views. Which were nowhere near the club or supporters or their staff.

The overreach is just so off the charts, it's astounding.

Ah! Newcastle! A Saudi owned club!

Saudi Arabia . . . that well-known bastion of gay rights, women's rights and journalistic freedom!

That article is coming up not found

Well.... that's not sinister at all (hopefully obvious sarcasm).

Is this the Mail's version?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13046385/Thousands-football-fans-secretly-investigated-Premier-Leagues-Stasi-spy-agency-political-views-Newcastle-United-supporter-banned-matches-gender-critical-posts.html

GrumpyMenopausalScathingWombWielder · Today 14:42

"Private investigators (which is what the PL effectively are in this case) are permitted to collect and process data on individuals, without their consent or knowledge, when they have a legitimate interest in doing so. This covers a wide gamut of circumstances, from investigation into potential criminal offences to breaches of the organisations own rules. "

Thanks for your well reasoned post. I had similar thoughts, but not being an expert in GDPR reduced it to:

How can it be lawful and proportionate to carry out intrusive surveillance for something you dislike, even though it's entirely not illegal?

TBH i am not anti this investigative unit that the PL have in cahoots with the police. I have been going to football for a long long time and some of the organised hooligans really need to be kept in check. However this is more than just mission creep and it is out of order.

We will see what the outcome is. But i really really want more people out there in internet land asking if it is the multitude of gay football players who will be scared that a lesbian is in the stands. Football is super inclusive so i expect all the gay players have a really good support system.

I'm not an expert in data protection law, but I wonder how it works for the standard private investigator - the kind who snoops on a client's spouse to see if they're having an affair? Is that legal or not?

Got the text from an archived version.

The Premier League “Stasi” unit that carried out an investigation that led to a gender-critical Newcastle United fan being banned was presided over by a former Whitehall mandarin fined for partygate.

A special unit set up to root out racism in the game was used to trawl through social media comments about transgender issues made by Linzi Smith, a loyal supporter of the club, despite them having nothing to do with football.

The 11-page Online Investigation and Target Profile produced by the Premier League investigation unit led to the club revoking her membership in November and banning her from games until 2026.

The Telegraph has learnt Helen MacNamara, who was fined by the police in the partygate scandal, was until recently the Premier League executive responsible for the policies now at the centre of Ms Smith’s legal battle.

Ms Smith is taking legal action to overturn her ban from Newcastle United, arguing that her right to exercise gender-critical views – the opinion that transgender women are not women – is protected in law, and that the Premier League’s trawl of her personal social media account constituted a breach of data protection laws.

As director of policy and corporate responsibility for the Premier League from 2021 until last year, Ms MacNamara was second in command to the chief executive and responsible for the top-flight league’s privacy policy, including “legal and regulatory matters” and “data protection”.

She also helped implement a new equality, diversity and inclusion standard in the Premier League, introduced in 2021, which is “mandatory and requires clubs to demonstrably embed and develop equality, diversity and inclusion across all areas”.

The former deputy cabinet secretary was fined £50 by police for attending a “raucous” lockdown party in June 2020 at which her karaoke machine was used and there was a drunken brawl, The Telegraph previously disclosed.

The latest revelation has sparked pressure from campaigners for Ms MacNamara and the Premier League to clarify whether the “shadowy intelligence agency” is quietly investigating other fans.

The investigation unit, which does not have an official name, is part of the league’s legal department and based at its headquarters in Paddington, west London. It was set up in 2019 to monitor abuse, in particular racist abuse, directed at players.

Ms Smith, 34, was shocked to discover that the Premier League had compiled a dossier detailing where she lives, works and walked her dog. There was never any suggestion she had made any offensive comments at the stadium or during a match.

The 11-page document, compiled last July, was marked confidential and included data on “associated aliases” and “vulnerabilities”.

Ms Smith has accused the Premier League unit of behaving “like the Stasi” in carrying out the “covert” investigation.

She was interviewed under caution by police after the dossier was handed to officers by Newcastle United. Officers took just two hours to inform her that she had not committed any crime, but the club sanctioned her and she lost an appeal against it.

Newcastle United began prying into the personal life of Ms Smith, who lives in Newcastle and runs a tea shop with her mother, after receiving a complaint from a fan who said they supported LGBTQ+ organisations and accused her of discrimination against trans people.

The complainant included screenshots of tweets Ms Smith had posted in which she said that trans ideology is “based off a Nazi right” and suggested that some transgender people were suffering from mental illness.

The complainant said: “If I were trans, I would feel extremely unsafe… had I had to share a space with someone so openly transphobic.

”Internal emails discussing her case – which Ms Smith obtained by submitting a subject access request to the club – detailed a four-month investigation that culminated in her being banned.

Toby Young, the general secretary of the Free Speech Union, which is representing Ms Smith, and who has complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office, said: “It doesn’t surprise me that the stadium Stasi was presided over by Helen MacNamara. The woke mind virus escaped from a policy lab in Whitehall and is now infecting every part of our society.”

The union said “we believe that hundreds – perhaps thousands – of fans of Premier League clubs have also been investigated by this shadowy intelligence agency” for potential “wrongthink”.

The Premier League and Ms MacNamara have been contacted for comment.

Bloody hell!

I have to say, some people are saying that clubs, organisations and pubs etc can ban people, or exclude them, without reason must not have seen that pubs banning traveller Christenings have been sued and lost, before being forced to pay compensation. Yes, they have some ability to exclude troublemakers, but they cannot discriminate, based on protected characteristics, so I'm hopeful for Linzi.