Beckham only had himself to blame. Covered in the Beckham's docu on Netflix. Simeone comes across well on it. Treatment of Beckham in this country at the time was sickening when u look back on it in the documentary.
Don’t know if this has been posted elsewhere - this guy sits in front of us at the front of W5, seems a shame he can’t keep vlogging. I guess there is something to do with GDPR or copyrite, but there is hundreds of people posting match footage on YouTube etc … Anyone on here with OSC/HCST contacts able to find out what the club’s issue is here? I thought we had got back to being one club one family
Really poor that. Never watched one of these vlogs but not sure what harm they're doing. Would be a bit bizarre sitting near one all game mind
two ways of looking at this 1. Sledgehammer to crack a nut. Why threaten with a ban, when a polite request with the reasons why he should stop? 2. Social media helps with your mental health? Going by the tantrums and breakdowns on here I don't see how. Though I must admit the polite discourse of the match day theads are a source of amusement.
It’s not - my mates and I are literally 2 rows back, found it a bit weird at first but basically he is commenting on the match and showing fan/player reaction to goals and near misses … not intrusive at all
I think it's the sheer amount of footage he includes. Grandpa Joe doesn't have an issue but he relarely includes and thing that could be copywrite struck.
That's a shame. He's damn good at it. And he loves City. Seems really OTT and unnecessary from the club. It's not like he's live streaming a game or anything, and it's hardly competition for the club's, or the EFL's, own SM as it's a different concept altogether. In fact, I'd say that what he does is a very positive influence that contributes to this 'One Family'. If he was showing too much of certain footage then just a quiet word to steer towards what is acceptable should surely have been the thing to do. Many people do vlogs; are they all being threatened like this? Really poor on the face of it.
This article may have something to do with it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67233737 It’s a you tuber who has been sentenced for posting videos on social media without their consent. Not sure whether it’s a criminal offence in itself, but he breached a court order which banned him, hence the sentence. I suppose there are laws preventing video surveillance that relate to breach of human rights, so irrespective of the purpose of videoing, the act itself is not allowed / unlawful in some way (I’m no expert). It may be that people around him have complained and the club are acting on that. Would be interested to ask him provide a copy of the clubs explanation for some context. I do wonder whether any complainant didn’t want the public to know they were at the game (supposed to be at work, with their mistress, didn’t want to identify as a City fan…).
It is possible your final paragraph nails it. Not because of any nefarious reason, simply someone objected to appearing in the vlog. Without their consent. All important. Before the cries of everybody is videoed by the police, so what. This is allowable.
Slightly different as when you buy your ticket you agree to abide by the ground regulations, and there's probably a clause in there to do with photography/videoing. In public there's nothing to stop you filming, and you don't need consent to do so. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
As I understand it, you still wouldn't have a case if your argument was just about your privacy. It's more the issue of them actually recording in the stadium per se.
Yeah, there's lots of ten minute lawyers on YouTube videos claiming they've not given consent to be filmed, some complain to YouTube who take the video down while they investigate, it nearly always goes back on again. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
The 'Freeman of the Land' ones make me laugh. They have this contrived version of the law, which they seem to go out of their way to create situations to argue and 'prove' their case on film, but don't seem to consider they're trying to argue with a copper that's had less training than a hairdresser, and follows the procedures they're given rather than the law of the land. Mind you, the attitude of some of the plod really doesn't help their case, but I guess the 'freemen' wouldn't be showing the decent plod as there are no clicks in that.
Reggie Photo is very funny, ' I'm taking readings'. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
