Banning of Darlington Fanzine Editor

So far as David McLean is concerned, I must say the clubs letter responding to assertions over the chairman's wife seems justified - if someone publicly threatened my wife I would not be too happy about it either. If I remember correctly, some time ago the chairman's wife criticised some players for not earning their money but its one thing expressing views, but an entirely different matter when threats are involved. It's interesting that several paragraphs of David's commentary in the fanzine are missing. What he has written on the face of it seems ok to me, but the fact that parts of the article are "not available" would seem to indicate that maybe there is something in it that could be construed as unacceptable.

Simon, B&H Albion

Reading his comments I fail to see a reason for banning, it seems a perfectly reasonable article on the state of his club.....however if the scans as reproduced on the official site are an accurate representation of what David went about then I fail to see how the club couldn't respond in one manner or another. Comparing their chairman to Hitler he had the defence of parody to a degree and possibly could have argued....but his wife is surely out of bounds for such humour....and like it or not it is defamatory. He can however claim breach of confidentiality in the OS printing his address as any right minded editor would have blanked out the address first.

But even their response is fair as they do state it is based on the imagery of Hitler.

His defence is just, if it hadn't have been for those images really. But the chairman's response reads like a 5 year old upset at not being given his prized Ninja turtle!

Accordingly from what I know which is what you have printed, David has become so disillusioned and infuriated at seeing his club become a shambles that unfortunately he has replied in kind instead of keeping himself above the a*******s that inhabit our game, namely those who make money from it as opposed to those who pay for it.

At the end of the day as mentioned in your poll, libel etc isn't a case for banning it's a case for the courts to answer. Bringing me back to David I feel the club has done its best over what we can't read to irritate and fire him up and stupidly he responded one issue. But again a ban isn't the answer nor the punishment, anything libellous has its day in court, not in a chairman's whim.

Mike, Aston Villa

Banning of Gillingham Website Editor

Your question regarding the website domain tickled me. You should be aware that the issue between Alan Liptrott and GFC is down to more than this. If you ask most neutrals in the argument, aside from not really caring about the issue, they would tell you that both sides have been as bad as each other. The fact remains though, that the GFC chairman did hand out an olive branch in the form of a willingness to discuss the issues. Alan Liptrott rejected this completely, refusing to discuss unless his ban is lifted, and then entering the ground knowing full well he was banned. As a result, GFC are no longer interested in discussion. As the saying goes, no one individual is bigger than the club and woe betide those who feel they are! Many have levelled this accusation at Paul Scally. And a similar sentiment is felt by many towards Alan Liptrott. Of course, I expect you've only heard the one side of the story.

ASD, Gillingham

I was chairman of the Gills Supporters Club from 1994 until stepping down after my ban was imposed but have continued as a member of the Executive Committee

I have legally owned the domain name www.gillinghamfc.co.uk since 1998 and used it to promote Gillingham Football Club as well as using it to provide a daily news service about the Club to fans around the world as well plus giving them opportunity to voice their opinions on the website Message Board

I received a letter from Gills chairman Paul Scally back in July 2001 informing me I was excluded from Priestfield Stadium until I fulfilled 3 conditions, namely transferring the domain name over the to him plus changing the name of the Gills Supporters Club as he felt it misled fans into believing it was an official body. Mr Scally also made unsubstantiated allegations that I contacted League clubs purporting to be a club official that I vehemently refute. This was in connection with me telephoning Wolves to ask how many tickets our Club had requested for the away fixture at Molineaux as the allocation I knew was insufficient to satisfy the demand from our fans that subsequently proved me correct.

It is the Gills Supporters Club members who decide on a name change and many opted to insert Independent in the title only because they believed my ban would be lifted but alas it made no difference. Previously the democratically elected Gills Supporters Club had balloted its' members regarding whether they wanted it to run independently from Gillingham FC plc with over 99% of its 700+ members voting to retain its' independence. Paul Scally refused to allow the GSC any financial sponsorship at the Club and hijacked the Away Travel operation

Mr Scally has also wasted £6000 of Gillingham Football Club funds in trying to get the domain name transferred to him but was told by lawyers acting on my behalf that Gillingham Football Club has no intellectual rights to it whatsoever. Mr Scally has also falsely claimed on BBC Radio Kent that his lawyers have stopped me from using the domain name as well as demanding I pay £6000 for his abortive legal costs. I believe along with many other fans that the ban is tantamount to blackmail as he demands I hand over something I legally own or be banned.

Mr Scally has stated at Gills Fans Forums that I have deprived the club of income and I've made up to £600,000 from the website although he never backs these claims up with any kind of proof. Keith and myself were invited to join by the Rivals.net website network and we changed the website name to www.GillsConnect.com although I still use alanl@gillinghamfc.co.uk as my primary e-mail address with hundreds of contacts around the world who have this address in their e-mail address books. We also run a number of competitions and polls using the gillinghamfc.co.uk URL address.

It should also be pointed out the local Kent Messenger Group (largest provincial newspaper group in UK) of newspapers has been banned from the ground for almost 4 seasons as has the PFA who were also banned by Scally earlier this season.

Both the former Football League Chief Executive David Burns and former FA Chief Executive Adam Crozier tried to intervene in getting my ban lifted but were snubbed by Scally who stated he owned the Club and decides who is admitted to Priestfield Stadium.

My case has now been taken up by the government sponsored Independent Football Commission although yet again Mr Scally has stated he will not recognise any decisions in support of me.

Thankfully I have not missed a Gills away match this season and can only hope Mr Scally sees the error of his ways sooner rather than later.

Alan Liptrott, Gillingham

This letter does not necessarily reflect the views of the FFC

Pro Banning Sentiment

At Brighton 3 weeks ago, a supporter turned up drunk and in a seated area stood in front of me for most of the first half of the game continually shouting abusive remarks at Dave Jones (the Wolves manager), referee and any opposing player who had the ball. Although he was being watched by the stewards he was not ejected from the ground and many supporters including myself felt pretty annoyed by having our enjoyment of the game ruined. When I told him to shut up and sit down he seemed to think that he was only supporting the team and that I was being unreasonable. This was despite the fact that all of his shouting was abusive and not once did he constructively shout anything positive for Brighton. Quite frankly, if I had been unable to persuade him to go home at half time I would have had no hesitation in reporting him to the stewards and the club in order to have him ejected from future matches. He turned up at the last game, he behaved himself and he was fine.

Simon, B&H Albion

On balance, club owners should probably retain the rights of any property owner to exclude whom they wish. However, the banned person should be given a balancing right to have published prominently and repeatedly his side of the story.

Tarian, Gillingham

Length of bans

The questions regarding bans failed to address the issue of the length of bans. Some actions may require eviction, some a short ban, some a lengthy ban and some a life ban. It's not a case of one punishment for all crimes. As with prison sentences the length of time is paramount.

Rob, Leyton Orient

Safety or Liberty

Question 13, the safety of all is paramount. And the authorities in control of games and the surrounding areas should have this as their priority. Unfortunately in my experience the authorities all tend to be reactive not proactive. (Sorry for using statements like the last one, but couldn't think of a better way to describe it). I am sure quite a number of situations can be handled by the authorities stepping in earlier but when they do using a touch of common sense.

John B, Burnley