Ok I was specifically talking about the point you made that :
"privately i.e. under the capacity of a private citizen and not as representing the club.
This is not a conflict of interest as they aren't conflicting here, the club could take measures to oppose racism (lol as its the essex nazis but anyway) and an individual within the club could hold racist views"
so assuming that West Ham do not want to be associated with C18 they may be able to sack him.
https://blogs.orrick.com/employment...-tweets-may-be-a-fair-dismissal-under-uk-law/
The EAT’s judgment in this case offers a very useful insight into how the employment courts in the UK will consider the relevant issues when it comes to decisions taken by employers in response to employee misconduct on social media sites. The decision has the potential to enable UK employers to take more robust action on social media infringements in the future as follows:
- Where a number of Game stores followed Mr Laws, his “private” Twitter account was not really private;
- Given the way Twitter operated (as opposed to Facebook, for example), there was no real distinction between work and personal use of the site – Mr Laws could have, but did not, create separate accounts for private and professional use;
- Mr Laws did not utilise the restriction settings on his Twitter account, so his tweets were publically available, not least of all to any Game store following him;
- Mr Laws knew that he was followed by Game stores when he tweeted and he did not address this – in fact he may have actively encouraged stores to follow him;
- An employee’s freedom of expression has to be balanced against the employer’s need to manage reputational risk in its employees’ tweets (and other social media communications);
- It was not necessary for Game to show that the tweets had caused offense, only that they were entitled to consider that they may cause offense;
- The offensive tweets did not need to be about the employer to justify the decision, and it was also not necessary for the Twitter account to identify the employer in question to justify the decision – what was important was that the tweets were offensive, and stores, employees and customers might have read them.