Accusation against Alejandro Ramirez

[Matt Bridgeman]

As far as coaches are concerned, the ECF already operates a list of registered coaches, each of whom has had to submit an Enhanced DBS check. In other words, anyone with a past record suggesting he or she is a risk to children or other vulnerable people shouldn't be on the list. Of course, possession of a clear past record isn't a total guarantee - some perpetrators aren't caught for a long time so it's still caveat emptor - but it's probably as much as the ECF can reasonably be expected to do. There are, of course, plenty of entirely respectable coaches who for one reason or another choose not to register so their absence from the list isn't necessarily a negative factor but it's something parents should bear in mind.

We do know this stuff. But on the flip-side both Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris would have passed a DBS check. These cases are about historical unreported matters that are coming to a head now. It’s more about what the ECF is going to do about reports coming to them, and how much more they can do to protect people if they are properly following up on information Sabrina (and others) are willing to provide.

Pete - Unless you know more than I do, which I readily admit is possible, the assertion that "Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris would have passed a DBS check" requires qualification. I've no reason to doubt that they would have passed the basic DBS check, as neither appear to have had relevant criminal convictions, but my understanding is that the enhanced DBS check goes deeper than this (otherwise there would be no point in having an enhanced check) and for example accesses the social services database to check for such items as allegations of domestic violence or other relevant matters which are suspicious but did not lead to prosecution. Whether this would have flagged anything up for Messrs Saville and Harris I don't know. This is slightly off topic but, in the context of coaches, it's important to know what an enhanced check implies.

My understanding is you could miss a Saville or a Harris still, despite improvements because they didn’t have convictions, cautions, penalties etc. And the fallback after that is other information held by police. Now there might have been police intel on Saville, but I think Harris was more or less a blank slate. So if organisations can do their bit by perhaps not waving through potential predators into England teams or into coaching positions, it can only be helpful from a safe guarding point of view.

[Paul Cooksey]

Matt - is your concern with the policy or its application?

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/safegua ... en-policy/

[Matt Bridgeman]

Matt - is your concern with the policy or its application?

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/safegua ... en-policy/

I think Aga is doing great things. And is definitely he right person for the job. I’m curious in regards to application if the person who shall not be named just continues to be selected like nothing has happened? Putting some sort of line under that one might be a healthy start.

[Paul Cooksey]

Sabrina shared allegations about several people. I do not know who all the individuals are, and Sabrina asked us not to speculate. So I am not sure who Matt means.

But if the safeguarding officers have received complaints identifying an individual as a risk, I would expect them to act as the policy requires. If there is reason to believe the safeguarding officers are not doing their job, that is extremely serious. But I don't think I can ask them to publicly share proof.

Sabrina has said she lacks confidence in the ECF and I can see why that would concern people. But Aga's response gave me reassurance the ECF does take safeguarding seriously.

[Chris Goodall]

So if organisations can do their bit by perhaps not waving through potential predators into England teams or into coaching positions, it can only be helpful from a safe guarding point of view.

I'm absolutely certain that in 20-30 years' time, we will all be hounding such of the current ECF officers as are still alive, to explain why as of September 8th 2023 they still hadn't handed out lifetime bans to everyone referred to in Sabrina's piece. That we have no idea who those people are is no excuse. If there is a deliberate effort by all parties involved to prevent the names getting out, it only proves that the ECF must be sitting on the allegations and doing nothing. You can't be a national governing body and just not know these things. That would imply that we armchair commentators were in just as good a position as the ECF to Do Something, and that would make us feel bad.

[John Moore]

Sabrina shared allegations about several people. I do not know who all the individuals are, and Sabrina asked us not to speculate. So I am not sure who Matt means.

But if the safeguarding officers have received complaints identifying an individual as a risk, I would expect them to act as the policy requires. If there is reason to believe the safeguarding officers are not doing their job, that is extremely serious. But I don't think I can ask them to publicly share proof.

Sabrina has said she lacks confidence in the ECF and I can see why that would concern people. But Aga's response gave me reassurance the ECF does take safeguarding seriously.

A remarkably sensible post - not, Paul, that I mean your posts aren't always sensible!

[IM Jack Rudd]

The range of what the ECF can do if the names are not made public is quite limited; what it can do if the names are made public is slightly more extensive.

[Roger Lancaster]

The range of what the ECF can do if the names are not made public is quite limited; what it can do if the names are made public is slightly more extensive.

Obvious and true. In fact, without names, there's not too much the police can do either.

[Carl Hibbard]

A couple of silly name calling comments were also removed.

[Chris Goodall]

Thanks Carl It's no mean feat keeping on top of a thread like this while you know people on and off the forum are scouring it for juicy drama. I've deleted the line about male ECF directors as it obscured the actual point.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"But Aga's response gave me reassurance the ECF does take safeguarding seriously."

Hopefully, but it is a bit of a "Procedures are in place" statement, same as on cheating and transgender issues. If you actually ask ECF details, (e.g., what are you doing?), you get no answer. Well, ok, I got no useful answer, maybe other people do.

As for junior organizers, I have heard some horror stories over the years, especially along the lines of,
"I will coach your talented child",
"Very kind of you, but we already have GM X."

At which stage, the talented child gets omitted from the team, or abused in print, or both.

I note that Sabrina thought everyone was anti-her here, which is not the case. I suspect it was more that most people had no idea what to say. Her complaints must be taken seriously by appropriate authorities.

[Mick Norris]

I don't think Sabrina thinks that, and I think she's said so on here; it must be immensely difficult for her; I can only hope that she will be ok

I think we can see from Spanish football, that even actual footage of an incident isn't enough for some, so a bit less "where's the evidence" and a bit more support for Sabrina and the others who have suffered would be good

[Ian Thompson]

I note that Sabrina thought everyone was anti-her here, which is not the case.

I don't think Sabrina thinks that, and I think she's said so on here;

She has said on Twitter twice:

there are threads on the English Chess Forum discussing the sexual assaults and the reactions are as follows:

- People calling me a liar
- People saying “what’s the big deal?”
- People saying it’s not their issue if men are bad
- People generally being disgusting

If there are examples of all of those, I'd like to see quotes because I can't see them all. She didn't mention any supportive comments on here which I think far outnumber the negative comments.

She's also said:

The second time (she posted), the moderator locked the thread after my post

which is very misleading when the moderator said the thread was locked until he'd had time to deal with someone else's inappropriate post.

To me, she does seem to be trying to paint a picture that everyone's against her when that's not the case.

[Chris Goodall]

"But Aga's response gave me reassurance the ECF does take safeguarding seriously."

Hopefully, but it is a bit of a "Procedures are in place" statement, same as on cheating and transgender issues. If you actually ask ECF details, (e.g., what are you doing?), you get no answer. Well, ok, I got no useful answer, maybe other people do.

I expect it's a good thing that they don't spell out exactly what they're doing on safeguarding (or cheating), because although you and I have innocent reasons for asking, it's also the first question that an abuser (or cheater) would ask them.

a bit less "where's the evidence" and a bit more support for Sabrina and the others who have suffered would be good

Mick, zero people have said "where's the evidence". It's not good for morale to invent more disbelief than actually exists. Even if you feel more virtuous as a lone voice in the wilderness saying the right thing, than as part of the consensus.

To me, she does seem to be trying to paint a picture that everyone's against her when that's not the case.

I don't blame her for genuinely believing that the average person is against her, when people who are for her keep telling her that. And then the advice she'll give to other survivors is "everyone will be against you", and it'll become a trapped prior.

[J T Melsom]

Ian,

Sabrina is writing about serious issues and profoundly unpleasant experiences. Her posts are not wildly inaccurate, and any exaggeration is understandable behaviour in the context of what she has endured. I understand that in some instances it is important to correct things, but I'm not sure this is one, and I doubt it will be seen as supportive by Sabrina. Perhaps if you wish to comment further it would be better to focus on the bigger picture.