CJ Banned?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

As I said, the ECF officials that would be responding to this are probably busy doing other stuff at the moment. Just because this broke on Twitter, while the playoff is going on, doesn't mean it isn't best to wait until the full story emerges.

[Ian Kingston]

One of CJ's tweets from yesterday:

Tomorrow I'm presenting the prizes at the Darwin Strategic British Chess Championships and I'll be proud to wear my @stonewalluk t-shirt!

[Jonathan Rogers]

Appalled though I am by the story, the default assumption that RDK is spouting rubbish should remain. It's not quite my field but I'd like to know which "professor at a leading university" has advised him on a Saturday morning that an offence has been committed here. The Equality Act does not create criminal offences, so far as I know, and the nearest one I can think of - intentionnaly stirring up hatred based on sexual orientation - surely does not apply to these facts.

[Jonathan Bryant]

[btw. I do hope this is not time for an intervention from Mark Howitt, renowned equal rights campaigner of these boards.]

To be fair, unless young master Howitt given that he won't have the opportunity to use the phrase "should go back to their own country", we can probably expect that he won't get involved.

I think you may have missed some of his Paleolithic views on gender and sexuality, which, to be fair, is probably beneficial to your state of mind.

Ick. Well I shan't search for them. But I will go and edit my last post so it makes a bit more sense.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Appalled though I am by the story, the default assumption that RDK is spouting rubbish should remain.

CJ's latest tweet:-

"I've worn this t-shirt regularly. There's no dress code so do what you want - I thought chess was supposed to be educational and inclusive!"


http://twitter.com/#!/cjdemooi/status/99787815059075072



Which is not to say that your later point about the Saturday morning 'leading professor' is invalid!

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

I'm surprised CJ didn't go for the obvious compromise.

[Paul McKeown]

The argument that I'm hearing is that when someone is representing an organisation in an official capacity, then they should not be seen to be promoting another organisation when doing so - there is the possibility of a conflict of interest.

A rather poor statement of objection if true. What if his tee shirt had carried advertising for Save the Children, would the ECF have objected to that, too? Will this stance be extended to what competitors wear, too?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I'm surprised CJ didn't go for the obvious compromise.

Tsk. Top button undone there. (Right, I'm going to watch the chess and ignore this thread!)

[Ben Purton]

His twitter suggests that it is the ECF and not the venue. Considering he points to "Chess" and not Ponds Forge or whatever the venue is called.

If this is the case, its a great shame.

[Jonathan Rogers]

It's RDK's "call the police" and "I've spoken to a leading law professor, just this moment" business which I distrust.

Perhaps because I think of RDK keeping the company of libel lawyers and copyright lawyers and company lawyers rather than academic lawyers ....

[JustinHorton]

I agree we should wait before some actual facts emerge before making any assumptions. But it would be good to know some facts pretty soon.

[Ben Purton]

I think their is a difference between legality and morality regarding such issues. You might very well be legally allowed to ban someone for something but does not make it a fair judgement in the most part.

[Gavin Strachan]

Some committee must have deemed it inappropriate to use the prize giving a vehicle to advertise the charity. The decsision would also have been made quickly so perhaps not a huge amount of time to consider the permitations.

[Ian Kingston]

The argument that I'm hearing is that when someone is representing an organisation in an official capacity, then they should not be seen to be promoting another organisation when doing so - there is the possibility of a conflict of interest.

A rather poor statement of objection if true. What if his tee shirt had carried advertising for Save the Children, would the ECF have objected to that, too? Will this stance be extended to what competitors wear, too?

I agree with you, and made the same point in the very next sentence. The only reason for mentioning it was to play Devil's Advocate briefly. I should perhaps clarify that the argument was made to me by someone entirely unconnected to the chess world and who could reasonably be said to have no interest in the situation.

[LozCooper]

I'm not sure this can be viewed as an ECF decision when board members haven't been consulted. I can only assume it was an organiser decision made at the venue.