CJ Banned?

[E Michael White]

Well here's some new points.

All events which offer Norm possibilities have an automatic dress code under FIDE rules unless a local code applies. The statement is :-

• All the participants should be dressed in a suitable manner

Is there a difference between players and participants ?
Does suitable have a different meaning for different participants ?

The Chief arbiters duties are stated to include:-

• During the event he also has to keep the record of each round, to ....., to ensure order in the playing venue ...

Does that include responsibility for the prizegiving ceremony?

The chief arbiter was stated in the programme as being Alex MacFarlane and the event is run as an ECF event influenced by the BICC.
Does this mean that other ECF board officials who may have been present are powerless to act as the responsibility is down to the CA ?

Should the ECF look at the relationship between the Chess Arbiters Association and the ECF in the way that the ECF delegate arbiting matters to the CAA ?

[Carl Hibbard]

Concur. I think we are repeating the same points and responses now.

I will close this thread shortly if we keep repeating ourselves

[IM Jack Rudd]

Responsibility for the British Championships rests with the Manager of the British Championships, which is a post currently shared by David Welch and Alex Macfarlane. Said post reports to the Director of Home Chess, currently Adam Raoof. Except in cases like this, where the situation cannot be resolved at the level of the Manager himself, things do not usually escalate to the level of the relevant Director.

[PaulTalbot]

Well I vote that the ECF accept CJ's resignation. I think it's quite clear from both his and Lara's posts that CJ engineered the whole thing for publicity purposes. If that's not true then why did he not accept the compromise situation of presenting prizes to adults only. IMO CJ wore the T shirt purposely and in the full knowledge that one of two things would almost certainly happen: either,

1) no-one would say anything and CJ would have lots of photos taken getting lots of publicity for his pressure group, or,
2) someone would say something and CJ could then react as he did do and also get lots of publicity for his pressure group.

If neither of those things is true then why did CJ run straight to the media? If he really had the best interest of the ECF at heart he would have reacted quietly and in a dignified way, and no-one would have been any the wiser. IMO CJ has abused his position by using the ECF as a platform for publicity for stonewall. I think that is something he will do again if given the chance, so in fact, I don't think he should resign, I think he should be sacked.

[E Michael White]

Responsibility for the British Championships rests with the Manager of the British Championships, which is a post currently shared by David Welch and Alex Macfarlane. Said post reports to the Director of Home Chess, currently Adam Raoof. Except in cases like this, where the situation cannot be resolved at the level of the Manager himself, things do not usually escalate to the level of the relevant Director.

I would suggest the responsibility of the Director of Home Chess relates only to after the event duties ie picking up the pieces, corrective actions and issue of any apologies. During the championship the buck stops with the chief arbiter according to the FIDE rules.

The Manager of the British Championship is only half Alex Macfarlane who is in addition the chief arbiter (CA) for the event. David Welch would assume the responsibility of CO ( chief organiser) should there be an appeal against any decision taken by Alex MacFarlane.

All this is standard FIDE stuff in the rules.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Well I vote that the ECF accept CJ's resignation. I think it's quite clear from both his and Lara's posts that CJ engineered the whole thing for publicity purposes. If that's not true then why did he not accept the compromise situation of presenting prizes to adults only. IMO CJ wore the T shirt purposely and in the full knowledge that one of two things would almost certainly happen: either,

1) no-one would say anything and CJ would have lots of photos taken getting lots of publicity for his pressure group, or,
2) someone would say something and CJ could then react as he did do and also get lots of publicity for his pressure group.

If neither of those things is true then why did CJ run straight to the media? If he really had the best interest of the ECF at heart he would have reacted quietly and in a dignified way, and no-one would have been any the wiser. IMO CJ has abused his position by using the ECF as a platform for publicity for stonewall. I think that is something he will do again if given the chance, so in fact, I don't think he should resign, I think he should be sacked.

I think you are attributing motives that cannot be proven. It is more likely, in my view, that those involved over-reacted, rather than doing things purposefully as you are saying (though I am not 100% sure what the motives of, er, other tweeters, were in all this). It could all have been handled better, but any sacking or acceptance of resignation (and that refers to all those involved) will compound the situation, not help move things forward.

[JustinHorton]

If that's not true then why did he not accept the compromise situation of presenting prizes to adults only

Conceivably, because he didn't feel he needed to be hidden from the juniors.

[John Wright]

Imagine you are a kid who gets bullied.
You win an event at the British.
Then you are pictured with a man in a t-shirt saying it is OK to be gay. It's probably reproduced in your local paper.
Will the bullying stop?

[John Moore]

Time for Paul C

[Paul Cooksey]

While I don't blame John Wright for raising a concern, I do feel a bit like I am trapped in Groundhog day.

Here is the link again:Stonewall Slogan. This is an anti-bullying campaign created in collaboration with a government department and distributed to all secondary schools.

I suspect any publicity is unwelcome to bullied children. But it shouldn't be.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

While I don't blame John Wright for raising a concern, I do feel a bit like I am trapped in Groundhog day.

Here is the link again:Stonewall Slogan. This is an anti-bullying campaign created in collaboration with a government department and distributed to all secondary schools.

I suspect any publicity is unwelcome to bullied children. But it shouldn't be.

But the British Chess Championships isn't a secondary school. I believe it also includes children of primary school age, who as I've pointed out elsewhere may be less able to parse what the slogan is saying. Is there an equivalent T-shirt and campaign and slogan for primary schools?

[Andy Howie]

Which is fine but it was not distributed to Primary Schools. I believe some of the prizes were for Primary School kids?

[John Wright]

While I don't blame John Wright for raising a concern, I do feel a bit like I am trapped in Groundhog day.

Here is the link again:Stonewall Slogan. This is an anti-bullying campaign created in collaboration with a government department and distributed to all secondary schools.

I suspect any publicity is unwelcome to bullied children. But it shouldn't be.

Yes, but bullies don't always respond how you want them to. Would you walk into a lion enclosure with a t-shirt asking not to be eaten?

The t-shirt is counterproductive, in my opinion.

I imagine there were adult prize winners who also would prefer not to be pictured next to that t-shirt.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I imagine there were adult prize winners who also would prefer not to be pictured next to that t-shirt.

That's different. Adults can speak up for themselves.

[John Wright]

I imagine there were adult prize winners who also would prefer not to be pictured next to that t-shirt.

That's different. Adults can speak up for themselves.

Not all. Some would not want to make a fuss and ask the president to stay out of the picture.