CJ Banned?

[John Moore]

I hope CJ will recover from this - I also hope he will carry on. Just remember we are all behind you here.

[Roger de Coverly]

The story has made the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/au ... hts-tshirt

[James Byrne]

The story has made the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/au ... hts-tshirt

Just the type of negativity publicity Chess needs.

Whilst I agree completely with CJ's stance on this (it's the year 2011 for gods sake), in future I think it would be best not to mix politics with Chess.

[Paul Cooksey]

The story has made the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/au ... hts-tshirt

Not so bad, although not the most sensationalist newspaper, and I am now fretting about someone sharpening their pen for an opinion piece.

Pleased to see a moderate quote from Leonard Barden. The "I'm as surprised as you are" approach seems sensible.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The story has made the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/au ... hts-tshirt

Actually, the journalist made a slip by saying:

"No one from the ECF or the Sheffield venue was available for comment."

Some would say that the ECF has commented, in the sense that the president of the English Chess Federation has given his opinion on the matter. It is not clear whether CJ's quotes are as president of the ECF or as an individual. Normally, when the president of an organisation has a problem with how something happened at an event run by the organisation they are president of, they go through internal channels to sort it out. Not a public spat on Twitter and in the papers.

In my view, the prize-giving should have been delayed until this was sorted and someone with responsibility to make a decision was contacted. Though it is easy to say that with hindsight. It should definitely have been raised much earlier than just a few minutes beforehand - you can't sort out a disagreement like that in just a few minutes.

[Peter Constantinou]

I'd just like to also express my thanks to CJ for his work and investment in an excellent tournament and I hope that this absurd insult doesn't overshadow that achievement.

One can only suppose that objecting to his public support for Stonewall is an embarassing and ironic reminder of their continuing contemporary necessity...

[David Robertson]

Today is Gay Pride Day for heaven's sake. My entire family, wife & three grown kids, have just left for the local parade.

I've been searching for this, and it appear to be a local Liverpool event:
http://www.liverpoolpride.co.uk/
I know you said it was a local parade, but the impression I got from your post was that the "Day" was a national one (which would have been of some relevance)

Yes, I meant it to be read as a national 'Gay Pride Day' because that is what I thought it was. I did check beforehand via Google, clearly not adequately from what you say, but enough to notice that Brighton has a 'Gay Pride Week' starting today. From both events, I extrapolated... Thanks for the correction.

Of CJ's statement & events as described, as I've said already, we take CJ de Mooi as he is because he isn't offering a diluted version of himself. If the ECF would prefer some bluff duffer in a nice blazer with a large paunch to dish out the prizes, they'll need to look elsewhere. There's no shortage.

But if, as it appears, senior ECF officials were relaxed about matters (good to hear!), it is quite extraordinary that one individual arbiter should be in a position to cause this level of shambles. Surely someone in authority should have got a grip before this spooled out of control.

As for the wording on the tee-shirt, it wouldn't be out-of-place in a modern primary school classroom. Indeed Stonewall is regarded as the Gay establishment, the responsible and sober wing of the gay movement.

Storm-in-a-tee-shirt, definitely. But an easily avoided distraction from the ECF's biggest moment of the year because the relevant parties failed to apply some professionalism and commonsense to matters.

PS
@ Paul Buswell - this Prof Richardson? Do I know him?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

What I don't get is why CJ didn't just pull rank and say "Don't be silly, I'm the ECF President and have been asked to present the prizes". Also, I don't get the continued reference to arbiters. Surely it is the congress organisers that are responsible for the prize-giving, not the arbiters? Or are the organisers and arbiters the same people? Also, is it the organisers that decide on and invite people to give prizes, or is it the ECF that tells the organisers that they've found XYZ to present prizes? It's probably rather ad-hoc with it not being clear who is responsible for what. If, though, there are clear lines of responsibility, whose responsibility was this?

[Paul Cooksey]

PS @ Paul Buswell - this Prof Richardson? Do I know him?

Maybe not a him at all, but the mystery woman who offered instant legal advice to the Times' esteemed correspondent?

[David Robertson]

No. I think Paul just made a slip of the keyboard - in the manner of 'Paul Boswell' or similar

[Nick Thomas]

an arbiter approached me saying she had "personal reservations"

I think it is important to note that the female arbiter simply expressed a personal view to CJ. The decision to bar him from presenting to children was apparently taken out of her hands by someone more senior or at least diluted by two other opinions. It is probably therefore not appropriate to blame her for this strange decision. The senior person present certainly has some explaining to do though.

[Paul Cooksey]

No. I think Paul just made a slip of the keyboard - in the manner of 'Paul Boswell' or similar

The necessity to append a smiley to my jokes is a sad reflection on their quality.

[PaulTalbot]

Surely the idea is that an arbiter might want to prevent someone from advertising a gambling website, to take one not particularly random example - but which sane arbiter/Congress manager would want to prevent anyone from giving some relatively inconsequential support to a charity (which almost by definition is accepted to be a good cause)?

Stonewall may have charitable status but they are actually a pressure group; and I personally wouldn't support them for a gold pig. They are also a bunch of bullies and cowards. They 'picked on' and 'set up' a Christian couple running a guest house because they had a policy of not allowing non married couples to share a double room. This wasn't an 'anti-gay' policy; it applied equally to any man and woman who weren't married, but stonewall had to make an issue of it and take them to court. I'd bet a pound to a penny stonewall wouldn't pick on a muslim hotel and take a muslim couple to court. Go on stonewall, prove me wrong, I dare you!

Re the arbiter who objected to CJ's 'T' shirt, well good for you. I fully agree and support you. If CJ has done wonders for chess over the last year then I congratulate him and thank him for his efforts, but that doesn't mean he is right on this; and if he thinks he is right then I challenge him to wear the shirt on Eggheads. There is no way that will happen because the television company wouldn't allow it, and if it's wrong for television then it's wrong for the ECF. So there you are CJ, if there is nothing wrong with what you were going to do then wear the shirt on Eggheads.

[Paul Buswell]

PS
@ Paul Buswell - this Prof Richardson? Do I know him?

A rose by any other name...

[JustinHorton]

There is no way that will happen because the television company wouldn't allow it

Eh?

What makes you think so?

Do you think there are no openly gay people on television?