English Chess Forum

I think it's harsh you were treated that way. You put a lot of money into the champs and have the right to wear whatever t-shirt you want.

CJ - I think I should apologise. I don't agree with what you did today but you have done more for chess in 1 year than I have done in 50.

John Moore wrote:Actually the amount of money that CJ put in is irrelevant to the issue. Don't get me wrong, he made this tournament and he has done a great job as President. But he was representing the ECF - maybe it was handled badly but I wouldn't want, for example, my 9 year old receiving his trophy from a huge beaming man with a t-shirt saying that.

I was just making it clear, as you can see from the quote in my post and as Jonathan deduced, that it was not the t-shirt per se that was the issue. It was the wording on the t-shirt that is the 'problem'.

You don't want your son to know that some people are gay?

Hi Simon - don't have a problem with that at all. Might be slightly worried about the press photos, though.

Mark Howitt wrote:I think it's harsh you were treated that way. You put a lot of money into the champs and have the right to wear whatever t-shirt you want.

Just to summarise Mark,

You are OK with gays who have put money in, but not Indians, where do you stand with gay Indians?

Before you answer, I am just kidding you....please do not go off on one!

David Robertson wrote: ..........

If one is content to have a President such as CJ, then one buys the whole package. One cannot cherry-pick the PR & fund-raising razzle-dazzle but censor the gay rights activist. Why would anyone do such a thing, and be regarded as sane?

.........

As it happens, I think CJ's apparel was inappropriate to the occasion. However, I think Prof Richardson's comment sums it up exactly: we can't have it both ways.

And it is a situation which someone far more senior than the arbiters should have seen coming, and addressed by conversations with CJ far earlier than the morning of the prizegiving.

Assuming that CJ's statement is a correct statement of all material facts I fear that resignations should be expected from one or more of the control team or congress management. Not because their views or the expression of them are necessarily wrong; but through the sheer bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time when they had to make a judgment call and, in my view, getting it wrong. And the ECF Director responsible for the Congress should then consider their position.

PB

Gay Indians are just cowboys!

Paul, please could you explain to me how resignations would help anything? Perhaps an apology is called for, but there are few enough people willing to do anything to begin with even before we start forcing the resignations of some of them.

I'm grateful for CJ posting directly.

I think it is obvious who the arbiter was, I would hope the ECF will further clarify the facts. I think it makes some difference whether she objected on grounds of personal morality, was anticipating complaints, or had received complaints.

However well she acted, I think like Paul Buswell a senior ECF official ought to have responsibility for such a decision, not an arbiter. We had quite a heated discussion touching on who was responsibly for the British in the SCA coaching thread too.

I realise people are enormously sensitive to influence on their children. But given the Prime Minister has gone so far as to apologise for clause 28, I though we had moved on.

I agree with that, too. Bloody hell,
.

Rob Thompson wrote:Paul, please could you explain to me how resignations would help anything? Perhaps an apology is called for, but there are few enough people willing to do anything to begin with even before we start forcing the resignations of some of them.

Because sometimes apology is not enough. (Speaking generally, our society is too ready to believe that saying sorry exculpates everything).

And because I think it is highly desirable to keep CJ on board, and that may be the price the ECF has to pay.

PB

Actually, I just talked to my wife and she said they did what!! She works in social care and can't believe it.

Paul Buswell wrote:And because I think it is highly desirable to keep CJ on board, and that may be the price the ECF has to pay.

Slightly complicated by the unclear accountability.

I wonder how aware the Director of Home Chess is even now. I was going to enter the Golders Green rapid today, but decided to have a lie in and watch the playoff instead.

I agree that if we can keep CJ, that will be the best thing.

Sorry Warren - don't get the bit about people who do not have a day off.