Ho-Hum

[Neil Graham]

I see we're now debarred from discussing a matter that's appeared in The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Metro, The London Evening Standard and so on, and so on ...... Possibly the postings of Paul Dupre who promises to splash other matters across the four corners of the earth hasn't helped.

So let's get on with important items such as http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=5821

[Jonathan Bryant]

I see we're now debarred from discussing a matter that's appeared in The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Metro, The London Evening Standard and so on, and so on ....

For what it's worth, I share your disappointment. There was certainly one post that clearly needed to be binned, but the rest I thought was reasonable and even important.

At the same time, I understand the caution and perhaps a feeling of weariness at the prospect of having to pay very close attention to a thread just in case of something inappropriate being said.

Still, I do think there should be *somewhere* that this sort of thing can be discussed.

[Carl Hibbard]

At the same time, I understand the caution and perhaps a feeling of weariness at the prospect of having to pay very close attention to a thread just in case of something inappropriate being said.

I was unsure but yes you are right, having received multiple complaints and not being home until Sunday I was a little short on options.

[Carl Hibbard]

I see we're now debarred from discussing a matter that's appeared in The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Metro, The London Evening Standard and so on, and so on

I probably made a mistake on this one

[Matthew Turner]

To be fair to Carl the articles in the Mail and Metro don't allow comments either, with the Mail citing 'legal reasons'. Potentially this is a story of interest/importance to the chess community so perhaps it is worth just having a link to the Daily Mail story without comments.

[Neil Graham]

To be fair to Carl the articles in the Mail and Metro don't allow comments either, with the Mail citing 'legal reasons'. Potentially this is a story of interest/importance to the chess community so perhaps it is worth just having a link to the Daily Mail story without comments.

Thank you Matthew and Carl for your comments. It is unfortunate that what were personal comments were included in the previous thread.
I agree that a link to the story plus the statement issued should be on site. Perhaps the matter can then be locked - at least until we hear the outcome at the end of the month.

[Carl Hibbard]

Add it then please iPhone access is a bit limited.

[Neil Graham]

Add it then please iPhone access is a bit limited.

Done - Daily Mail Story; Response

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ppers.html

http://www.ccfworld.com/response_to_media_stories.htm

[Roger de Coverly]

at least until we hear the outcome at the end of the month.

Rereading what was said in the articles, October was just the end of the police bail. Presumably then, either the whole matter is dropped, the bail is rolled forward or charges are announced. Perhaps the current publicity is a police ploy to see if there are any more complainants perhaps in connection with other persons and the religious beliefs alluded to in the articles.

[Neil Graham]

at least until we hear the outcome at the end of the month.

Rereading what was said in the articles, October was just the end of the police bail. Presumably then, either the whole matter is dropped, the bail is rolled forward or charges are announced. Perhaps the current publicity is a police ploy to see if there are any more complainants perhaps in connection with other persons and the religious beliefs alluded to in the articles.

Without wishing in disinter the whole of the last thread, this story was first published in the local newspaper as "exclusive". In these circumstances the local reporters often sell stories on to the national dailies. There have been several cases recently of police and public servants being dealt with for revealing confidential items for money to the press; the police will issue no official statement until after a court case. Bailing someone who has been arrested is a common occurrence whilst enquiries continue; at the end of October provided there isn't a further bailing, the CPS will make a decision either to charge or to take no further action as suggested above.

[David Sedgwick]

... this story was first published in the local newspaper as "exclusive".

It was indeed so described.

However, it was a somewhat inaccurate claim, as the story appeared on the website of the other local newspaper on the preceding day.

[IM Jack Rudd]

<Moderator Hat>
Friendly little "our lawyers advised this trope"-style post:

We would like to make two points clear:

1) A person's arrest for an offence does not, in and of itself, mean he or she has committed that offence.
2) A person's arrest or conviction for an offence does not, in and of itself, mean his or her reputation can be impugned without consequence in other matters.
</Moderator Hat>

[Paul Dupré]

1) A person's arrest for an offence does not, in and of itself, mean he or she has committed that offence.

You're so naive.

2) A person's arrest or conviction for an offence does not, in and of itself, mean his or her reputation can be impugned without consequence in other matters.

Completely wrong, if he is found guilty. It won't be too soon.

[Carl Hibbard]

I am here again now.

[Paul Dupré]

I am here again now.

So, what are you the US Government, trying to stop the truth about the fake moon landings getting out.