Dominic Lawson: Presidential Candidate

[IM Jack Rudd]

Roger - that is something I didn't know, but a quick google suggests that visually impaired seems to be the more widely accepted phrase now.

I believe that's the expression on the sign I've seen Peter Richmond wearing.

[Roger de Coverly]

I also don't believe that he is someone that the ECF should associate with.

With a grade of 175, he's in the top whatever that represents of club players. He's also written or co-authored at least two books about chess and presented radio programmes or interviews about chess. So the ECF is already associated with him.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I also don't believe that he is someone that the ECF should associate with.

With a grade of 175, he's in the top whatever that represents of club players. He's also written or co-authored at least two books about chess and presented radio programmes or interviews about chess. So the ECF is already associated with him.

That quite obviously isn't what Rob meant by the phrase. Nobody is saying the ECF shouldn't let him be an ordinary member of the organization and play in events it has overall responsibility for. And anyone can create chess stuff in the media without involving the ECF in any way. Rob's point was clearly with regard to involving him more deeply, such as electing him to the Board or awarding contracts to him.

[John Upham]

Following on from a couple of posts in which an author declared he felt required to Google (google?) items to discover what they meant:

I've googled "common sense", pragmatic and obfuscation and am now wiser.

I doubt if anyone is in the slightest bit interested.

[Roger de Coverly]

At a guess, I think it unlikely that a majority of the rather narrow voting membership would be inclined to reject DL as President, no matter how many politically incorrect statements the Streatham blog might be able to dig out of the woodwork.

At a more general level, sympathy for disabled rights would have more support had there been objections to the choice of Aberystwyth University as the venue for this year's British Championship Congress. Whilst the individual buildings complied with the requirements for level access, holding the event in a campus, both up a hill and at the side of hill is unfriendly to those of limited ability to climb slopes, or those with walking impairments or however you care to phrase it.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I do get confused by those who would tell me how to express my thoughts.

Having worked for 20+ years or so in a field where precise terminology is thought to be important of, I would say three things:

Terminology that is considered to be 'correct' varies across place and time. That’s not hypocrisy it’s just a recognition of a changing world.

Particular words/terms used are probably less important than the context in which those words are used. i.e. it is possible to use a term that is generally considered to be old-fashioned in a tone that is generally positive and It is also possible to use the 'correct' term in a tone that is hostile.

Finally, while I’m prepared to cut some slack on terminology used for people whose job/circumstances do not lead to an expectation that they should know and keep up with such things, there are some people for whom I think it’s rather important that they make an effort to get things right. A leader of an organisation striving to make itself more inclusive, say.

[Martyn Harris]

Why not ask some former employee of the Rotherham police or social services to be ECF president? Must be at least one of them sufficient politically correct to be worth associating with.

[David Sedgwick]

My official position, as the ECF Manager for Disabled Chess, is that I am concerned about this potential appointment.

Can you tell us something about the initiatives which you are taking to promote chess amongst people with disabilities?

And can you explain how you feel the election of Dominic Lawson as President would jeopardise those initiatives?

[John McKenna]

Dominic Lawson isn't just any Tory - assuming, of course, he really is one of some sort (voter, supporter, party member, etc.) - he is a high-profile polemicist and propagandist as controversial, in his own way, in the present national political and economic situation as Andrew Paulson was in the last year's chess politics situation.

Some would say that makes him an interesting choice and one very likely to focus more public attention on chess. If that attention is of the right kind all well and good, however, that won't prevent me having an uneasy feeling that he is not someone that I would automatically vote for if there were other candidates standing and I had a vote.

Do people agree with Martin Regan, though, in that DL is worth the risk in preference to NOTA - in the hope that the positives he can bring in office will outweigh any negatives he is perceived to have had prior to it? In other words, despite the (conservative) way in which he thinks and uses language in his workaday life, will he be prepared to ameliorate those in his activities as ECF President? (Something that both AP and CJ seemed to ultimately fail to do, at some cost.)

[Ian Thompson]

Do people agree with Martin Regan, though, in that DL is worth the risk in preference to NOTA - in the hope that the positives he can bring in office will outweigh any negatives he is perceived to have had prior to it? In other words, despite the (conservative) way in which he thinks and uses language in his workaday life, will he be prepared to ameliorate those in his activities as ECF President? (Something that both AP and CJ seemed to ultimately fail to do, at some cost.)

This is the job description for President:

Role:
 Head of the organisation

 Ambassador of organisation to represent it:
 at important public events,
 to other important organisations,
 to politicians and other distinguished persons,
 to sponsors and donors,
 to the media where appropriate.
 Leads at important internal events e.g. prize-giving and awards events.
 Chairs the general meetings of the Federation / (or may delegate as appropriate), and with the assistance of the Secretary, prepares the agenda and documentation for these meetings.
 Where appropriate provides guidance and support to the Board on setting goals and strategy

Qualities:
 Demonstrate credibility with key representatives of world outside chess, politicians.
 Demonstrates leadership, sound judgement and influencing skills.
 Strong contacts in the world outside chess and/or relevant experience in chess organisations.
 Ability to gain an understanding of the organisation and the chess world, nationally and internationally.
 Ability to take a strategic overview of the goals and challenges of the organisation and to develop a realistic view of the achievable.
 Demonstration of leadership and influencing skills.
 Ability to provide advice and guidance to the Board.
 Good public speaker.

His background seems very well suited to the role of ECF President to me. I've yet to read anything which leads to think he'd be a risky candidate to appoint.

[Michael Flatt]

Rather than leave the post vacant the ECF Board have taken the initiative to sound out some likely individuals with a high public profile who have an interest in supporting English Chess.

Given that the ECF have identified a media savvy individual willing to accept the Board's nomination and stand against NOTA in the election at the AGM, why is it necessary to denigrate and abuse him before he has even taken on the role?

Why were there no other nominations?

Is there any reason to believe that the prospective President and Board cannot work together?

[Rob Thompson]

Michael, I would love it if you could provide any evidence of him being abused on here - pointing out things he's previously said is hardly abuse.

[Michael Flatt]

I really don't see how the Board's nominee can be rejected if his detractors have no viable alternative candidate to propose in his place.

[Lewis Martin]

Roger - that is something I didn't know, but a quick google suggests that visually impaired seems to be the more widely accepted phrase now.

I believe that's the expression on the sign I've seen Peter Richmond wearing.

On Peter's badge it says: "Eyesight impaired" which is different from "visually impaired". Peter's disability is more a case of reduced view with regards to distance as is clearly implied by the phrase. He can still recognise objects within a certain range, and which thankfully means that this does not affect (too much) one of his passions - chess i.e. he can see the chess board in front of him. Visual impairment would imply more of a difficulty recognising objects.

Adding to this with regards to deafness, well at least as long as I have lived, I have not come across the term, 'hearing handicapped'. Chris K isn't much older than me, but he might know more. The trouble with "hearing impaired" is that it is rather broad, and is separate from, in the view of the deaf community at least, "deaf" and "hard of hearing". It is generally accepted of course though it has to be recognised that there are very different individuals with different levels of hearing disability. Myself, I am profoundly deaf, but am quite oral. So in my case, with regards to my aids for hearing, they are not a "cure", i.e. it does not mean that I am no longer "hearing impaired" or deaf, but the challenges for me to overcome is less than without them. It is far different to those who have reduced hearing over the years (hard of hearing), and use a hearing aid as a use for amplification. It is different for other disabilities, since it is harder, for example those with blindness to help 'reduce' that disability.

More relevant to the thread:

I agree with Jack with regards to concerns about Lawson's views of those with disabilities. It is not that I am against Lawson being appointed as such, more to be wary of his activities in this regard.

[Lewis Martin]

Jack Rudd wrote:

My official position, as the ECF Manager for Disabled Chess, is that I am concerned about this potential appointment.

What pomposity.Why not resign on principle then?

Martin, what a ridiculous statement. Jack has simply stated what his capacity is, with regards to the ECF and voiced his opinion. That is the formality in politics.

As for resigning, in my view, this is one of the most ridiculous things ever in politics, that someone giving up his job solves all the problems.

More relevant to Jack himself, why on earth should he? He has done nothing wrong.