Tournament dispute from several years ago

[Kevin Thurlow]

Post removed in protest at censorship by Forum managers.

The post was relevant to its former home, but obviously someone found it uncomfortable reading!

[Roger de Coverly]

"A sub-committee (comprising A McFarlane, D Welch and R Furness) was set up and many months later it produced a report, saying the arbiter had done nothing wrong.

Although not a long time by the standards of some other chess disputes, this was nearly twenty years ago.

There's a report about the sub-committee report, which may or may not be considered reliable at
http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/Bulletin1994-5.docx
The initial dispute may have been over whether a player has the right to talk to a group of friends between moves. I would say not because of the danger of electronic assistance (not an issue in 1994), and I would hope an arbiter would uphold this.

Any additional discussion on this is best moved to chess history.

[Louise Sinclair]

I'm still awaiting an apology from A McFarlane and co but chess history demonstrates the likeihood being very remote.
Louise

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Rogers is correct. That one is not really needed in this thread"

I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in approach - as you very well know. I have no intention in going over the previous dispute again.

Roger - moves were being discussed...

[Bill Porter]

I'm still awaiting an apology from A McFarlane and co......

I'm still awaiting the minutes and a decision concerning the 25th November 2009 North Circular Chess League appeal ( at which you were an appeal committee member ) concerning points deducted from Enfield chess club after secret evidence was given to the secretary.

...... but chess history demonstrates the likeihood being very remote.
Louise

[Louise Sinclair]

Secret evidence? I shal refer this to my husband the NCCL Secretary as I know of no "secret evidence" and you did not attend the comitee meeting despite being invited although other members of your club were in attendence ......

[Carl Hibbard]

Post removed in protest at censorship by Forum managers.

The post was relevant to its former home, but obviously someone found it uncomfortable reading!

There was no censorship just a move into it's own thread since as you say a little further down the two are unrelated, you were also referring to someone who is sadly no longer with us and I felt uncomfortable with that element of your post

Your original post was left intact though

[Alex McFarlane]

For clarification - I made no protest. I do agree that it is better placed in its own thread.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"There was no censorship just a move into it's own thread since as you say a little further down the two are unrelated, you were also referring to someone who is sadly no longer with us and we felt uncomfortable with that element of your post"

Really?

I made no derogatory comments about any deceased person and your insinuation that I did so is intolerable. It is an immediate requirement that you apologise for your false accusation and/or delete it.

[Bill Porter]

Secret evidence? I shal refer this to my husband the NCCL Secretary as I know of no "secret evidence" .......

I made an unwarranted assumption in referring to "secret evidence" : I cannot recall any indications apart from your husband the NCCL Secretary's references to it that such evidence exists.



I should have said that your husband the NCCL Secretary stated that Barking had made some sort of complaint concerning an incident where a mobile phone or other device, possibly one of those phones possessed by Barking and Enfield match players, may have made a sound.

Your husband the NCCL Secretary in many of his statements referred to information which he apparently obtained in writing or in conversation with persons who witnessed or heard about this. (My understanding is that the NCCL considers hearsay evidence valid.)

However, statements by your husband the NCCL Secretary describing what he ( I assumed until today ) believed to be evidence combined with a refusal to produce any of that evidence is not generally regarded as proof that evidence exists.

Therefor, if your husband the NCCL Secretary clarifies this matter by stating publicly that the evidence to which he referred does not exist, I will withdraw my reference to "secret evidence" with an appropriate apology.

Of course, this is irrelevant to that long ago final appeal, as until today no official of the NCCL has claimed this evidence did not exist.

and you did not attend the comitee meeting despite being invited although other members of your club were in attendence ......

As Enfield has never been provided with any evidence against it, I felt that attending the appeal was pointless.

The fact that much of Enfield's defense was based on the assumption that the evidence to which your husband referred actually existed and also that the appeal committee's final decision is taking years rather than days confirms the correctness of that decision.

[Roger de Coverly]

He who must not be criticised or mocked is weighing in.
http://stevegiddinschessblog.wordpress.com/

[Ian Kingston]

He who must not be criticised or mocked is weighing in.
http://stevegiddinschessblog.wordpress.com/

The irony of someone who allows no comment on his blog posts complaining about a 'Censor-in-Chief' is surely not lost upon the denizens of the termite colony.

[Carl Hibbard]

I made no derogatory comments about any deceased person and your insinuation that I did so is intolerable. It is an immediate requirement that you apologise for your false accusation and/or delete it.

Please just read again what I posted Kevin as I never suggested anything of the kind, I said I was uncomfortable with the raising of an old dispute

I am stepping back and asking Jack and Sean for their comments on the matter and am happy to be moderated myself if that is the case

[Carl Hibbard]

The irony of someone who allows no comment on his blog posts complaining about a 'Censor-in-Chief' is surely not lost upon the denizens of the termite colony.

It's a shame but at least we do allow comments Mr. Giddins

[Carl Hibbard]

Since I am the 'Devil' according to Steve Giddins should I be allowed to post a reply with no comments permitted