English Chess Forum

You can validly agree that you will not have a legal claim which, but for the agreement, you would have had. There are certain exceptions, but I doubt that any of them are relevant here.

In this case the risk is not just to those who choose to take it. Those who contract Covid are a danger to others. So it is for society, not the individual, to assess whether the risk presented by an activity is acceptable. If the risk involved in going to a pub or restaurant is acceptable, I agree ...

While I in no way minimise the risks of covid, I don't get why some try to depict chess as an extremely high risk activity while many participants demonstrated that the levels of safety in a properly run event is lower than a pub, hairdresser or dinner with 5 friends. Exactly this. The question is ...

Wadih Khoury wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 30, 2020 7:29 pm

If covid levels go back to this summer's levels, other countries proved that big tournaments can be safely held.

How do you know that those tournaments were safely held?

I couldn't do that; but I'm wondering how the board would know when my birthday is, given that my profile doesn't say.

The practical question is whether an internal club or even county tournament of more than six people could be run in premises used for community purposes. The participants would most likely know one another. At present the answer is probably yes. But it's impossible to be sure, because the legislat...

"Actually the issue is not whether people are mingling: the concept of "mingling" is relevant only where a person participating in the gathering does not do so "alone" but as a member of a group (though I still don't understand how you can simultaneously be alone and yet participating in a gatherin...

Community venues can be allowed more than six people in a room. The problem being how to demonstrate that they aren't "mingling". Community venues do still appear to be exempt, though it's not clear whether that was the Government's intention, since the explanatory memorandum which accompanied the ...

Don't the ramblers feel they can rely on the exception for sports gatherings? If they think the Sport England definition isn't conclusive, I'm sure they're right; but isn't rambling a fitness-related activity?

Regulation 5(3)(j) also provides an exception for participation in sports gatherings by non -elite sportspersons. But it's very unlikely that a chess event would be regarded as a sports gathering, even if some of the participants come from countries where chess is regarded as a sport. The question i...

Also, failure to comply with those guidelines is not illegal. These guidelines are the Government's explanation of what we can and can't lawfully do. The explanation is not accurate, but you can hardly blame the ECF for accepting it.

The new restrictions are hardly something you need to "search" for. Of course the ECF is encouraging people to comply with the new guidelines. It can't encourage people to flout them, and offering no advice at all wouldn't be helpful.

No, you said judges would use a dictionary. I said that they would say it was a matter for the magistrates. The magistrates would be unlikely to use a dictionary, and if they did, an appeal court would probably say they shouldn't have. I'm not going to guess at what a magistrate might think.

True, but in the event of a prosecution it would be for the magistrate(s) to apply the word in what they take to be its ordinary meaning. And an appeal court would probably say that, as an ordinary English word, its meaning was a matter for the magistrates.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:45 pm

The term "mingle" isn't well defined.

It isn't defined at all, so it has its ordinary meaning. Of course there is room for argument about what that might be. Actually I can't find any precedent for its use (in relation to people, rather than financial assets) in UK legislation.