Accusation against Alejandro Ramirez

[Roger Lancaster]

Ah, Friday afternoons.

"It's 50% likely that there is a 50% probability of X" can imply any probability from 25% to 75% for X, depending on what the probability of X is in the other 50% of cases that your statement doesn't cover. Your example has a hidden assumption that it's zero.

But even if you established that "in all likelihood" meant 70%, and "probably" also meant 70%, you wouldn't get away with telling a court "in all likelihood, it's probably true" and expecting them to conclude that you assigned it a 49% probability, and therefore you thought it was probably false.

Do you consider Ramirez to be probably guilty, or merely probably probably guilty?

Yes, playground time, Humpty Dumpty and all that. Actually you're right about the hidden assumption although I'd call it an implied assumption. You show me a UK coin and say "If I toss this, over a sufficiently long run it'll come down heads as much as 50% of the time". If I reply that I believe it's 50% probable that you're right, the inference it that I believe it's 50% likely to be a biased coin which will more frequently show up tails. Simples. However, rather than protract this, I suggest we go along with the egghead and decide words mean what we intend.

As to your final question, I really hadn't given too much thought to the question of Ramirez's guilt or otherwise - mainly because I'm not keen on jumping to conclusions on what is likely to be incomplete information. After all, what are we all going to say if a couple of ex-girlfriends turn up to say that in their experience he has always been a perfect gentleman? I'm not saying I rate that as likely but stranger things have been known to happen. And the second reason is that, as far as possible, I try to avoid using up my few remaining brain cells on issues where my opinion is of absolutely no consequence. (In that, I'm not always successful). But, on the 'evidence' so far, it certainly doesn't look good for him.

[Chris Goodall]

As to your final question, I really hadn't given too much thought to the question of Ramirez's guilt or otherwise

Your exact words were that the evidence of Ramirez's guilt "should be sufficient for bodies such as the USCF".

[Paul Cooksey]

Sabrina has said she does not intend to post further about her experiences.

I do think safeguarding is the more complex part of the discussion and where these probabilities are relevant. Matt's "is my daughter safe" test is likely what people expect from the ECF,

[Roger Lancaster]

As to your final question, I really hadn't given too much thought to the question of Ramirez's guilt or otherwise

Your exact words were that the evidence of Ramirez's guilt "should be sufficient for bodies such as the USCF".

I'm not sure this is of wider interest but, for the record, my exact words were "but in all likelihood it exceeds the civil threshold (balance of probabilities) which should be sufficient for bodies such as the USCF" where the 9 words you extract refer to the civil threshold and nothing else.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Sabrina isn’t backing down on her social media, fending off a negative Ray Keene article. Whether ‘he who shall not be named’ takes further steps is unknown. An interesting recent Guardian shows a woman defeating a defamation case with a public interest angle. I’ll put it here as a reference. Perhaps the Good Law Project might lend a helping hand at some point; https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/ap ... 1682533973

[NickFaulks]

Perhaps the Good Law Project might lend a helping hand at some point

They're the people who post on social media about the succulent enjoyment they have just taken in beating an animal to death with a baseball bat after first donning a woman's kimono, right? Your sort of people, not mine.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Perhaps the Good Law Project might lend a helping hand at some point

They're the people who post on social media about the succulent enjoyment they have just taken in beating an animal to death with a baseball bat after first donning a woman's kimono, right? Your sort of people, not mine.

I’m not familiar with that organization.
Would you care explaining your comment? Otherwise, at first sight it seems to say more about you than about them.

[NickFaulks]

Would you care explaining your comment?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... x-to-death

Tells me all I need to know about the Good Law Project.

[Roger Lancaster]

Sabrina isn’t backing down on her social media, fending off a negative Ray Keene article. Whether ‘he who shall not be named’ takes further steps is unknown. An interesting recent Guardian shows a woman defeating a defamation case with a public interest angle. I’ll put it here as a reference. Perhaps the Good Law Project might lend a helping hand at some point; https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/ap ... 1682533973

"(Solicitor) said it was the first case of an abuser suing their victim for libel in which a public interest defence under the Defamation Act had succeeded. This applies when the statement complained of was on a matter of public interest and the defendant reasonably believed that publishing it was in the public interest, even if it turns out to be untrue"

If I understand correctly, the defence (by the alleged victim of sexual assault, being the person being sued for libel) merely had to demonstrate that the defendant reasonably believed (a) that the statement in question was true, no matter whether it was or wasn't, and (b) that its publication was in the public interest. It's hard to believe that serious sexual misbehaviour by a leading figure or figures in English chess would not fall under heading (b).

[Mick Norris]

The prosecution has to start by saying that it was about their client, which is an interesting start to their case

[Roger Lancaster]

The prosecution has to start by saying that it was about their client, which is an interesting start to their case

I'm not a lawyer but I believe the essence of defamation is that whatever has been said/written is harmful to the complainant, in which case it's not necessary to prove it was about the complainant but simply that a reasonable person might have thought it was about the complainant. As to the other grandmaster mentioned upthread, he writes "the chess activist Sabrina Chevannes has declared war on all the males who, she claims, have harassed her in various ways during her chess career" which he seems to find surprising. It's hard to tell whether he believes Sabrina is lying - in which case we'd all be obliged to learn his reasons - or whether he has yet to realise that, these days, people have redress for harassment.

[John Moore]

I'd be interested to see the negative Ray Keene article if that can be posted without infringing copyright.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

I'd be interested to see the negative Ray Keene article if that can be posted without infringing copyright.

I think it's this one: https://www.thearticle.com/unfair-play- ... ron-davies

[LawrenceCooper]

I'd be interested to see the negative Ray Keene article if that can be posted without infringing copyright.

https://www.thearticle.com/unfair-play- ... ron-davies

[John Moore]

Thanks Jon. I'd forgotten how he does go on.

And Loz.