Accusation against Alejandro Ramirez

[Ian Thompson]

More from Sabrina Chevannes in the Independent today.

It adds some further information to the stories previously published on Twitter and contains the statement "But she explained social media posts she recently shared about her alleged experiences had been seen by the police who are now looking into her claims."

[Chris Goodall]

Yes. It feels like "the chess world" is being baited into saying something actionable. I think we have to lock this thread now.

[Mick Norris]

I think it's good the police are involved; as has been said on the thread, they are the only ones with the power to take action

I don't think there's any need to lock the thread; there's always a need for forumites to think about what they are posting though

[Ian Thompson]

Yes. It feels like "the chess world", and possibly this forum in particular given how nuclear Sabrina went on Nick the other week, is being baited into saying something actionable. I think we have to lock this thread now.

Why? The police only investigate criminal matters, which would be against the perpetrators of the incidents she describes. Claims for defamation are civil matters that would not involve the police.

I'm aware that Sabrina thinks Ray Keene has defamed her by saying she wrote things that she did not. I think she's got that wrong. I think Keene's statements about "innuendo, pun and anagram" were referring to the comments other people made on Sabrina's claims, which were clearly as he stated. The only thing he said that was clearly wrong was that Sabrina said the culprit in story 1 was a UK Grandmaster when she said English Grandmaster, and that mistake is hardly grounds for legal action.

[Roger Lancaster]

Yes. It feels like "the chess world", and possibly this forum in particular given how nuclear Sabrina went on Nick the other week, is being baited into saying something actionable. I think we have to lock this thread now.

Why? The police only investigate criminal matters, which would be against the perpetrators of the incidents she describes. Claims for defamation are civil matters that would not involve the police.

I'm aware that Sabrina thinks Ray Keene has defamed her by saying she wrote things that she did not. I think she's got that wrong. I think Keene's statements about "innuendo, pun and anagram" were referring to the comments other people made on Sabrina's claims, which were clearly as he stated. The only thing he said that was clearly wrong was that Sabrina said the culprit in story 1 was a UK Grandmaster when she said English Grandmaster, and that mistake is hardly grounds for legal action.

I think that's obviously correct. Frankly, taking into account that it's a considerable undertaking, I doubt that any actual case of defamation (as opposed to threats to bring a case) will result. Criminal defamation was abolished back in 2009 so it's not a matter for the police. The substantive matter for the police would be Sabrina's (and any similar) claims. The only situation where this forum might attract attention, as far as I can see, is if someone posted something liable to prejudice the course of justice, for example by threatening potential witnesses.

[Chris Goodall]

Yes. It feels like "the chess world", and possibly this forum in particular given how nuclear Sabrina went on Nick the other week, is being baited into saying something actionable. I think we have to lock this thread now.

Why? The police only investigate criminal matters, which would be against the perpetrators of the incidents she describes. Claims for defamation are civil matters that would not involve the police.

I'm aware that Sabrina thinks Ray Keene has defamed her by saying she wrote things that she did not. I think she's got that wrong. I think Keene's statements about "innuendo, pun and anagram" were referring to the comments other people made on Sabrina's claims, which were clearly as he stated. The only thing he said that was clearly wrong was that Sabrina said the culprit in story 1 was a UK Grandmaster when she said English Grandmaster, and that mistake is hardly grounds for legal action.

It doesn't need to involve the police? Sabrina has literally brandished the D-word against an uninvolved third party already. She obviously thinks she hasn't got it wrong, and now she has traction in the media she can play against you with other people's money. Even if she backs down, you will forever be That Guy, who silenced a brave voice from the right side of history.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Yes. It feels like "the chess world", and possibly this forum in particular given how nuclear Sabrina went on Nick the other week, is being baited into saying something actionable. I think we have to lock this thread now.

Why? The police only investigate criminal matters, which would be against the perpetrators of the incidents she describes. Claims for defamation are civil matters that would not involve the police.

I'm aware that Sabrina thinks Ray Keene has defamed her by saying she wrote things that she did not. I think she's got that wrong. I think Keene's statements about "innuendo, pun and anagram" were referring to the comments other people made on Sabrina's claims, which were clearly as he stated. The only thing he said that was clearly wrong was that Sabrina said the culprit in story 1 was a UK Grandmaster when she said English Grandmaster, and that mistake is hardly grounds for legal action.

It doesn't need to involve the police? Sabrina has literally brandished the D-word against an uninvolved third party already. She obviously thinks she hasn't got it wrong, and now she has traction in the media she can play against you with other people's money. Even if she backs down, you will forever be That Guy, who silenced a brave voice from the right side of history.

I think perhaps you’re on the wrong side of this too. Ray Keene posts so much crap on his Twitter I’m sure people have forgotten about his blog article already. Probably dependant on whether Sabrina has agreed to provide a written statement or not, the three chess players she’s accused of sexual assault should as a minimum be invited for a voluntary interview at a police station. Where either the custody sergeant or more likely the CPS can make a determination if there’s another evidence for a prosecution. At least two of them live overseas probably, so the police might even go for arrest as there is some flight risk. it would be a risk assessment for them. If there’s no statement forthcoming I guess the matter is left to play out on social media and in the occasional news article.

[Chris Goodall]

I think it was clear from the context that when I said "it doesn't need to involve the police", I wasn't suggesting that the police not involve themselves in the allegations of criminal behaviour. Obviously they should, that's their job.

I was saying that in a febrile social media environment, you shouldn't underestimate the risk of getting in legal trouble for saying basically anything at all - it doesn't need to involve the police for it to really, really ruin your day.

Perhaps Ray Keene has a thick skin after the career he's had, but this is a country where saying Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face* can cost you 25 grand.

[Matt Bridgeman]

I think it was clear from the context that when I said "it doesn't need to involve the police", I wasn't suggesting that the police not involve themselves in the allegations of criminal behaviour. Obviously they should, that's their job.

I was saying that in a febrile social media environment, you shouldn't underestimate the risk of getting in legal trouble for saying basically anything at all - it doesn't need to involve the police for it to really, really ruin your day.

Perhaps Ray Keene has a thick skin after the career he's had, but this is a country where saying Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face* can cost you 25 grand.

It’s good she hasn’t named any of the three. Should any of them eventually get charged by the police we can all unleash the dogs of war on them. That would be the go point for the media to name names too. And hopefully it may encourage other victims to come forward, if they haven’t already.

[Alistair Campbell]

It’s good she hasn’t named any of the three. Should any of them eventually get charged by the police we can all unleash the dogs of war on them. That would be the go point for the media to name names too. And hopefully it may encourage other victims to come forward, if they haven’t already.

I'm no legal expert but should anyone be charged does that not make the case sub judice and subject to potential contempt of court? In which case the dogs of war might best remain unslipped.

[Stephen Westmoreland]

It has appeared in the Mail now.

[Roger Lancaster]

It’s good she hasn’t named any of the three. Should any of them eventually get charged by the police we can all unleash the dogs of war on them. That would be the go point for the media to name names too. And hopefully it may encourage other victims to come forward, if they haven’t already.

I'm no legal expert but should anyone be charged does that not make the case sub judice and subject to potential contempt of court? In which case the dogs of war might best remain unslipped.

I'm no legal expert either but I believe straightforward reporting of a case, most obviously by the media, is okay as long as the reporting is factual (no speculation!) and doesn't imply guilt or innocence. Most people here should have the common sense to err on the side of prudence but there's nothing useful I can say to help the odd village idiot from himself.

[Chris Goodall]

straightforward reporting of a case, most obviously by the media, is okay as long as the reporting is factual (no speculation!) and doesn't imply guilt or innocence.

I'm sure most people would agree with that Roger, but then what is actually left to say about it on a forum like this that isn't a legal self-mate? Even linking to a newspaper can imply an endorsement of that newspaper's reporting, and obviously newspapers get slapped with defamation claims every day.

[Roger Lancaster]

straightforward reporting of a case, most obviously by the media, is okay as long as the reporting is factual (no speculation!) and doesn't imply guilt or innocence.

I'm sure most people would agree with that Roger, but then what is actually left to say about it on a forum like this that isn't a legal self-mate? Even linking to a newspaper can imply an endorsement of that newspaper's reporting, and obviously newspapers get slapped with defamation claims every day.

Chris, I won't go into a lengthy ramble here but I doubt that the mainstream UK national media get hit by too many defamation cases. That's partly because - in the absence of "no win, no fee" or pro bono funding - it's expensive to bring cases and partly because the mainstream media have long experience of how to keep on the right side of the legal line. So, although you're correct in indicating that repeating a defamatory statement is itself defamatory, on the whole one should be reasonably safe (and again I stress that I'm not a lawyer) in repeating what has already been published by a reputable organisation. Otherwise, if commenting on a tricky situation, it's rarely a bad idea to sit back and consider for a while before hitting the 'publish' key. Yes, that may limit "what is actually left to say" but very often much of that will have been best left unsaid.

[MJMcCready]

As far as I understand she isn't naming names because she doesn't want to be sued, or so she said on Twitter. But if that's the case how are you meant to take this seriously?