English Chess Forum

Heading self-explanatory

Sorry, should have said, "Any Questions" (BBC Radio 4)

Nothing appertaining to chess other than that Dominic was introduced as 'President of the English Chess Federation', so the ECF got that single mention.

Perhaps there were comments on Brexit or climate change instead?

Jonathan Rogers wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:52 am

Perhaps there were comments on Brexit or climate change instead?

On both actually.

It's worth listening to the programme. Some of Dominic Lawson's views surprised me.

Did his sexism come over well?

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:59 am

Did his sexism come over well?

Listen and judge for yourself, Justin.

One of the reasons which some of his opinions surprised me is that I thought that you might agree with at least one of them.

As far as Dominic Lawson is concerned, we have all the evidence we need to see that he's sexist to a buffoonish degree, though not much evidence that thus bothers the ECF or its membership much.

Do these views on Twitter represent what Lawson had to say?

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:09 am

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:59 am

Did his sexism come over well?

Listen and judge for yourself, Justin.

One of the reasons which some of his opinions surprised me is that I thought that you might agree with at least one of them.

Maybe just tell us the opinion you have in mind?

Jonathan Rogers wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:05 pm

Maybe just tell us the opinion you have in mind?

I thought that Justin might agree that reducing the maximum stake on fixed odds betting terminals to £2 was desirable.

As for the contributors to Twitter above, if there had been no problem previously, then the change wouldn't have been necessary.

It would be facile and offensive to suggest that gambling on fixed odds betting terminals was a principal cause of the increasing demand for food banks, but to my ear Dominic Lawson didn't say that.

I was surprised that he didn't take the free market approach that people should accept responsibility for their own actions.

In assessing the suitability of an actual or would-be ECF director to hold office, I'd regard his or her politics as coming a long way down the list unless through membership of an extreme organisation (whether of the left or the right) it resulted in their being widely held in disrepute. That goes for the ECF president as much as anyone else. If Dominic Lawson's eventual successor were someone holding the political views of Diane Abbott, another of Friday's panellists and one whose political views leave me cold, then I hope I'd put those views to one side and assess purely on suitability for the job.

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:32 am

In assessing the suitability of an actual or would-be ECF director to hold office, I'd regard his or her politics as coming a long way down the list

This is surely quite right in principle and an organisation like the ECF couldn't function unless we took that view. However, in a situation where a given sport in a given cauntry has a deep structural problem with the near-absence of women (not to mention any reputational damage caused by the well-publicised views of its most famous practitioner) then either it takes that problem seriously, which it clains to do, or it has a President with a long record of sexist attitudes and a published position that sexism in chess doesn't exist. The situation as it stands is utter humbug.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:03 am

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:32 am

In assessing the suitability of an actual or would-be ECF director to hold office, I'd regard his or her politics as coming a long way down the list

This is surely quite right in principle and an organisation like the ECF couldn't function unless we took that view. However, in a situation where a given sport in a given cauntry has a deep structural problem with the near-absence of women (not to mention any reputational damage caused by the well-publicised views of its most famous practitioner) then either it takes that problem seriously, which it clains to do, or it has a President with a long record of sexist attitudes and a published position that sexism in chess doesn't exist. The situation as it stands is utter humbug.

Just to answer your earlier question specifically, this was not an issue which came up during the programme. I have commented above on the most controversial topic which did (in relation to Dominic Lawson).

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:06 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:05 pm

Maybe just tell us the opinion you have in mind?

I thought that Justin might agree that reducing the maximum stake on fixed odds betting terminals to £2 was desirable.

As for the contributors to Twitter above, if there had been no problem previously, then the change wouldn't have been necessary.

It would be facile and offensive to suggest that gambling on fixed odds betting terminals was a principal cause of the increasing demand for food banks, but to my ear Dominic Lawson didn't say that.

I was surprised that he didn't take the free market approach that people should accept responsibility for their own actions.

I've now listened to Lawson's reply and he spends little or no time on the the real causes of poverty, but spends his most of his answer criticising the poor for gambling, smoking and drinking. We've had to listen to this nonsense ever since the nineteenth century. Some people might like chess to be represented by this privileged patrician snob but I'll leave it to Siegfried Sassoon to sum up my feelings about people like Lawson.

The Case for the Miners by Siegfried Sassoon

Something goes wrong with my synthetic brain
When I defend the Strikers and explain
My reasons for not blackguarding the Miners.
" What do you know? " exclaim my fellow-diners
(Peeling their plovers' eggs or lifting glasses
Of mellowed Chateau Rentier from the table),
" What do you know about the working classes?"
I strive to hold my own; but I'm unable
To state the case succinctly. Indistinctly
I mumble about World-Emancipation,
Standards of Living, Nationalization
Of Industry; until they get me tangled
In superficial details; goad me on
To unconvincing vagueness. When we've wrangled
From soup to savoury, my temper's gone.
" Why should a miner earn six pounds a week?
Leisure! They'd only spend it in a bar!
Standard of life! You'll never teach them Greek,
Or make them more contented than they are!"
That's how my port-flushed friends discuss the Strike.
And that's the reason why I shout and splutter.
And that's the reason why I'd almost like
To see them hawking matches in the gutter.