End of an era

[Matt Mackenzie]

These days the "extremists" are arguably those who still claim to believe that RDK is a basically good guy who has done nothing wrong.

[Gerard Killoran]

These days the "extremists" are arguably those who still claim to believe that RDK is a basically good guy who has done nothing wrong.

Maybe they're 'moderates' who just happen to be extremely mistaken.

[Brian Egdell]

These days the "extremists" are arguably those who still claim to believe that RDK is a basically good guy who has done nothing wrong.

Maybe they're 'moderates' who just happen to be extremely mistaken.

Yes, hoodwinked by the establishment. Or in a few privileged cases they are themselves members of the establishment who do everything in their immense power to support their cronies.

[Mike Gunn]

...
(Just as an aside, I mentioned Sheffield a bit earlier, and it's absolutely extraordinary to me that somebody who has had to leave an organisation because he fiddled it out of money gets to come back and address its annual event. I can't think of anything like it. But of course this was just one bizarre matter among dozens.)

RDK's appearance at the Sheffield opening ceremony was due to a personal invitation from CJ de Mooi and was
a complete shock to both the championship organisers and other members of the ECF board. This event was
quickly overshadowed by the CJ T-shirt row which did preoccupy the ECF "establishment" for some time.

In my time on the ECF board the subject of RDK came up rarely but everybody was fully aware of the history
(as described in the Kingpin articles) and there was little support for rehabilitating RDK by giving him some
ECF role. Justin's posts serve a useful function in informing those new to the scene about past events but my
personal view is that he did much that was good for English chess as well as some rather dodgy things and
the Justin posts are telling us just one side of the RDK story.

[Mick Norris]

Little support is more than none, which is too much; Justin quite rightly highlights the problems, whereas there seems to be a number of people happy to highlight anything they view as positive, which is depressing and indeed suggests that nothing has been learned by some

[NickFaulks]

Little support is more than none, which is too much

"Little support" tends to be a euphemism for none.

[Mike Gunn]

Little support is more than none, which is too much; Justin quite rightly highlights the problems, whereas there seems to be a number of people happy to highlight anything they view as positive, which is depressing and indeed suggests that nothing has been learned by some

To be specific the only voices I can recall supporting RDK were those of CJ and Andrew Poulson.

What Justin posts is (to my knowledge) accurate, but I'm not sure where that leads us. Should the
ECF be issuing an official denunciation or conduct a show trial (II'm not sure the ECF has the power
to do the latter.)

[JustinHorton]

Justin's posts serve a useful function in informing those new to the scene about past events but my
personal view is that he did much that was good for English chess as well as some rather dodgy things and
the Justin posts are telling us just one side of the RDK story.

And this is exactly the problem, that for decades, when people have said look, Ray has a long record as a liar and a cheat, other people react like this is unfair to Ray. Pity's sake! When there are people like Ray about, you keep them away from your affairs, because otherwise what you're saying is that though you know they're a habitual conman, you're just going to cross your fingers and hope you don't get conned.

[JustinHorton]

Should the ECF be issuing an official denunciation or conduct a show trial

What is it with people on this thread and this bizarre employment of Stalin-era language?

[Angus French]

Little support is more than none, which is too much; Justin quite rightly highlights the problems, whereas there seems to be a number of people happy to highlight anything they view as positive, which is depressing and indeed suggests that nothing has been learned by some

To be specific the only voices I can recall supporting RDK were those of CJ and Andrew Poulson.

Shortly after Mike's period as ECF Chairman, Phil Ehr (as CEO) and Bob Kane (Director of Marketing) held discussions with Ray Keene about promoting the ECF in the Times.

[Roger Lancaster]

I have to say I find it curious that, despite all that has been said about Ray, none of the mainstream Press - many of whose journalists read Private Eye and some of whom actually play chess - have elected (to the best of my knowledge) to run the story. But there's another unpublished story - completely different, to be clear, and I imply no moral equivalence - about another former British champion which has been widely discussed on this forum so it may be that pieces regarding the imperfections of English chess personalities just aren't considered to be of wider interest. If that's so then this thread, which has taken 26 pages to arrive at a consensus that "something should be done" without anyone actually offering to do anything, far less specify what, seems to me something of a waste of time. Instead, there are several actions which Ray's more vocal critics might consider including for example reading the guidance on https://www.gov.uk regarding removal of UK honours. To be clear, I'm not agitating for this but instead suggesting to the "something should be done" lobby that, if they feel so strongly about Ray, they follow their own advice.

[JustinHorton]

which has taken 26 pages to arrive at a consensus that "something should be done"

Has it? A consensus? I would not have said so.

(In fact I don't think anybody has even suggested that anything "should be done" as such, at least not directly concerning Ray.)

[Roger Lancaster]

which has taken 26 pages to arrive at a consensus that "something should be done"

Has it? A consensus? I would not have said so.

(In fact I don't think anybody has even suggested that anything "should be done" as such, at least not directly concerning Ray.)

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you but I had rather formed the view that you were in the "something should be done" camp. If there's no-one, or virtually no-one, in that camp then I'm not entirely clear why this dialogue has continued as long as it has.

[JustinHorton]

Well, I guess because it's an internet forum, and one based on the ongoing adventures of a contemporary individual, and hence for that reason occasionally it is revived. You could have a new thread the next time Ray did anything dubious - which would be the next time he did anything - but it is organisationally simpler this way, no?

As far as what should be done about Ray, I have literally no detailed proposals at all. The most important thing is that people should look squarely at what he is and how this has been possible. In my view this shouldn't be so hard but it would represent something of a break from normal practice.

[Chris Goodall]

We've Got To Do Something

("Show trial" isn't Stalin-era language - what about the important contributions to that field from the Mao era, the Castro era, the Kim era and the Sankara era?)