English Chess Forum

First a hello ...

I'm one of the contributors to the Streatham & Brixton Chess Club Blog ( ), ECF chess website of the year! thanks to everybody who voted for us

I was always intending to vist the ECF forum this weekend after Tom Chivers wrote about it a couple of days ago ( [url deleted] ) although I must admit I didn't expect to make a contribution.

Still, it's been an interesting weekend so ...

After I got home from work on Saturday evening I received an email informing me that GM Nigel Davies was threatening the blog with legal action as a result of this thread ( [url deleted] )

This morning I published the text of Mr. Davies' communication ( [url deleted] ) and the blog contacted GM ND to invite him to respond. We will be putting this on the blog later in the week but those that can't wait can see it on GM Davies' own website ( [url]http://tigerchess.wordpress.com:80/ ).

If nothing else it's given us something to write about other than the ECF resignations!

[edit:
On reflection I have removed the links to our blog - although I've left the one to GM Nigel Davies' site.
Whether or not this is necessary, and there appears to be a division of opinion below, I happy to proceed more cautiously with this matter.]

This sort of thing is one of the reasons we do not allow anonymous handles

It does not stop the problem but at least it makes people think before posting...

If Nigel Davies has a case - and he may - then Jonathan Bryant has made matters worse by repeating the defamation here, not least in the face of a request to desist. And if that were the view of the court, this website could be liable as publisher as well. I can say nothing more without making matters more awkward. My advice: row back, and delete

David Robertson

Ernie Lazenby wrote:Good point Carl but its the publisher that carries the can even if the comment is under someones real name.

These are the rules of the forum you agreed to upon registration

http://forum.bcfservices.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=3

From what I can see the comment objected to has been removed from the blog or am I missing something?

The post just refers to the "incident" in general does it not

Well I found it acceptable (hence no moderation...) but I have asked Jonathan to double check as well just in case

Apparently something has been removed by Streatham, perhaps enough. But one article would not survive on my website because of its defamatory potential. I must make it clear I have an informed and experienced understanding of this area of law, but I'm not a professional expert in the matter. On the Atticus website, we have a zero censorship policy - up to a point. And that point would be reached, not by impolite, rude or forthright opinion, but by statements that breached the law. Insinuating that an author has plagiarised would, in my lay opinion, constitute a prima facie defamation. Free speech doesn't enter into it. The law grants individuals protection from certain damaging consequences of free speech.

David Robertson
Atticus CC

David Robertson wrote:If Nigel Davies has a case - and he may - then Jonathan Bryant has made matters worse by repeating the defamation here, not least in the face of a request to desist.
David Robertson

For the record, we have removed the comment that Nigel Davies was concerned about.

As for the original post (from April 2007) ... I quote accurately from the books concerned - a fact that can be checked by anybody who has access to either.

regards,

Jonathan

[edit]: Oh, I forgot to say ... Nigel Davies does not like the p-word and it would be best avoided in this thread.

[edit2]: I also forgot to say ... Nigel Davies' response to us (see link to his website in my original post) suggests that he was satisfied with the removal of the comment.

The accuracy of the quotes you use from the books in question wouldn't be the issue. The defamation, if any, arises in the inference you ask us to draw, and how far you pursue that. The p-word is exactly the issue. A court would have to decide a] has the p-word been alleged? and if so, b] can it be proven? The onus in b] is on Streatham alone.

Anyway, I've said enough.

DR

Again,
just in case it is not clear from the above ...

the removed comment was not written by me - although I accept as mentioned above if it's on the S&BCC site we are responisble for it. I removed it at ND's request within an hour of receiving an email asking us to do so.

I also pointed out in a comment to my original post that I was in no way suggesting the passage quoted was representative of the book as a whole.

DavidFryer wrote:I am pleased the links from this web site to the offending article have been removed.

I was happy to remove them.
However, at the time I posted on this site, at the time I removed the links and even now (albeit a little lower down), Nigel Davies' own site had a link direct to our article on his first email to us. I mention this only to suggest if he's happy to link to the article he would be unlikely to mind if there's a link here. I took them down for other reasons - (request from Carl to think again and the realisation that my aim for posting here could me met without them).

DavidFryer wrote: I think qouting comments to just six moves from a whole book (and by your own admission not representative) was a bad example for the point you were trying to make

I wasn't trying to make a point about the whole book. The rest of what you say I can't really answer because we're talking about two different things I think. Anyway, it's not my aim to try to persuade you of anything so agreeing to disagree is perhaps where to leave this.

Over on the S&B blog, there's a flame war simul between the GM and some of the S&B regulars. More comments than the thread on ECF resignations!

Roger de Coverly wrote:Over on the S&B blog, there's a flame war simul between the GM and some of the S&B regulars.

... and the final score is?

Poor Nigel. I almost feel sympathy for him. Some of those S&B guys really need to get over themselves.

But in the end, it comes down to basics. If Nigel comes on as Tory Boy, he deserves all he gets

David Robertson
Atticus CC

Just to set the record straight, the S&BCC blog published several comments that said I'd 'ripped off' and 'plaigarised' Ray Keene's Flank Openings. All that’s left is the negative, anonymous review that rather deliberately sparked them. I was well within my rights to get them taken down.

The similarity between the notes might have come from the fact that I'd have played through this game a number of times - I've played a similar line with White (1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.b4). I also have a slightly weird memory for phrases etc. But if I'd have been copying Keene's work it should be fairly obvious that we'd have got the Black player's name the same.

Now of course there’s the issue that a couple of their members are spreading the story far and wide for whatever reason, perhaps they'd like to comment on that. They also published my initial email to them without asking if it was OK, which is something else that rather begs an explanation.

I don't have anything against bad reviews, but if they're unfair and anonymous it's very bad form. Libel and other damaging actions are a more serious matter entirely.

Nigel