CCF v Surrey

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Locked
Scott Freeman
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 2:03 pm

Paul Dupré wrote:
Scott Freeman wrote:I can confirm that the chess clocks belonged to CCF Chess Club, if you wish to differentiate, but both CCF and CCFMindGames are part of CCF, so not sure that there is any issue there.
Again untrue; CCF Mindgames Ltd. is wholely owned by HOWARD CHARLES PARRY CURTIS and RACHEL ELIZABETH BURLEY (£1 share each). John & Christine Constable are just Managers. Scott, either you are ignorant of the facts or deliberately misleading everyone.
Kevin Thurlow wrote:Having worked with Tony Corfe, I can confirm that he would have delivered (or allowed to be collected) the clocks at the start of the tournament and taken them away (or had them delivered) at the end. (Technically, he is not a lender as he supplied equipment free in return for being allowed to run a bookstall - a very sensible arrangement.)
Again, blurring the lines, going on about something quite unrelated: Tony Corfe has nothing to do with this 2006 Congress;
Kevin Thurlow wrote:If this is true, it is unusual (and a nuisance) to take equipment away every night and then bring it again the next day. Did Mike Adams expect a robbery, or was he just being understandably cautious with expensive equipment?
Not a nuisance to us, as the clocks were ready to play each round. Whereas, what is a nuisance is CCF blaming us for losing CCF clocks. The CCF clocks were looked after (apparently) by CCF employees (David Sedgwick & Ray Ryan) by the Open arbiter's desk; unbeknownst to the rest of the Congress Committee (not including Ben Ogunshola, a friend of CCF).


Paul, you have clearly been investigating the owners of the companies, but I can't work out what you are driving at. In legal terms, CCFMindGames is owned by Howard and Rachel (Rachel is my wife's sister and works here at CCF). But it is accepted that Howard is the boss of it. It is all part of the CCF structure ultimately. I think I said in my last email that Howard was the boss, didn't I? It doesn't matter whether it is a separate company to the others or not! I never said that John and Chris were the owners. The whole point of what I was saying is that Howard is boss of CCFMindGames, CCF Church, Coulsdon Card Fellowship, Coulsdon Chess Fellowship, Creating Community Facilities, etc. (But he isn't boss of Curtis Cash Fund....! :lol:)

The digital clocks that we lent to the SCCA were technically the property of the CCF Chess Club as opposed the CCFMindGames, but does it matter? The whole point was that they were loaned and not returned.

Your comment about Kevin Thurlow "blurring lines" is probably not understand by anyone either. Tony Corfe did not have anything to do with the 2006 congress and nobody ever said he did. The point Kevin (and I) were trying to make to you is that what Mike Adams did (nothing wrong with it - for the record) in taking his clocks home, was not what CCF or Tony Corfe (in 2000) did or would have done I suspect. There are no lines blurred. I am sure everyone else can clearly see the points made.

Next point is that David Sedgwick and Ray Ryan were certainly NOT employees of CCF - not at the time of the congress anyway. David Sedgwick had worked with us for a very short time on our Bridge activities but that was a while before that (David - can you remind me when?). Ray had worked with us for a while but left us by the Summer of 2005 when he and Pauline decided to do their own thing. (You are welcome to ask me questions, Paul!).

The last snipe is hilariously put. "Ben Ogunshola (a friend of CCF)." Are you implying that Ben was acting on behalf of CCF? - or was biased towards CCF? - or perhaps he was being underhand to the SCCA Congress Company? - or the committee.....? The facts are that he paid the cost of the clocks so the Surrey Congress could continue without a legal case. Shouldn't you be thanking him for being a friend of the SCCA and/or Congress Company?

We became friends through him working with us on the congress. Paul has just demonstrated the sort of treatment we have had from another person in Surrey who we have had issues with. If you don't side with him, you are ostracised and accused of being a "friend of CCF!" I think that is rather what happened to David Bryant when he was Surrey Secretary and got caught in the Basman v CCF issue (which ultimately this all indirectly goes back to; even Paul mentioned the UK Chess Challenge v English Chess Challenge debate). David had supported both organisations, tried to tread the middle ground but spoke out when he could see things were wrong - and was hounded out of office!
Last edited by Scott Freeman on Fri May 13, 2011 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3405
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul McKeown » Fri May 13, 2011 2:08 pm

Paul Dupré wrote:Paul, please don't swear it's disgusting.
Hmmm, if you find my words disgusting, yet permit yourself the liberty of accusing someone of lying, whose basic facts are apparently agreed with by some of those with whom he is in dispute, and accuse a man of the cloth of running a not for profit organisation for personal financial gain, then I don't share your ethics. I would point out to you that both of your publicly stated accusations could lend themselves to action against you before the law courts. If you could not substantiate those accusations were you to be formally required to do so, then you should withdraw them; at the very least you should stop digging.

Paul Dupré
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Cove, Hampshire

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul Dupré » Fri May 13, 2011 2:20 pm

OK, Scott this is it;

Who do you blame for the loss of the clocks?

I just want one name...
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.

Paul Dupré
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Cove, Hampshire

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul Dupré » Fri May 13, 2011 2:24 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:yet permit yourself the liberty of accusing someone of lying, whose basic facts are apparently agreed with by some...
I don't want basic facts, I want actual facts. Stick to the truth, that is all that is required in law, NOT basic facts.
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.

John Upham
Posts: 4457
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by John Upham » Fri May 13, 2011 2:25 pm

Whilst acting as a spectator of this discussion I predicted that it would obey Godwin's Law within the next few days.

Am I right in deducing that the absolute original cause of the various "CCF vs" disputes is a disagreement over the board order of a school chess team for two strong female players at Croydon High School?

Was the board order 1. Jessie Gilbert and 2. Alexandra Wilson and then became

1. Alexandra Wilson 2. Jessie Gilbert and from that moment onwards all hell broke loose in the CCF/UKCC/SCCA domain?

I could be wrong but this is my theory (in a Monty Python Elephant sketch type way).

If this is the case I would predict that there will never be an end to these disputes. :roll:
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18497
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri May 13, 2011 2:54 pm

John Upham wrote:Am I right in deducing that the absolute original cause of the various "CCF vs" disputes is a disagreement over the board order of a school chess team for two strong female players at Croydon High School?
The increasingly valuable archives of the SCCU site record the starting point.
http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/9899/comment.htm

from which
Last season, ill feeling arose about the school team's board order. Parents became involved, and the situation became unpleasant. Very unpleasant, if accounts are true. The headmistress responded by withdrawing the team from competition. Reasonably enough, you might think.

Scott Freeman
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 3:17 pm

WHO DO I BLAME?
Legally from what I have read and been told, I have to say it is the Surrey Congress Company, if it was their representatives that borrowed the equipment and failed to return them. If you are asking me to name a name who I think might have stolen them (as I don't believe they were chucked away so easily), I obviously cannot name the person (or people) here without evidence. And I could easily be wrong about that anyway as I must retain the possibility that they were chucked away.

Having named the Congress Company as responsible, it would then be down to them to decide who, within their organisation, was responsible - and it would be down to them to decide what action, if any, to take.

JOH UPHAM ASKED WHERE DID IT COME FROM?
The Gilbert/Wilson situation was no doubt the start of the the process that has indirectly led to today (except that this is actually a smokescreen as to what really happened I believe). However we did not become involved for about 3 years, when 2 of our juniors were excluded from the UK Chess Challenge Surrey mega-final, basically because they were pupils of Croydon High School. When Basman refused to relent on the exclusions, we started investigating the original dispute to see who was in the right (we had no agendas) and it was very interesting that the parents who backed Lorna Bushell very soon refused to speak to us because we went and spoke to the school and those they opposed. Basman then accused us of supporting Jessie's family against him. There was a regular exchange of blunt letters between us (I am sure you can imagine!) during which time I tried to speak to him about it at the 2000 Surrey Congress (ironic!). He ran away from me.

The agenda was to find the truth of what happened; we actually had no agendas either way. We were being asked to accept that the qualification for 2 children for the mega-final could not be allowed because it was not through a specific club and were effectively being told that we should have excluded them from our club's qualification event. This was not something we were now going to do with finding out whether or not the ban was justified in any way. We spoke to the Gilberts and to the school. We had previously had conversation with Basman and Lorna Bushell (the trainer) and indeed, CCF had declined a request (from Croydon High) to put a trainer into the school to replace Lorna (at Mike Basman's request I must point out). So much for the Curtis Cash Fund attitude here - we actually tried to help him resolve the issue about 2 years before we came into conflict with him. But we were ostracised by all of Lorna's supporters as soon as we started getting the other side of the story.

Without going through it all in this posting, when we put a motion to the SCCA and SCCU meetings (in 2000) expressing disappointment at what he had done in excluding 2 children, that's when the move against us in the SCCA started. Within a few months Howard, myself and my wife (Emma) resigned from our posts (so much for trying to control Surrey Chess!) as we had decided it wasn't worth the bother of attacks from supporters of Basman and also those who incorrectly blamed me personally for a decision made by the SCCA Consitution and Rules Committee. As time went on and other "events" happened, more and more of Basman's associates suddenly became involved in the SCCA, especially from 2005 onwards. So you see that the dispute isn't really between CCF and the SCCA as such, but CCF and the people who control the SCCA. CCF actually has a genuine love of the concept of the SCCA and would like to be working with it, but we see no likely probability of that happening whilst the current board is in post.

It's all rather complicated as you can see.
Last edited by Scott Freeman on Fri May 13, 2011 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Paul Dupré
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Cove, Hampshire

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul Dupré » Fri May 13, 2011 3:21 pm

Paul Dupré wrote:Jack, by the way if you are going to rename this thread, it needs to say CCF (the Howard Curtis Cash Fund) vs the rest of Surrey chess players and organisers. Because it's not just the SCCA, it's almost everyone that does good work running events and teams (mostly for free), who is now pissed of with them, and their attempts to take over the running of all Surrey Chess. They even had the cheek to call themselves Surrey Junior Chess at one point. And, the http://www.englishchesschallenge.co.uk/ an inferior carbon copy of the successful http://www.ukchesschallenge.com/.
Jack, I was wrong it seems that it should be re-named CCF (the crusader for all that is right) vs All the bad people in Surrey.

However, that wouldn't be fair as I am also in the anti-SCCA camp, so that would be misleading. Maybe, when this is all over. Scott will allow me to play for CCF. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.

Paul Dupré
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Cove, Hampshire

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul Dupré » Fri May 13, 2011 3:23 pm

Scott Freeman wrote:WHO DO I BLAME?
Legally from what I have read and been told, I have to say it is the Surrey Congress Company, if it was their representatives that borrowed the equipment and failed to return them. If you are asking me to name a name who I think might have stolen them (as I don't believe they were chucked away so easily), I obviously cannot name the person (or people) here without evidence. And I could easily be wrong about that anyway as I must retain the possibility that they were chucked away.
Right, I want your proof that anybody from the Surrey Congress Company actually touched the clocks.
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.

Scott Freeman
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 3:34 pm

Paul

Firstly, if you wish to play for CCF next season, you are more than welcome. If you want me to send you the membership application form just let me know.

Secondly, I am not sure why you are asking for "proof" that the clocks were handled by the Surrey Congress Company. You already have enough testimony on this forum and on SCCA records to show that people accept that the clocks were in the possession of the the arbiters, or representatives, or helpers, of the Congress. That is enough in a court of law. If there is a next time, I shall suggest to Howard that he videos the hand over for you if that would help?

I would ask for the clocks and/or the bag to be finger printed if you want extra proof - if only I knew where they were!

User avatar
Ben Purton
Posts: 1622
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:53 am
Location: Berks

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Ben Purton » Fri May 13, 2011 3:35 pm

That marks Paul's 30th Post and ironically also his 30th post which are the musings of a semi mad-man.
I love sleep, I need 8 hours a day and about 10 at night - Bill Hicks
I would die happy if I beat Wood Green in the Eastman Cup final - Richmond LL captain.
Hating the Yankees since 2002. Hating the Jets since 2001.

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5813
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Carl Hibbard » Fri May 13, 2011 3:44 pm

Paul Dupré wrote:Right, I want your proof that anybody from the Surrey Congress Company actually touched the clocks.
I am quite close to losing my patience with this as it is all now getting rather silly
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

John Upham
Posts: 4457
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by John Upham » Fri May 13, 2011 3:45 pm

Scott Freeman wrote: if only I knew where they were!
Did you record the serial numbers of the clocks having purchased them?

I've logged all s/ns of our lovely DGT 2010 clocks in case they make a break for freedom.

They are kept in a locked aluminum flight case rather than a bin bag.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Scott Freeman
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 3:51 pm

Somewhere I did record all the serial numbers and with an extended search would surely find them if I ever had to. What I might do if and when I find the list is to post the numbers on the forum so that if anyone ever gets suspicious they could cross check the numbers. They all had CCF scratched (with a compass point) into both ends of the clock and on the underside - and possibly on the front as well. So either they would be found with those marking still visible, or perhaps stickers on both ends or something to cover up the marking.

Paul Dupré
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Cove, Hampshire

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul Dupré » Fri May 13, 2011 3:53 pm

Ben, I have been a member here for almost as long as you, and have not had the inclination to waste my time posting garbage. However, when someone tell lies, then someone else has to stand up and say "That is NOT true". Do you have the balls to say that, or is everything just a joke to you?
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.

Locked