English Chess Forum

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:18 pm

Accusing somebody else of being potentially the agent of a foreign power isn't just morally obnoxious, it's manifestly defamatory, as indeed (on reputational grounds alone) would be the suggestion that somebody has the hidden motive of damaging a British institution for subversive purposes.

Suggesting that Tim Wall is an agent of a foreign power may indeed be rather extreme, but it was Tim Wall himself who compared Nigel Short to Kim Philby.

Nigel Short has his critics, a good number of them on here. I don't think that any of them regard him as a traitor to this country.

I've alerted Phil Ehr to this thread to allow him to respond should he feel the need to do so.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:18 pm

Accusing somebody else of being potentially the agent of a foreign power isn't just morally obnoxious, it's manifestly defamatory, as indeed (on reputational grounds alone) would be the suggestion that somebody has the hidden motive of damaging a British institution for subversive purposes.

Yes, of course it's McCarthyite, and more than a tad, but it's also monumentally stupid.

Defamation is essentially a question of bringing someone's good reputation into disrepute. It certainly isn't defamatory to repeat what someone has previously said, or allowed to be said, about himself or to suggest that someone's political views might influence their actions. The comment that "Tim's beliefs do not characterise him as any friend of British institutions" is a totally different matter to characterising him as "the agent of a foreign power" [Justin's words, definitely not mine] as in the example, as someone has pertinently pointed out, of comparing Nigel Short to Kim Philby.

I was thinking that maybe boggle-eyed fantasies of this kind could be made a regular feature of this site, like the book reviews

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 31, 2021 2:18 pm

I was thinking ...

A good habit to acquire, Justin.

Particularly before making long postings that bring yourself and the place where you write them into disrepute.

There is absolutely no evidence that Tim's work for the ECF has been in any way influenced by these matters, is there? I get that there are various criticisms of him, but you (RL) are the first i have seen suggesting that his (past?) political affiliations are in some way relevant.

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 31, 2021 2:55 pm

There is absolutely no evidence that Tim's work for the ECF has been in any way influenced by these matters, is there? I get that there are various criticisms of him, but you (RL) are the first i have seen suggesting that his (past?) political affiliations are in some way relevant.

Tim doesn’t really have past political affiliations - he was, and is, a committed socialist. Naturally, that influences his thinking about chess and everything else. He has never tried to hide that and the thing about him is he is actually very WYSIWYG.

I knew him a bit myself when I was NE based many moons ago, and indeed chatted to him about politics.

People can change their ideology over time though. Point is it doesn't actually bother me if he is still a socialist or not.

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:40 pm

I knew him a bit myself when I was NE based many moons ago, and indeed chatted to him about politics.

People can change their ideology over time though. Point is it doesn't actually bother me if he is still a socialist or not.

It doesn't bother me either, but it appears to bother Roger Lancaster - I have no problem with that per se, but when it comes to elections, I hope Roger will question candidates who are more opaque than Tim.

Matthew Turner wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:47 pm

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:40 pm

I knew him a bit myself when I was NE based many moons ago, and indeed chatted to him about politics.

People can change their ideology over time though. Point is it doesn't actually bother me if he is still a socialist or not.

It doesn't bother me either, but it appears to bother Roger Lancaster - I have no problem with that per se, but when it comes to elections, I hope Roger will question candidates who are more opaque than Tim.

Actually, no. While my politics - such as they are - aren't aligned with Tim's, I totally respect his right to hold the views he does. However, peoples' strongly-held political convictions influence decisions they make elsewhere in their lives, as Matthew acknowledges, and I should be equally uneasy if someone holding extreme right-wing views appeared and acted in a similar manner to Tim.

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 31, 2021 9:08 pm

and I should be equally uneasy if someone holding extreme right-wing views appeared and acted in a similar manner to Tim.

Just as you should if someone with no political views acted in such a manner. Perhaps political views have got nothing to do with it.

Nick Burrows wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 31, 2021 9:41 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 31, 2021 9:08 pm

and I should be equally uneasy if someone holding extreme right-wing views appeared and acted in a similar manner to Tim.

Just as you should if someone with no political views acted in such a manner. Perhaps political views have got nothing to do with it.

A reasonable point and I would find the actions abhorrent in each case. However, while I readily acknowledge that everyone has their own agenda, I should feel somewhat easier if sure that the agenda wasn't dictated by political beliefs which most would consider extreme.

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:19 pm

I should feel somewhat easier if sure that the agenda wasn't dictated by political beliefs

Maybe you shouldn't project your own paranoias onto other people

"Maybe you shouldn't project your own paranoias onto other people"

I think paranoia is a mass noun and can't be pluralized.