A Remarkable Read

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by JustinHorton » Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:54 am

Mostly remarkable for being an entire waste of time
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

J T Melsom
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by J T Melsom » Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:02 am

I'm sure some posters will want to pick over the bones of the report. Whatever its merits, I think we should pause and thank Julian Clissold, Stephen Woodhouse and Mike Gunn for the time taken to produce it. I'm sure there are more enjoyable things for which to volunteer.

Mick Norris
Posts: 10310
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:11 am

Indeed; the bit about "It is acknowledged there have been recent breaches of Board confidentiality" is particularly interesting
Any postings on here represent my personal views

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3543
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Ian Thompson » Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:37 am

JustinHorton wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:54 am
Mostly remarkable for being an entire waste of time
Yes. If the £50 payment required to lodge a complaint is meant to deter unnecessary ones, it's obviously not enough.

Also, I suspect readers of this forum will not find it difficult to correctly guess the identity of the unnamed "horrified" Director.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Geoff Chandler » Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:38 am

From the above link.

'Whether that is right or not, MT [Mike Truran] apologised when he realised that RW [Rob Willmoth] had
not acted dishonestly and RW accepted the apology. That should have resolved the matter."

'RW has paid the £50 fee required by paragraph 1.3.'

---

The £50.00 is probably in place to deter needless squabbles and clashes of personalities.
Mike apologised and Rob accepted it. 'That should have resolved the matter' Maybe raise it to £150.00.

Edit: I see Ian has suggested an increase in the fee as well, he posted one minute before me!

Nick Burrows
Posts: 1704
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Nick Burrows » Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:35 pm

Given the allegiances of those making the complaint and the timing of it in relation to the impending election, it's hard not to see this as simply an attempt at an old fashioned pulling a political opponent through the mud routine.

The whole complaint reads to me as a big a waste of time - carried out with a goal in mind.

Gareth T Ellis
Posts: 237
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:07 pm

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Gareth T Ellis » Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:43 pm

Unread post by Nick Burrows » Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:35 pm

Given the allegiances of those making the complaint and the timing of it in relation to the impending election, it's hard not to see this as simply an attempt at an old fashioned pulling a political opponent through the mud routine.

The whole complaint reads to me as a big a waste of time - carried out with a goal in mind.
An own one ?

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:22 pm

Is there any reason why this judgement has to be put in the public domain at all?
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Michael Farthing » Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:30 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:22 pm
Is there any reason why this judgement has to be put in the public domain at all?
Regulation 5 Paragraph 3.5:
The outcome of the complaint will be published on the ECF website

PS I think that I have achieved a new record: in the posts made on this thread so far I am unable to disagree with a single word.

Nick Ivell
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Nick Ivell » Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:19 pm

A nonsensical row about nothing.

User avatar
Chris Goodall
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Contact:

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Chris Goodall » Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:10 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:30 pm
PS I think that I have achieved a new record: in the posts made on this thread so far I am unable to disagree with a single word.
Challenge accep...

Wait, someone thought it was worth paying £50 to accuse someone of accusing them of being a liar, and this merited an hour's discussion at a meeting?

Okay, never mind. I agree with the consensus of the forum.
Donate to Sabrina's fundraiser at https://gofund.me/aeae42c7 to support victims of sexual abuse in the chess world.

Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Michael Farthing » Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:48 pm

Ah! Chris
I meant it to be a personal record - I wasn't claiming there has never been another forum member who has agreed with every word of a whole thread! My bad phraseology.

John Reyes
Posts: 672
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by John Reyes » Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:08 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:22 pm
Is there any reason why this judgement has to be put in the public domain at all?
i wonder if it to do with a election maybe lol
Any postings on here represent my personal views only and also Dyslexia as well

J T Melsom
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by J T Melsom » Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:05 am

Rob Willmoth spent a non trivial sum pursuing a failed claim against Mike Truran. But there is no similar scrutiny applied ro Rob's friends. Integrity seems in short supply. I'd like to see candidates put forward positive proposals and distance themselves from the lying attack dogs that have been deployed in advance. Those who share the Wall/Fegan approach are not fit for office in an organisation which requires a broad base consensus to be maintained for anything to be done. (and yes that may be a failing, but abuse/dark arts aren't the best way to change the status quo.)
Last edited by J T Melsom on Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply