English Chess Forum

Mostly remarkable for being an entire waste of time

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.

Indeed; the bit about "It is acknowledged there have been recent breaches of Board confidentiality" is particularly interesting

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.

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!

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.

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 ?

Is there any reason why this judgement has to be put in the public domain at all?

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.

A nonsensical row about nothing.

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.

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.

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

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.)