My Resignation

[Carl Hibbard]

After Matthew Turner's request to have some posts deleted I posted the following -
"Life's a joke and all things show it, I thought it once and now I know it." (epitaph of John Gay, author of The Beggars Opera)
And,
"I'll get my coat." (Fast Show)
It never appeared!?

I did actually remove a couple of your posts as they had no relevance to this particular topic

[John McKenna]

Thank you.
Now having rendered unto Caesar what is his I will "get my coat" for a final time.

[Richard Bates]

Yes, maybe in 1997, we had some world class GMs, bussed in from across the globe, all expenses paid...no questions asked...first class on Air India, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, or whereever. And off they went...smash and grab raid completed, leaving our home players empty handed. So what did we do...yes, typical...we booted them out.

Were there two British Championships held in 1997? The one you describe and the one which the rest of us remember? (Won by Adams, Sadler, Miles and Emms, closely followed by Hebden, Summerscale, Speelman, Ledger and, OK, a young Sasikiran). There were probably more "foreigners" in Sheffield than there were in 1997!

[Alex McFarlane]

David,
I’m not sure I agree with much of what you have said. Under normal circumstances you are probably correct.

Think what we have.
We have an ECF President who may or may not have implied or stated to the media that up to three other officials were homophobic. A President who will neither confirm nor deny what he did. All he is willing to state is that he did not use the word homophobic. But did he express those sentiments? If he did not then why does he not deny doing so? If he did, then why does he not apologise?

If he did not make those allegations then any compensation from the Sunday Times would have been ploughed into the 2012 British. All three officials involved would have done that without hesitation. His silence may have cost more than he has contributed.

His refusal to confirm or deny is the root cause of all that has followed.
We now have accusations that the £16K that he claims to have put into the British is significantly less than that, if anything at all. SG even claims that much of the claimed amount was spent on wining and dining and overnight accommodation. If his donation figure is reached in that manner then I can name, without much thought, at least 5 people who have made a more significant financial investment in British chess without seeking any publicity. If you doubt this look at the equipment used at the British and 4NCL. That has I think almost all come from a very few benefactors.

I agree that in many cases responding to rumours only gives them legs. But we now have an example of where not only do the rumours have legs but they are getting quite significant bodies as well.

It is no longer appropriate for the President to maintain his position of silence. By doing so he is in great danger of negating the good work that he has done.

For the greater good of English chess the President must explain his actions and do so NOW.

At the beginning of this saga I was approached and asked if Private Eye could cover this matter. I declined. I am now willing to be interviewed by (almost) any journalist on this matter.

We have a lame duck ECF President. One who, if he has any sense, will be avoiding certain chess events for fear of the adverse reception he might get. I would hope no one would actually boo him but that has been suggested. Walking out or simply ignoring him seem much more likely courses of action. But it is unbelievable that we are talking this way only 6 months after what was a magnificent event.

A suggestion, why doesn’t BCM or Chess offer to do an interview with De Mooi? That gives him his chance to put his side of the story and would probably boost sales of the magazine.

[JustinHorton]

Which was the issue of New In Chess in which Nigel Short said CJ had "energised" the Federation? In a sense, Nige, in a sense...

[Steve Rooney]

David,
We have a lame duck ECF President. One who, if he has any sense, will be avoiding certain chess events for fear of the adverse reception he might get. I would hope no one would actually boo him but that has been suggested. Walking out or simply ignoring him seem much more likely courses of action. But it is unbelievable that we are talking this way only 6 months after what was a magnificent event.

Who is this "we" you talk about? This thread may have gone on for pages and pages, but it's a relatively small number of forumites who are participating, let alone the wider chess public. I don't see that you have any evidence for your assertion about lame ducks. That may be your opinion, stated and restated countless times on this forum, but that doesn't mean that you speak for others. It is extraordinarily arrogant to suggest that you do. And is it not rather bizarre that an arbiter would want to incite people to behave in such a way?

[Steve Rooney]

We appear to be well into the `CJ bashing` season just now, with abuse being hurled from the touchlines, and some seemingly wanting to settle scores.
Is this a wise approach..?

David,

I have to admit that I do find some of your posts a challenge to follow, but I think your comments here have a lot of merit and inject some much-needed good sense and balance into the debate.

[geoffgammon]

I am not a direct member of the ECF but I contribute, as do many others, through the game fee and I consider myself part of the 'we' who have an ECF President. I have observed many questions raised regarding the activities of the President and I believe answers should be forthcoming if I am to retain any confidence in his integrity regardless of the demonstrably beneficial effects of his period in office.

I fully understand that I am not in possession of all the relevant information and there is need for confidentiality in some areas but the complete absence of any defence or explanation of a person's actions cannot be seen as encouraging.

I retain the hope that someone with the necessary influence can do something positive to resolve this situation.

[Jonathan Rogers]

... is it not rather bizarre that an arbiter would want to incite people to behave in such a way?

Alex simply does not say that. He is referring to others who have told him that this is what they would do if they were to see CJ.

This cannot be proven either way, but I should think that of those chess players who have spent some time familiarising themsleves with the known facts and the unanswered questions it is those who are saying "nothing to see here - just a storm in a teacup" who are in the minority. There are possibly many who are aware of the controversy still unwilling to act or to decalre their support for Alex, for whatever reason, but as for those who really think that there is no sign of anything amiss to begin with - surely very few by now?

[Andrew Zigmond]

Just playing devil's advocate for a moment, could CJ's supporters and apologists possibly explain exactly what Lara has done wrong, apart from raising a legitimite concern about whether the T shirt was appropriate (and I'm sure she would happily concede there were arguments for and against). Could they also explain why, instead of politely begging to differ, CJ decided to take his grievance to the press - thus ensuring that Lara's `punishment` outweighed any `crime`.

If CJ had not done this, or at least moved heaven and earth to put things right afterwards (and he could have got some good PR whilst eating his humble pie) then Lara's health and wellbeing would not be an issue, Alex would not be forced to defend her, every Tom, Dick and Harry Termite would not be at loggerheads and the ECF might be able to a few steps forward rather than several hundred back.

That is why we are in this mess. From a personal point of view I am neutral on CJ and the ECF and extremely pro Alex and Lara. That's why I'm commenting so aggressively.

[Steve Rooney]

... is it not rather bizarre that an arbiter would want to incite people to behave in such a way?

Alex simply does not say that. He is referring to others who have told him that this is what they would do if they were to see CJ.

I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that his statement above is not advocating precisely that action.

[Steve Rooney]

... is it not rather bizarre that an arbiter would want to incite people to behave in such a way?

This cannot be proven either way

This is my point; it is assertion masquerading as accepted fact.

[Steve Rooney]

For the record, Shropshire has a lot to thank CJ for. He masterminded the Nigel short simul tour and we ran a very successful event which helped to lay the foundations for the subsequent rescue of the Shropshire congress since it gave us access to a super venue and energised the local organisers. As to the finances, we were quoted a fee for the simul which we agreed, and I don't think we have any interest in what happened to the money thereafter. No-one batted an eyelid at the board fee and we surpassed the original target number of boards and we also made a profit out of the event which has gone into the county's funds.

[Jonathan Rogers]

... is it not rather bizarre that an arbiter would want to incite people to behave in such a way?

Alex simply does not say that. He is referring to others who have told him that this is what they would do if they were to see CJ.

I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that his statement above is not advocating precisely that action.

Ok, so we disagree here, but I would remind you that Alex offered all sorts of compromises (which he should not have had to have done) aimed at tempting CJ to answer questions/apologise so that everything could go back to the way it was. Relevant?

[Jonathan Rogers]

... is it not rather bizarre that an arbiter would want to incite people to behave in such a way?

This cannot be proven either way

This is my point; it is assertion masquerading as accepted fact.

And the rest of my quoted paragraph?!