ECF loses case

[Justin Hadi]

Martin with the greatest respect you were in the ideal position to move things forward and change a culture which you were highly vocal about if I remember correctly. You got out very soon after being elected because you could not get your way. I don't think you are someone who can attack those who want to comment about issues they think are important even if you don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

[John Upham]

If you care as much about English chess as you profess. Stand for office. You will have less time to post vitriol but it will make more difference to chess.

Martin,

Once more you have hit several nails on the head in one very commendable post. Many friends have walked away from this place since they are concerned to be associated with some of its toxicity.

I decided to ride the storm and hope for better days. In many cases I have empathy with SGs derision (but not with the personal attacks).

Each time one posts I would welcome a little pop-up box appearing: "WIll this be yet another negative post or will it be something constructive and positive?"

[Ernie Lazenby]

John with regard to your comment about Giddin's. Sadly you seem to have selected memory, I recall you asking my advice as to what could be done about him because of an attack on you. Yes or no. Which side of the fence do you actually sit.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I agree with quite a lot of what Martin Regan says (and it's increasingly clear that in terms of what he wanted to deliver for english chess he was slightly ahead of his time). One thing I do take a slight issue with is his defence of CJ de Mooi and Nigel Short. The former was indeed an excellent president and his `horrendous mistake` is relatively easily forgiven - what is less forgiveable is that his actions had a deeply personal effect on one individual and he has never taken any responsibility for that. Nigel Short's brilliance as a player will be remembered years from now but he is responsible for some of the most unpleasant and personal comments made on this forum. It is this simple statement of fact that explains the bitterness and negativity surrounding everything they do.

[Matthew Turner]

Really this court case gets to the heart of what is wrong with the ECF. The Board discussed whether there were any financial implications to the action and they decided that there weren't - OK. They didn't tell the members, but there weren't any financial implications so that's OK. The Board had the right to take action without consulting Council because of article whatever.
However, the primary purpose of this court case is to restrict funds for chess in developing nations. Didn't anybody realise that this should be contrary to the raison d'etre for any chess organisation?

[John Upham]

John with regard to your comment about Giddin's. Sadly you seem to have selected memory, I recall you asking my advice as to what could be done about him because of an attack on you. Yes or no. Which side of the fence do you actually sit.

I do not support the personal attacks on anyone and that includes yourself, Justin Horton, Andrew Farthing, Adam Raoof, Paul McKeown, Stewart Reuben, Roger de Coverly, CJ de Mooi, Ian Kingston, Paul Cooksey (today) and any other victim I have missed out. As for myself, having been born an only child with ginger hair, had glasses from the age of two and been the classroom swot since age 5 I have endured an above average share of playground abuse and name calling! I'd prefer it to stop and have been given useful advice under http://www.harassment-law.co.uk/ that could easily be followed up.

SG is an excellent writer when he confines himself to the positive aspects of chess and I enjoy reading his posts.

[William Metcalfe]

Giddings is your typical internet bully he would not call anybody names to there faces.
He likes to think he is funny much like a bad stand up comedian and like a bad stand up his material is lacking in originality.

[Krishna Shiatis]

It is an essay , authored by the pious and those who have taken on the mantle, without the slightest credibility, of “spokespeople” for the average chess player.

Nobody has said that they are speaking for everyone. This is a chess forum and the discussion has been about a particular topic which is very relevant to us as members of the ECF.

The thread (as with most others) has been hijacked by those whose main gripe is over entirely different matters than the one in this thread, or is a continuation of personal battles and hatreds by other means.

Like every other ECF thread it morphs into one of six subjects:

1. CJ De Moi has no judgement and must resign.
2. Ditto Nigel Short.
3.The ECF is incompetent.
4.Alex REALLY wants an apology from CJ (or see 1).
5 The membership scheme wont work
6 Ray Keene is up to no good, (though see 1).

None of this would matter, but when you have the ECF CEO casually called a liar, our FIDE delegate and greatest -ever Grandmaster routinely insulted and disbelieved, then we really do have a problem of self-respect.

Nobody has a problem with self respect. Nobody has called the ECF CEO a liar - he was being economical with the truth and did need to be prodded several times before he told us about the third party paying for the Memorandum.

Martin, I have none of the above agendas you have mentioned, but yes I am worried about the finances. I pay my membership every year and in return I do want to know if legal processes are carried out in my name, how much they cost, how they were paid for and what the consequences of these actions are. I am not nosey - I do not choose to bury my head in the sand. When people are not telling you stuff directly or other people are paying for stuff in your name, warning bells should begin to ring that there is something going on. Perhaps it is all above board. Who knows? But it does not stop me from asking.

I ask on this forum because this is where people do come and tell you. This is where we were told about the legal action in the first place.

The facts, in this thread, for those who want to see them, are quite clear.

Are they? Do we really know what is going on? Who is paying for the Memorandum? Why? What is really going on? Is there anything else which we do not know about which will have consequences for us later?

Should the board have told Council? Probably. Did the board need to tell Council? No. Did it need to inform this forum , or any member of it? No.

This is a very interesting comment in itself. You have said that the board should probably have told council. This is part of the problem. Relevant information is not flowing as perhaps it should and when questions are then being asked here, we are told to stop it.

You are quite right that nobody needs to tell us anything here. People come because they choose to do so. Everybody is welcome and everybody's questions are important. Martin, when you left this forum before, I was one of the voices who said that you should come back. I still think that this was right because whether you agree with me or not, what is happening here may well make some people feel uncomfortable, but in the long term, they will understand that 'the truth will out'. Maybe it will lead to long term transparency. That can not be a bad thing.

Many of you talk about the need for transparency, but what you really mean is that you want to satisfy your curiosity. Either because you are simply nosey, or you wish to know in order to garner ammunition for your blogs or the battles ahead. (see 1-6)

It is curiosity which has resulted in us finding out about the third party. It is curiosity which ultimately will lead to greater transparency. It is curiosity about what FIDE was doing which lead to the eventual legal case. It is curiosity which has made us the human beings that we are. Curiosity is not a bad thing, particularly when it leads to the truth coming out. I am not simply nosey and have no blogs nor planned battles ahead - sorry to disappoint.

The fall out for the arbiters was unfortunate, but it is entirely down to the Turkish Federation and it is at them that the spew of indignation should be directed. You do not fail to tackle a criminal, for fear that he might visit crime upon you at a later date.

Unfortunate is one way of describing it. It was very important to Lara. A further point to note, is that there are consequences of these actions which are not always obvious at the outset. Maybe it will impact on you, maybe on somebody else. Either way, you can not just discount it as 'unfortunate'.

If you care as much about English chess as you profess. Stand for office. You will have less time to post vitriol but it will make more difference to chess.

Why is this always the answer of those people who do not like the questions?

"If you care, stand for office!"

I believe, if you care enough, firstly you will come and talk to someone about it. So here we are. I do not feel that I have posted vitriol, I have asked for more clarity and for the whole truth. It has come out in dribs and drabs, but only because I kept asking.

Whilst some of the questions on this forum (from threads past and present) may have made people in office feel uncomfortable, they have resulted in a greater general awareness of what is going on in the chess world. Whilst I do not claim to be that much wiser, I certainly do know that things are not always what they seem here.

Maybe some people are angry sometimes (Martin, you have been angry yourself on occasion) - you can actually see where they are coming from. If they did not have a way of telling anyone, then that anger would fester forever. At least by voicing it here, there is some chance of resolution. Maybe we are beyond that in some cases, but the option is still available, because of this forum.

[Jonathan Rogers]

For what it's worth, this thread has gone awry. There seems to be nothing to worry about with this memorandum at all. It is indeed just the sort of constructive approach which we want to see, and which should be so obviously part of the ECF's functions that it does need not to tell its members about it. I agree that AF has shown remarkable patience over this.

That apart, I agree with much of Krishna's reply to Martin. I can hardly credit that a former CEO thinks there was no need to tell members about a high profile legal action taken in their name (but funded by another as a political tactic) and that members signed up to this when their (largely unaccountable) delegates very narrowly voted in Nigel Short as FIDE Delegate!

Part of the problem is something about which Martin should know a lot - the inefficiency, unaccountability and relatively low level of many Council members. For as long as we have a Council which (for example) sees nothing much wrong in electing our current marketing director, then of course there will be many awkward questions from the people on the ground. The answer to why some forumites don't stasnd for office may be partly that Martin walked out through exasperaton in trying to get Council to discuss serious matters sensibly. Myself, though I don't have the time anyway, I would be deterred by the fact that such excellent candidates as Peter Sowray and Mike Truran tried and quickly gave up.

Still, a lot of Council members as well as Board members read this forum. Hopefully they will be influenced for the better by some of the contributions, and will be able to ignore the odd ones, realising that this is after all an open forum.

[Steve Rooney]

It is an essay , authored by the pious and those who have taken on the mantle, without the slightest credibility, of “spokespeople” for the average chess player.

Nobody has said that they are speaking for everyone. This is a chess forum and the discussion has been about a particular topic which is very relevant to us as members of the ECF.

In fact you did say earlier ... "You keep telling us Andrew, that it has cost us no money at all; but nobody is quite believing this. I know that you have said that it falls 'within our normal parameters' of operation and therefore does not count as an 'extra' but no matter how you spin it, nobody believes that it is free."

You didn't say "nobody who has so far written on this thread", you said "nobody believes ..." Surely that is what Martin is referring to regarding self-appointed spokespeople.

I note that you have now clarified your approach to Andrew and accused him of being "economical with the truth" which, in my personal opinion, still seems to me to be an attack on his integrity which is entirely unwarranted.

[Peter D Williams]

"Martin Regan"]

"If you care, stand for office") i say - there always give that as an answer hoping it will make you go away! It has never made me go away. or do you every help at a chess event there dont like it when you say yes i have helped at a chess event! i have helped at Richmond and at Coulsdon chess club for any one that is interested.

Krishna says-Maybe some people are angry sometimes (Martin, you have been angry yourself on occasion) - you can actually see where they are coming from. If they did not have a way of telling anyone, then that anger would fester forever. At least by voicing it here, there is some chance of resolution. Maybe we are beyond that in some cases, but the option is still available, because of this forum.[/quote]

Krishna talks a lot of sense and comments about issues because she cares and wants to see English chess go forward and succeed its no good shouting her down that wont change anything! maybe be she will stand one day for office with the ECF hope she does.
Carry on puting your views forward Krishna i enjoy reading them and those that dont that is just to bad!

[Krishna Shiatis]

It is an essay , authored by the pious and those who have taken on the mantle, without the slightest credibility, of “spokespeople” for the average chess player.

Nobody has said that they are speaking for everyone. This is a chess forum and the discussion has been about a particular topic which is very relevant to us as members of the ECF.

In fact you did say earlier ... "You keep telling us Andrew, that it has cost us no money at all; but nobody is quite believing this. I know that you have said that it falls 'within our normal parameters' of operation and therefore does not count as an 'extra' but no matter how you spin it, nobody believes that it is free."

You didn't say "nobody who has so far written on this thread", you said "nobody believes ..." Surely that is what Martin is referring to regarding self-appointed spokespeople.

I note that you have now clarified your approach to Andrew and accused him of being "economical with the truth" which, in my personal opinion, still seems to me to be an attack on his integrity which is entirely unwarranted.

Steve, I agree that I should have phrased myself better. I should have written "nobody who has so far written on this thread...". I do not believe that I am a spokesperson for anyone and just for clarity, my opinions are my own and not anyone else's unless they choose to agree with me.

My opinion is that you are choosing to find attacks on Andrew where there are simply none. Please do read what I have written carefully. I was just trying to find out what was going on.

[Krishna Shiatis]

Krishna talks a lot of sense and comments about issues because she cares and wants to see English chess go forward and succeed its no good shouting her down that wont change anything! maybe be she will stand one day for office with the ECF hope she does.
Carry on puting your views forward Krishna i enjoy reading them and those that dont that is just to bad!

Thank you Peter!

[Steve Rooney]

Please do read what I have written carefully.

I think you've just acknowledged that you haven't been writing carefully.

[Krishna Shiatis]

Please do read what I have written carefully.

I think you've just acknowledged that you haven't been writing carefully.

Steve, maybe my writing is not perfect - I will always admit this when it is the case, it should not stop you reading it and understanding what I am trying to say.

Nobody is perfect.