Thank you Lara and staff

[JustinHorton]

One could I suppose write of CJ - what is the role of the dog-in-a-manger of the British Championships?

[Ernie Lazenby]

Paul ask yourself this question, would chess continue without CJ and Nigel? of course it would.

Would organised chess continue without the likes of Lara ,Alex ,David Welch and the other volunteers?
Bottom line is , no it would not.

I know who I would rather see remain.

[Roger de Coverly]

My point was that Lara should not have commented. To do so was an error.

There was already a rumour circulating before the last round casting doubt over Torquay. If there was no substance to it, the official ECF denial squashes it.

[Paul Cooksey]

. Not because CJ was thinking of writing an article, which he did not in fact write.

No, his mate did. And he himself put round the allegations elsewhere. Do better than this, Paul.

I am trying to not get into another blow by blow of what happened. But I think there are two distinct phases, what happened before the mutual statements were made, and what happened afterwards.

I was disappointed Alex did not feel bound by his statement, and I am unconvinced any harm was done by CJ after the statements were released. Again Occam's razor, we can choose to look for shadowy influence, or we can look at what facts were in the public domain and how they resulted in misinformed criticism of Lara.

Unfortunately threats to disrupt the 99th British made it impossible for the Board to take the appropriate actions to end the matter.

What made it impossible was the unwillignness of the Board to distance themselves from CJ. This has caused more than one disaster.

CJ is an elected official. Democracy has been used to justify many things in this and related threads. But elected officials have to be respected or removed. CJ was not removed.

I find it hard to accept good faith, given the preceding actions.

You do realise that what you're implying is that Lara made the announcement deliberately in order to disrupt the following year's tournament? OK, if you want to say so. But that is liable to cause a great deal more damage than anything Lara has said.

While I thank Justin for saying my views on an unofficial forum are of equal weight to those of the Manager of the British Championship making an announcement at the British Championship, I think this is unlikely.

I was not going so far as to say that Lara was deliberately causing damage to the 100th British Championship. But I do believe her ongoing dispute with the ECF Board influenced her decision making.

There is a very large contrast between your willingness to attack Lara Barnes, and accuse her of bad faith, and your keenness to go many extra miles to defend people and action who do not merit it.

I try to be objective about what has happened, rather than decide who are "good guys" and who are "bad guys". People are generally both in my experience.

I am more likely to express an opinion if someone has not already made the point. Since I am exclusively a player it gives me a freedom to express opinion that others who need to work with those involved in these disputes do not. I make the point because I have had several messages from people saying they do not feel able to express their opinions publicly, as I have when posting on this subject before.

[JustinHorton]

Again Occam's razor, we can choose to look for shadowy influence

No, we can look at the close and not at all shadowy relationship between CJ and Ray of which you are as well aware as I.

But elected officials have to be respected or removed

Manifestly this is not true. Many elected officials are very widely disrespected. Some even more than CJ. Some even merit it more than CJ.

By the way, remind me again, Paul - what has CJ done in his role since Sheffield?

I try to be objective about what has happened

Another view would be that you make large things of small things and small things of large things.

I make the point because I have had several messages from people saying they do not feel able to express their opinions publicly, as I have when posting on this subject before.

Hey, the messages-of-support trope! Not seen that one for a while. And I am "aware of all internet traditions"....

[Paul Cooksey]

Would organised chess continue without the likes of Lara ,Alex ,David Welch and the other volunteers

Yes. I said previously no-one is bigger than the team. No-one is bigger than the game either.

Paul I find it hard to take you seriously. You are not even handed in your comments and clearly fall within the CJ and Nigel Short apologist group of individuals.

I think this is playing the man not the ball. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no personal relationship with CJ, who I have previously described as unsuitable for an executive role. Or Nigel, who I believe I have only spoken to once, in a conversation in which he called me stupid. Although I will concede that is a relatively diplomatic comment by his standards.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Sadly I fear that the malevolent malcontent with an Oxford education but devoid of social graces will have a field day given the amount of material available to him now.

[JustinHorton]

Sadly I fear that the malevolent malcontent with an Oxford education but devoid of social graces will have a field day given the amount of material available to him now.

That description applies to more than one person in chess. It could even be applied to me.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I have also made my own views repeatedly clear. The incident at Sheffield was not one single issue but several different issues running into each other. The actual T-shirt issue was a misunderstanding that was subsequently handled badly; that's not the issue here.

The President went to the Press. What he actually said remains unclear twelve months on. There was no need for him to do this as, even if he had been barred on homophobic grounds, the matter could have been dealt with internally. To be fair to the President he probably didn't foresee what happened next - the story passed from the broadsheets to the gay internet press and bloggers. This meant that people got hold of Lara's email address and she was subject to a tirade of ill informed, abusive messages. She is not a public figure in the way some people involved in chess (De Mooi, Short, Keene) and is not known outside of chess circles. She could hardly have been prepared for this and Alex has written quite passionately about the impact this has had on her. I don't know if Paul Cooksey has a partner himself (and it's none of my business anyway) but if that person was thrown to the wolves of the internet in the way Lara was perhaps he would react the same way.

Yes the President apologised for this and a line should have been drawn under the incident. However Lara and Alex felt that Lara's position was still misinterpreted (it's always the way that corrections are put in the small print). This could have an impact on her professional career. They asked for the board's help and support with this. The board refused. On top of this Raymond Keene, a chess author and journalist with a wide readership, had apparently referred to the British championship organisers as `brutish and bigoted` and said `they should be investigated by the police` (there is some quibbling over the context of this and Keene has always maintained he wasn't referring to Lara and Alex) - and refused to retract these. The board refused to intervene and the President has since made no comment. Following this Keene continued to tweet about Lara questioning her competance to run the championships and demanding her resignation. He appeared to be privy to confidential board information and made no secret of his closeness to the President.

It was obvious here that there were still tensions, not helped by inflamed passions of supporters on both sides - in some emails to me Keene mentioned abusive emails from Lara and Alex's supporters and this is equally unacceptable. Sean Hewitt (I believe - apologies if I'm mistaken) offered to bring the two sides together and mediate in the hope that some sort of understanding could be reached. The board, for reasons that are still unclear, rejected this process as they thought it unlikely to succeed. That was the last significant development and since then we have been stuck with what several commentators have referred to as the festering boil.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Sorry I should have made it clear- he whose name we no longer mention.

[Paul Cooksey]

Again Occam's razor, we can choose to look for shadowy influence

No, we can look at the close and not at asll shadowy relationship between CJ and Ray of which you are as well aware as I.

I consider the relationship less important than what they have done.

But elected officials have to be respected or removed

Manifestly this is not true. Many elected officials are very widely disrespected. Some even more than CJ. Some even merit it more than CJ.
By the way, remind me again, Paul - what has CJ done in his role since Sheffield?

You can say an elected person is poor at their job, you can raise a vote of no confidence, you can stand against them. But if you start saying unelected people have the right to overrule elected ones, you are saying you don't believe in democracy.

I suspect that I would agree with the views of many, many civil servants more than those of the Prime Minister. But I don't encourage them to ignore his wishes in the performance of their jobs.

I try to be objective about what has happened

Another view would be that you make large things of small things and small things of large things.

This is simply a statement that we disagree. I was trying to explain why I think it is inappropriate to assume that some people are right on all issues and some wrong.

I make the point because I have had several messages from people saying they do not feel able to express their opinions publicly, as I have when posting on this subject before.

Hey, the messages-of-support trope! Not seen that one for a while. And I am "aware of all internet traditions"....

Fair enough, I led with my chin. If you really want to spit out your tea, one of them suggested I stand for CEO...

[JustinHorton]

. But if you start saying unelected people have the right to overrule elected ones, you are saying you don't believe in democracy.

Hang on, that's nonsense. There are many instances in which unelected people are able to overrule elected ones: elected people have limited powers, and some things aren't within their sphere.

I was trying to explain why I think it is inappropriate to assume that some people are right on all issues and some wrong.

Though why expend effort contradicting a point that nobody has made?

[Paul Cooksey]

. But if you start saying unelected people have the right to overrule elected ones, you are saying you don't believe in democracy.

Hang on, that's nonsense. There are many instances in which unelected people are able to overrule elected ones: elected people have limited powers, and some things aren't within their sphere.

I accept the clarification, I'll try to rephrase to where the unelected person is contradicting the elected one, in the elected persons sphere of influence.

I was trying to explain why I think it is inappropriate to assume that some people are right on all issues and some wrong.

Though why expend effort contradicting a point that nobody has made?

I think Ernie's support for Alex and Lara is close to absolute, as is his criticism of several people. Always difficult to talk to three people at once.

[Paul Cooksey]

Sadly I fear that the malevolent malcontent with an Oxford education but devoid of social graces will have a field day given the amount of material available to him now.

It seems slightly inappropriate to joke about a serious subject. However, I was playing predict the title of Giddins' next post with another forumite, until I was accused of deliberately feeding him lines.

More seriously, the likelihood he will misrepresent this discussion should not prevent us having it. We can respond to his comments if necessary.

[Alex McFarlane]

In the hope of clarifying the situation and ending this discussion.

I never made any agreement that the De Mooi statement would end the matter as Paul Cooksey has repeatedly stated. Indeed I have almost from the beginning when it became clear from both the Sunday Times and the Observer that serious allegations were made (subsequently backed up by the PCC) have I strongly suggested that De Mooi should make a public apology. His initial statement could be claimed to avoid the real issue. He did not use the word homophobic, but could his message be interpretted in any other way. He could easily have demanded that the Sunday Times make its recoding of his conversation public. He chose not to do so.

The attempt by Sean Hewitt to arrange mediation was not the final attempt. Bruce Holland also tried to get the main figures in the dispute together. Some conditions were put to me that even Mike Gunn found unacceptable. I was prepared to go part way but then a Director admitted that he was never interested in attending the meeting despite his initial intention.

I hope that even if I was best of buddies with every member of the ECF Board I would still have pointed out the apparent inconsistencies in the ECF statement and the timeline which appears in relation to the CAS case. It is a significant matter and had to be investigated. Lara was not involved in the 'revelation' of the CAS case. Paul is wrong in claiming that. Those who know me well will verify that that is likely to be the case.

Lara is not an unelected official. She was appointed by the Board. Therefore the Board voted to accept her. To call her an unelected official is simply rubbish.

Lara has stated that CJ De Mooi would have been welcomed to the event. Indeed Andrew Farthing insisted that she make her position clear on that matter.

CJ should have been aware of the further ramifications of his statement. He states (and in this I believe him) that he has been subjected to abuse from extremists on the other end of the spectrum. It therefore seems logical to suppose that any provocative article would have a similar effect.

I hope that this will end all speculation and allow this thread to get back to its original purpose - delivering praise where it is deserved. Perhaps Adam Raoof could post returning the post to its original path as Andrew Farthing tried earlier.