English Chess Forum

I think this is where we are at. The President who wishes to keep his crown has indicated;

If hes not elected he will wash our dirty linen in public. Elect him and he will keep quiet
If hes not elected the 2013 British Championship wont be as good if hes elected.
If hes not elected theres no money forthcoming

What he has not said is anything meaningfull to fill in the blank spaces he alludes to in his various messages/blogs/interviews

Even in the strange world of chess that sort of message to the membership ought to result in a resounding message-be gone.

I find it rather disturbing that in his election message he says he has suffered bullying well what exactly are the above if they are not an attempt to bully the membership into voteing for him

BTW thats not to mention his comment that 2 people have been reported to the Police? Smacks of, now all you lot behave and keep me happy or I am of to the law.

Most people in any position of authority accept the rough with the smooth it goes with the territory.

The tone of his blog/election address really is quite extraordinary, unprecedented even. It is normal enough for a candidate to make unsubstantiated promises, and to warn about bad things that will happen if his unsuitable opponent is elected, but CJ is the only candidate I can think of who actually makes implicit threats about what he himself will do if not elected.

But I agree with others that his threats cannot be dismissed - he brought chess into disrepute with the mainstream media last year easily enough just by acting naturally.

So I propose two courses of pre-emptive action which should be taken now (by those more technically adept and who are part of Council) -

1) His blog entry and date should be copied and put somewhere safe, if possible, in case he decides to take it down. If he soon decides to withdraw from the election (in anticipation of defeat) and later runs to the media, saying that he withdrew for professional reasons, we will be able to show that he was planning to run until very late, including after the time when he had publicised his recent job offers

2) Someone should propose a moton in Council the condemn the inappropriate tone of his statement. Such a motion will no doubt not be allowed if the election is contested, but I think it important that it should be possible to vote on the motion if Roger Edwards is elected unopposed. Then we can show to any interested media party just how heavily CJ would have lost if he had stood. Moreover we would be drawing the journalist's attention to his statement much more forcefully in this way, and I think that any journalist who first hears CJ's side of his story will then read it and will immediately see, from reading the statement, that there were probably many very good reasons why CJ lost the trust of the English chess community.

Jonathan Rogers wrote:The tone of his blog/election address really is quite extraordinary....

I particularly enjoyed the subtext:-

"I made a terrible mistake running to the press last year and I'm really sorry. Although obviously I'll do it again if you don't vote me back in."

If he stands down because he is unable to dedicate the amount of time required as a result of other commitments, then that is preferable to the current position by a country mile, even if the real reason is that he has decided that he will lose, and lose badly. Would he run to the press in these circumstances, claiming that he was hounded out by bigots? Possibly, possibly not, but if he does then the truth should offer a simple refutation of any silly allegations - and of course legal action isn't the sole preserve of one individual.

I think our (as in the wider chess community) main priority should be to consider how we want the post CJ landscape to look. He insinuates that we can't manage without him, we need to prove him wrong. Roger Edwards can't run solely on the fact that he's not CJ (even though for most people that's enough), he needs to provide some substance of his own about what he intends to do.

Going back to the election address, one thing I don't understand is why this potentially explosive file has to be kept secret unless CJ loses the election? If he has evidence that proves he's been unfairly treated why doesn't he share it and wait for the apology.

That said, there's one thing that's (strangely) never been discussed on this forum and I think it's significant. In his blog Michael Adams referred to an email on the subject that was sent to several individuals in the UK chess scene and was virulently homophobic in nature. This may have been the matter that was referred to the police (just a hunch). The one thing I would say in CJ's defence is that he may be conflating genuine homophobic attacks (which are completely unacceptable) with people such as myself who feel that Lara was badly wronged.

Ernie has not supplied a link and I'm not going to look for it
as I have better things to do.
But just reading the above posts are we sure it's CJ.

We have already seen one joke account on here.
This one reads like it could well be another.

This bit:

"I made a terrible mistake running to the press last year and I'm really sorry.
Although obviously I'll do it again if you don't vote me back in."

It's a joke. His site has been hacked.

Be nice if Steve G. revealed what the "totally unreasonable pre-condition..." was that prevented the parties meeting?

Andrew Zigmond wrote:Roger Edwards can't run solely on the fact that he's not CJ (even though for most people that's enough), he needs to provide some substance of his own about what he intends to do.

The role of President is supposed to be "ambassadorial". If Roger Edwards wants to be the kind of President that the ECF regulations describe, he doesn't really need to say anything about what he intends to do. More important is who and what he is.

Geoff Chandler wrote:Ernie has not supplied a link and I'm not going to look for it
as I have better things to do.
But just reading the above posts are we sure it's CJ.

We have already seen one joke account on here.
This one reads like it could well be another.

This bit:

"I made a terrible mistake running to the press last year and I'm really sorry.
Although obviously I'll do it again if you don't vote me back in."

It's a joke. His site has been hacked.

Geoff that was Jonathan putting his slant on what CJ said. His humour.

Go back to the original post by Yorkshire re the interview and CJ's comments can be found via the link. I dont think anyone has said his election address is a joke or made up by someone else.

Andrew said, The one thing I would say in CJ's defence is that he may be conflating genuine homophobic attacks (which are completely unacceptable) with people such as myself who feel that Lara was badly wronged.

Yes and thats the problem we have in Britain today. Its all too easy for someone to raise the bigot card be it for whatever reason and because of some high profile incidents it tends to put people off from entering debates. I dont believe anyone on this forum is in any way homophobic and indeed quite the opposite treating people on their merits. Going back to when CJ was originally elected many of us were totally supportive, me probably more than most indeed I and others made very positive comments on this forum about how he was going about his duties.
Sadly events of the last year make it such support cannot be given but that does not make people who dont like what happened at Sheffield and subsequent to bigots. The reputation of our Federation has to come before any individual.

BTW I beleieve that anyone who has uttered vitriolic homophobic comments about CJ or any other gay person should not be allowed membership of the ECF and be driven out of chess. There are people who dont like gay people but keep their thoughts for the most part private- thats life.

So two votes for CJ from Ernie and Jon.

Ernie - I corresponded with Raymond Keene over the controversy and he told me that he had received abusive emails from supporters of Lara and Alex. I had agree to differ with Mr Keene on a lot of things but his emails were gentlemanly throughout. If this is true, and since Mr Keene is only a high profile supporter, one dreads to think what some people have said in private to CJ de Mooi.

During the Appeal for Board Support/ Open Letter/ My Resignation threads Alex expressed frustration over requests and demands of confidentiality that prevented him from revealing certain details. All those months since I first weighed into this debate my own view hasn't changed; Lara has been treated appallingly and CJ de Mooi from a position of strength AFTER T shirt-gate has dug himself into this hole where his position is untenable.

We know that Alex and CJ corresponded in the aftermath of the original incident. We know that these emails were cordial until Alex raised the subject of Raymond Keene's apparent comments at which point CJ terminated the correspondance. It is true that the clarifications by both parties should have drawn a line under the incident, Alex just felt that Lara needed a bit more to help the reconciliation process. For reasons still unexplained CJ de Mooi took offence and the board refused to get involved. It's been downhill since there.

Good post Andrew.

My problem is that when I recognised the previous Presidents time was up, a friend for many decades and whom I still speak to, I was very vocal in my support for CJ having met him and spoken at length about ECF matters. I felt then he was the right person.
I felt bad about saying Gerrys time was up but thats me I tell it as it is without any thought of friendship. Perhaps readers can understand therefore how desperately sad I feel about events at Sheffield and since. I feel let down by CJ whose behaviour as President of our Federation, and it is ours not any one persons, I cannot accept as anything but wrong no matter how he felt or proceedural matters he did not understand. Sadly I think that his larger than than life personality has to some extent resulted in him being a loose cannon and that we cannot have.

The Federation must be bigger than one individual.

Ernie Lazenby wrote:The Federation must be bigger than one individual.

Quite.

First of all, I agree that if CJdM has been subject to homophobic abuse that should be condemned without equivocation.

However, an over-focus on the Sheffield closing ceremony and it's aftermath does rather play into the President's hands - not least because it allows him and his supporters the opportunity for a "fault on both sides" defence. In truth the problems with him date much much longer.

Was it the restraints of confidentiality that led him to sneak RDK into the opening ceremony without informing anybody else of his plans? I'm afraid the problems with CJ's reign date back at least a year further than the last day of Sheffield.

Larger than life personality? I'd say that the Presidential problems in their various ways all amount to the same thing: a certain flexibility in his attitude towards facts and a disdain for accountability.

It is for this reason that I think it is unwise to take him at face value when, for example, he says the ECF only contributed a "token" amount towards his trip to Istanbul. It is also the reason why I wouldn't vote for him in the coming election (assuming I had a vote, which of course I don't).

Cheers Ernie.

I was right I was wrong.

Right it was a joke, wrong it appeared in CJ's blog/tweet/ thing.

(of course it is all your fault for not posting a link.)

Take Care

Geoff

PS: Tech question:

I don't have a tweet bleat thing nor do I intend to get one.
Do I need to open a tweet account to read other people's tweets?

I can read SG's stuff, is that a tweet or a blog or a...what it it exactly?

On R4 today heard you can buy 2,000 fake tweet followers for $200
and people are actually paying it.
This is an amazing case of self delusion.
Knowing they don't exist and yet writing for them everyday.

Carl.
Are the people on here real or is it just you and me?