"SavetheUKCC" petition

[John Upham]

I can't be the only one who is uncomfortable with the comparison to slavery in that statement!

I strongly advised (last Sunday) Mike to remove this material from the letter. Rational persons who may well support the first part could easily run away because of the second part.

[David Blower]

Well, I do support the UKCC in general, but I am not signing any such petition to save it, under my name, with references to comparison of slavery, and that includes if the statement is edited.

[Ian Thompson]

Well, I do support the UKCC in general, but I am not signing any such petition to save it, under my name, with references to comparison of slavery, and that includes if the statement is edited.

It's a pity the website doesn't give people the option of commenting on the petition without signing it. I dare say a petition asking for activities that benefit a child's development to be exempt from VAT would get a lot of support. I can't see that a petition asking for an organisation to be excused a VAT bill it has incurred, and can't pay because it didn't budget for it, will get much support at all.

Is the petition even on the right website? change.org is an international site. In the unlikely event that the petition gets 10,000 supporters, I assume it wouldn't get the government response that one on petition.parliament.uk would get, nor would it be considered for a debate in parliament if it got 100,000 supporters.

[Neil Graham]

There is a substantial article in the Daily Telegraph today:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... -over-300/

[JustinHorton]

"Substantial" in the sense of "long" as opposed to "possessing substance".

[Jonathan Bryant]

I dare say a petition asking for activities that benefit a child's development to be exempt from VAT would get a lot of support. I can't see that a petition asking for an organisation to be excused a VAT bill it has incurred, and can't pay because it didn't budget for it, will get much support at all.

Absolutely.


I have a lot of sympathy for the idea that the government/society as a whole might value activities for children for all kinds more than they/it does.

Nevertheless, I’m not massively keen on Basman being asked to pay tax just like everybody else and him taking that and painting himself as a victim that the government is 'going after'. I’m also not sure I’d want to accept the UKCC as a not for profit organisation/Basman as a volunteer without documentary evidence to support the claim*.

Bottom line: as observed on page 1 of this thread, Phil Ehr suggests the UKCC set itself up as a charity. Implicit in that is the question of why it hasn’t before now.

I"m not sure why Basman is getting such an easy ride on his responsibility for what has happened - other than it being no surprise that the Telegraph want to run a "tax is bad" story.






* It’s perfectly feasible that MB makes little or no money out of running the UKCC, but I’m not sure why I or anybody else should take his word for it. We wouldn’t in for anyone else in a similar situation.

[Michael Flatt]

As far as I am aware the only individual to suffer any financial loss is Mike Basman himself. Clearly, there is a long history over the VAT issue and the HMRC finally ran out of patience and took action which resulted in him (trading as UKCC) being made bankrupt.

As an organiser of one of this year's Megafinals (and as an individual involved in assisting at them over many years), I have to say that the entry fee of £15 (£12 for siblings) is modest and represents extremely good value. A significant proportion of the entry fees is returned in prizes: trophies for each Supremo and Suprema (24 in total), Rosettes, book prizes and certificates for all players.

The local organisers also receive a fixed and significant proportion of the entry fee to cover the cost of the venue and any surplus is for them to do with as they please. Our organisation uses that surplus to support junior Chess in the County.

Should the Delancey UKCC not run next year it will leave a hole in our local event calendar and cause disappointment to a great many children and parents. It is by far the biggest junior event we run in the county.

[Mick Norris]

Michael - thanks to you and everyone else who gives up their time for junior chess

I think we can agree that kids getting the opportunity to be taught chess is a good thing, but equally agree that telling them that tax evasion is ok is a bad thing

[Andrew Varney]

It's a shame that Mike decided to write as he did re: "slavery" etc.
I suspect that this is a good part of the reason that the petition so far has so few signatures.
On balance I decided to sign the petition because I think the UKCC is so good for junior chess at all levels, but I'd have preferred to have seen a much more rational argument to go alongside it, and I fear Mike's typical maverick approach is doing him no favours in this particular scenario.

[Paul Buswell]

[what does taking over the UKCC actually mean?

I would imagine it would be trying to have an event run with a similar name and structure. There's precedent with the National Schools, which used to be run by the Sunday Times and later the Times without direct BCF involvement.

I don't know what period you are referring to, but for the mid-70s to mid-80s that's not so. In my capacity as a BCF employee I was Controller of the 'Sunday Times' Schools for some of those years and the Sunday Times contributed money, marketing and the Finals weekend but had nothing whatsoever to do with the running of the event; indeed, I'm not sure that my 'Sunday Times' contact could play chess.

PB

[Roger de Coverly]

In my capacity as a BCF employee I was Controller of the 'Sunday Times' Schools for some of those years and the Sunday Times contributed money, marketing and the Finals weekend but had nothing whatsoever to do with the running of the event

Assuming there was an entry fee, presumably it included VAT and the BCF had to send a VAT invoice if requested. That would have been from some time in the late 1970s when it was ruled that VAT would apply to chess entry fees and memberships. In practice it was only the BCF which was affected, provided clubs and organisations were able to structure themselves to keep turnover below the exemption limit.

I relied on the ECF's history at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/100-year ... eration/3/ which comments

In 1957 the Sunday Times started their sponsorship of the National Schools Chess Championship and this was later taken over by the Times. This support of the event was continued until 2001. The value of the 44 years of sponsorship by The Sunday Times and The Times to the development of junior chess is inestimable. Mitchell Taylor continued running the event for The Times right up until his death in 2000.

[John Upham]

Mitchell Taylor continued running the event for The Times right up until his death in 2000.

I suspect that "running the event" means acting as liaison between the BCF and The Times of London.

[Matthew Turner]

Then you'd be wrong. Mitchell Taylor completely ran the event with basically no reference to the BCF.

[John Upham]

Then you'd be wrong. Mitchell Taylor completely ran the event with basically no reference to the BCF.

Thanks for the correction. How does that sit with PBs earlier comment?

[Paul Buswell]

It sits quite easily .....

I was Controller of the event as a BCF employee, as part of my duties, starting in 1975/76. Mitchell Taylor succeeded me as Controller after maybe 4 or 5 years, I'm not sure. He did so as a BCF volunteer. It remained a BCF event , although Mitchell's style was very much to just get on with it and as he did that perfectly satisfactorily the BCF's touch was very light, during my time at least.

PB