Interview with ECF President CJ de Mooi

[David Sedgwick]

I was particularly perturbed that [CJ] was allowed to say that two persons were questioned by the police following Sheffield last year without further elaboration as to why he thought this worth mentioning.

For clarification, I do not know who was interviewed by the police either. Indeed it is the first time I have heard anything about it.

I feel I must correct Jonathan here.

I've listened to the relevant passage again. What CJ actually said was "A couple of people have been reported to the police."

He did not claim that anyone had been questioned or interviewed as a result.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I must have misremembered - and the difference is of course important.

If the persons were just reported, but nothing else happened, then that suggest the police were not interested, possibly because what was being reported to them did not actually seem to constitute any known offence.

One involuntarily calls the Times correspondent tweeting "someone call the police"! on Sheffield prize giving day.

What is interesting is this - if the police received a report but did nothing further, then how does CJ know about it, unless he or someone known to him made the report?

As for CJ giving this as a reason for him not commenting any further on the matter, well ...

[David Gilbert]

I must have misremembered - and the difference is of course important.

If the persons were just reported, but nothing else happened, then that suggest the police were not interested, possibly because what was being reported to them did not actually seem to constitute any known offence.

One involuntarily calls the Times correspondent tweeting "someone call the police"! on Sheffield prize giving day.

What is interesting is this - if the police received a report but did nothing further, then how does CJ know about it, unless he or someone known to him made the report?

As for CJ giving this as a reason for him not commenting any further on the matter, well ...

Are you taking another leap in the dark Jonathan? He didn't say that nothing else happened. You jumped to that conclusion - which could be right or could be wrong.

What is interesting is this - if you know the police received a report and did nothing further, how did you know about it, unless you or someone you know made the report? Only kidding!

He did confide that the threat of legal action precluded him from commenting further (not necessarily action by the police), but it wasn't at all clear whether that was a threat of legal action by others against CJ, or the threat of legal action by CJ (and possibly other parties), against others. Who knows!

[Jonathan Rogers]

I did use the word "if" David G, and the supposition that nothing further happened seems highly probable in the circumstances!

What do you mean by "another" leap in the dark, anyway? Are you referring to the error that the other David pointed out?

[Andrew Zigmond]

I have to agree that the criticism of Andrew Bak's interviewing approach both here and elsewhere is unfair. Much as some people would love to put CJ de Mooi on trial for crimes against English Chess he was never likely to consent to such an interview. And had Andrew adopted a more aggressive approach over the controversial issues CJ de Mooi may well have terminated the interview. As it was he allowed CJ to be drawn on these topics and while we're probably not an awful lot the wiser it was revealing what he chose to say and what he chose not to say.

Obviously anybody can report anything they like to the police. It's up to the police to decide what action to take. In my own activities I occasionally have to report incidents to the police and am familiar with a recorded message that, `All crimes will be investigated and any instances of false reporting could result in the reportee being prosecuted`. It's telling that nobody seems to be aware of anybody having been spoken to by the police.

One of the reasons the proverbial boil has not been lanced is that CJ de Mooi cannot evade the questions raised over the past year forever. Sooner or later he is going to have to face down his critics and justify his actions. That said, I think we are now reaching a point where we need to agree that we're not going to reach a consensus on past controversies and need to focus instead on making sure they don't happen again.

So, looking to the future it's interesting that CJ de Mooi appears to be making his pitch as the saviour of English chess after a year out (Andrew could perhaps have discreetly enquired about his relative absence in the last twelve months). Leaving aside the obvious question of whether he can win re-election in October, if he does succeed then I'll be curious as to how the following issues play out.

a) What will the makeup of the ECF board be and will they take a more cautious approach after the experience of the current team?

b) Who does he want to run the Torquay championships if he intends to closely involve himself? Lara may not wish to be involved after the way she has been treated but she must surely be given first refusal and will be a difficult person to shift.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Is a transcript of the interview available?

[Geoff Chandler]

Erm...Erm...Erm....

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Erm...Erm...Erm....

Yeah, I got those bits! Though it doesn't help when trying to work out some of what was said. It was a serious request, by the way, if anyone does intend to produce a transcript. It avoids misquotes, for one thing (as has already happened earlier in the thread). PS. The interview has been covered in blogland as well. Nauseating was the word used, I believe. I can't (yet) tell.

[Matthew Turner]

I imagine it was quite difficult to frame appropriate questions to CJ. I think Andrew did an admirable job - well done.

[Alan Burke]

With all the criticism aimed at the interview, I'd be surprised if Andrew or anyone else ever thinks it's worth their while to perform a similar task with other chess personalities.

The interview was something that no other chess website had ever attempted to do and yet instead of seeing it at as least even a small step in the right direction, all some people can do is try and compare Andrew Bak to Dimbleby/Frost/Paxman and expect him to have performed his task as though he was a professional broadcaster.

I challenge those above who criticise to get out a tape recorder and try and interview someone for even just 10 minutes on any subject (and include questions you know they would really not want to answer) - and then play back the tape and listen to themselves.

[Jonathan Rogers]

It may help if I remind some posters that I did not criticise Andrew for not being Paxman. I said that it was up to him how he wanted to conduct the interview and Andrew Z is right to add that CJ would not have agreed to give a searching interview.

What I did take issue with is that Andrew himself advertises it here as an in depth interview and clearly it is not.

Why say so? Because CJ presumably will use this and other select opportunities to speak before the election and he will wish to give the impression that he has answered all the questions. We do not actually know whether he will attend the AGM and risk facing a series of difficult questions.

[Roger de Coverly]

The interview was something that no other chess website had ever attempted to do

The novelty was broadcasting the audio recording. Other websites have certainly published interviews, but publish either a transcript or the interview was done by email or similar text messaging. CJ himself has even been interviewed on video by Adam Raoof. It was at the time of the Torquay 2009 British and I think the material appeared on the kingcrusher site.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I am writing this having just read the breaking news that the ECF Presidential election will be contested - I was planning to post along similar lines in any case.

Some of the criticism of the interview appears to be that CJ de Mooi has used it as obvious election propaganda; this ignores the fact that his electorate is the ECF Council and thus relatively small. More to the point I'm sure that most delegates have already formed an opinion on the issue and I don't think this interview is going to change anybody's mind. That said, if the ECF ever moved towards One Man, One Vote (as I hope it will do eventually) we might have to be more wary of such tactics.

[Roger de Coverly]

this ignores the fact that his electorate is the ECF Council and thus relatively small

Whilst the voting electorate is small, the Council delegates do occasionally consult the AGMs or Exec Committees who nominally appoint them. The "popular" vote, if it can be referred to as such, was very much in favour of CJ when the opposition was someone from Bristol unknown to the general chess playing public . Roger Edwards is much better known from his long associations with both grading and the British Championships.

[David Gilbert]

if the ECF ever moved towards One Man, One Vote (as I hope it will do eventually) we might have to be more wary of such tactics.

Emily Pankhurst and the suffragettes will be turning in their graves - you mean "One Member, One Vote" I hope? Men and Women...... and err Juniors? Could lead to a take over by Bella, Milo, Fizz and Jake. That will serve us all right!