English Chess Forum

In the vast scheme of things this thread is like periodic navel gazing and constantly finding annoying fluff in it.

The science behind it -

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2015 ... tton-fluff

Does the main complainer here go on social media to berate the Spanish, or any other, royals for their shady dealings?

After all who gave Ray his gong.

Tbf one suspects that our royals might be preoccupied by other matters today.

Forty years of clowns saying "nothing to see here" adds up to an awful lot of things to see.

An awful lot of it is fluff...

According to you "Prince" Kasperski is not even true blue.

There have been plenty of high crimes going on elsewhere in real royal circles across the globe rather than minor misdemeanours.

Do tell if you ever get a reply to your second missive to Messrs Poole Waterfield.

Anyway I was on the Companies House website this afternoon and I noticed that the Brain Trust seemed to have got their accounts in before Xmas, which is unusually diligent. Looking at their accounts (click on View PDF for 24 Dec 2021) it appears, intriguingly, that they have ceased to be a charity. Their accounts make no reference to charitable status, nor to any trustees, nor to any responsiblities relating to charitable status.

The organisation's website (active, or at least up, as recently as May) is down, for whatever that may be worth.

Thinking about it this morning, one plausible explanation for this might be that Poole Waterfield were not aware of the true nature of Ray's organisation and, on being informed, told him both to clean up his act and to sling his hook.

Just speculation, of course, but an explanation that fits the known facts.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:55 am

Thinking about it this morning, one plausible explanation for this might be that Poole Waterfield were not aware of the true nature of Ray's organisation and, on being informed, told him both to clean up his act and to sling his hook.

Just speculation, of course, but an explanation that fits the known facts.

I wonder whether a Mr E J Horton contacted Poole Waterfield at the relevant time.

Just speculation, of course.

David

Justin has already referred to his drawing the irregular behaviour of Raymond Keene to the attention of Poole Waterfield. Whats wrong with that? And it must be better than turning a blind eye as some might prefer.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 06, 2022 5:43 pm

Justin has already referred to his drawing the irregular behaviour of Raymond Keene to the attention of Poole Waterfield. Whats wrong with that? And it must be better than turning a blind eye as some might prefer.

I wasn't suggesting that there was anything wrong with it. I was just seeking to comment in the same mildly humorous vein that Justin had adopted.

Thank you for drawing my attention to the earlier posts.

Thank you for the clarification. Obviously it would have been better if those better acquainted with Raymond Keene had made these sort of comments at an earlier stage, but good to know you don't see anything wrong with Justin's action in this respect.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 06, 2022 6:31 pm

Thank you for the clarification. Obviously it would have been better if those better acquainted with Raymond Keene had made these sort of comments at an earlier stage, but good to know you don't see anything wrong with Justin's action in this respect.

Ray Keene is a friend of mine.

That doesn't mean that I approve of everything which he does, or doesn't do, or that I disapprove of everything which his critics do, or don't do.

I think the criticism is that too many people have been friends of Raymond Keene and been reluctant to rebuke him when that might have been in his best interests or the public interest. I've no idea who might be regarded as culpable for their silence, but Keene's critics can point to a pretty long history of irregular behaviour, that might not have gone unchallenged. It happens in all walks of life of course, and the Prime Minister is an obvious example, but its not a healthy or attractive feature of society, so we probably shouldn't simply shrug shoulders or this sort of thing will continue to blight us.

"It happens in all walks of life of course, and the Prime Minister is an obvious example, but its not a healthy or attractive feature of society, so we probably shouldn't simply shrug shoulders or this sort of thing will continue to blight us."

The current Prime Minister or the one who has just been knighted, or both?

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:14 pm

I think the criticism is that too many people have been friends of Raymond Keene and been reluctant to rebuke him when that might have been in his best interests or the public interest. I've no idea who might be regarded as culpable for their silence, but Keene's critics can point to a pretty long history of irregular behaviour, that might not have gone unchallenged. It happens in all walks of life of course, and the Prime Minister is an obvious example, but its not a healthy or attractive feature of society, so we probably shouldn't simply shrug shoulders or this sort of thing will continue to blight us.

Quite so

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:01 pm

That doesn't mean that I approve of everything which he does, or doesn't do, or that I disapprove of everything which his critics do, or don't do.

Hi Dave,

I take the same stance. Regarding his off the board activity and alleged financial misdoings I am not at all bothered.

The chess plagiarism, re-hashing and basic mistakes in chess history etc I find amusing.
He was bound to get caught and pulled up about it but he does not seem to care.

Chess wise, to me his biggest sin was agreeing to have his name added to the chessboard at 'Simpson's.'
Defacing that piece of chess history was a bad error of judgement and should have been declined.

I'd gladly contribute to a fighting fund to have it restored and his name removed.
(provided, of course, that RDK himself is not allowed anywhere near the money raised. )