Appeal for Board Support

[John Upham]

We have however had one Director suggest that we should employ the services of a PR company!!! I'm not kidding,

I'm assuming that he was getting ready for April 1st 2012.

Does anyone have Max Clifford's contact details?

Alex, if no undertaking is received from the board as requested then what is your course of action?

[Carl Hibbard]

Still no ECF Director or other official willing to come out and offer public support over the allegations made.

The ECF quite often have a no comment gag order in place so it's possible that is the reason?

[Alex McFarlane]

We were given a massive vote of support by everyone at the Northumberland Congress before the start of the final round.

It is very tempting just to walk away from English chess but things like the appreciation and sympathy shown by the rank and file chess player makes that very difficult.

There may well be a gagging order in place on the Board but it is disappointing that one Director (who still has not apologised to me) can break the gag to (wrongly) criticise me but not to support us.

I believe I could have a strong legal case against the ECF for his allegations ashe signed himself with his ECF position. I hope that this may encourage the Board to see sense and come out of their foxholes.

Anyway, back to the chess now - wallcharts to fill.

[Roger de Coverly]

however I am bound to say that if I were in Alex's shoes I too would want to make sure that the ECF/Individuals concerned issue a public apology through the national press making it absoultely clear there was never any suggestion of homphobic or brutish behaviour by the officials.

There has been no official statement by the ECF in condemnation of Keene or the Times Group for these remarks.

I don't think Alex McF is looking for an apology from the ECF rather a statement critical of the Times Chess Correspondent and his newspaper. It's an ancient issue from the 1980s, but the BCF and said gentleman parted company under circumstances of "lawyers at dawn". There may to this day be agreements that the BCF/ECF will maintain silence. The CEO was unwilling to comment on RDK's renewed relationship with the ECF.

http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... y-ecf.html

S&BCB:
Are we now deciding that the Ray Keene/Tony Miles issue is best forgotten as it was so long ago, or has the matter been resolved in some way?

ECF:
I have no comment on this.

[Roger de Coverly]

I would want a public and private apology from the ECF and CJ.

I had thought this was resolved weeks ago.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=13807

From what I read in this thread, Alex's issue is with The Times and its chess correspondent and he's looking for the ECF's support.

[Alex McFarlane]

Ernie,

Thank you again for the support.

Whilst it is true that we are looking for the Board to condemn the actions of Keene and the Sunday Times, any expressions of support is welcome. Some Board members have written to Lara to express concern over the situation in which she was thrown. There is one notable exception to those Board members.

I have just received an apology from Andrew Farthing for Mr Reuben's original posting. I have accepted Andrew's apology but have also stated that I do not believe that Mr Reuben's subsequent posting constituted an apology to me but to the forum in general.

In his posting he apologised for his apparent error when at least two were made. The dismissive tone used was not, in my opinion, constructive.

The original was signed in his official capacity, the latter not.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I don't know Alex personally and have only met Lara a couple of times, but I am worried that the ECF is saying nothing over this. Any type of litigation, including one against a national newspaper in the forum of the generally inadequate PCC, is stressful. If Lara is suffering ill-health over this, perhaps the ECF Board may reflect upon the good that it may do by offering its public support, as well as reflect upon the fact that it is its own President who started this whole fiasco.

Ther is no good reason to be silent until the resolution of the complaint, doubtless several long weeks/months away. It is not as though there would be any contempt of court in expressing their condemnation of the article now. That does, I'm afraid, leave the impression that it is still trying to protect CJ from addressing the full wrongfulness of his earlier actions. But there is in any event an independent reason for the ECF to condemn the article by RDK (which I have not seen, so I am assuming its poor quality from the author's general reputation in the chess world) - it seems to have been published weeks after the event, so there was plenty of opportunity to investigate what happened, to find the subsequent apology and to give a more accurate account than was possible in the immediate aftermath. CJ at least is presumably not to blame for that apparent failure.

[Roger de Coverly]

But there is in any event an independent reason for the ECF to condemn the article by RDK (which I have not seen, so I am assuming its poor quality from the author's general reputation in the chess world) - it seems to have been published weeks after the event, so there was plenty of opportunity to investigate what happened, to find the subsequent apology and to give a more accurate account than was possible in the immediate aftermath. CJ at least is presumably not to blame for that apparent failure.

Hidden as it is behind the News International paywall, its content would not be widely known.

The twitter comments are at http://twitter.com/#!/Times_Chess from 6th August onwards.

[Paul Cooksey]

we all have opinions and these are mine.

Indeed. For my part, I disagree with Ernie on points 3 and 4. Apologies were offered and accepted. Clearly Ernie is not happy with the compromise reached, and indeed neither am I for different reasons. But if the parties themselves have agreed, and I think that ends their obligations to each other.

I was in a difficult position in a dispute between the arbitering team and CJ both of whom I would like to support. I do not have similar feelings towards RDK.

But in the interest of the forum, I have spent £1 for a 30 day trial of the Times. I don't think copyright allows me to post the article by Rosie Kinchen and Raymond Keene in its entirety. So my impressions, being as neutral as I can, are:
1. It is not in the same emotive terms as RDKs twitter feed. Nothing remotely close to the word "brutish" for example.
2. I do not see anything in the reporting of the prize giving that contradicts information already in the public domain, in for example the Guardian report.
3. It does include reference to the declined offer to present to adults only.
4. It includes the statement "The championships, which have been taking place for the past two weeks, do not have a formal dress code. De Mooi, who was one of the principal fundraisers for the event, has called the behaviour “disgusting” and is demanding a written letter of apology."
5. It mentions other recent chess world scandals (Rybka, Danny Gormally and Lev Aronian)
6. The original article ends with a comment that Andrew Farthing CEO of ECF is investigating, and was presumably later updated with the comment we have seen elsewhere:
"The right move
I have investigated your report and have established that prior to the prize-giving at the British Chess Championships at Ponds Forge, Sheffield, discussions took place between the event organisers and CJ de Mooi, president of the English Chess Federation (ECF), which led to his non-participation in the presentation. A conversation between arbiter Lara Barnes and de Mooi resulted in a misunderstanding. Both parties have since apologised to each other. I am grateful they have shown a willingness to draw a line under this issue.
Andrew Farthing, Chief Executive, ECF "

[Paul Cooksey]

Their is no good reason to be silent until the resolution of the complaint, doubtless several long weeks/months away. It is not as though there would be any contempt of court in expressing their condemnation of the article now.

I'll disagree. I suspect if the ECF support the PCC complaint, and the complaint is unsuccessful, the Times and their correspondent might cause the ECF, and chess generally, considerable further embarrassment.

I too consider the PCC ineffective. I am sure no paper likes to lose a complaint, so the Times will use its considerable resources to support RDK. I think the outcome is far from certain. I do not know if the PCC can consider the Times Chess Twitter feed. If so, that may make a difference since it seems to me much more provocative than the newspaper article.

Finally, if anyone with influence at the Times sees this forum, I'll happily renew my subscription if they replace their chess columnist. That's £8.66 from a lifelong Guardian reader, which must be worth considering.

[E Michael White]

4. It includes the statement "The championships, which have been taking place for the past two weeks, do not have a formal dress code.

This is a bit ambiguous.

The championships had two formal dress codes; one contained in the brochure conditions of entry and the other specified in the FIDE Tournament Rules, which are mandatory for at least the top section. Neither of these dress codes stated that the dress itself had to be formal, in the sense of ties and suits but insteads opt for appropriate wear, which usually means smart casual and suitable for the occasion.

One thing that puzzles me is that if Alex is a joint manager of the championships, which is an ECF event, does that make him at least a temporary ECF company official ?

[Paul Cooksey]

Paul its not me thats unhappy its Alex and Lara- please read carefully the whole thread.

I thought it was obvious by now that I read everything on this forum . But I have read it again to check.

I see nothing in Alex's comments that suggests he requires anything further from CJ. I think his dispute is with the Times reporting of the incident, and with the ECF board for not supporting him in his complaint.

I can't argue this would not have happened if CJ had acted differently, but that doesn't mean he is solely to blame. The extent to which he accepts responsibility is in his apology. He and Lara offered apologies which have been accepted, by contrast RDK has not.

[Alex McFarlane]

Paul - after considerable complaint the original article has been toned down. The accusation of homophobia has been removed and now that the statements of Lara and Mr De Mooi are now on the ECF website they should be referenced.

The original apologies dealt only with the situation between the people involved. They did not deal with any accusations of homophobia as these did not seem relevant to the situation as it existed at the time.

Effectively initially, and hopefully still, the claims of the Sunday Times and Keene were a separate issue from that of the opening ceremony.

Michael E - company law has been quoted a few times and I am obviously trying everything I can before considering litigation.

I obviously am not going to comment on the supposition regarding the ST/ CJ De Mooi made by Ernie at the present time. I have requested a copy of a recording the ST claims to have and has based its defence on. Until that is available, or the PCC comments on it, it would be inappropriate to say anything further.

It would have been nice if some ECF officials had expressed their sympathies personally to Lara. I also think that asking people to read Keene's column in the middle of this could not be considered a very tactful thing to do.

[Alex McFarlane]

Latest News

The ST is refusing to give me a copy of its alleged recording. It has changed its story regarding the contents of the recording and admits it was its journalist who raised the matter of homophobia.

[Jonathan Rogers]

On that basis (that the original version did contain clear suggestions of homophobia), Alex's request for support from the chess community seems well founded. Certainly he is a close enough relationship with the ECF to expect their support if he is clearly wronged by a third party whilst performing ECF duties, and that appears to be the case, even if you exclude the fact that the President triggered the whole affair. Moreover the Board can meaningfully criticise RDK despite CJ's involvement, since the article was written weeks after the incident, and after the apologies were made. But they are refusing to comment and sadly, there are only two conclusions, both of them bad*, that can be drawn unless someone in the Board offers a good** reason of its own.

If the Board continues to remain silent, then the chess community does have some once-in-a-year opportunity to make its views known. Elections (including re-elections) to the ECF Board are not far away.

* Either that the ECF Board regards the matter as closed in order to draw a line under an embarrasing episode, or that it cannot support AM because CJ is unwilling to criticise RDK in public

** A decision not to annoy the Times for fear of what they may do in the future is not a good reason!