Appeal for Board Support

[Alex McFarlane]

Just in case you missed it, Mr Reuben has removed the word 'apparently' from his posting.

He still has not apologised to me personally for the ERRORS* in his original statement.

* The plural should have been used as well.

Anyone want to guess how many hours Andrew Farthing has spent due to my open letter?
If the ECF Board was more open then the letter would not have existed and his time could have been spent more productively.

[Craig Pritchett]

If, as Alex alleges in his open letter at the start of this thread, that "In early August the Sunday Times and Ray Keene via his Times_Chess ‘tweets’ published a series of allegations against a number of us involved in running the British Championship [in terms that called] various officials homophobic, bigots and brutish as well as stating that we should be the subject of a police investigation", I am astonished that the ECF board has not yet publicly distanced itself, if only from the use of such lurid and clearly hurtful language.

I have not seen the tweets and am also unaware of the context in which the words "homophobic", "bigots", "brutish" and "should be subject [to] a police investigation" may or may not have been expressed. But I would be surprised if such language reflects any complaint in these matters that RDK might in truth wish to express reasonably.

I might be wrong, I guess, but am I really? And in these celebrity, knock-about, near no-holds barred times, no doubt folk must tolerate quite a high rate of journalistic licence. But if the ECF does not publicly distance itself from the use of such language it might imply that they believe there might indeed be something in its use. Do they really?

This is an extremely disturbing matter, not least because of the high reputation for selfless support over decades for chess in the UK (not just England) enjoyed by Alex and Lara, but also because they have both been senior teachers of very longstanding, whose adherence to a strict ethical code, drilled into them from teacher training, can be frankly taken for granted. I have never remotely considered either of them to be either "homophobic", "bigots", "brutish" or in need of "police investigation". What is this?

[Steve Rooney]

But if the ECF does not publicly distance itself from the use of such language it might imply that they believe there might indeed be something in its use. Do they really?

I don't think this follows at all. Declining to comment on a public forum regarding this issue cannot be inferred as meaning anything more than that.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Craig only said that their silence "might" imply that. I actually imagine that the Board, or at least the majority of it, are as repelled as anyone by the article. But if so, why don't they say so - and what are people supposed to infer from their silence?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

There was a comment on one aspect of this in the recent CHESS editorial that I found rather strange. It did directly mention the management of the British Chess Championships. I didn't think much of it at the time, but having read this thread it might be of relevance. On the whole, though, speaking publicly on such matters gets tricky. I have some sympathy with the Board members, as unlike Alex McF they appear to be restricted in what they can say publicly. An open letter on the matter (which Alex McF published) is fine, but following up with comments that can't be answered by the Board members seems to tilt the balance the other way, as does making various legal points here. I'm strongly of the view that anything legal should be done off the internet, out of sight. Otherwise that just chills the tone of discussions. I'm sure there are people chosing not to post here precisely because of some of the mentions of litigation.

[Jonathan Rogers]

There is no legal risk attached to the ECF Board publicly saying that they abhor the article by RDK and support Alex MacFarlane. Not to do so is their choice. It may be that some individual board matters dislike their stance but they are restrained by collective responsibility, and not by any legal duty. They can still try to persuade their colleagues to change their mind, or resign if they are sufficiently disgusted.

[Alex McFarlane]

Christopher,

I have observed Board confidentiality here. Arguably only Mr Reuben attempted to break that confidentiality but he failed through getting it wrong.

The Board has one advantage over me. They know what I have been saying. I have been denied the right to see what they have been saying about me.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

There is no legal risk attached to the ECF Board publicly saying that they abhor the article by RDK and support Alex MacFarlane. Not to do so is their choice. It may be that some individual board matters dislike their stance but they are restrained by collective responsibility, and not by any legal duty. They can still try to persuade their colleagues to change their mind, or resign if they are sufficiently disgusted.

I'm talking about the comment made by Alex McF upthread where he said (in response to Stewart Reuben's apology): "Since you acted so quickly I shall only be seeking minimal damages". That may have been said in jest (as probably indicated by the icon following it), but what it raises is the possibility of the Board issuing a statement and then (if such a statement is seen as inadequate) being pushed by further such statements made here into changing things again. That is why such discussions should be done in private, not in public, and if you have to go public then objecting to what others say in reply to the open letter seems wrong somehow.

[Jonathan Rogers]

There is no legal risk attached to the ECF Board publicly saying that they abhor the article by RDK and support Alex MacFarlane. Not to do so is their choice. It may be that some individual board matters dislike their stance but they are restrained by collective responsibility, and not by any legal duty. They can still try to persuade their colleagues to change their mind, or resign if they are sufficiently disgusted.

I'm talking about the comment made by Alex McF upthread where he said (in response to Stewart Reuben's apology): "Since you acted so quickly I shall only be seeking minimal damages". That may have been said in jest (as probably indicated by the icon following it)

I should think so, unless anyone imagines that Alex F has (say) the financial resources of a national newspaper. There has never been any legal aid for bringing libel actions.

but what it raises is the possibility of the Board issuing a statement and then (if such a statement is seen as inadequate) being pushed by further such statements made here into changing things again. That is why such discussions should be done in private, not in public, and if you have to go public then objecting to what others say in reply to the open letter seems wrong somehow.

I don't really follow this. I am sure that if the Board were prepared to publicly support Alex F, some negotiated statement could be agreed. My guess is that no such statement can be devised which does not involve CJ joining in a criticism of RDK, and that they are waiting in the hope that the PCC solves their problem by ruling in Alex's favour.

[Alex McFarlane]

Doesn't company law prevent Mr De Mooi from taking part in any vote? If not then I have been misinformed. I may not have been the only one so misinformed.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Doesn't company law prevent Mr De Mooi from taking part in any vote? If not then I have been misinformed. I may not have been the only one so misinformed.

I don't know offhand. Does anyone on this forum?

Edit - I see nothing in Part 13 of the Companies Act 2006 to suggest that the President is in a different position from anyone else when it comes to voting on resolutions, but I stress that I am not an expert and so I may be looking in the wrong place.

[Sean Hewitt]

I don't believe that company law prevents anyone from taking part in any vote. Articles of Association of a particular company might, I suppose.

However, the Companies Act is a lengthy piece of legislation and I haven't read it all.

[David Robertson]

My best guess is that the matter falls under 'fiduciary duty' and the obligations of a Company Director/Board member in respect of conflicts of interest and said fiduciary duty. The former should never be allowed to conflict with the latter. [edit] That is to say: it is incumbent upon the individual - and no one else - to ensure that (he) does not put (himself) in a position where a conflict between interest and duty could arise [end edit]. I should know what I'm talking about since I hold the IoD's Certificate & Diploma in Company Direction. But even so, the legal aspects are not entirely clear (to me, anyway)

[Christopher Kreuzer]

but what it raises is the possibility of the Board issuing a statement and then (if such a statement is seen as inadequate) being pushed by further such statements made here into changing things again. That is why such discussions should be done in private, not in public, and if you have to go public then objecting to what others say in reply to the open letter seems wrong somehow.

I don't really follow this. I am sure that if the Board were prepared to publicly support Alex F, some negotiated statement could be agreed. My guess is that no such statement can be devised which does not involve CJ joining in a criticism of RDK, and that they are waiting in the hope that the PCC solves their problem by ruling in Alex's favour.

My question would be whether the ECF statement issued previously was run past Alex and Lara before being published. But having said that, the timeline is not awfully clear here. The events took place, then the tweets, then some news stories, then the ECF statement, then an article was published weeks later by the (Sunday?) Times. What is not clear to me is whether Alex objects to the initial ECF statement not addressing the matter of what was said in the tweets, or whether he objects to the ECF not responding to what was said in the later (23rd August?) newspaper article. It wasn't until a long way into this thread that I realised that much of this was about a later newspaper article, published weeks after the event. Is the ECF to be expected to respond every time this is mentioned anywhere? And when was the PCC complaint made?

[Alex McFarlane]

Trying to clarify the time line.

The story first appeared in the Sunday Times on-line on Saturday 6th August. Keene's allegedly objectionable tweets took place on the same day.
The following day on this forum an apology from Lara and De Mooi appeared. This appology was only in relation to each other though De Mooi did deplore the emails sent to Lara.

On 23rd August in reply to one of my tweets Keene tweeted that he stood by everything said or written on the matter. In many ways this was worse than his original tweets which could arguably have been sent in the heat of the moment and in defence of a friend.
On 25th August I emailed Mr De Mooi following his tweet asking people to read the Times Chess Column. Since then there has been one member of the Board I have been asked not to contact.

I went to the PCC about three weeks ago. My complaint will go to the Commissioners next week.
At about the same time I asked the ECF Board to condemn the statements made by Keene and the ST.
Less than a week later I sent to Andrew Farthing my proposed press statement. To my amazement I was told that I could not publish as it was subject to Board Confidentiality. I subsequently asked the Board for permission to publish. I cannot tell you the result of that either - but I think you can guess.

Yesterday, I sent a letter of complaint to the editors of both papers and to the CEO of Times International. I asked that my complaint should be passed on to Lord Grabiner in his role as independant Chair of the Management and Standards Committee at News International. I am awaiting acknowledgement of this.

Today. The resignation of David Welch was announced on the ECF website. There seems to be no statement of the reason. I will not say what it was. David expected the ECF to give his reasons, perhaps that will follow. I have twice offered my resignation but will not do so a third time.