English Chess Forum

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:03 pm

Am I right in thinking that people can't just "come to the AGM". Unless they are a delegate I believe they can only attend at the invitation of the Chairman of Council (currently Michael Farthing) and even then can't do anything except watch.

Those of us with longer memories will remember that the last time we had a disputatious AGM the then Chairman of the Governance Committee made a hugely partisan intervention on the day which was much criticised and ultimately led to his resignation. One of the reasons he was so heavily criticised (leaving aside the neutrality his position required) is that by only making his views known to the closed shop of council he was preventing delegates from consulting with the players they represented.

It does seem odd that a faction that have always been vocally critical of the council system for denying the wider membership a say (and will likely repeat those criticisms if the AGM goes against them) are suddenly withholding information so it can only be for Council's ears. If there are revelations that are so damaging to those they concern, surely we can hear them now.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:03 pm

Am I right in thinking that people can't just "come to the AGM". Unless they are a delegate I believe they can only attend at the invitation of the Chairman of Council (currently Michael Farthing) and even then can't do anything except watch.

Chris Fegan wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:41 pm

I am hardly going to pre-release my election speech

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:46 pm

Chris Fegan wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:41 pm

I am hardly going to pre-release my election speech

Many of the attendees at the AGM are likely to be under prior instructions as to how to vote. It's too late at the AGM itself to influence how these votes might be cast.

Chris Fegan wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:41 pm

I am hardly going to pre-release my election speech

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:54 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:46 pm

Chris Fegan wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:41 pm

I am hardly going to pre-release my election speech

Many of the attendees at the AGM are likely to be under prior instructions as to how to vote. It's too late at the AGM itself to influence how these votes might be cast.

I expect Chris has realised that will work in his favour.

Chris Fegan wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:12 pm

Ian

I find it interesting that people on here don't seem to care too much about the corruption of democracy and basic UK human rights within the ECF and the use of Kangaroo courts to try people without them even knowing they are on trial, perhaps when they get the "knock at their door" from the ECF "thought police" they may take more interest and laugh less.

Chris

Chris Fegan wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:12 pm

I find it interesting that people on here don't seem to care too much about the corruption of democracy and basic UK human rights within the ECF and the use of Kangaroo courts to try people without them even knowing they are on trial

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:41 pm

[
Yes, what a carry on.

Chris Fegan wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:12 pm

I find it interesting that people on here don't seem to care too much about the corruption of democracy and basic UK human rights within the ECF

Chris Fegan wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:12 pm

perhaps when they get the "knock at their door" from the ECF "thought police"

Roger Emerson wrote:
1) All this talk of “a kangaroo court” is just plain wrong. The basic facts are not trumped up, but indisputable: Chris Fegan's posts deliberately breached Board confidentiality, breached Board policy on posting here, risked prejudicing the formal complaint brought by Rob Willmoth and denigrated the CEO. All these things could bring the ECF into disrepute. So the Non-Executive Directors were taking disciplinary action in respect of established and undeniable facts.

2) Tim Wall seems to recognise, although Chris Fegan does not, that ALL THREE Non-Executive Directors agreed to notify Mr Fegan of these breaches and seek remedies by him. It appears that Mr Fegan refused, so the Non-Executive Directors censured him and included that in their report to Council. I expect ALL THREE Non-Executives can confirm this, either at the AGM or before it.

3) Apparently, Mr Fegan seems to believe that his human rights are being denied through limitations being placed on his ability to post on this forum. This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. He can abuse ECF officials to his heart's content, BUT NOT WHILE HE HIMSELF IS AN ECF OFFICIAL. One would hope that the results of the forthcoming elections will free him from this obligation.

4) I am pleased to see that “proof by assertion” gets short shrift in this forum."

Roger Emerson wrote: 4) I am pleased to see that “proof by assertion” gets short shrift in this forum."

David Robertson wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 01, 2021 9:14 pm

Roger Emerson, who follows but is not a member of this place, has asked me to post the following in his name:

Roger Emerson wrote:
1) All this talk of “a kangaroo court” is just plain wrong. The basic facts are not trumped up, but indisputable: Chris Fegan's posts deliberately breached Board confidentiality, breached Board policy on posting here, risked prejudicing the formal complaint brought by Rob Willmoth and denigrated the CEO. All these things could bring the ECF into disrepute. So the Non-Executive Directors were taking disciplinary action in respect of established and undeniable facts.

2) Tim Wall seems to recognise, although Chris Fegan does not, that ALL THREE Non-Executive Directors agreed to notify Mr Fegan of these breaches and seek remedies by him. It appears that Mr Fegan refused, so the Non-Executive Directors censured him and included that in their report to Council. I expect ALL THREE Non-Executives can confirm this, either at the AGM or before it.

3) Apparently, Mr Fegan seems to believe that his human rights are being denied through limitations being placed on his ability to post on this forum. This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. He can abuse ECF officials to his heart's content, BUT NOT WHILE HE HIMSELF IS AN ECF OFFICIAL. One would hope that the results of the forthcoming elections will free him from this obligation.

4) I am pleased to see that “proof by assertion” gets short shrift in this forum."