Tournament dispute from several years ago

[David Sedgwick]

The Smith and Williamson sponsorship of the British Championship was announced at, or shortly before, the BCF Management Board Meeting held on 1st March 2007.

You may have your dates wrong here.

Whoops! Thank you.

I've made the necessary edit to my post.

[David Sedgwick]

David Sedgewick usualy arrives at a thread when Sutton 94 is mentioned - does he dispute witnessing the incident?

No. As you are aware, I made a statement at the time.

I have nothing further to say on the matter.

[Carl Hibbard]

I am not sure what is to be gained from dragging up a well reported incident from nearly 20 years ago?

[Jonathan Bryant]

I am not sure what is to be gained from dragging up a well reported incident from nearly 20 years ago?

Has it been that well reported? I've managed to avoid all mention of it before this thread. I'm pretty sure I'd have remembered if I'd have heard of it before.

[Paul Cooksey]

I am not sure what is to be gained from dragging up a well reported incident from nearly 20 years ago?

Has it been that well reported? I've managed to avoid all mention of it before this thread. I'm pretty sure I'd have remembered if I'd have heard of it before.

I have a nagging feeling I played in it, but still don't know what is being alluded to

[Louise Sinclair]

I am not sure what is to be gained from dragging up a well reported incident from nearly 20 years ago?

Has it been that well reported? I've managed to avoid all mention of it before this thread. I'm pretty sure I'd have remembered if I'd have heard of it before.

I have a nagging feeling I played in it, but still don't know what is being alluded to

Paul
I was punched in the face by the senior arbiter and the great chess establishment attempted a cover up mainly because they were concerned about Smith and Williamson sponsorship.
Louise
Carl
I will discuss this incident as and when I please. If you had experienced being knocked unconcious at a chess tournament you might be inclined to remember it.
Louise

[Paul Cooksey]

Sorry Louise, I had read the account of that above. I was confused that Sutton 94 was a separate incident.

[Louise Sinclair]

no it was the same incident Paul
Louise

[Paul McKeown]

I thought this whole topic had been done to death sometime in the Victorian age, do we have to drag it up again?

I was punched in the face by the senior arbiter and the great chess establishment attempted a cover up mainly because they were concerned about Smith and Williamson sponsorship.
Louise

I have no doubt that your opponent was cheating in his game against you; that the arbiters involved were unable to resolve this matter to your satisfaction is, naturally, galling in the extreme, but it is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for fabricating this ridiculous story about being punched in the face by an arbiter. That simply didn't happen and no matter how many times you pop up in whatever forum, online, in pub, wherever, it won't make your fable any more plausible, nor improve your standing in the chess community.

Drop it. It's boring.

[Carl Hibbard]

I will discuss this incident as and when I please.

Did I actually say not to discuss it?

All I did was ask what could be possibly be gained by discussing it this long after the event?

[Louise Sinclair]

Prhaps you can explain to my husband, my doctor and the witnesses how I ended unconscious on the floor with bruises , cuts and a sprained wrist. I'm not fabricating the story and I'm not concerned about my standing within the chess community.
If this didn't happen why do you think there were two enquiries?
They wouldn't hold them simply because of a cheating incident.Kevin Thurlow has already backed me up or are you also accusing him of inventing a fable.

[Paul McKeown]

Carl,

Must we be subjected to this nonsense?

The allegations made are extremely serious, the attack is one-sided as the "accused" is hardly going to announce himself by saying "hey it was me, but it's not true at all". This personal attack has been made on dozens of occasions in various places, several times over the last several years on this forum. Unless the person that is accused by LS and her cronies is prepared to go to the great expense and trouble of taking a suit in law, they will never be able to defend themselves from this foul garbage.

It seems that this particular perennial weed won't go away with polite gardening, so please will you apply large quantities of industrial strength herbicide?

[Louise Sinclair]

I will discuss this incident as and when I please.

Did I actually say not to discuss it?

All I did was ask what could be possibly be gained by discussing it this long after the event?

Carl
When the event happened the internet was not in general use so discussion was limited. These days we have the internet for communication purposes. I choose to discuss this event because I view it as a disgrace which has impinged on several people.
Louise

[Louise Sinclair]

Paul
Why don't you apply logic and stop attacking me personally.You are now indicating that this "fable" is supported by my cronies. look at what you are saying and ask yourself why this incident should be regarded as a figment of my immagination.

[Sean Hewitt]

David Sedgewick usualy arrives at a thread when Sutton 94 is mentioned

That's not on.

A search of the word 'Sutton' on this forum reveals 2 things.

1) None of the mention of the word were in relation to the 'Sutton 94' incident until this thread

and

2) None of the posts that did mention 'Sutton' in any way were made by David Sedgwick.

No matter what's alleged to have happened in this incident, let's please keep to the facts.