Brian Eley

[Jonathan Bryant]

I would suggest in answer to the previous post that as Brian Eley was never charged with any offence as I understand it, he would have been on pre-charge bail. The sole condition would be to turn up at the police station at a pre-arranged time given to him.

There's absolutely no reason to assume that he would have had one condition - a bail to return date - when placed on police bail. There are many conditions that can potentially be applied if they are deemed to be warranted, including measures designed to stop people running away. These include signing on at a police station* and surrendering of passport, for instance.






* I've never really understood why this is thought to stop people running off after signing on. I guess the point is you know immediately - or at least after a day - that they are missing rather than some time - potentially months later.

[Jonathan Bryant]

What I find particularly odd about the Eley case is that, while on bail, he was able to sell his possessions - which included a house and a chess-related business - and (despite, presumably, being relieved of his passport by the police) flee the country ....

(my emphasis)

There's absolutely no reason to presume that Eley would have had his passport taken by police. That would only happen if it was deemed to have a point (i.e. that he would be a flight risk otherwise) and that it was a proportional response to that risk.

Obviously he might have had his passport confiscated for all I know. But there's no reason to presume that.

I am not as well-informed on the events as I might be, but as I recall from previous discussions, isn't the suggestion that the sales may have been known to people who were aware of Eley's reputation or even his intention to abscond?

Didn't he place an advert in CHESS magazine?

[JustinHorton]

Something that just occurred to me (as Roger Lancaster observed earlier, there are a lot of aspects to this business, so I imagine we might be jumping about from one to another a lot) is the question of whether the then BCF undertook any review of its own failings after Eley was collared. My understanding is that they had known of allegations against him since 1980 and the police weren't involved until 1991. So I wondered whether any kind of formal review took place.

[Nick Ivell]

The incident I referred to earlier did not do his reputation any good.

It may even have been used as an excuse to sideline him.

[Roger de Coverly]

It may even have been used as an excuse to sideline him.

The BCF didn't appoint Eley as team manager for any events after around 1980. Misbehaviour of a junior squad at one or more events was a stated reason.

He remained an important figure in Yorkshire chess. The October 1991 BCM records his disappearance "breaking police bail in July". It didn't say what he had been accused of, but juxtaposes the report with a note that he had been "the dominant figurein Yorkshire junior chess for many years". I seem to think he was agitating about the Mliles-Keene dispute shortly before he vanished.

[David Sedgwick]

It may even have been used as an excuse to sideline him.

Yes it was.

The BCF didn't appoint Eley as team manager for any events after around 1980. Misbehaviour of a junior squad at one or more events was a stated reason.

No events after exactly1980, following the episode described by Nick Ivell. That was the officially stated reason. I wasn't aware of the alleged incidents mentioned by Roger de C.

There are people still alive with first hand knowledge of what was said and done, or not said and not done, in 1980. I am not one of them.

One point which I would make was that in that era people making allegations of sexual harassment and sexual abuse were seldom believed by the authorities.

[Nick Ivell]

Times have changed, and for the better. In 1980, 'safeguarding' was hardly a word.

Going back to the officially stated reason. In 1980, in Portsmouth, Eley had taken a dislike to the Glorney controller - I think he was called Terry Hollingsworth (?). Terry was a thoroughly decent man.

From the off, Eley was advising us to turn up late for our games. We couldn't really say no. He even told us how to behave when we arrived at the board: don't rush, don't move a piece, just calmly fill in the scoresheet as though nothing was amiss.

It was profoundly discourteous to our opponents and the organisers. By the final round Terry had had enough, and rightly so.

Eley had gone too far. I'm confining myself to the officially stated reason here - clearly there was more sinister stuff behind the scenes.

[JustinHorton]

One point which I would make was that in that era people making allegations of sexual harassment and sexual abuse were seldom believed.

This is only partly true: it's also the case that we need to add "by the authorities" to that statement, and that we need to ask why and to what extent that was. Also to understand that it wasn't always whether they were believed or not, but that it wasn't considered important - either the alleged acts themselves, or the people against whom they had been committed.

(On top of that, we should bear in mind that once an organisation has dismissed or ignored complaints, and those complaints keep coming, the organisation is in a tricky position of its own making, because it eitherr has to maintain its previous stance, or explain why it didn't act earlier.)

Anyway I should very much like to know what, if anything, happened after Plaskett and his friend went to see the BCF in 1986. And whether any internal review occurred, or was proposed, after Eley did a runner.

[David Sedgwick]

One point which I would make was that in that era people making allegations of sexual harassment and sexual abuse were seldom believed.

This is only partly true: it's also the case that we need to add "by the authorities" to that statement ...

I have edited my post accordingly.

[Martin Crichton]

1972 British champion....eye opening reading for me (before my time)
extract from the Fiona Pitt-Kethley article link above...
"Inspector Moon asking about his experiences with Eley and mentioning that more than seventy affidavits had been sworn against him".....
just because he is dead should not mean the investigations should close...perhaps more people will now come forward?
Is this another Jimmy Saville type case?

[David Sedgwick]

Is this another Jimmy Savile type case?

Not really.

Maybe I didn't look in the right places, or don't move in the right circles, but I wasn't aware of any allegations against Savile until after his death.

I shall be surprised if any significant allegations are now emerge against Eley that were not made during his lifetime.

Eley's case is no less serious than Savile's, but it is different in nature.

[Roger de Coverly]

I shall be surprised if any significant allegations are now emerge against Eley that were not made during his lifetime.

Whenever the subject came up on this forum, there was often a reluctance to say too much. That it might prejudice a prosecution case was one possible reason, fear of libel actions another. The first issue no longer applies, the second might, if alleged associates or those turning a blind eye were named.

[Reg Clucas]

From the off, Eley was advising us to turn up late for our games.

What was his reason for this?

[Matt Mackenzie]

Is this another Jimmy Savile type case?

Not really.

Maybe I didn't look in the right places, or don't move in the right circles, but I wasn't aware of any allegations against Savile until after his death.

You may not have been aware of them, but they most certainly existed.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I seem to think he was agitating about the Miles-Keene dispute shortly before he vanished.

Yes, I'm pretty sure it was Eley who officially raised the Tunis business with the ECF. I can't remember why I think this now but presumably it's on the Streatham Blog somewhere.