Hi Ben
Sorry I have taken so long in replying - been in Ukraine with England dodging the flares and watching David Beckham's despressed face (not in the squad!) as he sat in the crowd watching not too far from me. Nice trip aside of the result. Had a wonderful view from the hotel room overlooking the river! Pity the room quality didn't match the view!!!
On that subject of dodging flares, can anyone explain how one of my colleagues from Thomson Sport had a tube of pringles confiscated by the police on entry, yet how many flares got into the ground at the other end? Must be dangerous things those pringles!!!
Re the elections, I wasn't sure whether to reply or not as once you do, you nail your colours to the mast and hate you for it. And then I though I am probably hated anyway, so what have I got to lose....? Some of our votes will be controversial - just for a change, eh? The key ones - yes to Sean Hewitt and John Wickham (NOT Alan Martin!) for non-exec directors. I am torn on the ECF delegate issue as although I like the idea of someone like Nigel Short, Gerry has been very good to us over the years and very helpful and I don't feel I want to vote against him. Despite what others say to me, I have always found him to be a genuine person and full of helpful advice. Definitely C-J for President. Don't know the other guy anyway.
Adam Raoof for Home Chess. No problem with Chris Majer - I know a lot has been said over the Chess for Schools issue but I feel he stepped into a difficult system and has done his best. I remember how he and his team put the grading back together a few years ago and I feel there are too many short memories. He is a volunteer after all.
We will be voting "note of the above" on the junior post, although I get the impression that Peter Purland has done good in some eyes. However, I remember an EPSCA meeting when Mr Basman was allowed to say something that incorrectly led the meeting to believe I had taken a certain questionable action (no details unless anyone wants them). All I wanted to do (without going into it) was to state in 2 sentences that what Mr Basman had stated wasn't true (and he knew it!) and that I could provide proof. That's all I wanted to say - I wasn't planning to go into details, yet Mr Purland shouted me down and wouldn't let me speak beyond the first 6-7 words. So much for fair play and the truth being the most important issue at allegedly democratic meetings! Why was one person allowed to speak and say something and then I was prevented from speaking the truth in reply?
Since then, I feel Peter has been part of the camp that wanted to ensure that we could not become part of EPSCA. Fair enough if he has done good work, but on that basis of our personal experience of him as a person, I don't feel it appropriate to vote for him and he is clearly (in my opinion) not a man that will entertain views beyond his own (others have said similar things to me after dealing with him). I know people think the same of me but that is actually not true. In fact I am very good at assessing other views and understanding why people hold their views - and I will listen to any opinion and consider it albeit that I a confess to being dogmatic on my own views until persuaded otherwise. But is that really different to most people?
All I ever wanted was a fair hearing and equal chance to voice my opinion. I have always done it fairly and where I have had evidence to back it up. Yes I do it vociferously, but isn't that what democracy is all about? Too often, those in post use their post to try and silence others on the outside whose views are just as valid. I trust that the new incumbants of the ECF posts will enable such freedom of speech and that this freedom might filter down to county level where there are similar problems (certainly in our arena). So that's why I feel Mr Nobody would be better than Mr Purland.
Here endeth the results from the Coulsdon jury. Peter Wilson has agreed to take our votes and look after them accordingly.
