17-08-2013, 10:57 PM
I’d just like to clarify that my comments on the separation of the executive and the judiciary were of a general nature, and did not refer in any way to the actual case that was brought. It only just occurred to me to look, and I have just done so and discovered that on that occasion, officials did comprise the CS committee; however while I think this is something to be avoided, I don’t think for one minute that this led to a biased outcome in this case.
Has any attempt been made to resource the SC with a supply of ordinary members? Lack of resources wouldn’t normally be an excuse for a choosing a potentially unfair practice if a more clearly fair practice could equally be chosen; we may be seeing the results of this false ‘economy’ playing out, in a way that is far from abstract, with the complainants perceiving the outcome as biased (I understand the accusation was put more strongly). Had the SC been comprised of ordinary members, such accusations would, I feel, have been much less likely to have been made..
Matthew Turner Wrote:We have heard on other threads high principles about the separation of the executive and the judiciary. I think you have to be realistic about the remit and scope of ChessScotland - really it has to be about 'promoting chess' these abstract concepts simply weaken CS's core offering.
Has any attempt been made to resource the SC with a supply of ordinary members? Lack of resources wouldn’t normally be an excuse for a choosing a potentially unfair practice if a more clearly fair practice could equally be chosen; we may be seeing the results of this false ‘economy’ playing out, in a way that is far from abstract, with the complainants perceiving the outcome as biased (I understand the accusation was put more strongly). Had the SC been comprised of ordinary members, such accusations would, I feel, have been much less likely to have been made..