Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Disability Office Appointment
#11
StevieHilton Wrote:The player has to be certified by a consultant before he get the certificate which is done by the local Authorities under the Social work act of 1968. I suspect that it will be the same for deaf people as well. I would suggest contacting the RNID in Glasgow about this.
Stevie
are you saying that a player cannot be technically disabled unless he/she has this certificate. That would then that CS (and possibly FIDE) would have to have proof of that certificate and keep a record of it similar to PVG. We would also have to know who holds this certificate and exclude anyone from disability status who doesn't. In other words use RNID or RNIB or DWS as the certifying authority. This needs to get sorted out ASAP
Reply
#12
Ianbrownlee Wrote:
StevieHilton Wrote:The player has to be certified by a consultant before he get the certificate which is done by the local Authorities under the Social work act of 1968. I suspect that it will be the same for deaf people as well. I would suggest contacting the RNID in Glasgow about this.
Stevie
are you saying that a player cannot be technically disabled unless he/she has this certificate. That would then that CS (and possibly FIDE) would have to have proof of that certificate and keep a record of it similar to PVG. We would also have to know who holds this certificate and exclude anyone from disability status who doesn't. In other words use RNID or RNIB or DWS as the certifying authority. This needs to get sorted out ASAP

Steve and Ian,

2 points to bear in mind.

(1) Surely players don't need to provide a certificate to a CS filing system before having their stated impairments catered for. I quote the current version of paragraph 4 from anther thread

4 The entry form and website listing(s) should ask whether any potential competitor has an impairment that will require special circumstances. The competitor should inform the organisers about any special circumstances as soon as possible before the start of the event. The less advance notice given to the organiser, the less the competitor can expect cooperation.

Sentiment sounds right to me. Declare in advance the assistance required to get to the chess board and compete on as level a playing field as possible.

(2) You need to have a detailed look at the provisions of the data protection act - especially those applying to medical data.

Overall why should a player have to provide medical proof of disability in order to be given the assistance he thinks he requires? We are talking about CS events and independent events here - & not entry requirements for disabled championships.

I can't see much gain for anyone falsely claiming disabled status in such events.
Reply
#13
Phil Thomas Wrote:You need to have a detailed look at the provisions of the data protection act - especially those applying to medical data

I know this act (1974) and its electronic update in 1998.It applies primarily to the storage of data and the right of access. This is not part of the argument. If part of the criteria for disability is established as being the holder of the certificate then that record can be held securely and authorised by registered persons. This may be CS proof of the legal definition of disability. CS has already sailed the boat on confidential data and has taken steps previously to rectify any potential issues. If there is a need to declare disability , then its logical that a criteria must be referred to demonstrate that disability. In simpler terms a yardstick should be used if required. This is part of the responsibility when you take on this type of commitment.

Interestingly a very senior CS director indicated to me that it was established in Tromso that national law supersedes FIDE law so maybe I am worrying too much
Reply
#14
Ianbrownlee Wrote:
StevieHilton Wrote:The player has to be certified by a consultant before he get the certificate which is done by the local Authorities under the Social work act of 1968. I suspect that it will be the same for deaf people as well. I would suggest contacting the RNID in Glasgow about this.
Stevie
are you saying that a player cannot be technically disabled unless he/she has this certificate. That would then that CS (and possibly FIDE) would have to have proof of that certificate and keep a record of it similar to PVG. We would also have to know who holds this certificate and exclude anyone from disability status who doesn't. In other words use RNID or RNIB or DWS as the certifying authority. This needs to get sorted out ASAP

No Ian, that is not what I am saying, of course you can be disabled but not have the certificate stating this.
It is not the RNIB or RNID who issue this certificate. It is the local authority that does so only after the person has been examined. I carry this certificate. When I played my first braille event abroad in 2005 in Greece. I had to deposit a copy with my braille federation. That is how the BCA operate this in regards to its events. You need that certificate to get certain benefits for example, VAt exemption for blind people when purchasing through the RNIB or purchasing braille equipment through another related company.

How Chess Scotland operate this is a matter for CS council
Reply
#15
I would also suggest that you set up a disability committee to assist you in your work
Reply
#16
Just a point ladies and gentlemen. We (you) are giving arbiters and organisers a hard row to hoe here. Not only are they expected to make judgment calls about chess, but now about balancing disabilities (with or without proof!).

We all know of players who have very real problems with deafness or other problems. An arbiter/organizer will now have to weigh up the merits (based upon their knowledge or lack thereof, of individuals cases).

Stephen went down this road and acquired his "card" so to speak. but many may decide they do not want to. The lack of such "proof" makes the arbiters job more subjective than it need be. If this goes ahead at council, then perhaps additional safeguards for arbiters aught also be considered?

They all do their very best. Let's look after them
Reply
#17
John Dempsey Wrote:Stephen went down this road and acquired his "card" so to speak. but many may decide they do not want to. The lack of such "proof" makes the arbiters job more subjective than it need be. If this goes ahead at council, then perhaps additional safeguards for arbiters aught also be considered?

They all do their very best. Let's look after them

John, good to hear the CS are able to legally deal with confidential information. However I beg to differ about the need for certificates to be obtained and supplied to CS and kept on file centrally and supplied to the arbiter locally.

The extra level of bureaucracy costs time and money (certificate is not free) and could easily create an additional barrier to disabled participation. The key point that FIDE makes is that potential entrants who need extra assistance make details known to the organisers asap.


Lets put that another way.

What advantage would I have as a player if I falsely claimed I was visually handicapped and wanted to use a second set and record moves via a dictaphone?

What advantage would I get if I turned up in a wheelchair and requested enhanced access to my board? It wouldn't help me play any better.

What advantage would I get at the board if I falsely claimed I was deaf?

If I falsely claimed cerebral palsy and wanted to bring an assistant to listen as I called out my moves moves my pieces and press my clock? Again I can't see me getting advantage as a player.

Earlier this month I was arbiting at a congress in England. As a walked past his board a player (who walks with a stick) requested that I take his hand to help him stand up. This I did and I provided him with a taller chair for the rest of the event to assist him the chair moved with the players. I very much doubt that this player is registered as disabled - I expect that he would have simply bought a own walking stick some years ago when he perceived a need for it.

The mood this thread is taking is that I should have checked whether or not he had lodged a disability certificate with the national body, read the cetificate, and then make a medical judgement on how to assist him and then take action.

I have a much simple system. I listen to players' requests. If reasonable request and easy to meet I do so.



Let me give another anecdotal example. Many many years ago Jacqui broke her ankle (chess injury if that's relevant) and had a heavy plaster over the injury. We were due to play a congress a few days later.

We borrowed a wheelchair for the weekend to solve her mobility problems.
Congress venue had wheelchair access. Any help required from from organisers happened without question.

Under the proposals being made on this thread would we have had to purchase a piece of paper from a medicine man to prove the ankle was really broken. Or perhaps supply the ECF or the arbiter with a copy of X ray to let the arbiter take a medical judgement?
Reply
#18
Phil,
Are CS legally able to deal with confidential information? I have never thought about this! At least, the legality aspect of it. However you are an arbiter, and if you don't believe that it is going to have any impact upon arbiters then I bow to your knowledge and experience.
Reply
#19
John Dempsey Wrote:Phil,
Are CS legally able to deal with confidential information? I have never thought about this! At least, the legality aspect of it. However you are an arbiter, and if you don't believe that it is going to have any impact upon arbiters then I bow to your knowledge and experience.


John,
I don't know the answer to your question.

However CS officials should be aware of the legal situation (particularly the Data Protection Act) before committing to storing confidential information - data on disability inevitably implies medical data. Which may well have more stringent controls than the data already stored by CS.
Reply
#20
Why does Chess Scotland need to store any confidential information?

Surely it is sufficient to ask, when, a disabled player enters a tournament/competition to provide a list of their requirements in advance as is covered in the guidelines.

It is not up to Chess Scotland to determine whether or not they have the right disability credentials - only to cater for their needs should circumstances dictate.

I can fully understand that there are degrees of disability, visual, hearing, mobility etc. but Chess Scotland is not the arbiter in the different levels of disability. We are simply required to adapt playing conditions/environment to their needs.

Steve - not 3 times in a row please, don't know if I can take the strain of that. :-)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)