Posts: 976
Threads: 92
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
1
In order to provoke a lively discussion I have come up with three proposals regarding the Standards Committee. I just need one of my regular colleagues to second these. Andy Burnett & Steve Hilton have kindly done this in the past but anyone will do.
1. The Standards Committee is the proper forum where a CS member has a
grievance against another in chess related matters. A CS member shall not
threaten or instigate legal proceedings against another CS member.
2. Where the Standards Committee upholds a complaint against a CS member, this person shall be named
in its findings.The complainer will be named if they have given consent.
3. There shall be no timebarring of complaints against a CS member by the Standards Committee .
There might be also an unofficial show of hands on Richardson board order rules as captains seem shy in giving me their votes on this ( variability of 0, 50, 80 points are the options)
Posts: 976
Threads: 92
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
1
Andy
not worth paper written in legal sense but worth a lot in chess sense !
a chess addict not allowed to play the game ? Alex Gillies has brought in the concept of legal highs
Strong deterrent indeed
Posts: 899
Threads: 124
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
4
Point 1. Agree with Andy Burnett on this Legally this cannot be enforced A court of Law takes precedent over Chess Scotland
point 2. This may be doable but again naming someone in a proven complaint may be on dodgy ground. The wording would have to be particulate
Point 3. This is double barrelled. I'm not convinced a complaint without a speedy resolution is productive at all. Also it would smack of settling old scores and a slanging match. The exceptions to this are if a situation of an alleged complaint develops either by new information of if an alleged crime is committed when the police should then involved
I just think further thought is required on these points although I'm perplexed at the chess addict comment Sorry but I just don't understand it
Posts: 976
Threads: 92
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
1
Ian/Andy /others
The point of proposal 1 is to protect CS officials from being sued and to encourage volunteers. At least one CS official has resigned due to this.
The point of proposal 2 & 3 are to protect juniors from abuse by adults.
Proposal 1 : I am in danger of legal action taken against me due to inappropriate comments on the noticeboard. I cannot stop someone taking this action. I can however get them removed from CS. If they are addicted to chess this will hurt them and may act as a deterrent from suing me.
Proposals 2 & 3: [Serial abuse would not happen if the abusers were reported after their first offence]. Another point is that a child initially may not wish to report an incident since they are scared of the adult. It might be only several years later when they have grown up, spoken to similar victims and when they have collected the evidence that they are ready to complain.
I am involved in similar discussions at West Dunbartonshire Council where a Labour councillor has called me a liar and threatened legal action against me.
My proposals are not without merit in the real world.
Posts: 430
Threads: 41
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
5
Andy,
Proposal 1 is putting the cart before the horse. It makes more sense to have a Code of Conduct which prevents officials from making abusive statements than it does to prevent an abused official from seeking redress.
Volunteers are much more likely to come forward if they know their efforts will be appreciated - not if they will be forced to resign if they fight slander and libel.
Proposal 2 is difficult. Sometimes naming the offender will mean that the victim too is identified.
Proposal 3 I have some sympathy with. However, if it is serious enough it should be a police matter - although your proposal 1 stops that from being an option without them giving up chess!!
Posts: 976
Threads: 92
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
1
Alex:
Proposal 1: abusive statements are a grey area e.g. the words corrupt, racist, kill can have more than one meaning. People's language are different. Taking legal action is not a grey area.
Proposal 2 explicitly stops the victim being identified.
Proposal 3 I have no problem with police involvement, only legal involvement.
For further information, both Scottish and English Glorney Cup managers in the 1970's have been accused of child abuse.
In 2011 a West Dunbartonshire Council official did not just threaten legal action against me, I actually got served with a writ and had to appear in court. He stated that I intended to kill him. He got a QC to represent him. I asked QC Adrian Stalker to represent me but he said not to defend the case as the costs were too high to defend. My wife disagreed and did not want me stigmatised so she represented me. The official could not prove I made the statement, the case was dismissed and we were awarded costs of £2000. The legal system is an expensive lottery.
Posts: 430
Threads: 41
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
5
Andy,
Proposal 1. There is nothing 'grey' if you are called corrupt. For some officials such a claim could be career threatening. This proposal is more likely to stop people getting involved than in encouraging them. Imagine the conversation to a potential candidate "Of course we may call you a corrupt, bullying bigotbut aslong as you are in office you cannot do anything about it".
Proposal 2. The chess community is small. In many cases naming one party would mean that the other became widely known as well. Your proposal does not explicitly stop a victim being identified. I'm not saying that the guilty should be able to hide behind anonimity but you have to be careful.
Proposal 3. Aren't the police part of the legal process? Are you really saying that you give the police a statement but then end up in contempt because you refuse to testify in court. Please think your proposals through.
I would hope that the AGM will be a forum to move forward with chess in Scotland at all levels. It seems to me that your proposals are a step in the opposite direction.
Posts: 1,917
Threads: 261
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
5
amuir Wrote:For further information, both Scottish and English Glorney Cup managers in the 1970's have been accused of child abuse.
Really??
I find that really alarming!
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
