AGM

[andyburnett]

Andy, trust me, if I take offence you wouldn't be in any doubt about it.
As it happens, I haven't, and doubt I will.
The more fanciful scenarios dreamed up, I feel, only serve to obscure the real issues by taking attention away from them.

I don't think the organiser of an event can take responsibility for the access and facilities, they could only be taken to task for the decision to hold the event in an unsuitable venue if a complaint was made.

If they could show that the said venue was the only suitable one within the budget and in the area the organiser of the event wished it to take place then it would be a harsh decision to level any penalty against them in my opinion.

It's not so much the pointing out of possible problems, it's, in some cases, the failure to accept that guidelines for the Disabled to enable them to play chess are actually needed, and are about 10 years or so behind the rest of the country as most organisations already have had such guidelines or instructions or rules or whatever you call them in place for the activities they undertake so , in my opinion, the discussion should be about what guidelines are needed and not if guidelines are needed.

I'm really not trying to be annoying or alarmist or pedantic or in any way obscure the fact that I actually agree with your final paragraph John, but (!) the part of your post which I've highlighted in bold/italics simply isn't an option according to my reading of the new FIDE regulations, and if we decide to go with motion part a) it won't be for CS events either?!

Anyway, I think I'll leave it that - my own reservations are probably quite minor compared to what the motion might actually achieve. I still think it would be a good idea for some organisers to post their thoughts - they're the ones who've had to deal with issues in the past and should probably know if this will help or hinder them in any way.