19-08-2013, 02:17 AM
I wasn’t reassured by your posts in support of your motions Robert, as they contain a lot of accusations and/or innuendo that you don’t substantiate.
Your question 2 above says “Do you believe that someone who's PVG cleared coaching status has been suspended should still be able to act in the way I have alleged. If you think his behaviour is acceptable then we do have a disagreement. If you think it is wrong how would you address it.”
That’s a very loaded question, given that you have not presented the behaviour that you allege in a way that could be queried, but you nevertheless want us to accept it as fact.
Also, as you will be aware, a motion preventing any involvement of suspended coaches in junior chess – i.e. precisely what you claim is necessary – is going before the AGM. Unless this motion is incompetent, there is not an existing bar on ALL involvement in junior chess. As far as I can tell, you are not alleging that improper contact by the suspended coach has been made with any juniors. So surely it would be completely wrong for any formal action to be taken in order to address behaviour that is alleged informally by you, behaviour which even if confirmed would not break any rules?
I can’t see how your line of argument supports naming at all.
Four of your five reasons for naming concern the need to protect various people or organizations by naming the suspended coach. This seems tantamount to asking CS to ignore the ruling of the Standards Committee, and treat the incident now as it were more serious than they did then. I think this would undermine the SC; it’s like saying if we get flak over the SC’s recommendations, we can find ways to beef them up.
Also, the other reason you gave argues that it doesn’t matter much if the child’s name thereby becomes known because the parents accept this risk. Together, these seem contradictary to me. If there has been such a serious incident at the hands of a man so dangerous that all the children, parents, guardians, coaches (and Chess Scotland too) need protecting from him, then how can it at the same time be OK for the child’s name to become known?
Regarding the second motion, if your concern is the issue of adults drinking while attending junior chess events, again you could raise that as a general issue at the AGM. You haven’t alleged that the coach was drinking excessively; so why should this personal angle be the subject of such scrutiny? Your explanation was
“to clarify how much alcohol played a role in this incident as it could have a baring on the instructions we as an organisation give to adults participating on Chess Scotland delegations at international events”
Are you seriously proposing that the Standards Committee, for the good of Chess Scotland, should conduct alcohol research; research that however consists only of one occasion and one person, and who it just so happens you insist must also be named just beforehand?
It does look to me like the benefit that you allege to Chess Scotland of such a pointless investigation is a contrived device to maintain focus on the individual concerned.
Does this criticism not also apply to your arguments about naming, too? For example, you say naming would ‘defend the reputation of the two other Chess Scotland officials present in Slovenia at the time’. But you seem remarkably unconcerned about completely dragging the other Chess Scotland official’s name through the mud.
Your question 2 above says “Do you believe that someone who's PVG cleared coaching status has been suspended should still be able to act in the way I have alleged. If you think his behaviour is acceptable then we do have a disagreement. If you think it is wrong how would you address it.”
That’s a very loaded question, given that you have not presented the behaviour that you allege in a way that could be queried, but you nevertheless want us to accept it as fact.
Also, as you will be aware, a motion preventing any involvement of suspended coaches in junior chess – i.e. precisely what you claim is necessary – is going before the AGM. Unless this motion is incompetent, there is not an existing bar on ALL involvement in junior chess. As far as I can tell, you are not alleging that improper contact by the suspended coach has been made with any juniors. So surely it would be completely wrong for any formal action to be taken in order to address behaviour that is alleged informally by you, behaviour which even if confirmed would not break any rules?
I can’t see how your line of argument supports naming at all.
Four of your five reasons for naming concern the need to protect various people or organizations by naming the suspended coach. This seems tantamount to asking CS to ignore the ruling of the Standards Committee, and treat the incident now as it were more serious than they did then. I think this would undermine the SC; it’s like saying if we get flak over the SC’s recommendations, we can find ways to beef them up.
Also, the other reason you gave argues that it doesn’t matter much if the child’s name thereby becomes known because the parents accept this risk. Together, these seem contradictary to me. If there has been such a serious incident at the hands of a man so dangerous that all the children, parents, guardians, coaches (and Chess Scotland too) need protecting from him, then how can it at the same time be OK for the child’s name to become known?
Regarding the second motion, if your concern is the issue of adults drinking while attending junior chess events, again you could raise that as a general issue at the AGM. You haven’t alleged that the coach was drinking excessively; so why should this personal angle be the subject of such scrutiny? Your explanation was
“to clarify how much alcohol played a role in this incident as it could have a baring on the instructions we as an organisation give to adults participating on Chess Scotland delegations at international events”
Are you seriously proposing that the Standards Committee, for the good of Chess Scotland, should conduct alcohol research; research that however consists only of one occasion and one person, and who it just so happens you insist must also be named just beforehand?
It does look to me like the benefit that you allege to Chess Scotland of such a pointless investigation is a contrived device to maintain focus on the individual concerned.
Does this criticism not also apply to your arguments about naming, too? For example, you say naming would ‘defend the reputation of the two other Chess Scotland officials present in Slovenia at the time’. But you seem remarkably unconcerned about completely dragging the other Chess Scotland official’s name through the mud.