Posts: 370
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2011
I do not have a problem with minor word changes Keith if that is what the meeting wants. However the word changes must not dilute the thrust of the motion
Posts: 370
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2011
Ianbrownlee Wrote:StevieHilton Wrote:All chess venues must either be accessible to all, or an acceptable alternative venue with full supervision shall be available to those who cannot access the nominated venue. This is the law of the land in any case so the word must has to be used in this case
i'm not sure this is the law of the land for private clubs such as chess clubs. If I run a chess club from my house for example I do not need to require disabled access ( I think). I was at Edinburgh chess club many years ago (very impressed) and I'm not sure what is required by law and what is not I think we should worry more about supervision and who provides it and health and safety. Not all venues (especially private ones) are covered or supervised by the local authority. Of course venues such as Bowling clubs and pubs are covered to a certain extent. I wouldn't like to go to a venue owner and examine his premises for suitability unless CS can produce a certificate determining suitability. Perhaps CS can initiate a system determining different levels of suitability e.g. disabled toilets, wheelchair access, lifts etc. This certificate could also be used to determine other requirement levels such as noise levels, catering facilities, parking etc. I also believe we in danger of flogging this to death as it is only a guideline for the arbiter/organiser. it is also a fact that some venues may not be totally suitable for everyone. I've yet to see or hear or any event which can reflect in the amount of attention this thread has attracted. We are here to support organisers not hinder them.
Private clubs are not above the law Ian as far as I understand.they are not exempt from the smoking ban for example. I am not putting this motion forward to hinder organisers. I am here as a member of CS who is disabled just to formalise what is already practiced here. If the meeting feels that the wording needs changing, I am not against that, but I do not want the motion to be diluted as a result of the word change.
Posts: 678
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation:
3
Stevie, your responses are as enigmatic as the motion. Can you let us know in plain English what you're trying to achieve out of:
a) A set of guidelines to encourage the inclusion of disabled players.
- OR -
b) A set of rules to enforce the inclusion of disabled players.
- ? -
Currently, as a matter of fact, your motion is neither.
Posts: 360
Threads: 97
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
3
According to what I understand shall and must mean different things and are not the same.
Shall usually alludes to something that is expected to happen, giving a possibility it may not, and must alludes to something that is going to happen no matter what, so totally different in meaning.
Posts: 247
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
A lot of interest in this motion!
Can I just get something clarified Steve, ideally with a straight yes or no. If the motion goes through, would Edinburgh Chess Club be able to use their premises to hold open events such as Winter Chess (lower sections) and the Elite Armageddon?
If yes, then great. If no, then surely you can appreciate a word change from must to should. These events can only take place because the venue is privately owned, and the hosting of them is in the interest of all chess players in Scotland. I am sure you wouldn't want these events to fold, especially when there has never been an issue in the past regarding access. Perhaps the way round it is that any new venues going forward must comply, but existing venues should be allowed to continue under the proviso they make every reasonable effort to accommodate disabled players, as is currently the case.
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
Surely in the spirit of hosting the Commonwealth chess in Glasgow, words to be included could be...
Shouldny, Wilny and Gonny no dae that.
Posts: 1,929
Threads: 263
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
5
Just been handed the minutes from the Commission for the Disabled. 17. Mr Geurt Gijssen (rules commission) reported the newly implemented regulations for disabled players were not just guidelines but they are clear requirements for integration of disabled players. Mr Ashot Seconded it.
Quite clear for a FIDE event. They must be implemented.
"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"
