A Selection Issue

[Patrick McGovern]

I've heard, through the loud beating of jungle drums,

I hope that these jungle drums, which neither I nor my many chess colleagues have heard, do not take the place of the detailed debate on selection that took place at the AGM?

methinks mischief making abounds

[George Murphy]

Oh dear!

The Minutes of the AGM held on 19 August 2012 show that the chameleon-like Hampton/Laidlaw spoke in the debate to which Patrick refers. The motion - critical of the Selection Policy - was defeated. To attempt now to resuscitate that debate under an alias is not just an echo too far but dishonourable.

Let's not repeat all the acrimony and controversy we had to endure earlier. Let's just respect the gentleman's age and delete this thread. David Congalton is aware of the allegation of undue commercial influence and will no doubt monitor the position.

[Chris Hampton]

George, I am not sure if I should dignify your insinuations with any sort of reply. I can say that my active dislike of the noticeboard is that too frequenly freedom to offer an opinion seems to degenerate into a personal attack on the individual offering it. If my age is to be respected then so should what I have to say! The substance of your comments relate to what happened (or may not have happened) at the last AGM. I might remind you that a Standards Committee report was, disturbingly, rejected or more accurately referred back for revision at that meeting. I am led to believe that revised version is now published and comments, it appears, unfavourably against the complainant. George, I am actually attempting to make some kind of sense of a current situation which seems to have arisen because of a disagreement about the selection process. Since my posting, I'm led to believe that an 'investigating committee' (names currently withheld) is to pass judgement on the issue. Robin will presumably have to meet with this unelected body on his return from Slovenia. If you think I am acting dishonourably in raising this matter, even-handedly, without passing any sort of judgement either way, then so be it I give you full leave to hold that opinion but would ask you, respectfully, to reconsider your request to have my posting removed altogether. I would regard it as a wholly undemocratic action and quite unjustified by the nature of the comments I've made. Perhaps you might wish to continue this discussion in a more private arena? BTW, my alias, as alleged, is an 'open secret' I'd actually prefer to be referred to as 'good old Wilhem'! =)

[George Murphy]

Chris,

Your aliases are not an open secret.

You need to make up your mind what topic it is that you wish to address. You started with selection policy; now you have switched to a complaint dealt with by the Standards Committee. Which is it to be? If it's the Standards Committee, I'm afraid I will have to disappoint you since it is inappropriate to discuss confidential matters 'out of school'. As for the selection policy, the Minutes of the AGM state that that matter was resolved by democratic discussion and vote. Why try to resurrect it? And why use a subterfuge to this end? If you've got something to say, say it openly.

So long as your posts are tolerated by the Moderator, you can express your views to your heart's content. But try to be (a) relevant; and (b) intelligible.

You say that since posting, you have been led to believe.... Really, Chris, you're old enough to know better than allow gossips to drop poison in your ear.

Between you and me, I think it's in your interest that this thread be removed.

[Chris Hampton]

I post off a reply to this, George, but it did not seem to have been properly attached to the carrier pigeon.
Naturally, you can't expect me to agree with your observations or is it insinuations about my mental state . The best I can do is assure you that I was simply seeking answers to some disturbing allegations passed to me by the originator of them. At that point the selectors had not responded so I felt I ought to post my concerns on the noticeboard. Things have moved on since then and I understand that some sort of self-appointed body is now set up to investigate these rather damaging allegations. Presumably, Robin will have to speak to that body on his return from Slovenia. If you feel that old age should be respected, then perhaps the offering of an even-handed opinion given by an 'old gent' might also be respected? If you seriously believe I've been mischief-making then so be it. I would , however, ask you to withdraw your request for the removal of my posting. One of the central reasons why I dislike using the noticeboard is the tendency for responders to launch personal atacks on the opinion-holder rather than dealing with the opinion itself. Should the Moderator heed your suggestion, then I would regard that as being a prejudicial and undemocratic action on his part. BTW, there's no great mystery about my 'moniker' , Chris Laidlaw. In times past, it was my legal name and I use it for editorial reasons. Writers use pseudonyms and nobody presumes to query their right to do that. Best regards Chris

[Chris Hampton]

My reason for earlier raising the issue of the Standard Committee report which was, if I'm not mistaken, originally rejected and passed back to the Standards Committee for revision is that it related to a complaint submitted to that Committee with regard to comments made by the IJD of a disparaging nature against Phil Thomas who had resigned from the IJD selection board on principle and on the strength of his reported unhappiness with what he felt, to be a departure from established selection procedures. I understand a revised report is now in the public domain I need to have a read of it before venturing further into deep waters! :\
I would point out that my original posting referred to the specific issue of whether or not there'd been any sort of 'sharp practice' in the selection of youngsters for Liverpool. I repeat that if there is any mischief-making in seeking answers to what I regard as legitimate concerns, then perhaps I need to ask how the need for transparency is adequately addressed by attempting to 'smother' legitimate debate? Sincere thanks, anyway, for caring enough to give me the 'time of day' . If I've raised your blood pressure somewhat, it was certainly not my intention! =) All the best ! Chris Hampton

[Andrew McHarg]

Guys please keep the conversation on topic. Referring to age is pretty irrelevant.

George: some people have been particularly critical in the past of topics being removed. In the interests of transparency and to remove any wild accusations of some kind of conspiracy, I will not remove this topic as it stands. Hopefully it can continue down a line of debate/discussion which is both informed and respectable, but if it does not then I/Andy H reserve the right to lock it until the relevant people can clarify the situation.

Hope this makes sense, please advise if you have any questions.

Cheers
Andrew

[Andy Howie]

Chris

Firstly we have a real name policy and to my embarrassment I had not twigged that you were using a pseudonym . Please can you comply with the rules as posted.

Secondly, instead of spreading rumour did actually occur to you to simply contact the Director concerned or was it simply your intention to provoke a reaction on here. The Director concerned is not in the country and not in a position to defend himself should he wish to do so. The fact that it is public knowledge that he is out of the country means that it is down to both Andy and I to make sure there is fair play. If this line of accusation continues whilst he is not in a position to have the right of reply, I will have no hesitation but to remove the thread.

[Andy Howie]

Guys please keep the conversation on topic. Referring to age is pretty irrelevant.

George: some people have been particularly critical in the past of topics being removed. In the interests of transparency and to remove any wild accusations of some kind of conspiracy, I will not remove this topic as it stands. Hopefully it can continue down a line of debate/discussion which is both informed and respectable, but if it does not then I/Andy H reserve the right to lock it until the relevant people can clarify the situation.

Hope this makes sense, please advise if you have any questions.

Cheers
Andrew

I really should use my laptop. It is quicker to type:-).

[George Murphy]

Chris,

Thank you.

Patrick referred to 'mischief-making', not I.

My blood pressure is fine.

Andrew,

I note your comments. I am very much in favour of transparency. I also said that Chris could express whatever views he wished so long as the Moderator tolerated them. I'm a great believer in free speech, but it has to be open and above board. I suspect that as a self-confessed Agent Provocateur' Chris has been enjoying himself.

Sorry Andy,

I had not noticed your reply about defending someone who is not here to defend himself. Of course, you are right, and I did not mean my remark about Agent Provocateur to be understood in that context - only that Chris has probably been enjoying himself crossing 'pens' with me.