|
Dear club members and other interested parties,
You may have been aware of a dispute that has rumbled on over the months
between ourselves [me] and Widnes Chess Club [Andy Kelly]. In fact I am
describing this very loosely with this statement since Widnes did not
reply to my complaint and were supported in this stance by the senior
officials of the MCA. In general the Atticus policy has been to keep the
progress or lack of it confined to a few senior figures within Atticus
although rumours and indeed some detail have 'escaped' from time to
time. If you are too busy to read all of this letter may I suggest you
just read between the *** signs, the facts in that section actually tell
you the essential knowledge needed for comprehension of the ludicrous
situation that has arisen.
A resolution to the satisfaction of the MCA eventually has been arrived
at. I have decided to make it clear briefly [yes, sorry this is briefly]
what happened in the time since the incident on October 8th. The main
reason for my 'going public' at this time is that the ramifications of
the dispute continue. Apart from the blatant unfairness of the processes
employed and the ludicrous resulting situation, I am currently involved
in discussion/argument about what should go in the minutes of the last
committee meeting where the complaint was heard and am finding this a
less than rewarding experience. In addition, I am being approached by
well intentioned people who do not know what has happened who are
looking to me to do what I can to heal a perceived rift between Widnes
and Atticus Chess Clubs. However as the following shows I have
absolutely no influence over events within the MCA.
Firstly, this is not a simple 'We said this and they said that and
no-one knew whom to believe' scenario although this is I believe how the
outcome is being represented. The incident that led to the dispute arose
when a Widnes player under the captaincy of Andy Kelly was rude and
aggressive towards Dave Robertson. This was my allegation at the time; I
witnessed the whole matter and have never seen such an incident in my
long involvement with chess. The incident finished with Dave Robertson
swearing regarding his opponent's idiotic behaviour, but with a glance
towards me, Dave decided to play on. With regards the swearing I find it
more than justified by the extreme provocation and an entirely apt
description of the perpetrator's actions. I do regret it happening
because of the almost un-ending claptrap we have had to put up with on
the topic from people who not only should know better but none of whom
suggested what Atticus should have done at this [or indeed any other]
point of the dispute.
During the evening I tried to raise my concerns firstly with Andy Kelly
and later with Gareth Ellis but was 'brushed off'.
Consequently a few days later I sent by recorded delivery an excessively
formal letter explaining my concerns which were now two in number [a]
the original incident and [b] the refusal to discuss the incident, this
second being stressed as probably the more serious. The letter was
detailed in terms of conversations and actions and not just 'he was
aggressive' type statements.
I received in reply an e-mail which in essence still refused to reply to
my letter suggesting such steps as putting the matter behind us for the
good of Chess. There was one incursion into a supposed description of
events where Andy Kelly drew attention to his warning Dave Robertson
regarding his language. In view of the fact that Andy Kelly had refused
to answer my complaint and that his alleged actions were totally
fictitious I was scornful of his 'reply' and putting this view in
writing requested that the League controller Dave Whitby or the Cup
controller [since there was an upcoming fixture between Widnes and
Atticus 2] Dave Farley, insist that Widnes answer the complaint.
Andy Kelly's e-mail had been written in this style, he said, not to me
but to one of the MCA officials, because he acted on the advice of
'an
expert in anger management issues'. It was never explained to me how not
addressing a complaint and telling lies would actually move matters
forward, although it would clearly lead to anger in the recipient.
Instead of one of the two MCA officials mentioned requesting that Widnes
give their side of events and making a judgement possibly after seeking
clarifications as required, the four senior officers of the MCA, Dave
Farley, Dave Pearcey, John Davis and Ralph Stuttard decided that this
request for a complaint to be heard should be denied. This was because
last summer Gareth Ellis had submitted a complaint against Dave
Robertson to the MCA committee because of items Dave had posted on the
Atticus Forum. This the officers decided was outside their legitimate
scope to consider so the complaint was not heard. Nonetheless they felt
Dave Robertson was guilty and therefore this matter which clearly is
within their remit could not be found against Widnes. Thus we have the
situation where Dave Robertson is guilty without any opportunity to
defend himself on a matter outside their jurisdiction and Widnes are
innocent without needing to defend themselves on a matter clearly within
their jurisdiction. ['Dave Robertson,' I hear you say, 'What
did he ever do for Chess?']
Thus a very lengthy process started which did not involve part [b] of my
complaint despite my repeated requests that it be heard. Dave Farley
became investigating officer and produced an account of events which we
were both invited to acknowledge. This would allow Andy Kelly to achieve
his [obvious but unstated] aim of no-one from Widnes ever having to
apologise to Atticus, and in particular to Dave Robertson.
No progress was made in the process instituted by the four officers so
somewhat bizarrely the complaint ended up before a committee meeting on
27th January.
*** The report produced by Dave Farley covered the main features of the
incident and it was only after this description was produced and at
least 5 weeks after the original complaint did Andy Kelly start telling
Dave Farley by e-mail that he had been present for some of the incident.
He did not criticise Dave Farley's description of events [formed by
interviewing each of us] but said I was at fault for implying he wasn't
present. This he needed to do because he wanted to be able to say the
Widnes player 'was blunt verging on rude but never aggressive', avoiding
any need for apology and also he wished to fit in his reprimand of Dave
Robertson. [Just to remind you, Andy was not present!].
This claim by Andy Kelly made a nonsense of his whole previous conduct.
Dave Farley confirmed at the committee meeting that eventually heard the
complaint that Andy Kelly had not told him that he was present for any
part of the incident. Dave did not lie on Andy Kelly's behalf but,
continuing the party line, praising Andy with faint damnation seemed to
imply that it wasn't really the sort of thing that he as investigating
officer was looking at.
Andy was never there but if we pretend he was we have a real problem
with his supposed rebuke of Dave Robertson [I had made it clear in my
contribution to the meeting that everybody who knows Dave Robertson
knows that he would not take a rebuke from Andy Kelly after such an
incident without having his say] because Andy has to say what happened
next. Andy had about 15 minutes to make up his answer as to what it was
but unsurprisingly did not offer it until questioned, 'Nothing happened,
Dave's deaf, he didn't hear me' Some warning! Exactly the single event
you would recollect when describing an incident! [As Andy had done in
the e-mail mocked by me] I don't think so and I defy anyone who was at
the meeting to say that Andy Kelly was describing anything related to
the truth ***
In the real world you would expect shooting yourself in the foot by
telling demonstrable lies would scupper your chances, but not in the
modern MCA army! Thus at the committee meeting we heard more of Andy's
story, completely new 'information' never put in writing for the
committee to reflect on, three and a half months after the original
incident: Grandmaster Nigel Davies was revealed as the expert in anger
management who had advised Andy Kelly on the style of his e-mail. The
exact nature of this advice was never revealed to me but, and here I
admit Nigel has more first-hand experience of Master events than I have,
but I don't recall any accounts of disputes where the arbiters in
requesting both sides' accounts of events have settled for a 'general
response' rather than one addressing the specific issues from one side.
A further confusing 'item' was where the Widnes player in the original
incident was revealed to have 'a condition' and was in fact a terribly
sad case. I felt that maybe this might have been put as a reason for
that player's frenetic [and aggressive] behaviour or as a consideration
of mitigating circumstances to be put before the meeting but such were
the reverential terms that it just felt very wrong to ask what on earth
Andy was talking about. The other information was both bewildering in
its content and its relevance but was clearly totally consistent with my
earlier assertion that the reason the incident had taken place in the
first instance was that the Widnes player had been wound up by Andy
Kelly to perpetrate his mischief.
And so the meeting was left with Dave Pearcey from the chair telling the
clubs that they would just have to get on with it.
If you feel that I am just a bitter old fogey who has gilded the lily to
make it seem I am in the right, then I would say that you are probably
right about the bitter old fogey bit but I have barely scratched the
surface in the description of the iniquities perpetrated in the name of
the MCA. The evidence is all there in the correspondence released to the
committee for those who wish to check my claim.
Where does that leave the MCA's dispute processes? My view is that we
should, as we have always done, try to resolve matters in person at the
time of an incident. If that should be unsuccessful then a resolution
should be sought in writing. If one club is still dissatisfied then the
relevant official of the MCA should be informed, and, gathering what
information is required that official should make a decision [which may
be appealed at the Committee/AGM level]. Well yes, that's what I tried
to do never imagining that it would take three and a half months of
bogus procedure to reach the bogus outcome we now have.
To summarise then: congratulations to Andy Kelly on achieving his aim of
no Widnes player ever having to apologise to any Atticus player,
particularly Dave Robertson. Congratulations to the senior officials of
the MCA in stopping this complaint and if fair play, process and truth
suffer a little on the way so be it. It was not all gloom for me; I
believe I demonstrated Andy Kelly to be unscrupulous and a liar....
Anyway....enough of this fond reminiscing.... I am sorry but I just do
not have the energy to fight this fight any longer.
Regards,
John Carleton
3 March 2009
|
