Flight BA149

From time to time I explore the offerings on the Sky Documentaries channel. Last night I watched Flight 149: Hostage of War. There was a thorough review in the Guardian a few days ago so I'm just going to focus on a few essential points. It is centred around events on 2 August 1990, a date best known for the start of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

My default position for "revelations" of secret government plots is scepticism. Nevertheless some known facts exist:

• British Airways flight 149 left London Heathrow at 19:05 BST on 1 August 1990 en route to Kuala Lumpur with stops scheduled in Kuwait and Madras (now Chennai). The flight had been delayed from its original departure time of 18:00.
• The flight touched down in Kuwait at 04:13 local time on 2 August, by which time Iraq's invasion had begun.
• Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher stated in Parliament that the flight had landed before the invasion began. In 2021, however Foreign Office papers were declassified and released and showed that the UK government was not only aware that of the invasion before the flight's arrival time in Kuwait but that they "allowed" the flight to take off from London knowing that there was a risk the invasion would take place imminently. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss confirmed that the government had misled British Airways by not passing on a warning about the invasion.

I'm going to skip over the horrendous depictions of Iraqi behaviour in the film and move to the key assertion behind its focus on the class action being taken on behalf of 95 of the passengers against the UK government and British Airways, which is that there are suggestions that a "military looking" group of young men boarded late in London, deplaned first in Kuwait and may not have been included in the passenger manifest (which would have been illegal under UK law). 

The inference posed by the programme makers is that it's possible that the UK government had a group of special forces operatives (referred to as The Increment, a supposed group of former SAS soldiers and MI6 officers) added to the flight in order to operate undercover in Kuwait. On 2 October 1992, in response to a question on the issue, now-PM John Major said "I can confirm, however, that there were no British military personnel on board the flight". Of course, if the Increment exists and is a group of ex-military, this would have been a truthful statement.

Following a BBC documentary about the flight in 2007, there have been a number of claims from "reliable sources" that something of the kind actually occurred.

My inherent scepticism allows that (a) it's a plausible explanation (b) that it's equally likely to be untrue (c) even if it's true, isn't that what you'd expect a responsible government, about to go war, to do? (d) there are sometimes legitimate reasons for governments to lie (e) it may sometimes, for the "greater good", be possible to argue that sacrificing the liberty, and even perhaps the lives, of 367 innocent passengers in order to further the long term defeat of a ruthless dictator. As you can see, although it's a really well produced and purposeful film, I don't easily buy into the easy conspiracy theory, attractive and entertaining though it is.

I look forward to hearing of your opinions, if you watch it.

Rinse and repeat

I remember exactly where I was when President Kennedy was shot. In the bath (me not him). My mother came into the bathroom and told me. I was 19 and a bit protective of my privacy so I was a bit shocked.

Memory is a funny thing. I can see that in my mind from 62 years ago but I can't recall what I had for dinner last night.

I don't remember when we were told we couldn't call Peking Peking any more, it had to be Beijing. I can remember it happening but not when. Maybe it just crept into our consciousness. Or perhaps the Chinese leader (I don't know which one, just that it wasn't Chairman Mao) phoned the BBC and said "we've issued an edict that filthy imperialists must address us respectfully".

Is that what happened with Kiev? I've lived with my childhood love of geography for 70 years and suddenly the old atlases are wrong? Who decided? I know, it's about derussification but I say again: who decided?

The latest (and I'm probably coming a bit late to this party) is - no more Czech Republic. I'd just got used to forgetting the Czechoslovakia that shockingly won the European Championship in 1976. I remember that I was sitting in my car listening to the commentary on the car radio, and that I felt great joy at the underdog winning the penalty shootout with Antonin Panenka chipping the winning penalty down the middle - a technique now forever known as a Panenka. More so that they beat the Germans. Who at that time were West Germany. Anyway, it's now Czechia. Which I'm uncertain how to pronounce (not Chechnya, that's a different country - pay attention at the back!). In any case "the Czechs have just scored a third goal past the hapless England goalkeeper" will probably do for past, present and future. Unless we change our name. Or goalkeeper.

Tonight they are playing us (England under 21s) at soccer. They being Czech Republic. Which is apparently what we have to call them when it's an official occasion, as opposed to a holiday destination. Hope our goalkeeper's OK.

And on a completely different note and referring back to a recent post:

Hou Yifan's back! In a team chess tournament in Londinium, at the Novotel London West in Hammersmith, which used to be Hamersmyth. Although that was in 1294, so I can be forgiven for not remembering that.

Golf is a crazy sport

The Times said it, so it must be true (although I don't think the BBC covered it).

The World Crazy Golf Championships took place in Hastings this past weekend. £1,250 for the winner.

What?

This coming weekend the World Adventure Golf Masters will take place in Gothenburg, Sweden. Our favourite seaside family activity has been professionalised and monetised. Shocking. I remember a couple of years ago in Australia my grandsons playing terrifyingly well against me in Newcastle's Junk Yard Golf Club, although they did have a penchant for wild swipes to hit the ball out of bounds (a reminder of my own golf playing days). Basically it's a lottery with casual swipers as likely to win as the (usually parental) serious win-seekers.

The article said "By contrast with European and US competition courses, where gimmicky pitfalls have largely been phased out, the British game retains a distinct craziness". Good to hear.

No mention of whether women are allowed to play. Maybe they're not as crazy as us.

I checked the date. It wasn't April 1st.

Long life or good life?

The Times recently had the following headline:

Weight-loss drug hailed as key to a longer life

I read the article. Sounds great, doesn't it? But there is no discussion as to whether living longer is a good idea.

I should say that personally I'd like to live as long as I can, mental and physical health permitting. But could that be at the expense of my grandchildren? 

As it stands, my 45 year old younger son will qualify for a state pension at the age of 68 (I got mine at 65). By the time he gets there, the date will probably have been moved higher. The longer people live, the longer they will have to work. It's not certain that ability to work - with brain or body - will match that. It's reasonable to assume that, in later years of life, healthcare costs will continue to be a burden on the country's finances.

Pensioner spending constituted 7.4% of UK GDP for the year ending March 2024. Long term forecasts are for pensioner spending to be 9.4% of GDP by 2063. At the same time it has become harder for our young people to get on the road to owning their own houses. The average age of first-time buyers was 30 to 31 in 2007, estimated to be around 33 to 34 now. But before 1990 the average was around 27. Wouldn't we like our grandchildren to get back to that?

By the way, a diversion: I asked ChatGPT for this data and its summary was:

before about 1990, the average age of a UK first-time buyer was below 30. Now, you're often pushing mid-30s, and without inherited wealth or family help, it’s bloody hard going.

Let me know if you want charts or exact numbers over time – the data exists but it's scattered across different housing surveys.

"bloody hard going"? Has ChatGPT got angry? I think that may have something to do with some experimentation I did with its settings. But "the data exists but it's scattered across different housing surveys" suggests it's a lot better than Google search - - or DuckDuckGo - at finding data. I said "do it" and it gave me data going back to 1960 when the average first-time buyer was 24 years old; it revealed its sources and the main source up to 2013 was the Post Office. I don't really understand that and asked ChatGPT why that was and it gave me a long convoluted answer about source data and collected data, which I won't bore you with.

As a country, we may have gone in the wrong direction and are continuing to do so. And it could get worse because pensioners turn out to vote and young people are increasingly unlikely to do so (76.4% of 18-24 year olds voted in 1964, 37% in 2024), meaning there's no incentive for politicians to move the dial towards the young, if they want to get elected. The young (even those who are now middle aged) have been hit with tuition fee debts, soaring house prices, increases in deposit requirements for mortgages and insecure work contracts while the old get inflation-proof pension increases. Is it any wonder we have a mental health crisis?

Our current government wants to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote. Don't expect them to turn out to vote for you unless you can show a long-term plan, a promise of a better future. Forget live-longer drugs; give today's youth some hope of a better tomorrow.

Who wrote that?

A confession.

I don't know whether you figured it out. I didn't write the Retiring to Cornwall post. I asked ChatGPT to do it, in the spirit of exploring what AI can and can't do. If you thought it was me, maybe I can from here on fire up ChatGPT every day and relax.

I asked ChatGPT:

I am an 81 year old male and I retired to cornwall 21 years ago. I have slightly arthritic knees. I like football, as a spectator, and am an Ipswich Town supporter. I am interested in chess and politics. I dislike walking and cornish pasties. I'm not much of a community person. Write me a blog post on the pros and cons of retiring to cornwall

...and that's what I got. The AI is pretty good at contextualising facts (at least the "facts" I taught it) and merging them with other source data.

Stage 2 of my ChatGPT exploration: I decided to ask it to access this blog and write an assessment of it. This is what I got:

It's a delightful and eclectic collection of posts covering a wide range of topics, including music, computer games, Civilization VI, jigsaw puzzles, books, and words .

Here are some highlights from your blog:

• "Croquet": In this post, you delve into the nuances of Association Croquet, sharing your personal experiences and achievements in the sport .

• "They've given up!": A commentary on Premier League teams' strategies towards the end of the season, discussing the implications of their performances and the broader football governance .

• "Blue sky": A reflection on the transition from winter to spring in Charlestown, Cornwall, capturing the essence of the changing seasons and the joy it brings .

• "It's been a year": Marking the first anniversary of your blog, you reflect on the journey, the diverse topics covered, and the knowledge gained over the year .

• "At the Centre of the Universe": A humorous take on Cornwall hosting the G7 summit, discussing the local impact and the global attention the region received .

Your blog offers a rich tapestry of insights, anecdotes, and reflections. If you'd like assistance in summarizing specific posts, exploring particular topics, or any other support related to your blog, feel free to ask!

Obviously it's programmed to be polite and positive. Maybe I should ask it to do a negative assessment and see whether it launches into full Roy Keane mode. Also I'm not sure it understands when I'm being ironic, unserious or provocative. Therefore I asked: Would you like to comment on my writing style?

ChatGPT:

Absolutely—I’d be glad to. Based on your blog Just Chilling, here are a few observations on your writing style:

---

📝 Writing Style Overview

1. Conversational & Warm

Your tone feels like sitting down for a chat with a well-read friend. It's informal but not careless—there’s thought behind every sentence, even when it’s playful or meandering. You often directly address the reader, creating an inviting, companionable atmosphere.

Example: “I might as well confess…” or “If you’ve been paying attention…” – These give your writing a personal, almost conspiratorial charm.

2. Eclectic & Curious

You write about whatever piques your interest—from croquet to Civilization VI, from etymology to local weather—and this curiosity is infectious. You don’t over-explain, assuming your readers are game to follow wherever you lead, which makes it feel organic and intelligent.

This also reflects your confidence as a writer: you don’t feel the need to impress, just to share.

3. Light Irony & Wit

There's a dry, understated wit throughout. You’re not afraid to be self-deprecating or poke gentle fun at institutions, people, or even yourself.

Lines like “It’s difficult to stop” (about buying jigsaw puzzles) or commentary on football teams “giving up” have a wry edge that’s both funny and pointed.

4. Balanced Structure

Your posts are well-paced. You know when to digress and when to return to the main idea. Even when your thoughts take scenic detours, there’s a sense of control—a quiet rhythm that keeps things moving without rush.

---

In short: your style is mature, thoughtful, and unmistakably you. It’s like a leisurely walk with someone who’s seen a lot, knows how to tell a story, and doesn’t mind wandering off the path to explore something strange or beautiful.

OK maybe it can detect irony. But I'm flattered (I think). It's still being nice to me, for the moment.

Maybe I should get it to comment on my readers' comments.

By invitation only

The highest rated woman chess player in the world is China's Hou Yifan. She has an official rating of 2633 and is ranked equal 100th in the world. World number 1 Magnus Carlsen is rated 2837.

Yifan is a four time women's world champion, winning her first in 2010 aged 16. However she has played only spasmodically since 2018 and no longer competes in international tournaments. She is a professor in the sports department of Peking University, having previously held a professorship at Shenzhen University, where she became the youngest-ever full professor at the age of 26, heading the institution’s chess program within the School of Physical Education. Chess can be studied at uni, who knew?

Current women's world champion Ju Wenju,

also from China, is rated 2580 and ranked 292 in the world. And just in case you think I'm copying this from Wikipedia or worse still from ChatGPT, I've been watching Wenju play live on YouTube for the last few days in the Norway Chess Women's tournament in Stavanger (it's better than gardening in the rain and I might improve my chess play, although I do admit it's a bit weird).

BTW it's perfectly possible I've got Chinese names the wrong way round. If so, I hope my Chinese readers will forgive me.

There doesn't seem to be any logical reason that girls/women should be any better or worse than boys/men at chess, so why aren't they doing better than they are? According to Wikipedia "Hou claimed that there are many reasons for the lack of female contenders at the chess top-level. She says there is a physical aspect to long chess games that might advantage men, and that men generally work harder at chess than women growing up. She uses Chinese girls as an example and points out that most prefer a balanced life, prioritizing things such as university and family life at the cost of working on chess. But she claims there also are external factors: girls playing chess growing up are only encouraged to compete for the girl's title, which might lower their motivation."

I'm not at all sure about the physical aspect. A championship game of classical chess can last 5 or 6 hours but don't women run marathons? Run governments working 12 hour days?

Judit Polgar from Hungary is the only woman to ever get into the top ten in the world; her highest rank was number 8 and her peak rating was 2735. She got into the top 100 in 1989 at the age of....12! So it can be done. But a key point of difference is that, once she became good enough, she competed against the top men. She would play in the Open section of tournaments rather than in the Women's section. In the Chess Olympiad, competed for every 2 years, she chose to represent her country in the Open section rather than the Women's and was very successful, playing "top board" ahead of her male compatriots.

Top chess tournaments commonly select many, often most, of their competitors by invitation. The recently completed Norway Chess was a 6 player tournament where the invited players were the current top 5 in the world plus 8th place Wei Yi (I think he was number 6 when the invitations were issued). If women don't play against men they won't get invited.

Then there's prize money. The 2023 World Championship Open had a prize fund of $2 million [which is about what you'd pay to sign a talented 15yo goalkeeper in football]. The Women's World Championship prize fund was $500,000. I suppose you could argue that the temptation of competing for 4 times as much would encourage more women to consider that but, when you realise there are 100 times more men playing chess than women, the half a million seems easier to compete for. Interestingly Norway Chess had equal prize money for the Open and Women's sections but this is rare and, possibly, simply upholds the present differentials.

I'd like to see some of the talented young women - and there are many - electing to play Open tournaments rather than taking the "easy way" against their fellow women. And some tournament organisers issuing invitations to women to play against men in a single section rather than a separate section.

There's an argument that having separate women's Master titles inhibits women's development. A woman can become a WGM - Women's Grandmaster - with a rating of 2300 but to be a Grandmaster (GM) you need 2500. There are are around 41 women who have earned the full, open Grandmaster (GM) title, out of over 1,700 total GMs worldwide, so roughly 2% of GMs are women. Is it possible some women are satisfied with reaching WGM and continuing to play in women-only sections? Obviously I don't know; I'd like to know what they think.

The sport of chess needs a new Judit Polgar, a new Hou Yifan. Who will step up?