As requested, flags

I think if I did a survey close to where I live, there'd be more Cornish flags

than English or British being displayed. We have our own language and rugby team - the Pirates.

Aargh me hearties. Shiver me timbers. Pieces of eight. 

Flags are fascinating, like national anthems and, in my opinion, intrinsically performative. I look at a flag from an artistic point of view and I blogged about this a few years ago. And from that point of view the Cornish flag is simply awful - just four black blobs; what's that about?*

But the recent explosion (if that's what it is) of flag flying by English households (there has been no reporting of similar outbreaks in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as far as I can tell) seems to be  driven by (a) it's August (or at least it was) and the media have very little to report on (Trump hasn't threatened to annex Cuba) (b) Reform UK and its leader have been ramping up nationalistic fervour and (c) people are dusting off their flags after the Womens' Euros and in anticipation of an England World Cup victory next summer.

In some ways it's anti-British. We see flag fetishes in other countries, notably the USA, where it seems to be seen as a test of national virility and comes close to a statement of weakness, implying a kind of bunker mentality: the old Millwall chant of "No one likes us, we don't care!". Traditionally we Brits are more reserved, keeping our patriotism to ourselves. We feel it but don't feel the need to say so and therefore you might see flag-waving (other than in military or sporting victories) as a sense of desperation that "fings ain't what they used to be".

Because of flag displays seemingly connecting with anti-immigrant sentiment, flags can perhaps be seen as relatively (as opposed to say bows and arrows) inoffensive challenges to foreigners: "you're not welcome here" and we're going to wave our flags at you (but less so physically drive you out). A statement of weakness and frustration.

The conscription of the flag of St George as if it (and it's adherents) represent the whole of our four nation union is of course pretty offensive.  Maybe for some it's a deliberate anti-union statement: "our" borders are Hadrian's Wall and Offa's Dyke.

The biggest problem for me is the tribal nature. If you don't fly or acknowledge the flag, you're not of our tribe and we don't want you - or maybe even want to vote for you. Hence a great rush of politicians draped in the flag, proud to say they have an England flag in their living room, etc. Grow up!

Of course we all remember Emily Thornberry who sneered at a terraced house draped in three England flags and resigned as Shadow Attorney General. So no sneering please - but don't keep your thoughts to yourself! If possible don't do so Anonymously.

* CORNISH NOTE: our flag is NOT four black blobs, it's a white cross on a black background, perhaps the black background signifying the rich mineral deposits from its tin mines and the white cross representing the purity of St. Piran. Obviously.

Singapore Slings

I spent 8 months working in Singapore once. Interesting country, drinks in the Long Bar at Raffles surrounded by discarded peanut shells, Night Safari at the Zoo, Sentosa island, hawker centres.

And.

Top of the charts for the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in maths, reading and science. With other Asian countries in top places too, it's Estonia that leads the way for the West followed by Finland and Ireland. The UK is in 14th place, higher ranked than most EU countries.

In 2022 PISA introduced a creative thinking assessment. Singapore came top of that too. Maybe less expected.

I liked my time there, could have stayed longer but I felt it just wasn't my kind of culture. And equatorial weather is pretty stressful.

Previously, in or around 2001, I travelled by train from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore. It was a relaxing, scenic journey although pretty slow, 7 hours or so. Not one of the world's grand, exotic rail journeys. Since then a high speed rail link has been proposed, agreed and cancelled a number of times due to cost concerns and changes of government in Malaysia. An agreement in 2013 should have led to completion and operation in 2026 but it's now back to 2031 I think. Shades of the UK's HS2. And a similarity in distance: Singapore to KL is about the same as London to Manchester. There's a joke about bats in there somewhere but I can't quite work it out; any suggestions?

BTW, just in case you want to know, a Singapore Sling contains gin, cherry liqueur, orange liqueur (Cointreau or Grand Marnier), an herbal liqueur like Benedictine, pineapple juice, lime juice, grenadine, bitters, and is topped with club soda, garnished with a cherry and orange slice. Yes please!

I did some research and sourced some bottles and cans of this cocktail. Pretty pricey and definitely not the same experience as ready mixed at a bar. I need to find an occasion. Maybe transiting Singapore on the way to Australia.

The wonders of the House of Lords

As reported in today's Times, Lord Wei proposed an amendment to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, on its way through the House of Lords.

Lord Wei is described as a "social entrepreneur", although there is no evidence put forward as to what that means or who (perhaps himself?) describes him as such. Anyway, his amendment addresses the Bill's requirement for the UK's children to register as home-schooled if their parents opt to do so rather than sending them to school. It's surprising that such a requirement doesn't already exist; although schools have to notify the local authority if a child is withdrawn from school to be home-schooled, there is no such requirement if a child is never sent to school in the first place.

I'm going to set aside considerations of home schooling (not something I would have relished as a parent) and focus on Lord Wei's amendment, which states

"A child who has achieved chess grandmaster status shall be considered to be receiving a suitable education and shall be exempt from registration under section 436B."

Section 436B outlines the new requirement for all children of compulsory school age ((basically up to 16) to be placed on a register if they are not attending school. Lord Wei, who was not present in the House to propose his amendment in person - perhaps home schooling his kids? - sent a message:

“This amendment recognises that children who attain chess grandmaster status demonstrate exceptional intellectual achievement. It automatically treats them as receiving a sufficient education.”

This is obviously a bit weird and begs the question of how many of these geniuses are there? Something the Times reporter hasn't bothered to explore - or maybe it got cut out by the sub-editors for lack of space. I, however, am like a dog with a bone and I did ask.

At the time the amendment was discussed in the House on 1st May (something the Times article today didn't point as therefore old news, I'm disappointed to say) the answer was: one. Shreyas Royal (born 9 January 2009, so currently 16 years old) officially earned his Grandmaster (GM) title in 2024 at age 15 years and 7 months, becoming the youngest British GM ever. 

However, Shreyas ceased to be of compulsory school age on the last Friday in June, so the current answer to the ("how many?) question is: none.

So Lord Wei was seeking to create a legal opt-out for one person at the time. This seems an odd way to make law. I naturally asked ChatGPT whether it could find any connection between Lord Wei and Shreyas - that's the cynic in me - and the answer came: no. And no connection to any chess bodies that I could find.

I checked out Shreyas' FIDE (the world chess federation) data. His FIDE rating is 2501, one point above the GM threshold (ratings go up and down as you win or lose matches but you only have to get to 2500 once to get the title). He has competed around the world in tournaments and I suppose that means home schooling (perhaps travelling with a parent) is an appropriate way to get educated.

Perhaps, if we'd like Britain to become a chess powerhouse to compete with the pesky Indians and the powerhouse Chinese, Shreyas and his contemporaries need to be supported.

But I still don't see why you would want such a person to be exempt from a national register which seeks safeguarding through oversight, reporting, and potential interventions. What's the problem, Lord Wei?

Anyway, good luck to him  (Shreyas, not Lord Wei). I've added him to my Favourites list on the Take Take Take app, so I'll let you know if he's in a tournament; I'm sure you'll want to know.

You have to help AI

One of the best things about ChatGPT is....you can actually have a chat. Meaning that it remembers the previous contributions to the existing conversation, which is something traditional search engines don't do. However, you have to have some degree of scepticism about what it tells you.

I recently asked ChatGPT "Which of arsenal's first team squad are 6 feet or more tall?" [why? I hear you ask; good question]. It came up with a dreadful set of answers which I knew to be out of date because previous players were included. Now here's another good thing about ChatGPT: it tells you where it got its data from. In this case it quoted Ladbrokes, the bookmakers. Now no-one in their right mind, trying to answer this question, would dream of using Ladbrokes as the source material for the answer. So, in attempt to educate the AI, I followed up with "Some of this is out of date. Try alternative source". The conversation continued "You’re right — that source was stale. Pulling from ESPN’s current 2025/26 Arsenal squad page, here are the players listed at 6'0" (183 cm) or taller as of 30 Aug 2025". And that was that; I got my info, well sourced.

I wanted to persist with my annoyance: "can i ask you not to use ladbrokes next time?" and got the response "Got it — I’ll steer clear of Ladbrokes as a source for squad info. ESPN, Transfermarkt, the Premier League’s official site, and Arsenal’s own page are much more solid anyway."

Questions remain:

• If it knows those sites are "more solid", why did it go to Ladbrokes in the first place?
• Will ChatGPT retain my "Ladbrokes ban" for future conversations or just this one?

I didn't know the answers so I simply asked. "If you know those sites are "more solid", why did you go to Ladbrokes in the first place?"

Answer: "Fair point. Honestly, it comes down to how the search engine serves results. When I did that first fetch, Ladbrokes had a nicely formatted squad list that showed up high in the rankings, so I pulled from it. Problem is, betting sites often copy data from older feeds and don’t always keep it fresh — which is exactly what you spotted. The more reliable places (ESPN, Transfermarkt, official Premier League/club sites) sometimes sit lower down in search results or behind trickier layouts, so they don’t always surface on the first pass. I should have gone straight for them once you asked about something as specific as player heights."

So there you have it - this version of ChatGPT goes for speed of response ahead of accuracy. I'm still like a dog with a bone so I ask "Do you have settings where I can optimise accuracy rather than speed?"

Answer: "Not in the sense of a toggle you can flip, Nigel. There’s no “accuracy mode” vs “speed mode” built into me. What actually happens is:

• By default, I try to balance speed and reliability, which means sometimes I grab whatever structured data surfaces quickest (like that Ladbrokes squad list).

• If you’d rather I always prioritise accuracy, you can just tell me explicitly: “only use official or trusted sources (ESPN, PL, club site, Transfermarkt)” — and I’ll go that route, even if it takes a bit longer to fetch and verify. Think of it less like a setting, more like giving me marching orders for how thorough you want me to be."

Finally, I asked the key question "If I say 'only use official or trusted sources', does this apply to this conversation or all future conversations?"

Answer: "Right now it would only apply to this conversation unless you tell me to remember it. If you want it to carry over into all future chats, I can save a note in your profile (something like “Nigel prefers that football info comes only from official or trusted sources like PL, Arsenal site, ESPN, Transfermarkt”). That way I’ll automatically follow it without you needing to remind me every time. Do you want me to make that a standing rule for you?"

Yes, I said.

"Updated saved memory. All set — I’ll stick to those trusted sources for football info going forward."

I'm baffled where and in what form this "saved memory" is; will it be accessed by my conversations on a different device? So I asked and was told "Yes — the memory I’ve saved for you is tied to your account, not the device. So whether you’re on your desktop, phone, or anything else signed into your ChatGPT account, I’ll carry over that preference about using only trusted football sources."

I end the conversation with a completely superfluous "Thanks". Basically because I like to feel I'm conversing with a sentient being and, in conversation with a human, that's what I'd do.

I think you have to not only learn how the AI works but also how to help it come up with the right answers. Just thought you'd like to know.

Incidentally, this is all from ChatGPT's free version. If you want, you can get "advanced reasoning" for £20 p.m. or "pro reasoning" for £200 p.m. Not for me.

Also incidentally, most of the regular search engines now include AI responses, so the ubiquitous verb to "google" is no more.

Footy updates 2025/6

A weekend to forget for our favourite teams.

Ipswich Town, recently (and briefly) of the Premier League, pre-season favourites to win the Championship, languish in 20th place after a 106th minute (of 90) equaliser at home to lowly (21st place) Derby County, meaning they have just 3 points from 4 games and are already 9 points adrift of the leaders. Boosted financially by £100 million in Premier League prize money and £40 parachute payments, they have made 11 signings in the summer transfer window, some of those on loan; that's a whole new team! Most of them have yet to play any minutes and all will need time to settle in so perhaps it's too early for us fans to panic. Obviously the club decided the remnants of the relegated squad, after some key departures as a result of relegation release clauses in their contracts, needed a complete overhaul. We can only hope recruitment has been a success.

In the same division Charlton Athletic, possibly one of the pre-season relegation favourites after promotion from League One, are four places and one point above Ipswich. They lost away at QPR on Saturday but, unlike Ipswich, they do at least have a win under their belt. If they can maintain this early season form maybe they can survive.

Down one division, Wycombe Wanderers are firmly stuck in the relegation places with just two points from six games. This is their fifth season in League One after one season in the Championship and will have expected to be challenging for the playoff places after achieving that in two of the previous seasons including last year. At least they are still in the Carabao Cup, in which they play away to Wigan Athletic, also of League One but in mid table, in a couple of weeks time.

Our two Premier League teams also join the Carabao Cup in the third round. Arsenal are away to Port Vale, who are one of only two teams below Wycombe in League One; Tottenham are at home to Doncaster Rovers, currently 5th in League One. Both had disappointing results at the weekend. Tottenham's probably comes in the "shocking" category, losing 1-0 at home to Bournemouth, who had 20 shots (6 on target) against Tottenham's 5 (1 on target) despite Spurs having 61% possession. In the previous game they won away at Manchester City convincingly, a situation reminiscent of last season, when they lost 2-1 at home to Ipswich followed immediately by a 4-0 win away to Manchester City. There's a word for this: spursy. It's hard to understand and must be infuriating for their die-hard fans. At least they've got a new signing on the way: Xavi Simons, who they stole from under the nose of Chelsea.

I was most disappointed with Arsenal. With a bunch of top-class new signings, away to a Liverpool team which has been shipping goals (albeit while still winning), I expected a statement win. I had hoped that manager Mikel Arteta would have had the courage to select 18yo Ethan Nwaneri to replace semi-injured (on the bench) Martin Odegaard. Nwaneri is an attacking creative player and could have taken the fight to our opponents from the beginning and linked up with new striker Gyokeres, but instead he went for the 'safe' option of Mikel Merino, who is undoubtedly more solid and capable of pressing the opposing midfield hard. The result was a sterile game in which Arsenal passed the ball around between their defenders, effectively saying "we hold what we have" and wanting not to lose. Which they eventually did with an extremely impressive Liverpool goal direct from a free kick. If he keeps on making passive selections like this, we will once again fail to win the league.

Both are still in the top four though:

It's an international weekend next, so no more updates on your favourite teams for a couple of weeks.

Things I can't find out #1

Lots of Farage noise in the news has resulted in some questioning of whether the Rwanda scheme would actually have worked, given that the current government is apparently considering "return hubs" agreements with other countries. These are not the same as the Rwanda scheme; the latter was meant to send asylum applicants to Rwanda to be processed, return hubs are for those whose asylum claims have been processed and denied, as temporary holding areas pending deportation back to their country of origin.

It's not unreasonable to consider whether the Rwanda scheme, had it been deemed legal, would have worked. No asylum seekers were ever sent to Rwanda forcibly, but four individuals decided to accept the UK government's offer of £3,000 and a five year support package. Their identities cannot be disclosed by virtue of a High Court ruling which, probably reasonably, reflects normal asylum seeking practice in accordance with the Human Rights Act and the Refugee Convention.

Surely though, there would be some value in knowing what happened to them? Were they processed fairly through the Rwandan asylum system? Were they granted asylum? Were they granted residency/citizenship? Where are they now?

So much legislation is based on "here's an idea that we think might result in....". You can imagine both ministers and civil servants spending their lives with their fingers crossed. Sometimes there are pilot schemes. In a way, these four who went to Rwanda could be thought of as a pilot, so that we can learn lessons from it. We don't have to deny them their right to anonymity, and we don't want to ask subjective questions, just establish the facts as proposed above.

I'm not a journalist with sources and research teams but I tried, using various AI and search engine tools, to get some answers. But either no-one is interested or the authorities have no intention of following up. So I thought I should email the Rwandan government and the Home Office. Which I did.

Here's my email:

Can you tell me how I can get answers to the following questions about the four individuals who voluntarily went from the UK to Rwanda under the voluntary returns program? I don't want to identify the individuals, just to know:

1.Were they processed through the Rwandan asylum system?

2.Were they granted asylum?

3.Were they granted residency/citizenship?

4.Where are they now?

Thanks for your help.

I don't have high hopes of getting meaningful answers but, if I get any responses, I'll let you know.

I suppose there are other ways - Freedom of Information requests, Parliamentary questions - but I'm just some old bloke sitting on a sofa with his laptop.