Freedom of Information

Regular readers will recall that I sent emails to the UK and Rwandan governments, asking

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?

Today, after a month, I got a Freedom of Information request reply from the Home Office:

The Home Office does not hold the information which you have requested.

Given the subject matter of your request, the Government of Rwanda may hold the

information you are seeking. If you have not already done so, you may wish to write to

them. Contact details can be found on their website at https://www.gov.rw/contact.

If you are dissatisfied with this response...................blah blah blah.

Well I've written to the Rwandans and got no response. Maybe I could get the Foreign Office to chase them up.

Basically these four guys are in the wind. Either living a happy life in sunny Kigali or mining cobalt to sell to the Chinese.

Or in jail.

Or back in...................wherever they came from.

I wonder if they feel their human rights have been respected.

Orwellian.

Sport and Politics

I've always been of the opinion that politics should not intrude in sport. I hate the playing of national anthems; in the 1960s "God Save The Queen" was played after the last film of the day. Everyone stood up. Except me, I'm off to catch the last bus home. It's often said that sport is something which brings people - and perhaps nations - together. Although it has also been said that sport is war by other means. Or something. I profoundly disagree with Russian sportspeople and teams not being allowed to compete in international events. These players are not their political rulers, they should not be penalised for the sins of their masters. I know they can compete if they don't say they're Russian, claim to be against Russian aggression and don't expect their national anthem to be played but I think it's pathetic and demeaning.

I grew up in an era when Boycotting the Olympic Games was almost a sport in itself. It started in Melbourne in 1956 (I was 12), where eight nations refused to take part: Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland protested against the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon protested the Suez Crisis (involving Israel, UK, France) and the People's Republic of China (PRC) protested against Taiwan (Republic of China) being allowed to compete. A boycott trifecta.

The most bonkers boycott of all time (BOAT) was the 1964 Winter Olympics in Switzerland, which North Korea boycotted over a dispute about how East and West Germany were being represented. Those two nations competed as a United Germany team and North Korea thought the same should apply to them and South Korea. Despite the fact that they were still technically at war, which I imagine the South Koreans pointed out.

In 1976 The New Zealand All Blacks rugby team toured apartheid period South Africa, the International Olympic Committee refused to ban them and 30 African nations didn't turn up. This was the beginning of the mass boycott movement, as 60 nations, lead by the USA, boycotted the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In return the Soviets, together with 13 other Warsaw Pact countries, boycotted the following Olympics in Los Angeles.

In 1998 North Korea (by now serial boycotters) skipped the Summer Olympics in Japan because they hadn't been allowed to co-host. An odd group comprising Cuba, Ethiopia and Nicaragua joined them.

Since then nothing. The art of boycott has been lost.

Samuel Ryder

“I trust that the effect of this match will be to influence a cordial, friendly and peaceful feeling throughout the whole civilised world … I look upon the Royal and Ancient game as being a powerful force that influences the best things in humanity.”

So said Samuel Ryder, who set up golf matches between USA and Great Britain professionals in 1927 which became the Ryder Cup, now competed for between the USA and Europe (after we got battered time after time).

Ryder was a mild-mannered, religious teetotaller from St Albans, known for being soft-spoken, old-fashioned, and very “Victorian” in his outlook. A gentleman, by the sound of it. He just loved golf and wanted to foster friendship between nations. He is unlikely have to looked favourably on today's version of the Cup, populated as it is by hooligan, even hostile, crowds driven on by aggressive, far from friendly players. Of both sides. Winning is now everything.

I loved the Ryder Cup in my 20s and 30s and I remember Jack Nicklaus "giving" Tony Jacklin a short putt on the final green, ending the Ryder Cup in a 16–16 tie rather than risking Jacklin missing it under pressure. In match play you can concede a putt that your opponent seems certain to hole, as a gesture of professional courtesy; the length of putt has often been debated and there have certainly been controversies in the Ryder Cup. Jacklin's putt was about two feet and on the margins of a "gimme" given the context.

I never watch it now, because the behaviour of players and spectators has become boorish. Sam would have hated it. It's a shame.

Maybe this year's edition, starting today in New York, will revert to something he would recognise and cherish. Let's see.

Tests for oldies - in short

There's a government plan to impose eye tests for driving licence renewals for the over 70s. Seems reasonable. My current licence expires in January 2026 and I think I'm required to renew every three years, although the present law is that I self-assess as being able to read a numberplate at 20 meters, with some other criteria like peripheral vision.

But maybe there are other aspects of citizenship on which us oldies should be required to prove mastery.

Brain tests for voting:

1. If you don't read, or watch, the news on a daily basis, you don't get to vote. Also if you spend more than 20 minutes a day on Twitter, TikTok, Instagram or Snapchat. Actually, come to think of it, maybe that isn't just for pensioners.

2. Memory test - can you remember the names of the last two Prime Ministers?

3. Politics 101 test (multiple choice): Who elects the Mayor of London? Is it (a) people living in London or (b) the Muslim Brotherhood?

4. Economic literacy test (multiple choice): If the government prints twice as much money, but the amount of goods and services in the economy stays the same, what will most likely happen to prices? Is it (a) they go up (b) they stay the same (c) they go down or (d) No-one knows?

Is there an argument for no-platforming Trump?

If the UK news organisations got together and decided to no-platform Donald Trump, we would never have to listen to his offensive nonsense. We wouldn't know that he thinks London is imposing sharia law, that he has solved a thousand wars, climate change is "the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world" and telling us "your countries are going to hell."

Obviously I can switch off the TV or go to a sports channel but I'd like my "news" not to be just a mouthpiece for a lunatic. There is real news around the world, we don't need to listen to his insulting remarks about the UN - his hosts. I'm not generally a violent man but I do sometimes just want to smack him in the face.

I'd expect my recommended action would be used by him to tell us how we are against free speech. But we wouldn't know he'd said it, so it wouldn't matter.

Obviously I'd have to no-platform him too, but where's the fun in that?

Would you like me to?

For those of you familiar with YouTube, you'll know that "shorts" are now all the rage. This is the first of of my "short blogs". There'll be another tomorrow.

I'm getting on a train...

...to Tallinn. Or at least thinking about it.

It's a hell of a long way. Fortunately, The Man in Seat 61 is on hand to help plan the journey.

As you can see, we'll (I say 'we' because at my advanced age I think I need a companion) have to take a long, but potentially exciting, route from Western Europe to the East then on to the Baltics. Here's a summary of my travel arrangements:

• Days 1 & 2, travel from London to Warsaw by train. Via Brussels and possibly Berlin
• Stay overnight in Warsaw.  "The Polonia Palace Hotel is excellent"
• Day 3, travel from Warsaw to Vilnius by train. This involves a change in Mockava in Lithuania, takes about 12 hours and costs €25
• Stay overnight in Vilnius.  "The inexpensive Stay Vilnius hotel is a 6-minute walk from the station". That's my kind of walk
• Day 4, travel from Vilnius to Tallinn by train, through Riga and changing in Valga. Another 10 hours

Sounds pretty straightforward, yes?

Of course, I could just get a direct flight from Stansted on Ryanair but where's the romance in that?

Nigel, why do you want to go to Estonia? I hear you say.

It's all about digital ID. When Tony Blair's government proposed compulsory ID cards back in the day, I was vehemently opposed to it. I thought it an intrusion on privacy, prone to forgery, Big Brother encroachment, generally illiberal. They didn't come in because the following coalition government ditched the proposals. But there is now talk of digital ID and it's possible my (and the public's) view has changed. Of course digital is intrinsically different to a paper version; we already have a myriad of digital identifications on our phones and we willingly give our details to the likes of Google and Apple. The government is moving towards a gov.uk wallet app for smartphones, able to contain driving licances, passports, birth certificates, Universal Credit accounts and the like. I don't think the intention is to make it compulsory but you can imagine that's the direction of travel. In time it might become a requirement for employment checks and immigration status. The Data (Use and Access) Act has already established the Office for Digital Identity and Attributes (OfDIA), which aims to ensure that digital identities are secure, trusted, and widely accepted across various sectors.

I'm sure there will be concerns about privacy and data security but I suppose you have to trust the government machine will sort this out. 

An oft-quoted exemplar is Estonia, where the digital ID card  is more or less mandatory and over 99% of government services accept them - for banking, taxes, voting, healthcare, signing documents, registering companies for example

What we don't know is how it works for the Estonian on the street, how happy they are about it, what are the pros and cons. Hence my desire to get on the train and go meet them.

Or - I could just check some of the liberty/human rights country comparisons.

Freedom House gives Estonia a global freedom score of 96/100, breaking that down as: Political Rights 39/40 and Civil Liberties 57/60. Estonia is very good on most measures of human rights and freedoms. It’s among the best in Europe on civil liberties, political rights, press & internet freedom, education, and quality of life on Freedom House's metrics.

So it's reasonable to suggest that the imposition of digital ID cards has not infringed the freedoms and rights of its citizens. Maybe we shouldn't be scared of them (the ID cards, not the Estonians).

I'd still like to see for myself. I'll check the train times.