Viewing archives for

Jake Green’s deep knowledge of financial services law has made him a go-to man for journalists wrestling with the implications of Brexit.

An award-winning partner with leading London law firm Ashurst, Jake (OE 1992–1997) has been quoted several times in recent months on the front page of the Financial Times, with the newspaper turning to him for his expert knowledge of areas including regulation and compliance matters.

His day-to-day work involves giving advice on Brexit to banks and fund managers. In fact, he offers a valuable combination of expertise, since his knowledge of the law is complemented by practical experience from ‘the other side of the fence’: over the past few years, Jake has spent time on secondment at a hedge fund and a brokerage house.

Jake won the 2013 Thomson Reuters Annual Compliance Awards Best Regulatory Lawyer of the Year title. He was recognised in the Financial News’ 40 Under 40 Rising Stars in Legal Services in 2014 – although he had no idea he had even been put forward for such an accolade.

He qualified while at Nabarro, where he worked for more than five years. “I then followed my boss to Ashurst,” he says. Jake arrived at the firm in 2010 and was made a partner in 2015.

“I really enjoy it and, of course, there are the rewards. It’s a long job; it’s a taxing job, but work-life balance is changing in the City. The days of the ‘all-nighter’-type culture are slightly fading. I am emotionally invested in my clients, and most understand that a work-life balance is healthy!”

Other factors, such as serendipity and the willingness to make the best of any situation, can contribute as much, if not more, to an individual’s success as any carefully worked-out career plan, he believes.

Before reading Law at Leeds University from 2000–2003, Jake ‘took a year out’. He recalls: “I got very lucky and got a job at Sky, working on the Premier League. I was dumped straight into working with Andy Gray and Richard Keys. It was great fun. In life, things sometimes are a bit random – it can just be about being in the right place at the right time. I have found that being prepared to muck in gets you quite far and sharing gets you an awfully long way. I was offered the opportunity to stay at Sky but decided I wanted to do Law. Sport was a hobby that I found I was enjoying slightly less when I was working in it.”

Jake’s sporting prowess was very much in evidence during his time at QE: he played both Fives and cricket for the School. It is perhaps because of that that he fitted in so well, he says.

Like others, his memories include endless breaktime games of football using airflow balls. Other aspects include the ‘duckets’ – blue cards used to give boys credits, which added up to commendations, with these, in turn, counting towards House points.

Of the staff, it is History teacher Mr Marek Kolczynski who especially sticks in his mind, both for some enjoyable, thought-provoking lessons and for memorable encounters outside the classroom.

“He used to say: ‘Always ask yourself how do you know that you know?’ and ‘What evidence is good evidence? How do we weigh evidence?’ He would urge us to keep on probing.” Such a grounding proved valuable later in his legal career, Jake says.

He also recalls being ‘skewered’ by Mr Kolczynski over some minor misdemeanour: “’You are not sorry; you are sorry that you got caught,’ he told me.”

Jake left QE after GCSEs to attend a sixth form college nearer to his family home in Finchley. “My father died and I wanted to be close to home,” he says.

He still lives in the same area today. He is married to Miranda and has two children, Ethan, aged six, and Chloe, four. He maintains close friendships with a number of his QE contemporaries. In his spare time, Jake enjoys playing football.

Queen Elizabeth’s School has won a national online Mathematics competition, beating off the challenge of hundreds of other schools.

The winning team, made up of four sixth-formers, dropped just one point in the eight rounds of the University of Manchester’s MathsBombe, scoring 119 points out of a possible 120.

Headmaster Neil Enright: “My congratulations go to this team on an almost perfect performance. The competition attracted a large field of teams from leading schools across the state and the independent sectors, and it demanded both speed and deep mathematical understanding. This victory therefore represents a considerable achievement.”

The winning team comprised Year 12 pupils Bashmy Basheer, Kishan Patel, Nico Puthu and Niam Vaishnav. Notwithstanding the team’s name, maiNlyNiam, Kishan was the captain.

Organised by the university’s Mathematics department and supported by the Dame Kathleen Ollerenshaw Trust (a charity named after a mathematician and Lord Mayor of Manchester, who died in 2014 aged 101), the competition attracted entries from more than 600 schools.

From January, every two weeks a new set of problem was released online. The puzzles spanned the whole spectrum, from logic puzzles in pure Mathematics to applications of Mathematics in real-world settings.

The maximum 15 points were available to the first team to solve the problem and to other teams solving it within an hour of the first team. Other points were awarded on a sliding scale, depending on the time taken to solve each problem. The rules forbade any assistance from teachers and also prohibited collaboration between teams.

An online leaderboard enabled teams to keep track of their progress throughout the duration of the event. Kishan said this proved to be a spur to his team’s success: “The competition from the other teams encouraged us to answer the questions as quickly as possible.” Niam added that the four friends had enjoyed the opportunity to tackle challenging problems that differed from those they normally faced in the classroom.

Other teams entered by QE also performed creditably, with one, BombVoyage, taking 43rd place, having solved six of the eight puzzles and scored 70 points.

---

Here is an example of one of the problems, with the solution below:

Grobnog the Goblin King was sitting on his throne consulting with Torqmaga the Inquisitor. “Your Majesty, we’ve been infiltrated by a rogue group of Goblins,” said Torqmaga. “They call themselves Nilbogs. Physically they are identical to Goblins, but – unlike true Goblins – they always tell the truth.”

“Our whole society is founded on Goblins being evil and lying whenever they can!” said Grobnog. “We need to identify these interlopers!”

Torqmaga handed over a piece of paper. “I’ve tortured all of your subjects to find out who is a Goblin and who is a Nilbog. I can assure you that under my questioning, everybody was true to their real nature: every Nilbog told the truth and every Goblin lied.”

Grobnog inspected the list. “What does ‘or’ mean here? Does it mean ‘one or the other or both’?” he asked.

Torqmaga nodded. “Yes, your Majesty, it’s the logical meaning of the word ‘or’. It seems that torture turns Goblins and Nilbogs into very logical monsters. I’m sure you can work out from their statements below who is a Goblin and who is a Nilbog.”

Agmiz “Fragdag would definitely say that I’m a Goblin.”
Bord “Exactly one of Iz and Molk is a Nilbog.”
Cherguff “Those good-for-nothing layabouts Dolk and Lold are the same type of monster as Molk.”
Dolk “Stop the torture! Bord and Yobblot are both Nilbogs or both Goblins!”
Erkaz “I may hate his guts, but Toxplok and I are the same type of monster.”
Fragdag “Quonk and Xinik are Nilbogs.”
Gneeg “Zisbut and I are different types of monster.”
Hrunk “Gneeg is most definitely a Goblin.”
Iz “Molk is a Nilbog and deserves everything Grobnog will do to him.”
Jop “Bord would say that Fragdag is a Nilbog.”
Klaatak “Lold is a traitorous Nilbog!”
Lold “Ronx is a loyal Goblin! Will you let me off the rack now?”
Molk “Erkaz never tells me the truth, she’s a typical Goblin.”
Norbet “All I’ll say is that Wizmok is a Goblin or Zisbut is a Nilbog.”
Oinq “Agmiz and Quonk are loyal to Grobnog! They’re both Goblins!”
Plegkurk “Dolk and Hrunk are either both Nilbogs or both Goblins.”
Quonk “Oinq, if he ever stopped eating, would say that I’m a Nilbog.”
Ronx “Xinik and Bord are both evil Nilbogs.”
Squee “Lold is a typical Goblin – he owes me 200 silver pennies!”
Toxplok “That little toerag Cherguff would say I’m a Nilbog.”
Udonk “Iz would say that Ronx was a Goblin.”
Vuird “Ronx would say that Udonk is a Nilbog.”
Wizmok “What can I say? Iz is a Nilbog or Norbet is a Goblin. Will that do?”
Xinik “I know that if you ask Ronx then he’d say Squee is a Nilbog.”
Yobblot “Klaatak and Squee are both Goblins.”
Zisbut “Hrunk is a goblin — the most disgusting I’ve ever met.”

Your task is to work out which of the 26 monsters above are goblins and which are nilbogs.
Enter your answer as a sequence of 26 letters: G (for Goblin), N (for Nilbog) arranged in the order of the 26 goblins/nilbogs listed above. If you think that Agmiz is a Nilbog, Bord is a Nilbog, Cherguff is a Goblin, Dolk is a Nilbog, …, Zisbut is a Goblin then you should enter your answer as NNGN…G.

---

Solution:

Refer to each Goblin or Nilbog by the first letter of its name. If a monster is a Goblin then we’ll write that it always lies; if the monster is a Nilbog then we’ll write that it tells the truth. By saying two monsters are the same we mean that they are either both Goblins or both Nilbogs.

The clues are then:
A: F says A always lies
B: Exactly one of I, M tells the truth
C: D and L are the same as M
D: B = Y
E: T = E
F: X and Q tells the truth
G: Z != G
H: G always lies
I: M tells the truth
J: B says F tells the truth
K: L tells the truth
L: R always lies
M: E always lies
N: W always lies or Z tells the truth
O: A and Q both always lie
P: D = H
Q: O would say Q tells the truth
R: X and B both tell the truth
S: L always lies
T: C would say T tells the truth
U: I would say R always lies
V: R would say U tells the truth
W: I tells the truth or N lies
X: R would say S tells the truth
Y: K and S both always lie
Z: H always lies

1. Consider clue I. If I is telling the truth then M always tells the truth. If I is lying then M is lying. Hence I = M (but we don’t know whether they both lie or both tell the truth).
2. Clue B says that I != M. Hence B is lying.
3. Clue R says that B tells the truth. Hence R must be lying. (Note that we can’t say anything about X from clue R.)
4. Clue L says that L must be telling the truth. Hence K is also telling the truth (K’s clue) and S is lying (S’s clue).
5. Clue Y says that both K and S both lie. But K tells the truth. So Y is lying. As both B and Y are lying, Clue D is true; hence D tells the truth.
6. Consider clue X. Suppose that X lies. If X is lying then R would actually say that S lies. We know that R lies, this would actually mean that S tells the truth. But we know S lies, so our assumption that X lies is wrong. Hence X tells the truth.
7. Consider clue F. Suppose that F is telling the truth. Then clue F tells us that X tells the truth (we already knew this) and Q tells the truth. Clue Q then tells us that O would say that Q is telling the truth (which indeed Q is), so O must also be telling the truth. Clue O tells us that both A and Q both lie. But this contradicts the fact that we’ve just argued that Q is telling the truth. Hence our assumption that F is telling the truth is wrong, so F must be lying.
8. As F is lying, it’s not true that both X and Q tell the truth. We know that X does tell the truth. So this tells us that Q must be lying.
9. Knowing that Q is lying, clue Q tells us that O would actually say that Q lies. This is indeed the case, hence O is telling the truth.
10. Clue O now tells us that A lies.
11. Consider Clue J. We know B lies. As F lies, B would indeed say that F told the truth. Hence J is making a true statement, so is telling the truth.
12. Consider Clue M. We’ll consider the two cases (M tells the truth, M lies) separately. First suppose that M tells the truth. Then E must lie. Clue E says that T and E are different, hence T must tell the truth. Now consider the other case where M lies. In this case, clue M says that E is telling the truth; it then follows from clue E that T is also telling the truth. Hence, no matter whether M is telling the truth or lying, we must have that T is telling the truth.
13. Clue T tells us that C is making a true statement. Hence C tells the truth.
14. Clue C tells us that M is the same as D and L (who are both telling the truth). Hence M is telling the truth. Clue M then tells us that E is lying.
15. Clue I is making a true statement about M. Hence I tells the truth.
16. Consider clue U. Monster I tells the truth, and R does indeed lie. Hence U is telling the truth.
17. Consider clue V. Suppose V tells the truth. Then R would indeed say that U tells the truth. We know that R lies, so this would mean that U lies. But U tells the truth, a contradiction. Hence V must lie.
18. Consider clue Z. Suppose Z tells the truth. Then H lies. Clue H then tells us that G tells the truth. Clue G tells us that Z and G are different. But we’ve just argued that both Z and G tell the truth, a contradiction. Hence Z must lie.
19. Clue Z then tells us that H tells the truth.
20. Clue H then tells us that G lies. (Just to check: G lies, so clue G tells us that both Z and G are the same, which indeed they are.)
21. As both D and H tell the truth, clue P implies that P tells the truth.
22. Consider clue W. Suppose W always lies. Then clue W tells us that monster I always lies and N tells the truth. But we already know that monster I tells the truth, a contradiction. Hence W must tell the truth. (Note that, even though we know W tells the truth, clue W doesn’t tell us anything about whether N lies or not.)
23. Finally, consider clue N. If N is telling the truth then either W lies or Z tells the truth. But W tells the truth and Z lies, so neither of these possibilities can happen. Hence N must be lying.
Hence (denoting T for ‘telling the truth’ and L for ‘lying’) we can assign

ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ
LLTTLLLTTTTTT LTTLLLTTLTTLL

Reverting back to ‘Goblins always lie’ and ‘Nilbogs always tell the truth’ this gives

ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ
GGNNGGGNNNNNN GNNGGGNNGNNGG

so the required answer is GGNNGGGNNNNNNGNNGGGNNGNNGG

Queen Elizabeth’s School has once again excelled in the British Biology Olympiad, with two sixth-formers reaching the final round, which is open only to the top 16 young biologists in the country.

Year 13 pupils Showgo Kimura and Michael Takla were selected from Round 2 for the four-day finals, a series of practical examinations held at Warwick University.

They were among five QE boys who had qualified for Round 2, with the others being fellow sixth-formers Ilan Elango, Milan Hirji and Simon Rey. The five’s qualification placed them in the top 2 per cent of the 7,818 entrants nationwide.

Last year, QE was crowned the best-performing school in the country in the prestigious Olympiad competition, and although it will not be known until later this year if it has repeated this feat, the School is certainly in a strong position, says Biology teacher Mev Armon: it has amassed a total of 14 gold, 16 silver and 15 bronze medals.

Congratulating Showgo and Michael, Mr Armon said: “They have worked for almost two years, developing additional skills outside of the specification at lunch times. I am very proud of them and of all the boys who were awarded medals.”

After returning from Warwick, the pair reflected on the experience. Their preparation included areas such as botany, gel electrophoresis and locust dissections.

Michael said: “I enjoyed the opportunity to improve my practical skills, learning new lab techniques, and being surrounded by other people who were as interested in Biology as I am. I particularly found a practical on the induction of β–galactosidase in E. coli very interesting because it complemented prior knowledge of the regulation of lac operon expression with experimental evidence.”

Showgo added: “Unlike with School practicals, we weren’t given any extra reagent, even if we had used ours up, and this meant it was important to plan before starting. I realised this too late and had almost finished the blood sample provided on making blood smears when I needed more to complete the rest of the examination.

“Although I made other small mistakes throughout the rest of the practicals, I enjoyed all of them, especially the maggot dissection. In this practical, we had to dissect a maggot of roughly 2cm to find the dorsal vessel (the ‘heart’) and apply several drugs to investigate their effects. At first, I kept damaging the heart, but after a few attempts I improved and was able to do the dissection with ease. I didn’t expect practical exams to be as challenging and interesting as they were and I’m sure the skills I gained from them will continue to be useful as I study Natural Sciences at university.”

QE is the first UK school ever to win a world title in the Vex IQ Challenge international robotics finals.

The QE pupils emerged to take the Excellence Award at the finals in Louisville, Kentucky, which holds a Guinness World Record as the world’s largest robotics competition. The Excellence award is the highest presented in the VEX IQ programme, going to the team that exemplifies overall excellence in building a high-quality robotics programme.

They saw off no fewer than 400 teams from 40 countries – including leading schools from the US and China which have usually provided the winners throughout the competition’s 11-year history. It was only the second year that boys at QE had participated in VEX Robotics, having become UK national champions during their first season in 2017.

The QE boys were judged on their robot design, programming skills, driving skills and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics) research project, with all of the judges in their division agreeing they were the overall ‘best of the best’.

QE’s Head of Technology, Michael Noonan, said: “This is a truly phenomenal achievement and far surpasses all our expectations. It is a hugely competitive event, which attracts some of the most intelligent young minds in the world. The Year 9 Gear Squad team were especially commended and, together with our Year 8 Technogear team, demonstrated a voracious hunger for success whilst retaining their humility.

“Gear Squad and Technogear greatly impressed the judges with their confident and student-led presentations and explanations. In fact, the most notable aspect of the VEX IQ programme at Queen Elizabeth’s is that it is entirely student-led.

“I am absolutely delighted and infinitely proud of the students involved, and this marks the ultimate testament to their hard work, dedication and countless hours refining their robotic solutions and programmes.”

It is estimated that there are 8,500 VEX IQ teams around the world. The VEX IQ challenge is aimed at pupils from Years 5-9.

Year 9 pupil Dillan Shah, of Gear Squad, said: “It was an honour to represent the UK as well as our School and meet all the fabulous people from around the world. It was a truly amazing experience.”

Despite nationwide challenges in getting young people to pursue STEM careers, QE and other teams taking part from the UK showed that British pupils can not only compete but be leaders in this field, supported in their preparations by both curricular and extra-curricular programmes, said the organisers. In fact, QE is ranked in the top ten UK schools for take-up and performance in the STEM subjects, and no fewer than 22 of last year’s leavers went on to read Engineering at university.

Bridie Gaynor, VEX Robotics Competition Manager (UK & Europe), said: “We are extremely proud of the work VEX Robotics does in the UK to encourage not only a passion for robotics but also much sought-after skills. To see Queen Elizabeth’s School, a UK team, on stage accepting the Excellence Award was a truly landmark moment for VEX Robotics in the UK. We are so proud that UK teams are now a force to be reckoned with.”

The 400 teams taking part were split into five divisions of 80. The VEX IQ competition is multi-faceted: in addition to the overall Excellence Award, within each division there were prizes for categories such as the STEM research project, design booklet competition, teamwork challenge and robot skills competition.

Mr Noonan added that the criteria for winning the Excellence Award included being “a shining example of dedication, devotion, hard work and teamwork”. The award took into account the performance and subsequent rankings of the winners in all competitions within the overall event, but was ultimately decided by interviews from the chief judges. He added that it was clear that both QE teams benefited from being pupil-led “as they demonstrated an outstanding amount of independence at the world stage in solving problems and performing to their optimum”.

Gear Squad consists of Year 9 boys Vihaan Jain, Varun Vijay Kumar, Shilacshan Lingakumar, Dillan Shah and Alex Woodcock. Technogear comprises five Year 8 boys: Arjun Arunkumar, Dylan Domb, Aditya Khanna, Anish Rana and Yash Shah. The boys were accompanied to the US by Mr Shane Ryan (Technology) and Mr Jonathan Leigh (Physics).

Younger pupils had the chance to explore one of the world’s most intractable conflicts when a Palestinian and an Israeli visited the School.

The two young women spoke during a Lower School Lecture Assembly led by the charitable organisation, Solutions Not Sides, which promotes open and positive engagement as the best approach to the long-running conflict.

Celia Hart, Outreach and Administration Manager for the organisation, introduced the session in the Shearly Hall, which was part of School’s lecture programme for Years 7–10 organised by Nisha Mayer, Head of Academic Enrichment. The boys heard from Rena, a Palestinian who grew up in Jerusalem, and from Tania, an Israeli from Tel Aviv. Both recalled vivid memories of childhood fears arising from the conflict, yet they were able now to agree about many aspects of what the way forward should be.

Headmaster Neil Enright said: “This was an engaging exploration of a very important, but often difficult, topic, with the two young women recalling experiences that are almost unimaginable for us in the UK, but were part of normal life for those growing up in the conflict.

“It was good for the boys to see how two people ostensibly on different ‘sides’ can work together. Although there was a clear sense that there is still some way to go, with divisions rooted in both communities, it was apparent that there is real hope things can be better for future generations. In today’s climate of polarised political debate, it is more crucial than ever that our pupils learn to consider the viewpoints of others and do not simply resort to tribalism.”

Rena remembered playing outside as a child and then fearing her mother was dead as bombs started going off around her and her friends. She recalled an Israeli soldier who pointed his loaded weapon at her in the street when she was outside during curfew.

For her part, Tania, who is finishing a Master’s degree in Educational Psychology, explained the system of compulsory military service for young Israelis – she served in Intelligence. She told the boys that the first time many young Israelis encounter a Palestinian is in this context, where they are viewed as hostile or enemies. As a child, the fear of suicide bombings was very real and limited some opportunities. There were regular bomb sirens, which gave people only 60 seconds to get to a shelter. She told an anecdote of how on one Holocaust Memorial Day, she mistook the siren sounded to mark the start of the period of reflection for a bomb siren and, startled, began running downstairs towards a shelter. When she realised it was a false alarm, she simultaneously laughed and cried.

Violence, said Tania, only adds fuel to the fire and cannot be the answer: “Israelis will only have a safe home when Palestinians have a safe home.”

Among the questions posed by the boys were:

• Would a single-state solution work? The visiting speakers answered that people were probably not ready; there was broader support for a two-state solution.
• How have foreign nations affected the conflict? The response was that there had been many impacts, and these had not always been helpful. Tania cited President Trump’s decision to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem as something which added to tensions. However, foreign support could have a positive impact if it focussed on supporting the leaders of both sides to find a way forward.
• What was the main cause of the conflict – perhaps Hitler’s régime and World War II, or the Crusades almost a thousand years before? In response, the speakers pointed to further causes, including the fact that the ‘Holy Land’ is just that for all three Abrahamic religions, and that the region’s geography makes the territory strategically important. Any solution would need to take many factors into account.
• How had other young people of the two women’s generation viewed the situation growing up and had they taken sides? Yes, many Israelis viewed Palestinians as the enemy, never knowing them as children, said Tania. The conflict is very deep-seated, with hatred and fear common. Many Palestinians saw Israelis as soldiers and machines, not as people, Rena said. But, she added, people could get beyond that if they tried to understand others and reach out to them. The two speakers were clear that they didn’t view each other negatively.