Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lucie Nield, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Sheffield

For years, people living with obesity have been given the same basic advice: eat less, move more. But while this mantra may sound simple, it’s not only ineffective for many, it can be deeply misleading and damaging.

Obesity is not just about willpower. It’s a complex, chronic, relapsing condition and affects around 26.5% of adults in England, and 22.1% of children aged ten–11 in England.

A new report estimates the rapidly growing number of people that are overweight or obese costs the UK £126 billion a year. This includes £71.4 billion in reduced quality of life and early mortality, £12.6 billion in NHS treatment costs, £12.1 billion from unemployment and £10.5 billion in informal care.

Food campaigners and health experts have called for urgent government action, including expanding the sugar tax to more products, restricting junk food advertising and mandating reformulation of ultra processed foods. As Henry Dimbleby, author of a government-commissioned independent report called the National Food Strategy, warned: “We’ve created a food system that’s poisoning our population and bankrupting the state.”

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Without significant policy change, these costs are projected to rise to £150 billion a year by 2035. Despite this, much of the UK’s approach continues to frame obesity as a lifestyle issue that can be tackled by emphasising personal responsibility. But this framing ignores the bigger picture.

We now understand that obesity is multifactorial. Genetics, childhood experiences, cultural norms, economic disadvantage, psychological health, mental illness and even the kind of job you have all play a role. These aren’t things you can simply change with a Fitbit and salad.

This broader perspective isn’t new. In 2007, the UK government’s Foresight report mapped out the complex web of factors behind rising obesity rates, describing how modern environments actively promote weight gain.

This “obesogenic environment” refers to the world we live in. Its one where high-calorie, low-nutrient foods are cheap and everywhere, and where physical activity has been engineered out of everyday life, from car-centric cities to screen-dominated leisure time.

These environments don’t affect everyone equally. People in more deprived areas are significantly more exposed to conditions that drive obesity, such as food deserts (areas with limited access to affordable, nutritious food), poor public transport and limited green space. In this context, weight gain becomes a normal biological response to an abnormal environment.

Why “eat less, move more” falls short

Despite growing awareness of these systemic issues, most UK obesity strategies still centre on individual behaviour change, often through weight management programmes that encourage people to cut calories and exercise more. While behaviour change has a place, focusing on it exclusively creates a dangerous narrative: that people who struggle with their weight are simply lazy or lack willpower.

This narrative fuels weight stigma, which can be incredibly harmful. Yet data shows a clear link between higher rates of obesity and deprivation, especially among children.

It’s clear many people still don’t understand the role of structural and socioeconomic factors in shaping obesity risk. And this misunderstanding leads to judgement, shame and stigma, especially for children and families who are already vulnerable.

What should good obesity care look like?

Instead of outdated advice and blame, we need a holistic, stigma-free and science-informed approach to obesity care, one that reflects current Nice guidelines and the Obesity Health Alliance’s recommendations. There are several things that need to be done.

First, we should recognise obesity as a chronic disease. Obesity is not a failure of willpower. It’s a relapsing, long-term medical condition. Like diabetes or depression, it requires structured, ongoing support, not short-term fixes or crash diets.

Second, we need to tackle weight stigma head-on. Weight-based discrimination is widespread in schools, workplaces and even healthcare settings. We need training for professionals to reduce bias, promote inclusive care and adopt person-centred, non-stigmatising language. Discriminatory practices must be challenged and eliminated.

Third, deliver personalised, multidimensional support. Treatment plans should be tailored to each person’s life, including their cultural background, psychological history and social context. This includes shared decision-making, regular follow-up and integrated mental health support.

And fourth, focus on changing the environment, not just people. We must shift the focus to the systems and structures that make healthy choices so hard. That means investing in affordable, nutritious food; improving access to physical activity; and tackling inequality at its roots.

Time for a systemic shift

Obesity isn’t just about what people eat or how often they exercise. It’s shaped by biology, experience and the environment we build around people. Framing it as a personal failure not only ignores decades of evidence – it actively harms the very people who need support.

If we want to reduce stigma, improve health outcomes – and avoid a £150bn crisis – then the “eat less, move more” era must come to an end. What we need instead is a bold, compassionate, evidence-based systems approach – one that sees the whole person and the world they live in.

Lucie Nield receives funding from NIHR.

Catherine Homer receives funding from NIHR. She is affiliated with Royal Society of Public Health.

– ref. Obesity care: why “eat less, move more” advice is failing – https://theconversation.com/obesity-care-why-eat-less-move-more-advice-is-failing-254628

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Louise Taylor, Early Career Researcher and Ecotherapist, Queen’s University Belfast

There’s a popular quote by the 13th-century poet and spiritual teacher Rumi: “The cure for the pain is in the pain.” This line often echoes through my mind when I’m working with clients, especially those experiencing ecological grief and climate anxiety.

As an ecotherapist – a therapist guided by nature and nature-based therapeutic approaches – and environmental researcher, I work with people who are navigating the emotional weight of ecological breakdown.

Ecotherapy helps people reconnect with the natural world as a way to support mental and emotional wellbeing. It might involve walking in green spaces, mindfulness practices in nature, working with natural materials, or nature-based rituals.

Whether it’s planting a garden, sitting under a tree, or engaging in conservation efforts, ecotherapy helps people feel more grounded, more connected and more resilient both emotionally and spiritually.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

In my practice, I’ve noticed that younger people are more likely to experience climate anxiety, while older generations tend to experience ecological grief. The difference is subtle but important. Anxiety often relates to what lies ahead and a sense of powerlessness. Grief is about what has already been lost.

This emotional divide makes sense when we consider what has happened to the natural world over recent decades. Older adults have witnessed the loss of species, habitats and biodiversity in real time. Many have rich memories and relationships with landscapes that no longer exist as they once did. Meanwhile, younger generations face the terrifying uncertainty of a rapidly changing climate and an increasingly unstable future.

Both grief and anxiety are valid, but they are not the same.

I have explored these experiences in depth while researching nature connection, mental health and how the climate and ecological crisis is reshaping this relationship.

At the outset, I assumed that greater connection with nature would always lead to improved mental wellbeing. But that wasn’t the full picture.

What I found instead was that deepening our connection with the natural world can indeed foster healing, but it can also sharpen our awareness of the damage being done. This heightened sensitivity can trigger emotional pain, despair and even a decline in mental wellbeing.

Swiss psychiatrist and psychotherapist Carl Jung once said, “There is no coming to consciousness without pain.” That’s exactly what climate-anxious and ecologically grieving people are expressing: the deep psychological toll of recognising the scale of the crisis we’re facing. For some, it affects their ability to function, to enjoy their lives and to maintain relationships.

How to stay well

The question I kept returning to in my work was this: how do we stay well in a time of collapse? My research pointed to one consistent answer: action.

Engaging in pro-environmental actions emerged as the most effective way people coped with emotional strain. These weren’t merely acts of activism — they became spiritual practices, grounded in care, connection and meaning. Through these actions, people began to reclaim a sense of power and purpose in the face of overwhelming ecological loss.

For many, this was also a path back to what eco-philosophers call the ecological self: the part of us that extends beyond the individual and identifies with the living world.

This self isn’t driven by ego or personal gain, but by the impulse to build relationships, nurture communities and support the flourishing of all life. It represents an expanded way of being; one that understands health and healing as collective, not just personal.

Importantly, these actions don’t have to be large-scale. They might involve growing your own herbs or vegetables, for instance, or joining a local conservation effort, forming a community group to protect waterways or green spaces, or participating in climate strikes and land defence work. What matters is that the action is relational: rooted in reciprocity and care.

The conclusion of my research was clear: in the face of ecological distress, mental wellbeing is sustained not by thoughts, but by meaningful action.

Healing through action

In Northern Ireland, where I live and work, I’ve seen a growing grassroots environmental movement. Communities are stepping up to protect landscapes under threat, from campaigns to defend the Sperrin Mountains from gold mining, to local resistance against the pollution that’s devastating Lough Neagh, the largest freshwater lake in Ireland and the UK.

This is unpaid, often invisible labour, but it’s powerful. It gives people a way to process their emotions, to feel less helpless and to turn grief into agency.

Many environmentalists talk about “saving the planet”. But the truth is, the Earth will go on. What’s under threat is us: our ways of life, our communities, our ability to thrive. The dread we feel is rooted in the enormity of this realisation.

To stay well while caring deeply about the Earth means learning to live with this pain, and still choosing to act. It requires us to show up, to be present and to tend to both the human and non-human world with care and reciprocity. As we do, we become more empowered and less overwhelmed.

If you are struggling with climate anxiety or ecological grief, know this: the goal isn’t to suppress your feelings. The goal is to acknowledge them, and then use them as fuel for meaningful action.

Don’t underestimate small acts. The way forward isn’t to wait for hope: it’s to create it through connection, courage and commitment.

In a time of ecological uncertainty, wellness doesn’t come from thinking differently. It comes from doing differently.

Louise Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Action is the antidote to ecological grief and climate anxiety – an ecotherapist explains – https://theconversation.com/action-is-the-antidote-to-ecological-grief-and-climate-anxiety-an-ecotherapist-explains-260428

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christian Heiss, Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine, Head of Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey

We’re constantly told to “eat healthy” – but what does that actually mean? Even doctors sometimes struggle to offer clear, practical advice on which specific foods support health, why they work and what real benefits people can expect.

A growing body of research is starting to offer some answers. Along with colleagues, I have researched whether a group of plant compounds called flavan-3-ols could help lower blood pressure and improve blood vessel function. The results suggest these everyday compounds may have real potential for protecting heart health.

Flavan-3-ols – sometimes called flavanols or catechins – are natural plant compounds that belong to the flavonoid family. They’re part of what gives plants their colour and helps protect them from sunlight and pests.

For us, they show up in some of our most familiar foods: cocoa, green and black tea, grapes, apples and even some berries. That slightly tart or bitter note you taste in dark chocolate or strong tea? That’s flavan-3-ols at work.

Scientists have long been interested in their health effects. In 2022, the Cosmos trial (Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study), which followed over 21,000 people, found that cocoa flavanols, but not multivitamin supplements, reduced deaths from cardiovascular disease by 27%. Our study set out to dig even deeper, focusing specifically on their effects on blood pressure and endothelial function (how well blood vessels dilate and respond to blood flow).

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

We analysed data from 145 randomised controlled trials involving more than 5,200 participants. These studies tested a range of flavan-3-ol-rich foods and supplements, including cocoa, tea, grapes, apples and isolated compounds like epicatechin, and measured their effects on two key cardiovascular markers: blood pressure and flow-mediated dilation (FMD): a measure of how well the inner lining of blood vessels functions.

The studies ranged from short-term (a single dose) to longer-term interventions lasting weeks or months. On average, participants consumed about 586 mg of flavan-3-ols daily; roughly the amount found in two to three cups of tea, one to two servings of dark chocolate, two tablespoons of cocoa powder, or a couple of apples.

Regular consumption of flavan-3-ols led to an average drop in office blood pressure of 2.8 mmHg systolic (the top number) and 2.0 mmHg diastolic (the bottom number).

But for people who started with elevated blood pressure or diagnosed hypertension, the benefits were even greater with reductions of up to 6–7 mmHg systolic and 4 mmHg diastolic. That’s comparable to the effects of some prescription blood pressure medications and could significantly lower the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

We also found that flavan-3-ols improved endothelial function, with an average 1.7% increase in FMD after sustained intake. This benefit appeared even in participants whose blood pressure was already normal, suggesting these compounds may help protect blood vessels through multiple pathways.

Side effects were uncommon and typically mild, usually limited to minor digestive issues, suggesting that adding flavan-3-ol-rich foods to your diet is generally safe.

Supporting cardiovascular health

While the benefits were most pronounced in those with high blood pressure, even people with normal readings saw improvements in vascular function. This suggests flavan-3-ols may help prevent cardiovascular problems before they begin.

High blood pressure is one of the major drivers of heart disease worldwide, even at levels that don’t qualify as full-blown hypertension (140/90 mmHg or higher). Recent guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology now recognise that even “elevated” blood pressure (120–139 systolic and 70–89 diastolic) carries increased risk.

Lifestyle changes, particularly diet and exercise, are recommended by doctors as first-line strategies. But patients and even healthcare providers often lack clear, specific guidance on which foods truly make a difference. Our findings help fill this gap by showing that boosting flavan-3-ol intake through everyday foods may offer a simple, evidence-based way to support cardiovascular health.

What about supplements?

Some studies tested supplements or isolated flavan-3-ol compounds, but these generally showed smaller effects than whole foods like tea or cocoa. This may be because other beneficial compounds in whole foods work together, enhancing absorption and effectiveness.

At present, it appears both safer and more effective to focus on getting flavan-3-ols from foods rather than high-dose supplements, especially for people taking medications, since interactions are not fully understood.

The studies we reviewed suggest that 500–600 mg of flavan-3-ols daily may be enough to see benefits. You could reach this by combining two to three cups of green or black tea, one to two servings (about 56g) of dark chocolate or two to three tablespoons of cocoa powder, two to three apples, plus other flavan-3-ol-rich fruits like grapes, pears and berries

Small daily swaps, then, like trading a sugary snack for an apple and a piece of dark chocolate or adding an extra cup of tea, could gradually improve your heart health over time. Because flavan-3-ol content can vary between foods, monitoring your blood pressure at home may help you see if it’s making a difference for you.

More research is needed, particularly in people with diabetes, where the results were less consistent. We also need to better understand how flavan-3-ols interact with medications and whether even greater benefits can be achieved when combined with other healthy habits.

But the evidence is now strong enough to recommend flavan-3-ol-rich foods as part of a heart-healthy diet. As clinicians seek practical, affordable lifestyle strategies for patients, these findings bring us closer to the idea of using food as medicine.

Of course, flavan-3-ols aren’t a magic fix. They won’t replace medication for everyone. But combined with other healthy habits, they may offer a meaningful – and delicious – boost to cardiovascular health. And unlike many health fads, this isn’t about exotic superfoods or expensive powders. It’s about foods many of us already enjoy, used a little more intentionally.

Christian Heiss has received funding from Lipton Teas & Infusions, Ageless Science, iThera, the Medical Research Council, the EPSRC, European Partnership on Metrology, co-financed from European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme and UK Research and Innovation. He is member of the board of the European Society of Vascular Medicine, president of the Vascular, Lipid and Metabolic Medicine Council of the Royal Society of Medicine, and chairperson-elect of the ESC WG Aorta and Peripheral Vascular Diseases.

– ref. How tea, chocolate and apples could help lower your blood pressure – https://theconversation.com/how-tea-chocolate-and-apples-could-help-lower-your-blood-pressure-256631

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natalie Hodgson, Assistant Professor in Law, University of Nottingham

The right to trial by jury is a fundamental part of the criminal justice system in England and Wales. But under new proposals to address a record backlog of almost 77,000 Crown Court cases, some cases could now be heard by judge alone.

Sir Brian Leveson has delivered part one of his independent review of the criminal courts, making 45 recommendations to address delays in the criminal justice process. One of his recommendations is that serious offences could be tried by a judge alone without a jury. Our evidence to the review explored how judge-alone trials have been used in other countries.

Currently, a person can only be tried without a jury at Crown Court if there is a risk of jury tampering. Under Leveson’s proposal, judge-alone trials will be expanded to cases where a defendant requests to be tried without a jury, serious and complex fraud offences and where the case is likely to be lengthy or particularly complex.

To understand how this might work, we can to look to other countries where judge-alone trials are used. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US all permit judge-alone trials in circumstances similar to what Leveson is recommending. A defendant can choose to be tried by a judge instead of a jury in certain circumstances.

Defendants tend to express a preference for trial by judge alone if they are concerned that prejudicial media coverage or the nature of the offences might bias jurors against them. Leveson recommends that judges should decide whether a defendant’s request for a judge-alone trial should be granted, but stops short of identifying the factors that a judge should consider.

Leveson leaves open the question of whether judge-alone trials should be available for all offences, or whether certain offences should be exempt. Some countries limit which offences can be heard without a jury. For example, in the Australian Capital Territory, a defendant cannot request a trial without a jury for murder or certain sexual offences.

In New South Wales, judges are advised against permitting a judge-alone trial when the offence involves consideration of “community standards”. This recognises that members of the community have an important role to play in deciding whether a defendant has acted “reasonably”, “negligently” or “dishonestly”. For example, if a person is charged with manslaughter the jury may need to consider whether the defendant’s actions were “unreasonable”, which is best determined by members of the community.

Are judge-alone trials unfair to defendants?

Lawyers often raise concerns about judge-alone trials being unfair to defendants. Based on what we know from other countries, there is no strong evidence that this is the case. However, that is not to say that concerns about unfairness are unwarranted.

If judges convict at higher rates than juries, that might suggest that judge-alone trials are unfair. However, the best available study, conducted in New South Wales, found that judges were actually slightly less likely than juries to find a defendant guilty.

Juries do not explain their verdicts. In all countries which use judge-alone trials, judges must give reasons for their decisions. Knowing why a defendant was found guilty might make trials even more fair, providing a basis for an appeal against conviction if an error was made.

One key issue with judge-alone trials is inadmissible evidence. Ordinarily, jurors are sent out of the courtroom while the judge and lawyers make decisions about what evidence the jury is allowed to hear. Evidence might be excluded because it is irrelevant, prejudicial or was collected in breach of the defendant’s rights. In these scenarios, the jury is never made aware of the evidence.

However, in a judge-alone trial, the judge sees all the evidence, even if they decide that some of it should not be used. There is a risk that judges might be subconsciously impacted by inadmissible evidence in reaching their verdict.

Judge-alone trials also raise issues about diversity of decision-makers. In England and Wales, only 11% of judges are from an ethnic minority background compared to 18% of the population. Ideally, juries contain people from a range of backgrounds. Some defendants might feel more confident that they will be tried fairly by a jury than a judge.

Ultimately, one way to safeguard against concerns about unfairness is to give defendants the ability to choose whether or not they would like to be tried by a judge alone. Leveson’s recommendations suggest that most judge-alone trials would occur at the request of the defendant. However, judge-alone trials could be ordered against the defendant’s wishes in cases involving fraud or that are long and complex.

Juries play an important role in the legal system in England and Wales. Through jury service, members of the community contribute to the administration of justice. The inclusion of a range of viewpoints and experiences in determining criminal verdicts enhances the legitimacy of the justice system.

It is important that we continue to have juries in criminal trials. However, that is not to say that judge-alone trials cannot or should not play a role. The current backlog means that victims and defendants are having to wait years for their day in court. We desperately need to address this, and allowing defendants to elect a judge-alone trial may help to reduce delays to justice.

While judge-alone trials are not inherently unfair, any rollout in England and Wales should be closely monitored and evaluated. It is important that we do not sacrifice fairness for efficiency as we work to address the issues affecting our justice system.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Could England and Wales introduce jury-free trials? Here’s how they work in other countries – https://theconversation.com/could-england-and-wales-introduce-jury-free-trials-heres-how-they-work-in-other-countries-259489

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephanie Brown, Lecturer in Criminology, University of Hull

As I scrolled through social media on a hot afternoon in late June, a meme caught my attention. A black and white photo. A smiling young woman with water up to her knees. She appeared to be in a fountain, with many others dipping their legs in the water.

The caption read “On this day in 1976, the British heatwave started. It would last until the 27th August, during which time Britain would experience extreme temperatures and widespread droughts. And we all had a wonderful summer and survived.”

This immediately struck me: it was a boiling hot day. As I sat at my office desk keeping hydrated with a fan pointed directly at my face, I felt the rage burning inside me. How could people be so irresponsible? Heat can be dangerous. But the implication of the meme was clear: if people managed back then, surely today’s warnings about heatwaves, climate change, and public health are exaggerated. These rose-tinted memories obscure a darker truth.

I am a historical criminologist. This meme had the rare effect of deeply troubling both of my areas of expertise.

As a historian, this meme concerns me because it perpetuates the myth of the “good old days”. A selective, nostalgic vision of the past that smooths over complexity and hardship in favour of a comforting, idealised narrative. Flattening history into feelgood folklore, erasing the social inequalities and governmental failures.

It echoes a broader cultural tendency: from “Make America great again” to the “Blitz spirit”, representing Britain’s nostalgia for wartime resilience, a romanticised past is often used by politicians to legitimise political ideas in the present. But history is not a comfort blanket. It is a critical tool.

My work explores how institutions respond to crisis and how narratives of success or failure are constructed. In 1976, advice for dealing with the water shortage was to share a bath with the wife and drive a dirty car. Areas without domestic tap water had to use communal street pipes.

The government did not appoint a minister for drought until the end of August, despite mounting evidence from meteorologists and public health officials. Emergency measures were piecemeal and unevenly applied.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

The suggestion that “we all had a wonderful summer and survived” is misleading. It was reported that “200 people a day were apparently dying who would not have died if the weather had been normal”. During the peak of the heatwave, deaths increased by 28% in the southeast England and 33% in Greater London.

As a criminologist, I know that it is not only natural deaths that can increase during a hot weather. The number of violent deaths also increased in 1976 as well as in other heatwaves. Thermic law is the concept that violent crime is higher in hotter seasons. These patterns might be explained by temperature-aggression theory: that hot weather can cause an increase in aggressive behaviours.

For other criminologists, it is not the temperature itself that causes increased violence, but how people’s behaviour changes due to the heat. For example, people are taking time off work or school, socialising, and drinking. Unstructured time and spaces, combined with alcohol and a holiday feel all lead to increases in violence.

Misrepresenting risk

By sentimentalising the summer of 1976, we strip away its lessons. Worse, we risk repeating its mistakes. One Conservative MP described people concerned about the 2022 heatwave as “snowflakes” and “cowards”. Quite an odd response after the British public was asked to “protect the NHS” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This protection apparently did not extend to looking after each other in a heatwave. In fact, heatwaves are largely an invisible risk. We are told not to fuss, but there is often little communication on how to keep safe.

A lack of policy and examples of political scepticism connect with a key theme in the comments under that meme: climate change denial. If we had a heatwave in 1976 then what we are experiencing now is nothing new, right? Wrong.

The heatwave in 1976 was bad: thousands died, fires raged, and water ran dry. But it was also an anomaly; a hot summer in a relatively cool decade. Heatwaves are now more frequent, more intense and longer lasting. Temperatures reached over 40°C in 2022, while the maximum in 1976 was 4°C-5°C cooler.

Still, each time a weather warning is issued, it is met with a wave of derision. There is the same online discourse as is expressed in this meme. This attitude is not just flippant, it is dangerous. It undermines vital public messaging, discourages precautionary action, and fuels complacency among those least at risk, while leaving the most vulnerable even more exposed.

History can offer crucial perspective. But only if we treat it honestly. That means moving beyond memeified memories of the past and reckoning with the complexity of what really happened. It means challenging the stories we tell ourselves. Many did live through the 1976 heatwave. But many also died: quietly, invisibly and avoidably. Their stories are not part of the nostalgia. They should be.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Stephanie Brown does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The dangers of romanticising Britain’s 1976 heatwave – https://theconversation.com/the-dangers-of-romanticising-britains-1976-heatwave-260046