Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Coxhead, Visiting Professor in Solution Oriented Policing, De Montfort University

The government has announced a massive shake-up of policing in England and Wales, with the aim to balance providing a local police service across the country while also facing national threats. It involves the creation of a new National Police Service (touted as a “British FBI”) and reducing the number of forces across England and Wales from 43 to a possible 12 bigger, regional forces.

Elected police and crime commissioners will be replaced by regional mayors, or police and crime boards from 2028. And Whitehall will be given refreshed powers to intervene in failing forces.

The last strategic reform of policing in England and Wales was informed by a royal commission, in May 1962. This examined policing function, accountability, public relationships and staffing. It led to the current structure, cutting the number of forces down from 117.

The government claims its plans will deliver better governance and improve both national capabilities for challenging crimes and local visibility of policing. Yet, unlike in 1962, 2026 reform avoids addressing a key problem: the relationship the public wants with the police.

The idea of “policing by consent” underpins policing in the UK. Key to this is the police working with the public. But fewer than half of the public have confidence in their local policing. Data consistently shows the public do not like or want what they are getting.

The government is proposing to introduce new local policing guarantees, setting out “the minimum levels of service the public should expect to receive from their police force wherever in England and Wales they live”.

But this doesn’t need to involve a massive structural overhaul. Research tells us what the public wants is basic: they want the police to turn up, and care. Good policing relies on building relationships of trust – but you can’t achieve that by not being there.

Read more:
Police are failing to deliver a minimum standard of service, according to the UK public

Lack of response

The police inspectorate has noted in recent years that understaffing and inexperienced policing teams have left forces unable to respond effectively: “This can lead to non-emergency calls for help from the public waiting days for a response, or investigations failing because key lines of enquiry have been missed.”

As part of the overhaul, the government is proposing national response and performance targets for 999 calls and for officers attending a scene. Slow response times are one thing, but not turning up at all is the bigger issue. Reports of forces screening out calls sends a message to the public that the police don’t care, and to criminals that they can get away with it.

The government argues that its proposed approach will mean less pressure on local forces to address national issues, freeing up resources to deal with local crime. But the current largest force, the Met, struggles to solve large numbers of reported crimes. I would argue that moving local policing further away from communities will further erode any working relationship with policing’s greatest stakeholder: the public.

The Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee introduced in April 2025 promised to deliver better response times, but the public are still frustrated with the lack of police response to visible, low-level crimes.

Shoplifting alone is seen to be “spiralling out of control” with a brazen 20% increase in the year to March 2025. And yet the head of the Met police has called on shopkeepers to do more to protect themselves.

The proposals aim to “ensure that shop theft and assaults on shopworkers will no longer go unpunished by bringing in new powers and providing additional funding to policing, working with retailers, to take further action”.

When the police do turn up, they do not need new powers, they just need to use the powers they’ve already got. But to do that warranted police officers (with actual powers of arrest) need to be the boots on the ground – not an app, a bot or a drone.

Just like ambulances, the public should be able to rely on the police in an emergency. There needs to be far more proactive, preventative work done with partners on long-term solutions. We simply can’t afford a perpetual reactive problem solving model.

Rebuilding trust

The government is proposing a number of reforms to increase policing standards and trust, including (a yet-to-be costed) “Licence to Practise” that police officers will need to renew over their career. But officers already swear an oath of operational independence for their warrant card – this risks adding more administrative burden on overly stretched officers, despite a claim that administrative red tape will be cut.

Police officer numbers are already falling, with forces losing nearly 1,500 this year alone, largely driven by losses at the Met. The government has committed to 13,000 more neighbourhood officers, but has also placed an emphasis on automative technology. This could, I argue, be used to justify fewer actual police officers in the future.

Rising crime, coupled with falling public confidence, represents a crisis in policing. The argument is that there is an “urgent” need to better tackle crime and improve trust and confidence, yet reforms of this scale will take time.

The police must work with the public on solutions that pay for themselves. This would not rely on restructuring necessarily, just listening to people about what good policing looks like, then working together on making that happen.

John Coxhead receives funding from the Police for Research.

– ref. The public wants police to show up and care – will new reforms in England and Wales do this? – https://theconversation.com/the-public-wants-police-to-show-up-and-care-will-new-reforms-in-england-and-wales-do-this-274439

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Roberts, Professor of Nutritional Physiology, Anglia Ruskin University

Finding the energy to exercise in the morning or after a long day is a common problem. This might explain why pre-workout supplements have become so popular. These supplements can bring you more focus and energy for your training sessions – making it possible to get to the gym, no matter how tired you are.

Pre-workout supplements usually contain multiple ingredients – each of which have different effects on the body.

The primary ingredient in most pre-workouts are stimulants such as caffeine or guarana (a plant which contains caffeine). Stimulants help increase focus and alertness. Caffeine may also make workouts feel easier.

Research shows even a single dose of pre-workout supplement containing caffeine before exercising can lead to small improvements in the number of repetitions a person can do, their power and the amount of weight they can lift during a session.

However, these benefits may solely be due to the caffeine itself. When pre-workout supplements are directly compared against the same dose of caffeine on its own, the supplements generally don’t outperform caffeine. Sometimes, caffeine even works as well or better in improving performance.

Taking between 3-6mg of caffeine per kg (around 225-450 mg for a 75kg person, the equivalent of 2-4 cups of strong coffee) can increase strength by around 7%. It can also enhance endurance by around 15%. This might not sound like much, but over time this can lead to significant training gains.

Alongside caffeine, pre-workout supplements contain other ingredients that reportedly help reduce fatigue and boost fitness gains. For instance, many pre-workouts contain beta-alanine – an amino acid usually found in meat which can counteract muscle tiredness.

One challenge of training is that we produce the chemical lactic acid. This can lead to fatigue and impact training quality, particularly if the training is hard.

This is where beta-alanine comes in. Beta-alanine increases muscle levels of carnosine, a molecule that buffers against lactic acid. This helps delay the fatigue we often experience lifting weights or doing intense training.

However, unlike caffeine, beta‑alanine doesn’t work from a single dose. It must be taken daily for around 2–4 weeks to have any effect.

Creatine is another nutrient added to pre-workout formulas to maximise training gains. Creatine works by restoring short-term energy. This helps us recover faster between sets, making it possible to do more work when training.

Creatine also works better if taken regularly for around four weeks. Taking a single dose of a pre-workout containing creatine probably won’t benefit training quality – though some research does suggest it may help reduce fatigue and boost brain power after a poor night’s sleep.

Alongside creatine, many blends include amino acids such as leucine and taurine. Leucine supports muscle gains, while taurine may help reduce muscle soreness. Both work alongside creatine to support training benefits.

Other amino acids sometimes found in pre-workout formulations include citrulline and arginine. These nutrients increase nitric oxide, a molecule which increases blood flow and oxygen to muscles – helping them function more efficiently.

This effect may improve endurance ability or temporarily make muscles look bigger when doing resistance training, which many people look for. However, not all evidence supports this.

Some pre-workouts formulas also claim to contain ingredients that can help with weight loss or fat burning – such as green tea or carnitine.

These nutrients may enhance the body’s ability to burn fat for energy during and after exercise – although not all studies agree on this. It’s also not clear whether these nutrients actually lead to greater, long-term weight loss as a result.

More recently, supplements have begun including natural nootropics. These plant-based compounds support brain chemicals involved in concentration or energy required by the brain, which is why nootropics may help improve focus, alertness, mood and motivation.

Nootropics such as theanine can improve alertness and athletic performance. Others nootropics, such as ashwagandha or rhodiola rosea, may enhance endurance and the ability to deal with physical and mental stress.

The verdict

Looking at the evidence, pre-workout supplements can modestly boost energy, strength, focus and stamina when used alongside a training program. However, as it may take several weeks for specific ingredients to have an effect, such supplements may need to be taken consistently.

If you’re going to take a pre-workout supplement, it’s best to take it around 30-60 minutes before your workout so it can take effect. Preferably, choose products that are batch‑tested to ensure quality.

Read more:
Does coffee burn more fat during exercise? What the evidence tells us

Since the main ingredient in pre-workouts tends to be caffeine, those who train later in the day might want to use formulas with a lower caffeine content (or none at all) to avoid sleep issues and anxiety.

Excessive caffeine intake can also lead to gut issues for some, so always check the label to see what the doses are.

Most pre-workout formulas are generally considered safe for most people to use over a period of a few weeks.

However, those with heart issues should avoid formulas containing high levels of stimulants – particularly products containing p‑synephrine (bitter orange). This plant derivative has been linked with heart issues – especially when combined with caffeine.

Researchers also currently don’t know the effects of pre-workout supplements during pregnancy, so it might be best to avoid them – particularly if the caffeine content is high.

Some people may also experience side-effects from taking pre-workout supplements – most commonly tingling or itchiness which occurs around 30 minutes of taking a pre-workout. This is usually caused by higher intake of beta-alanine which affects sensory receptors in the skin.

These effects are harmless, and usually subside within an hour. Taking a smaller dose or using a timed-release formulation can minimise effects.

Overall, although the benefits of pre-workouts may be small, if the supplement helps you train more consistently, this will ultimately benefit your training results.

Professor Justin Roberts is employed by Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge and Danone Research & Innovation, and has previously received external research funding unrelated to this article.

Fernando Naclerio is employed by the University of Greenwich (UK) and is a consultant for Crown Sport Nutrition, Spain.

Joseph Lillis 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. Can pre-workout supplements benefit your workouts? – https://theconversation.com/can-pre-workout-supplements-benefit-your-workouts-273496

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Helen Margetts, Professor of Society and the Internet, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, University of Oxford

When Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web, he articulated his dream for the internet to unlock creativity and collaboration on a global scale. But he also wondered “whether it will be a technical dream or a legal nightmare”. History has answered that question with a troubling “both”.

The 2003 Broadway musical Avenue Q brilliantly captured this duality. A puppet singing about the internet cheerfully begins the chorus “the internet is really, really good …” only to be cut off by another puppet who adds “… for porn!” The song illustrates an enduring truth: every new technological network has, ultimately, been used for legal, criminal and should-be-criminal sexual activity.

In the 1980s, even the French government-backed pre-internet network Minitel was taken over by what one publisher described as a “plague” – a “new genre of difficult-to-detect, mostly sexually linked crimes”. This included murders, kidnaps and the “leasing” of children for sexual purposes.

The internet, social media and now large language models are “really, really good” in many ways – but they all suffer from the same plague. And policymakers have generally been extremely slow to react.

The UK’s Online Safety Act was seven years in the making. The protracted parliamentary debate exposed real tensions on how to protect fundamental rights of free speech and privacy. The act received royal assent in 2023, but is still not fully implemented.

In 2021-22, the children’s commissioner for England led a government review into online sexual harassment and abuse. She found that pornography exposure among young people was widespread and normalised.

Action was slow to follow. Three years after the commissioner’s report, the UK became the first country in the world to introduce laws criminalising tools used to create AI-generated child sexual abuse material as part of the crime and policing bill. But a year on, the bill is still being debated in parliament.

It takes something really horrible for policymakers to take swift action. As the extent to which xAI chatbot Grok was being used to create non-consensual nudified and sexualised images of identifiable women and children from photographs became clear, it transpired that the provisions in the UK’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, which criminalises creating such images, had not been activated. Only after widespread outcry did the government bring these provisions into force.

When it comes to the issue of children and sexual images, AI has supercharged every known harm. The Internet Watch Foundation warned that AI was becoming a “child sexual abuse machine”, generating horrific imagery.

The UK public are increasingly in favour of AI regulation. In a 2024 survey of public attitudes to AI, 72% of the British public said that “laws and regulations” would make them more comfortable with AI, up 10 percentage points from 2022. They are particularly concerned about AI deepfakes. But bigger debates about what regulation of the internet means have stymied action.

The free speech question

Some politicians and tech leaders conflate the issue of regulating nonconsensual sexual content with the issue of free speech.

Grok’s abilities to create sexualised images of identifiable adults and children became evident at the end of last year, reportedly after Elon Musk, founder of xAI, ordered staff to loosen the guardrails on Grok because he was “unhappy about over-censoring”. His view is that only content that breaks the law should be removed and any other content moderation is down to the “woke mind virus”. When the controversy erupted, he claimed that critics “just want to suppress free speech”.

Linking regulation to attacks on a “free” internet has a long history that plays on the heartstrings of early internet enthusiasts. According to Tim Berners-Lee’s account, in 1996 when John Patrick, a member of the world wide web consortium, suggested there might be a problem with kids seeing indecent material on the web, “Everyone in the room turned towards him with raised eyebrows: ‘John, the web is open. This is free speech. What do you want us to do, censor it?’”

But the argument that child sexual abuse imagery is on a par with “woke” political criticism is patently absurd. Child sexual abuse material is evidence of a crime, not a form of meaningful expression. Political criticism, even when highly objectionable, involves adults exercising their capacity to form and express opinions.

Placing guardrails on Grok to stop it producing illegal content is not widespread censorship of the internet. Free speech has proven to be a convenient angle for US resistance to technology regulation. The US has persistently intervened in EU and UK AI safety debates.

The need for action

X has now announced that it would no longer allow Grok to “undress” photos of real people in jurisdictions where this is illegal. Musk has said that “Anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.”

Yet reports have continued of the technology being used to produce on-demand sexualised photos. This time, Ofcom seems emboldened and is continuing its investigations, as is the European Commission.

This is a technical challenge as well as a regulatory one. Regulators will need the firepower of the best AI minds and tools to ensure that Grok and other AI tools comply with the law. If not, then fines or bans will be the only option. It will be a game of catch-up, like every technology spiral before, but it will have to be played.

Meanwhile, users will need to decide whether to use the offending models or obey Grok’s pre-backlash exhortation: “If you can’t handle innovation, maybe log off” – and vote with our feet. That’s a collective action problem – a problem even older than the sexual takeover of computer networks.

Helen Margetts has received funding for AI-related research from UK Research and Innovation, and currently receives funding from the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and the Dieter Schwarz Foundation.

Cosmina Liana Dorobantu has received funding for AI related research from UK Research and Innovation.

– ref. Regulating sexual content online has always been a challenge – how we got here – https://theconversation.com/regulating-sexual-content-online-has-always-been-a-challenge-how-we-got-here-274149

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Hollie Booth, Senior Research Fellow, Conservation Science, University of Oxford; Bangor University

More than one-third of sharks and rays are now threatened with extinction, making them among the most imperilled vertebrates on Earth. Why? Overfishing, both as targeted catches for their valuable fins, meat, gills and liver oil, and as bycatch in nets and lines set for other fish.

In late 2025, governments took sweeping action for sharks and rays. At a global conference on wildlife trade in Uzbekistan more than 70 shark and ray species received new or stronger international trade limits.

Whale shark, oceanic whitetip shark, wedgefish, devil rays and gulper sharks were among those subject to stricter regulations. This is a major political milestone for shark conservation.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: as I outline in my new research paper published in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution, trade regulation alone won’t save sharks.

Cites, the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, is the main global agreement regulating international wildlife trade, seeking to ensure the survival of the 41,000 species covered by the convention.

Read more:
The world wildlife trade regulator is 50 – here’s what has worked and what needs to change

Countries can only export most of the more than 1,000 shark and ray species covered by Cites regulations if they demonstrate trade is sustainable. A handful of highly threatened species (including sawfishes, manta and devil rays, whale shark, oceanic whitetip shark) are afforded the highest protection, where international trade is permitted only under exceptional circumstances.

In theory, these regulations can reduce fishing pressure. In practice, the pathway from paperwork to population recovery is far from guaranteed.

Promise and pitfalls

International trade is only one driver of shark overfishing. Shark and ray fishing mortality is also a byproduct of wild-caught fish. And, in many small-scale fisheries, sharks and rays are valuable secondary catch – meaning they are not the main target catch, but they still have value to fishers because they are sold in domestic markets or eaten locally.

These local drivers sustain fishing mortality, which means lots of sharks and rays get killed regardless of what happens to international trade.

Some shark fishing isn’t even driven by demand. In many coastal communities, production is supply driven: shaped mainly by the need to generate income and survive.

In Indonesia, when I’ve asked fishers what they’d do if shark prices fell, some say they’ll fish harder, not less, to maintain their income. In such contexts, Cites listings alone are unlikely to reduce fishing pressure unless trade regulations drive efforts to address local causes of overfishing.

Cites is also implemented through each country’s own policies and domestic management measures. Those can range from exemplary – with meaningful, well-implemented trade management that helps wild populations recover (such as the saiga antelope in Kazakhstan) to performative – where regulations exist on paper but are never implemented in practice (this includes, arguably, protection for some sharks, based on recent global trade analyses).

Even trade restrictions implemented with good intentions can backfire. For example, when supply is restricted but demand stays strong, prices rise – potentially incentivising more fishing and black markets.

This dynamic has played out with pangolins and ivory and cannot be ignored for sharks and rays, especially due to the “the snob effect” – when demand for a product increases as it becomes rarer or more expensive. When people consume shark products to display their status, scarcity can make them more attractive – meaning that restrictions on shark fishing might accidentally drive up demand rather than reduce it.

There’s also displacement to consider. When Indonesia protected manta rays, some fishers shifted to catching other unprotected ray species instead. Restrictions in one part of the market can redistribute pressure rather than reduce it.

From paperwork to positive outcomes

Three broad scenarios now lie ahead for sharks and rays.

In the best case, Cites catalyses integrated reforms across trade chains and the entire seafood sector. Supply countries establish sustainable catch limits to manage bycatch and targeted fisheries in small-scale and commercial contexts. Limits are implemented through effective compliance management including fair support for small-scale fishers already on the margins.

On the demand side, targeted demand management for shark products and other seafood with embedded negative impacts weakens the market signals that makes overfishing profitable in the first place. Overfishing halts and populations begin to recover. Evidence from mammals suggests this pathway is possible – but only if Cites triggers a range of global-to-local management measures.

In a business-as-usual scenario, the new listings deliver little. Countries adopt policies on paper while fishing continues unabated. Trade continues legally, in domestic markets or through new international bureaucracies, or moves illegally, through black markets and laundering. Current evidence on global shark trade flows suggests this is the direction of travel, though these new listings may shift the needle.

In the worst case, well-intended restrictions backfire. Prices spike, black markets expand, and fishers – squeezed economically – fish harder and riskier. Policy inadvertently accelerates decline.

Which future unfolds depends on what happens next. New Cites listings represent an opportunity for transformative change. But only if they are seen as a means to an end – one which catalyses broader reforms, from fisheries through to consumption, focused on limiting fishing mortality – rather than a standalone measure.

If the goal is a more sustainable future for both people and nature, then success must be measured in both the abundance and diversity of species and the wellbeing of people, not in the number of new policies. New trade regulations got the headlines. The harder, messier work of making them count starts now.

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 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Hollie Booth is the Co-Founder and Director of Yayasan Kebersamaan Untuk Lautan, a marine conservation non-profit in Indonesia.

– ref. New limits on global trade of sharks won’t be enough to save them from overfishing – new research – https://theconversation.com/new-limits-on-global-trade-of-sharks-wont-be-enough-to-save-them-from-overfishing-new-research-273256

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aldo Zammit Borda, Reader, City St George’s, University of London

A recent investigation by the Guardian newspaper and humanitarian NGO Insecurity Insight has exposed how childbirth and reproduction is being weaponised in conflicts worldwide. The evidence is alarming.

In Ethiopia’s Tigray conflict, soldiers reportedly inserted metal objects into women’s wombs. They told victims: “You will never be able to give birth.” In Russian detention facilities, Ukrainian men tell of being subjected to electric shock torture targeting their reproductive organs. Captors declared: “We’re going to sterilise you now.”

During its assault on Gaza, the Israeli military destroyed the territory’s largest fertility clinic in October 2023. The strike eliminated about 4,000 embryos and 1,000 sperm samples. The attack was cited by a UN investigation as a possible example of genocidal intent.

These are examples of reproductive violence. And they are not isolated atrocities. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has defined this as violence that “violates reproductive autonomy and/or it is directed at people on account of their actual or potential reproductive capacity, or perceptions thereof”.

Reproductive violence targets people’s capacity to have children. It is used as a tool of persecution, demographic control and collective punishment.

Serious atrocities such as murder, torture and rape make headlines and should be prosecuted as war crimes, as they often are. But systematic attacks on reproductive capacity remain, as scholars have noted, “in the shadows” of international law.

At the individual level, reproductive violence strikes at something deeply personal: the wish to have children and build a family. When a woman is forcibly sterilised, as has been reported about Uyghur women, the harm goes beyond physical injury. It takes away the possibility of motherhood.

When a man’s reproductive organs are targeted, as has reportedly happened to Ukrainian detainees, it is an assault on identity and future fatherhood. The knowledge that the loss could be permanent compounds the trauma.

At the collective level, reproductive violence enables the slow destruction of a group’s future. Mass killing provokes immediate international outrage. But destroying a fertility clinic or sterilising a population achieves the same outcome over time, with less visible evidence.

As one Uyghur survivor of China’s re-education camps put it: the strategy is “not to kill us in cold blood, but to make us slowly disappear. So slowly that no one would notice”.

Reproductive violence also offers perpetrators plausible deniability. Forced sterilisation can be framed as family planning as China insisted in the case of Uyghur women. Destroyed maternity wards may be explained as collateral damage, as the Israeli government has in the cases of hospitals destroyed in Gaza.

But deniability is not the only reason it is used. Reproductive violence is also devastatingly efficient. When Israeli forces destroyed Gaza’s largest fertility clinic, the United Nations commission of inquiry concluded that “the Israeli security forces knew of the function of the clinic and intended to target it”. One attack, thousands of potential children lost.

A hidden category of harm

While recognition of reproductive violence is growing, it remains poorly understood and rarely prosecuted. Several factors explain this gap.

First, reproduction has historically been classified as belonging to the “private sphere,” outside the proper concern of international law. Forced pregnancies, forced contraception and miscarriages are considered too intimate for public discourse. This creates what international legal scholar Fionnuala Ní Aoláin has called a “zone of silence”.

Second, reproductive violence has traditionally been absorbed into sexual violence. This approach has overshadowed reproductive violence as a distinct category. Rape and other sexual crimes have rightly gained attention. But it has also rendered reproductive violence invisible as a distinct category, with its own victims and its own harms.

As Ní Aoláin observed: “While rape in armed conflict makes headlines, obstetric violence against women and girls generally does not.”

Third, much reproductive violence operates indirectly and may appear almost routine. A woman who miscarries because a maternity ward was bombed has suffered reproductive violence. But there is no direct perpetrator with blood on their hands. The deaths are statistical, diffuse, and emerge over time.

Making the invisible visible

Addressing reproductive violence requires first understanding it. A key obstacle has been conceptual: existing definitions fail to unpack its different harms. While forced pregnancy, castration and forced abortion are all reproductive violence, they affect victims in very different ways.

Research I have published in the International Journal of Transitional Justice develops a new typology. It categorises reproductive violence by its consequences for victims.

Birth-compelling harms force unwanted pregnancies. Birth-preventing harms deprive victims of reproductive capacity. Birth-endangering or terminating harms endanger wanted pregnancies or destroy health infrastructure.

This typology matters for three reasons. It makes visible the distinct harms each category inflicts. It helps investigators spot seemingly isolated acts as part of a concerted plan. And it strengthens the case for accountability under international law.

Recognition is slowly emerging. Today, more organisations treat reproductive violence as a distinct form of gender-based violence. But recognition requires deeper understanding of why reproductive violence occurs and its effects on victims. For too long, the law has treated this violence as incidental to mass atrocities rather than central to their execution.

Perpetrators have always known otherwise: control over whether a people can have children is control over whether that people will exist at all.

Aldo Zammit Borda receives funding from Economic and Social Research Council. He served as Head of Research and Investigation for the informal Uyghur Tribunal (https://uyghurtribunal.com/), and Head of Research for the Yazidi Justice Committee (https://www.yazidijustice.com/). The views herein are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of any other person or organization.

– ref. How reproductive violence is being used in conflicts to deny people’s future – https://theconversation.com/how-reproductive-violence-is-being-used-in-conflicts-to-deny-peoples-future-273910