Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steven David Pickering, Honorary Professor, International Relations, Brunel University of London

New survey evidence from the UK and Japan shows people are open to MPs using AI as a tool, but deeply resistant to handing over democratic decisions to machines.

Artificial intelligence is creeping into every corner of life and is beginning to become a feature of politics. Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat recently criticised colleagues for using ChatGPT to draft their parliamentary speeches, warning that elected representatives should not outsource their judgment to machines. His comments capture a wider unease. Should AI have a place in democratic decision-making?

Supporters of AI in parliament argue it could help MPs cope with the flood of legislation, public submissions and policy documents they have to deal with in their work. But critics worry that over-reliance on AI may undermine accountability and public trust.

In our new research, our TrustTracker team surveyed people in the UK and Japan to see where they drew the line on the use of AI among the people who represent them. They were cautiously accepting but were far more comfortable with politicians using AI as a source of advice but not as a replacement for them when making decisions.

In the UK, almost half of our 990 respondents said they did not support at all the idea of MPs even using AI for support. And nearly four in five rejected outright the notion of AI or robots taking decisions in place of parliamentarians.

Our 2,117 Japanese respondents were slightly more open, which we may expect, as Japan has considerable experience of automation and robotics. But they too expressed strong opposition to the idea of delegating decisions to the robots. Support was higher for assistance, but was still cautious.

Younger men were consistently more supportive of AI in politics. Older people and women are more sceptical. And we found that trust matters. People who trust their government are more willing to back AI in supporting MPs.

Our results were also heavily reflective of our participants’ broader attitudes towards AI. People who see AI as beneficial, and who feel confident in using it, were much more supportive. Those who fear AI were strongly opposed.

Curiously, ideology also plays a role, but in opposing ways. In the UK, people on the political right are more supportive of AI in parliament. In Japan, it is people on the left who express more openness.

Public tolerance for the use of AI in politics exists, but with limits. Citizens want their representatives to use new tools wisely. They do not want to hand over the reins to machines.

That distinction between assistance and delegation is key. AI can make parliaments more efficient, helping MPs sift through evidence, draft better questions, or simulate the outcomes of policy choices. But if citizens feel that AI is replacing human judgment, support evaporates.

For parliaments, which are institutions that depend on trust and legitimacy, this is a red flag. Public wariness could quickly turn into backlash if reforms outpace public consent.

National contrasts

The cross-national comparison is interesting. Japan has a cultural openness to robotics and automation. Concepts like Society 5.0 frame AI as part of a positive national future. Yet even here, people draw a line when it comes to political decision-making. In the UK, debates tend to be framed in terms of ethics and accountability. British respondents are generally more cautious, but also more polarised by ideology.

Taken together, these cases show that public opinion does not simply mirror cultural stereotypes. Support is conditional, context-specific, and tied to wider trust in politics.

AI is coming to politics whether we like it or not. Used carefully, it could help parliaments work better, faster and more transparently. Used carelessly, it could erode trust and legitimacy at the heart of democracy. In other words: AI can advise, but it cannot rule.

Steven David Pickering receives funding from the ESRC (grant reference ES/W011913/1) and the JSPS (grant reference JPJSJRP 20211704).

– ref. Is it ok for politicians to use AI? Survey shows where the public draws the line – https://theconversation.com/is-it-ok-for-politicians-to-use-ai-survey-shows-where-the-public-draws-the-line-268728

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dhritiraj Sengupta, Visiting Researcher, University of Southampton

The coastlines I trace resemble logos and luxury icons: palms, crescents, pixelated grids, surreal ornaments etched into shallow seas. The cartography is striking. The environmental consequences are very concerning.

There is an urgent need to evaluate the negative effects and risks associated with these artificial structures around the world, especially as climate change makes sea-level rise more extreme.

For ten years, I have been tracking changing coastlines and trying to map the spread of artificial coastal developments. But this is difficult for two reasons.

First, it’s tricky to define what counts as reclamation and what doesn’t. Does a polder (a piece of low-lying land reclaimed from the sea) belong in the same category as a luxury island? Do sea walls belong in the same category as “dredge-and-fill peninsulas” (land created by digging sand from a seabed or river banks that is used to fill an area of water).

Second, at a global scale, constantly updating maps with rapidly changing unnatural boundary designs is a never-ending task, which involves extracting data from satellite images.

The geometry of reclaimed sites and artificial shorelines can seem bizarre – ranging from the leafed fronds of Ocean Flower Island in Hainan, China, to perfect crescents in Durrat Al Bahrain in the Persian Gulf, and straight-edged lattices in Lagos, Nigeria. In most cases, they are designed to look appealing without much consideration of ocean health or storm resilience.

Sharp angles interrupt longshore drift. Features such as headlands, jetties or bends in the coastline block or redirect the flow of sand moved by waves. This causes sand to build up in some areas while leaving other beaches with less sand, leading to erosion.

With artificial coastlines, these effects are amplified – a particular problem in places without the financial means to manage their beaches.

Grid-like canals slice tidal flats into disjointed basins. On maps, the lines are neat – but in reality, they produce messy hydrodynamics and fragmented ecosystems.

Such misplaced “neatness” can have far-reaching consequences. Reclamation destroys mangroves, muddy tidal flats and seagrass meadows – ecosystems which act both as valuable stores of atmospheric carbon and fish nurseries.

Dredging also stirs up sediment which clouds the water downstream, making it harder for coral reefs to survive. This compounds climate stress, acting as a threat multiplier. Most of the artificial coastlines aren’t as resilient to extreme weather as they could be.

---

Read more:
New islands are being built at sea – but they won’t help millions made homeless by sea-level rise

---

Human-made coastal changes disturb natural water flow, often leading to poor water quality, floods and erosion. Coastal communities can lose their fishing grounds and safe landing beaches. Without protective natural ecosystems acting as a buffer against extreme weather, often the poorest coastal communities bear the greatest impacts from coastal erosion and sea-level rise.

There’s also a carbon cost to this type of coastal development. Dredgers, quarrying, cement and machinery all stack up emissions. Add in the lost carbon storage from destroyed wetlands, and reclamation becomes a climate double blow.

How maps become bridges to action

Maps reveal where, when and how much development is occurring. They can become bridges to action if this research into shoreline change is combined with biodiversity surveys (to assess marine life), hydrodynamic modelling (changes to currents) and social impact assessments (how coastal communities are affected).

In my view, environmental impact assessments should look beyond short-term, single-project effects, and consider how multiple projects collectively affect ecosystems over time. Construction approvals should depend not only on each project’s immediate footprint, but on how it will perform across its entire lifetime – for example, how much flood risk it creates and how much carbon it emits or saves.

Using a mix of tools to engage diverse groups – including local communities, policymakers, scientists and educators – can strengthen understanding and action on coastal change. Examples include holding workshops on the interpretation of satellite-derived data and visualisations, creating interactive StoryMaps (digital storybooks using maps, pictures and text to explain a topic), as well as community-driven mapping.

Many coastal and fishing communities located around reclamation sites – who previously had direct access to the coast – are now calling to halt further reclamation. By documenting lost ecosystems, tracing flood pathways and highlighting human stories behind coastal change, we can better understand how vulnerable coastal communities are to land reclamation.

Some damage is irreversible. Natural coastlines are not just scenic – they are self-maintaining, shock-absorbing, carbon-storing infrastructure. A moratorium on new reclamation throughout the world is needed – and a pivot to restoration by rebuilding lost mangroves, protecting tidal creeks and removing “hard edges” where possible.

Mapping alone will not stop coastal development. But it can catalyse coalitions, inform policy, expose hidden costs and redirect finance. It can turn a line on a screen into a line in the sand.

I began my research by trying to define reclamation precisely enough to classify it. But it has revealed a more urgent task: to defend what remains of the natural coastline, and restore what we still can.

The coastline is not a canvas for our extravagant signatures. When protected, it is nature’s living margin which sustains us.

---

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.

---

Dhritiraj Sengupta receives funding from the Chinese Government Scholarship (CSC , 2016-2020) and from Leverhulme Trust Funding for the project on “Unnatural dynamics of flood deposits in built environments”, plus volunteers for International Geographical Union (https://igu-coast.org/steering-committee/) and is a fellow of the Future Earth Coast (https://www.futureearthcoasts.org/biography/dr-dhritiraj-sengupta/).

– ref. Artificial developments weaken coastal resilience – here’s how mapping them can help – https://theconversation.com/artificial-developments-weaken-coastal-resilience-heres-how-mapping-them-can-help-250299

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Schifferes, Honorary Research Fellow, City Political Economy Research Centre, City St George’s, University of London

The UK chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has made it clear that taxes will go up, and more cuts to welfare spending are on the horizon. The moves will be deeply unpopular and controversial – but in an extraordinary press conference ahead of the UK budget on November 26, Reeves made it clear that she believes both will be necessary.

In a highly unusual move, the chancellor used the press conference to set out her priorities for balancing the books while growing the economy. Notably, she did not mention the pledge in Labour’s manifesto not to raise taxes on working people or increase national insurance, VAT or income tax.

Instead, she said her focus was on lowering the burden of excessive government borrowing and debt, improving public services and tackling the cost of living.

Reeves gave particular importance to sticking with her “iron-clad” fiscal rules. These, she argued, were essential for showing she is being responsible with the nation’s finances and preventing a further rise in the cost of borrowing (the interest the government pays on its debt).

At more than £100 billion per year, this already makes up 10% of all government spending. The government’s spending watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), projects the total to rise to £111 billion by the next financial year.

---

Read more:
David Blunkett: the world has changed since Liz Truss’s mini budget, so what is Labour still so scared of?

---

She also emphasised the importance of measures to boost UK productivity. Productivity forecasts are expected to be downgraded by the OBR, heaping yet more pressure on the chancellor’s budget choices. Reeves questioned whether the forecast would accurately predict the future – but has accepted that she will have to work within the OBR’s constraints in this year’s budget.

The chancellor is right that there is a pressing need to boost productivity. But it is by no means certain that planned investment in things like housing, nuclear and a third runway at Heathrow will yield big gains, at least in the near term.

At the same time, she made it clear that to meet her budget target there will need to be cuts to public spending. Some cuts will come from more “efficiency” savings by government departments (that perennial option that all chancellors reach for).

But they will also come from tackling the UK’s rapidly rising welfare budget, focusing on the large number of young people who are not in education, employment or training but depend on state benefits (so-called “Neets”).

Any cuts to the welfare budget, as well as a failure to abolish the two-child benefit limit (although she is under pressure from colleagues to bite the bullet and axe it), will cause dismay within the parliamentary Labour party as well as many party activists.

As ever, the budget choices will be political as well as economic. Both the Conservatives and Reform UK will accuse Labour of breaking its manifesto promises. They will also claim Labour is undermining any chance of growth by raising taxes by a larger amount than any UK government has done in the last 50 years.

At the same time, it will become even more difficult for Labour to manage its large but fractious parliamentary majority. Earlier this year, backbenchers forced the government to restore the winter fuel payment for some pensioners and abandon plans to cut personal independence payments for disabled claimants.

Local government elections, as well as elections to the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, are looming next May. Reeves risks further alienating Labour’s grassroot supporters and pushing them towards smaller left-wing parties such as the Greens. They already seem to be pulling ahead of Labour among younger voters.

The stakes could not be higher. A bad result could even lead to questions about the future of both the chancellor and the prime minister Keir Starmer.

Finally, the chancellor’s goal to cut the cost of living for working people does not seem particularly ambitious. Her suggested approach involves cutting energy costs by investing more in electricity generation, and reducing the cost of food by changing the business rates system to help small businesses.

Even if effective, these changes will take some time to work through and may not be enough to convince voters that Labour is on their side – particularly if inflation is not brought under control.

Reeves’ appeal to the public to back her long-term approach to sorting out the British economy may be admirable. But the political risks to her personally – and Labour more broadly – remain considerable.

Steve Schifferes 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. Tax rises and benefit cuts are on the horizon as Reeves prepares the UK for a bad-news budget – https://theconversation.com/tax-rises-and-benefit-cuts-are-on-the-horizon-as-reeves-prepares-the-uk-for-a-bad-news-budget-269008

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mark Lorch, Professor of Science Communication and Chemistry, University of Hull

If you’ve sat in a nail salon recently, you may well have encountered TPO or trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine oxide to give it its full chemical name. You won’t have seen the name on the bottle. But if you’ve had your gelled fingers under a blue-violet lamp, TPO could well have been part of the process.

TPO is what chemists call a photoinitiator – basically, a chemical that reacts when it’s hit with UV light. When your nails go under the lamp, TPO breaks apart and helps link tiny liquid molecules together, turning the polish into that solid, shiny, long-lasting gel layer.

It’s smart chemistry, and it’s one reason gel manicures last so much longer than normal nail polish. But recently, the EU banned TPO because research suggests it might increase the risk of cancer and could be harmful to the reproductive system.

Meanwhile, alternatives such as benzophenone and other common photoinitiators come with concerns of their own.

Benzophenone, for instance, is listed as a possible endocrine disruptor, meaning it may interfere with hormones. Another common substitute for TPO, called TPO-L is harmful to aquatic life and may cause skin allergies. None of this is hidden. The European Chemicals Agency maintains a public database where anyone can look up chemicals and find their hazard classifications and environmental data.

The point is not that nail varnish is dangerous. It is that even everyday products involve chemistry that is more complex than we might assume and that decisions about what is “safe enough” involve weighing risks, benefits and available alternatives.

The same pattern has played out recently with two much wider-reaching chemicals: Pfas, so-called “forever chemicals”, and glyphosate, a herbicide used in agriculture.

Recently, the European Commission announced new restrictions on Pfas in firefighting foam. It did this because Pfas don’t break down in the environment and can build up in living things over time, which can be harmful. Meanwhile, the use of glyphosate has been under review, with the EU approving its continued use and the UK due to make a decision in the next year or so.

None of these decisions happen instantly or automatically. Here is how chemical safety is regulated.

What Reach does

Pharmaceuticals are tightly controlled globally, but chemicals aren’t always regulated as strictly. However, in the EU and UK, chemicals are managed under a system called Reach that is often described as one of the most comprehensive chemical regulations in the world.

The basic difference in how we treat medicines versus chemicals comes down to how we think about risk. Chemicals are expected to be safe when used properly. Medicines, on the other hand, are allowed to have some risks if the benefits outweigh the risks.

That’s why harsh cancer treatments, which can have serious side-effects, are still considered acceptable – because they can save lives. And it’s also why very dangerous chemicals can still be made and used, as long as there are strong safety measures in place.

Under Reach, companies must register their chemicals and provide detailed information on a chemical’s properties, hazards and safe handling. The principle here is: “no data, no market”.

Regulators then evaluate that information – and can request more if needed. Such substances may then be authorised, meaning they can only be used if companies can demonstrate that risks are controlled or that societal benefits outweigh them while safer options are developed.

If a substance poses an unacceptable risk that cannot otherwise be managed, regulators can restrict or ban specific uses of chemicals. Later if evidence emerges that suggests a chemical can cause cancer, harm reproduction, persist in the environment, accumulate in living things, or otherwise be hazardous, it might be added to a list of “substances of very high concern”.

Reach is a strict, step-by-step system that requires companies to prove their chemicals can be used safely. But in reality, we often only learn the full effects of a chemical over time, once it is being used outside the lab and in everyday life. That’s why decisions about chemicals such as TPO, Pfas and glyphosate can change slowly and sometimes take many years to fully settle.

Safe and sustainable by design

As a result of cases such as these, many feel that despite Reach being one of the most comprehensive chemical regulations in the world, it isn’t enough. This has led to a philosophy known as safe and sustainable by design, where, instead of making a chemical and then proving it is safe, a material is designed with safety and disposal or recycling in mind.

In this area, artificial intelligence may well prove to have a major role. AI is increasingly being used to predict toxicity of chemicals and so allow them to be flagged before they are manufactured.

Chemistry has built the modern world, given us durable coatings on the ends of our fingers, high-yield crops, non-stick pans, waterproof jackets and thousands of other unnoticed conveniences. It has also given us chemicals that travel too far, last too long and accumulate where they were never intended.

The challenge is not to stop using chemistry. It is to use it wisely. Whether we are talking about manicures, farmland, or emergency foam, the principle should be the same: use chemistry that does the job, without leaving a legacy. The more we can predict that, the fewer surprises we’ll find later.

Mark Lorch 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. From nail bars to firefighting foams: how chemicals are deemed safe enough or too harmful – https://theconversation.com/from-nail-bars-to-firefighting-foams-how-chemicals-are-deemed-safe-enough-or-too-harmful-268830

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dhritiraj Sengupta, Visiting Researcher, University of Southampton

The coastlines I trace resemble logos and luxury icons: palms, crescents, pixelated grids, surreal ornaments etched into shallow seas. The cartography is striking. The environmental consequences are very concerning.

There is an urgent need to evaluate the negative effects and risks associated with these artificial structures around the world, especially as climate change makes sea-level rise more extreme.

For ten years, I have been tracking changing coastlines and trying to map the spread of artificial coastal developments. But this is difficult for two reasons.

First, it’s tricky to define what counts as reclamation and what doesn’t. Does a polder (a piece of low-lying land reclaimed from the sea) belong in the same category as a luxury island? Do sea walls belong in the same category as “dredge-and-fill peninsulas” (land created by digging sand from a seabed or river banks that is used to fill an area of water).

Second, at a global scale, constantly updating maps with rapidly changing unnatural boundary designs is a never-ending task, which involves extracting data from satellite images.

The geometry of reclaimed sites and artificial shorelines can seem bizarre – ranging from the leafed fronds of Ocean Flower Island in Hainan, China, to perfect crescents in Durrat Al Bahrain in the Persian Gulf, and straight-edged lattices in Lagos, Nigeria. In most cases, they are designed to look appealing without much consideration of ocean health or storm resilience.

Sharp angles interrupt longshore drift. Features such as headlands, jetties or bends in the coastline block or redirect the flow of sand moved by waves. This causes sand to build up in some areas while leaving other beaches with less sand, leading to erosion.

With artificial coastlines, these effects are amplified – a particular problem in places without the financial means to manage their beaches.

Grid-like canals slice tidal flats into disjointed basins. On maps, the lines are neat – but in reality, they produce messy hydrodynamics and fragmented ecosystems.

Such misplaced “neatness” can have far-reaching consequences. Reclamation destroys mangroves, muddy tidal flats and seagrass meadows – ecosystems which act both as valuable stores of atmospheric carbon and fish nurseries.

Dredging also stirs up sediment which clouds the water downstream, making it harder for coral reefs to survive. This compounds climate stress, acting as a threat multiplier. Most of the artificial coastlines aren’t as resilient to extreme weather as they could be.

---

Read more:
New islands are being built at sea – but they won’t help millions made homeless by sea-level rise

---

Human-made coastal changes disturb natural water flow, often leading to poor water quality, floods and erosion. Coastal communities can lose their fishing grounds and safe landing beaches. Without protective natural ecosystems acting as a buffer against extreme weather, often the poorest coastal communities bear the greatest impacts from coastal erosion and sea-level rise.

There’s also a carbon cost to this type of coastal development. Dredgers, quarrying, cement and machinery all stack up emissions. Add in the lost carbon storage from destroyed wetlands, and reclamation becomes a climate double blow.

How maps become bridges to action

Maps reveal where, when and how much development is occurring. They can become bridges to action if this research into shoreline change is combined with biodiversity surveys (to assess marine life), hydrodynamic modelling (changes to currents) and social impact assessments (how coastal communities are affected).

In my view, environmental impact assessments should look beyond short-term, single-project effects, and consider how multiple projects collectively affect ecosystems over time. Construction approvals should depend not only on each project’s immediate footprint, but on how it will perform across its entire lifetime – for example, how much flood risk it creates and how much carbon it emits or saves.

Using a mix of tools to engage diverse groups – including local communities, policymakers, scientists and educators – can strengthen understanding and action on coastal change. Examples include holding workshops on the interpretation of satellite-derived data and visualisations, creating interactive StoryMaps (digital storybooks using maps, pictures and text to explain a topic), as well as community-driven mapping.

Many coastal and fishing communities located around reclamation sites – who previously had direct access to the coast – are now calling to halt further reclamation. By documenting lost ecosystems, tracing flood pathways and highlighting human stories behind coastal change, we can better understand how vulnerable coastal communities are to land reclamation.

Some damage is irreversible. Natural coastlines are not just scenic – they are self-maintaining, shock-absorbing, carbon-storing infrastructure. A moratorium on new reclamation throughout the world is needed – and a pivot to restoration by rebuilding lost mangroves, protecting tidal creeks and removing “hard edges” where possible.

Mapping alone will not stop coastal development. But it can catalyse coalitions, inform policy, expose hidden costs and redirect finance. It can turn a line on a screen into a line in the sand.

I began my research by trying to define reclamation precisely enough to classify it. But it has revealed a more urgent task: to defend what remains of the natural coastline, and restore what we still can.

The coastline is not a canvas for our extravagant signatures. When protected, it is nature’s living margin which sustains us.

---

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.

---

Dhritiraj Sengupta receives funding from the Chinese Government Scholarship (CSC , 2016-2020) and from Leverhulme Trust Funding for the project on “Unnatural dynamics of flood deposits in built environments”, plus volunteers for International Geographical Union (https://igu-coast.org/steering-committee/) and is a fellow of the Future Earth Coast (https://www.futureearthcoasts.org/biography/dr-dhritiraj-sengupta/).

– ref. Maps reveal the greater risk to the world’s artificial coastlines from sea-level rise – https://theconversation.com/maps-reveal-the-greater-risk-to-the-worlds-artificial-coastlines-from-sea-level-rise-250299

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alexandra Fanghanel, Associate Professor in Criminology, University of Greenwich

Rape, as a crime, is widely deplored. Society and media condemn rapists, and rape and other sexually-related crimes carry potentially heavy prison sentences when perpetrators are convicted. So why, given this apparent intolerance for rape, do criminologists like me (and many others) still say that we live in a “rape culture”?

Rape culture is a term used to describe societies that accept rape and sexual violence. It is defined as a “set of beliefs that encourage male sexual aggression and support violence against women”. It is a society where violence against women is often seen as sexy and therefore ignored, accepted or dismissed as a joke.

In the UK, this manifests in several ways. We see rape culture in the normalisation of sexual violence in schools, in suggestions that victims “must share some of the blame” for their own rape, and in violence against women dismissed as “pranks” in family courts. It is also expressed in rape myths (such as “men can’t be raped”) and in victim-blaming (“she was asking for it because of how she was dressed”).

Rape culture normalises acts of sexual violence (against all genders) by allowing these acts to continue unchallenged. According to the Office for National Statistics, in 2024, the police recorded 71,227 complaints of rape in England and Wales. Of these, 2.7% were charged, of which about half resulted in conviction.

In part, these low figures are because, in England and Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service will only prosecute an offender if they believe a case has a “realistic prospect of conviction”. Rape culture undermines that realistic prospect, because it influences how society and courts think about and respond to victims of rape.

Myths about how a victim “should” behave, whether they have any interest in unconventional sexual practices or are promiscuous, their age or what a perpetrator looks like, all inform these low conviction rates. And claims of how false rape accusations ruin lives mean there is a reluctance to label a man a rapist or sex offender, especially if he is popular or successful.

Rape culture is bad for everyone. It means victims of sexual violence of any gender are not taken seriously, and it denigrates people based on their sexuality. That is why it is necessary to challenge it wherever we can. Here are three ways you can fight rape culture in your own life:

1. Be an active bystander

Intervening in assault or harassment does not require you to be a vigilante, nor to go head-to-head with a perpetrator of sexual violence, which can be dangerous. Organisations like Right to Be have developed bystander programmes which help people intervene in sexist, bullying or abusive conduct in different ways.

Their “5 Ds” of intervention are:

• distract the victim with an unrelated conversation to interrupt the encounter;

• delegate: get someone (possibly someone with authority in the space, like a train guard) to help;

• document: film what is happening, if it is safe to do so;

• delay: seek the victim out afterwards to offer help or check in with them;

• direct: if it feels safe and you feel able to, intervene directly and tell the perpetrator what they are doing is not OK. Keep this short and, once you have intervened, turn your attention to the victim and their needs.

2. Make sex unexceptional

My research explores how the shame around sex in general is much of what sustains rape culture. Sex crimes, because of their association with shame and taboo, are sensationalised and more morally charged than other crimes.

In my forthcoming book, I suggest that taking some of the stigma away from sex, and approaching it as ordinary, could help undo some of the rape culture we live in.

When we moralise about sex, it leads to expectations and preconceptions about how sex crimes happen. We create or believe myths about what “real” rape looks like and how “real” victims and perpetrators behave.

We need a better, broader understanding of what sex is and how people have it, so we are better at telling the difference between consensual and non-consensual encounters. Sexual exceptionalism nurtures rape myths. For example, a victim with a history of sex work, or who has rape fantasies, or who is friends with their attacker, can still be raped. Taking the salaciousness out of sex helps us to think about scenarios like these more clearly.

Instead of being squeamish about sex or treating it as something sordid, we need to talk more about sex without shame. Sex crimes are dreadful, but unburdening them from this baggage will help tackle rape culture.

3. Educate without stigma

Studies of university-aged students show that many have a poor understanding of the complexity of consent. Many do not know that rape can take place within a partner relationship, or that “stealthing” (removing a condom during penetrative sex without letting the other person know) is a crime, or that men can be sexually assaulted.

Whether you are a teacher, parent or friend, it is important to have candid, non-sensational conversations about sex and sexual violence. Through sharing unstigmatised knowledge about sexual conduct, people can learn to identify rape myths, to understand why actions like staring or lewd comments are problems, to name sexual violence if it happens, and to express their feelings about it.

Rape culture is not about weak women and predatory men. It is not about “cultures who rape” and the rest of us who don’t. Calling out rape culture is about challenging our preconceived notions, confronting our sexual squeamishness, and fighting for sexual justice for everyone.

Alexandra Fanghanel 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. Rape culture is a problem for everyone – here are three ways to tackle it – https://theconversation.com/rape-culture-is-a-problem-for-everyone-here-are-three-ways-to-tackle-it-263152

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jenni Ramone, Associate Professor of Postcolonial and Global Literatures, Nottingham Trent University

Salman Rushdie’s new collection of short stories urgently recollects his literary legacy. It’s as though time is increasingly uncertain so the need to tell stories is great.

Its title, The Eleventh Hour, says as much, and the book succeeds Knife (2024), written about his attack on stage in 2022. The central story portrays students and writers in the libraries of English literary history. Two stories set in India consider the entangled states of faith and doubt. The final two tales are set in America, employing stylistic innovation to address grand questions about authenticity, censorship and fraud.

The story In the South, first published in US magazine The New Yorker, questions the logic of death and ageing. Written after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami estimated to have killed 250,000 people, it introduces two elderly neighbours and their encounters with relatives and neighbours.

Typically Rushdie in structural and narrative prowess, it portrays the astounding everyday. Recalling stories in his earlier collection East, West (1995), it is a close character study interrogating the minute but asking huge questions.

Nicknamed Junior and Senior, the neighbours’ only similarity beyond their interdependence is a shared (undisclosed) first name. While Junior is hopeful and serene, Senior is melancholy and cynical. And though Senior has a vast, attentive, unwanted family, Junior is alone.

A phrase in this story gives the collection its title, and alerts us to the book’s preoccupation with older age. The story comes to terms with death, however unfathomable, by understanding it as an “adjacent verandah” to life.

Where to start with the collection

For readers new to Rushdie, The Musician of Kahani is the story to read first. Ranging over several decades, its young female protagonist possesses magical talents comparable with the protagonist of Midnight’s Children (2008), Saleem Sinai. This was the book that cemented Rushdie as a globally significant author.

The Musician of Kahani indulges in renaming – one of Rushdie’s preoccupations. Mumbai becomes Kahani (meaning story) and its streets are renamed, enjoyably, after literature: William Shakespeare Bunder, Dahl Market, Petit Prince Parade. Events pivotal to the plot are handled out of sequence, presented like delightful gossip and we understand plot is incidental: storytelling is what matters.

The third story in the collection, Late, is set in an Oxbridge college. Simon Merlyn (S.M.) Arthur is the “late” protagonist of the title. The honorary college fellow and renowned novelist of a single book, he wakes to find himself unexpectedly dead at 61. Unmoved, he ponders the nature of the mind and body, life, death and the afterlife.

The story assembles cliches of England: Oxbridge, the second world war, contingent multiculturalism, colonialism’s falsely genteel face and the weather. However, it is also about English literature, myth and legend, and rejuvenation. Set “50-something” years ago, it reveals an author prevented from achieving his potential.

Rosa, an undergraduate from India entrusted to organise S.M’s papers, can communicate with his ghost, and uncovers sadness and betrayal. Rosa is a version of Rushdie, perhaps: the story is peppered with anecdotes from his life, including advertising slogans (Rushdie was an advertising copywriter famous for “Naughty But Nice”). Rosa also stumbles upon transformative archival materials. In Rushdie’s own experience, these materials inspired his novel The Satanic Verses (1988).

The two final stories, Oklahoma and The Old Man in the Piazza, are set in the US and both are experimental, particularly Oklahoma.

Oklahoma is an unedited posthumous autofictional manuscript and a literary conversation between author M.A. and an acclaimed writer affectionately named Uncle K. What begins as an adventure in literary benefaction descends into uncertainty, deception and obsession.

M.A. is encouraged to complete the story of Kafka’s Karl Rossmann in Amerika (1927), who never attained fulfilment since he failed to reach Oklahoma. Instead, he presents manuscripts of uncertain authorship, including an 1819 tale of murals depicting anguish and despair in response to corruption, violence and ignorance sanctioned by controlling storytelling. These paintings also target old age, represented as death, rage, insanity, jealousy and hate.

The experimental story ponders obsession, incompleteness and falsehood as more of Rushdie’s preoccupations emerge: The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, disappearance, global relocation.

While In the South makes peace with death as a facet of life, and Late shakes off the torment of life’s regrets, secrets and betrayals for a fruitful afterlife, Oklahoma is bleaker. Here, life is incoherent, and truth is only achieved by death.

The collection begins and ends with old men whose bodies are frail and inflexible. The Old Man in the Piazza is the final story, beginning with an elderly man who sits watching impassioned and aggressive conversations around him. In this fable about the folly of repression, the beauty and poetry of language is forgotten in favour of thumbs-up or down moralising.

The stories in The Eleventh Hour tell Rushdie’s life story in metaphorical glimpses. This may be better received than his memoir, Joseph Anton (2012), which was described by reviewers as too long and too focused on celebrity. These stories convey Rushdie’s literary life, and through them we are reminded of what has been termed “his brilliant early phase”, a phase that, as these stories show, is rarely disturbed.

---

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

---

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Jenni Ramone 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. In The Eleventh Hour, Salman Rushdie writes like he’s running out of time – https://theconversation.com/in-the-eleventh-hour-salman-rushdie-writes-like-hes-running-out-of-time-268828

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anna Walker, Senior Arts + Culture Editor, The Conversation

Jane Austen’s Paper Trail is a podcast from The Conversation celebrating 250 years since Jane Austen’s birth. In each episode, we’ll be investigating a different aspect of Austen’s personality by interrogating one of her novels with leading Austen researchers. Along the way we’ll visit locations important to Austen to uncover a particular aspect of her life and the times she lived in.

As well as a sharp eye and an even sharper wit, Jane Austen was also, at times, in possession of a sharp tongue.

The burning of most of Austen’s letters by her sister Cassandra after her death has long been considered an unforgiveable act of literary vandalism. We know from her novels and the letters that did survive, that Austen did not suffer fools. She mercilessly exposed idiots, sycophants and narcissists to most enjoyable and satisfying effect. These letters probably contained evidence of Austen at her most shocking, for even the loftiest minds cannot fail to be entertained by a delicious piece of neighbourly tittle-tattle.

At a time when women were still considered chattels with very little agency, two pastimes could provide great relief from the interminable boredom that threatened to thwart an agile young mind: walking and gossip. Preferably at the same time. Or at the very least over a nice cup of tea sipped daintily from bone china in the presence of buns as large as one’s face.

Gossip in the world of Jane Austen served several important functions: entertainment, intel, communication, miscommunication and control. As reputations were fiercely guarded, one piece of misdirected or unfounded gossip could leave a young woman’s honour in tatters. Deployed strategically, that was often precisely the point.

Gossip is a subject which Austen explores in all these forms in her first novel, Sense and Sensibility. Published in 1811, it follows the lives of two very different sisters, Elinor and Marianne Dashwood, as they navigate the vagaries of love and romance in reduced circumstances after the death of their father.

In the first episode of Jane Austen’s Paper Trail, Jane Wright visits Sally Lunn’s tearoom in Bath – where Austen herself often took tea – with Andrew McInnes of Edge Hill University, whose work examines the notion of the “Romantic ridiculous”.

Over plates of large brioche buns smothered with cinnamon butter, McInnes is here to help us understand Austen’s relationship with gossip. “Taking tea was one of the main ways women could get together and talk privately,” he explains. “And though Jane had a wide circle of friends and acquaintances, she probably came here most with [her sister] Cassandra.”

In Sense and Sensibility, there’s a sense that Austen both despised and enjoyed gossip. “There is undoubtedly a double edge to Jane’s writing,” says McInnes, “in that she does say some of these gossiping characters are ridiculous, silly and pathetic. But a lot of the fun and amusement and comedy comes from those same characters gossiping and spreading the news and driving the plot forward.”

Later on in the episode, Anna Walker take a deeper dive into the subject of gossip in Sense and Sensibility with two more Austen experts. Lucy Thompson is a lecturer in 19th-century literature at Aberystwyth University, whose work examines how surveillance played out during the Austen period. Joining her around the table is Katie Halsey, professor of English studies at the University of Stirling, where she researches Jane Austen and the history of reading.

As Halsey explains, there are “lots of different roles for gossip in the book … Sometimes Jane uses it to suggest that a character a bad person. Sometimes it’s used to carry the plot. Sometimes it’s used to misdirect and point us in the wrong direction. It’s very often used for comic effect.”

But Halsey also sees an undeniable “dark edge” to the gossip in the novel. Being the subject of gossip, as Austen well knew, could “damage your marital prospects and also leave you ostracised from society,” Thompson explains.

Listen to episode 1 of Jane Austen’s Paper Trail wherever you get your podcasts. If you’re craving more Austen, check out our Jane Austen 250 page for more expert articles celebrating the anniversary.

---

Disclosure statement: Andrew McInnes, Lucy Thompson and Katie Halsey 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.

Jane Austen’s Paper Trail is hosted by Anna Walker with reporting from Jane Wright and Naomi Joseph. Senior producer and sound designer is Eloise Stevens and the executive producer is Gemma Ware. Artwork by Alice Mason and Naomi Joseph.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here.

– ref. Jane Austen’s world ran on gossip – and she revelled in it – https://theconversation.com/jane-austens-world-ran-on-gossip-and-she-revelled-in-it-268510

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tennessee Randall, PhD Candidate in Social Psychology, Swansea University

Meat has a large environmental impact, but could consuming more of it be part of the answer?

Meat-eaters in western countries today typically focus on the muscle tissue of animals and often avoid consuming offal (internal organs like the heart, liver and kidney). But eating more offal could lower the number of animals that are killed for food and so the greenhouse gases produced by the meat industry.

Offal also has potential health benefits. It’s packed with protein, vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids and often contains more nutrients than the meat that we would usually eat. For example, 100 grams of liver provides around 36% of your recommended daily iron but eating the same amount of minced meat would provide around 12%.

Offal was once a popular food choice in the UK during the second world war. In Japan, eating offal is motivated by cultural values such as “mottainai”, which describes a sense of regret around being wasteful. Similarly, “nose-to-tail” eating is becoming more popular in the UK, which is also based on principles around reducing food waste and respecting the animal’s sacrifice.

Despite the potential health and environmental benefits, getting consumers to accept offal is more difficult than one might expect. Typically, people who haven’t tried offal are disgusted by the thought of eating it and often consider it to be contaminated. Others are put off because they just don’t know how to make a tasty meal that their children will also eat.

One way to overcome this is to use offal in a familiar meal with other ingredients. I explored this with other researchers in a recent study of 390 UK meat eaters. Specifically, we looked at their opinions of offal in its natural form and compared it to when offal (liver and kidney) was included as an ingredient within minced meat (for instance, “offal-enriched” mince).

We found the offal-enriched mince was considered more acceptable and was expected to be tastier, more satisfying, intriguing and easier to prepare than livers and kidneys. Although, livers and kidneys were expected to be more natural, have less fat and better for the environment than offal-enriched mince.

Men v women

When we compared these ratings across men and women, it was clear that men felt more positive about eating “pure” offal than women. Whereas men and women expressed similar opinions about eating offal within minced meat.

We also compared opinions across six different types of offal-enriched meals, which included a burger, curry, spaghetti bolognese, meatballs, shepherd’s pie and a stir fry. The spaghetti bolognese was a clear favourite for its expected taste, but people were equally curious to try the stir fry, which they also believed would be healthier and more natural than the other meals.

Consumers also answered questions on their personality type and motives for choosing food, which meant we could flesh out the psychology behind why some people are more open to trying offal-enriched meals than others.

On the plus side, it turns out that people who prioritise their health when choosing food think offal-enriched meals would be tastier and more intriguing. However, people who are fearful of eating new foods think the opposite. In psychology, this is known as “food neophobia” and has been linked with less healthier food choices in some populations. In our sample, women had higher food neophobia than men.

Tackling the stigma

There may also be some stigma around eating offal, as we found that people who were more likely to control how they were viewed by others formed more negative opinions of offal-enriched meals. This type of social interaction is known as “impression management” and has been shown to influence food choices.

Much of the offal produced in the UK is exported because the consumer demand is low. This means that offal is much cheaper than other meat cuts, such as a steak or a lamb’s leg. However, this could fuel misperceptions about the meat being a lower quality, or that it is chosen by those who cannot afford the expensive cuts.

In reality, eating more of the animal could support a healthy diet and could be a more achievable recommendation for sustainable eating, especially for the men who love their meat.

---

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.

---

Tennessee Randall receives funding from the Economic Social Research Council Wales Doctoral Training Partnership.

– ref. The planet wants you to eat more offal – here’s how to increase consumption – https://theconversation.com/the-planet-wants-you-to-eat-more-offal-heres-how-to-increase-consumption-267051

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matt McLain, Senior Lecturer in Education and Professional Learning, Liverpool John Moores University

Studying design and technology (D&T) at school gives children the opportunity to get up from behind a desk and learn practical skills. It’s the only subject in the national curriculum in which children can develop and create tangible solutions to real problems.

They can get an insight into whether they might enjoy careers in design, fashion, engineering, technology or food. And they can learn skills that will be useful to them at home, in the workplace and in society.

D&T could play a crucial role in the government’s aim to revitalise the national curriculum in England, enrich children’s learning, and prepare young people for vocational education and training. The practical and hands-on approach children learn through D&T in primary and secondary schools can raise their awareness of vocational options and prepare them for technical and vocational education after their GCSEs, whether or not they chose an overtly D&T-related career pathway.

Once a thriving part of the national curriculum, D&T has suffered years of decline. The ongoing review of the national curriculum in England provides the ideal opportunity for national education policy to revive the value of practical and creative learning for its pupils.

D&T was a compulsory GCSE until 2004. It has since plummeted in popularity. The number of GCSE entries has shrunk in England from over 400,000 entries in 2004 to 137,016 in 2025. School funding has also decreased in real terms, affecting relatively expensive subjects such as D&T.

The introduction of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc), which compares schools based on how many students take certain GCSEs, has added to this issue. The EBacc is weighted towards traditionally academic subjects: English, maths, the sciences, geography or history and a language. It incentivises schools to encourage students towards these subjects.

The knock-on effect of this has been the drastic reduction of curriculum time and budgets for more practical and creative subjects, such as D&T, in many secondary schools. This prioritisation of certain subjects over others may also affect how young people think about learning skills that prepare them for work in the creative and manufacturing industries.

There also aren’t enough D&T teachers. Government census data for England shows that in 2024-25, just 618 D&T trainees were recruited – 39% of the target number. It was an even lower number the year before.

Bursaries for new teachers are also lower for D&T than for subjects such as chemistry, computing, mathematics and physics. This means graduates in Stem subjects – science, technology, engineering and maths – who would be good candidates to teach D&T may opt for science or maths instead. In 2018, the Department for Education excluded D&T from a list of what it considered Stem subjects.

Yet in a world facing rapid technological change, climate challenges and skills shortages, practical and creative subjects such as D&T are more vital than ever. England faces a critical skills gap in design, engineering and manufacturing. These are industries essential for growth.

The World Economic Forum’s 2025 Future of Jobs report outlines the core skills prioritised by employers. Many of these are promoted by D&T: they include creative thinking, technological literacy, quality control, and design and user experience.

Design and technology is not a nostalgic throwback or a soft alternative to academic rigour. It is a challenging and vital part of preparing young people for the future. As England faces economic, environmental and social challenges, we need a curriculum that equips students to think creatively, solve real-world problems and engage with technology meaningfully.

The final report of England’s review of school curriculum and assessment, due for publication this autumn, presents an opportunity for a renaissance in practical and creative learning, as well as a revaluing of experience alongside knowledge.

Matt McLain received funding from the Department for Education to draft the current subject content for GCSE and A Level design and technology. He is also a trustee for the Design and Technology Association, who support the teaching of the subject in schools.

– ref. Design and technology’s practical and creative skills should see it revived in the school curriculum – https://theconversation.com/design-and-technologys-practical-and-creative-skills-should-see-it-revived-in-the-school-curriculum-266123