Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Colm O’Shea, Researcher, Renewable Energy, Geography Department, UCL

Renewable energy is often pitched as cheaper to produce than fossil fuel energy. To quantify whether this is true, we have been studying the financial impact of expanding wind energy in the UK. Our results are surprising.

From 2010 to 2023, wind power delivered a benefit of £147.5 billion — £14.2 billion from lower electricity prices and £133.3 billion from reduced natural gas prices. If we offset the £43.2 billion in wind energy subsidies, UK consumers saved £104.3 billion compared with what their energy bills would have been without investment in wind generation.

UK wind energy production has transformed over the past 15 years. In 2010, more than 75% of electricity was generated from fossil fuels. By 2025, coal has ceased and wind is the largest source of power at 30% – more than natural gas at 26%.

This massive expansion of UK offshore wind is partly due to UK government subsidies. The Contracts for Difference scheme provides a guaranteed price for electricity generated, so when the price drops below this level, electricity producers still get the same amount of money.

The expansion is also partly due to how well UK conditions suit offshore wind. The North Sea provides both ample winds and relatively shallow waters that make installation more accessible.

---

Read more:
How a more flexible energy grid can cope better with swings in Britain’s weather

---

The positive contribution of wind power to reducing the UK’s carbon footprint is well known. According to Christopher Vogel, a professor of engineering who specialises in offshore renewables at the University of Oxford, wind turbines in the UK recoup the energy used in their manufacture, transport and installation within 12-to-24 months, and they can generate electricity for 20-to-25 years. The financial benefits of wind power have largely been overlooked though, until now.

Our study explores the economics of wind in the energy system. We take a long-term modelling approach and consider what would happen if the UK had continued to invest in gas instead of wind generation. In this scenario, the result is a significant increased demand for gas and therefore higher prices. Unlike previous short-term modelling studies, this approach highlights the longer-term financial benefit that wind has delivered to the UK consumer.

Central to this study is the assumption that without the additional wind energy, the UK would have needed new gas capacity. This alternative scenario of gas rather than wind generation in Europe implies an annual, ongoing increase in UK demand for gas larger than the reduction in Russian pipeline gas that caused the energy crisis of 2022.

Given the significant increase in the cost of natural gas, we calculate the UK would have paid an extra £133.3 billion for energy between 2010 and 2023.

There was also a direct financial benefit from wind generation in lower electricity prices – about £14.2 billion. This combined saving is far larger than the total wind subsidies in that period of £43.2 billion, amounting to a net benefit to UK consumers of £104.3 billion.

Wind power is a public good

Wind generators reduce market prices, creating value for others while limiting their own profitability. This is the mirror image of industries with negative environmental consequences, such as tobacco and sugar, where the industry does not pay for the increased associated healthcare costs.

This means that the profitability of wind generators is a flawed measure of the financial value of the sector to the UK. The payments via the UK government are not subsidies creating an industry with excess profits, or one creating a financial drain. They are investments facilitating cheaper energy for UK consumers.

Wind power should be viewed as a public good — like roads or schools — where government support leads to national gains. The current funding model makes electricity users bear the cost while gas users benefit. This huge subsidy to gas consumers raises fairness concerns.

Wind investment has significantly lowered fossil fuel prices, underscoring the need for a strategic, equitable energy policy that aligns with long-term national interests. Reframing UK government support as a high-return national investment rather than a subsidy would be more accurate and effective.

Sustainability, security and affordability do not need to be in conflict. Wind energy is essential for energy security and climate goals – plus it makes over £100 billion of financial sense.

---

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.

---

Mark Maslin is Pro-Vice Provost of the UCL Climate Crisis Grand Challenge and Founding Director of the UCL Institute for Sustainable Aviation and Aeronautics. He was co-director of the London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership and is a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group. He is an advisor to Sheep Included Ltd, Lansons, NetZeroNow and has advised the UK Parliament. He has received grant funding from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, DFG, Royal Society, DIFD, BEIS, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Research England, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust, CIFF, Sprint2020, and British Council. He has received funding from the BBC, Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD, HP, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, John Templeton Foundation, The Nand & Jeet Khemka Foundation, Quadrature Climate Foundation.

Colm O’Shea 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. Wind power has saved UK consumers over £100 billion since 2010 – new study – https://theconversation.com/wind-power-has-saved-uk-consumers-over-100-billion-since-2010-new-study-266702

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Veronica Zamora-Gutierrez, Lecturer in Ecology, University of Southampton

October is bats’ time in the spotlight, although they are mostly portrayed as spooky and creepy. The truth is, bats are more likely to help you than harm you.

Since I first saw a bat as an undergraduate student more than 20 years ago, I was captivated by these enigmatic and “weird” animals. The more I learn, the more I am amazed by their uniqueness and extraordinary adaptations. Here are seven fascinating facts that reveal the truth behind the many misunderstandings people still have about bats.

1. Fear of bats is not universal, it’s cultural

In western cultures, bats tend to be associated with witches, vampires, night and fear. Literature, films and Halloween imagery lean on these themes. In contrast, in many parts of the world bats are viewed positively. In Mesoamerica, bats were woven into sacred stories. The Maya revered Camazotz, the bat god of the underworld, associated with night, death and sacrifice. In the Popol Vuh (the sacred book of the K’iche’ Maya), Camazotz dwells in the House of Bats in Xibalba (the Maya underworld). Even today, the Popol Vuh remains alive in Maya culture.

In 1946, at Monte Albán, an important archaeological site in southern Mexico, archaeologists discovered the so-called mask of the bat God, a jade artefact dated to around 100BC-AD200. Researchers interpret it as evidence that bats were revered in cultures inhabiting these regions, symbolising fertility, death and the sacred world of caves and night.

Caves in Mesoamerica were often seen as portals to the underworld, and bats emerging from these dark spaces became associated with ancestors and divine forces. Rather than mere harbingers of fear, they embodied the powerful link between life, death and renewal. Today, caves and sinkholes are still regarded as sacred spaces, where rituals that blend ancient traditions with Catholic influences are performed.

2. Bats don’t attack humans

From Dracula to Morbius, bats in movies are often cast as villains or responsible for terrible disease outbreaks. The story of Dracula depicts bats as bloodsucking creatures from hell. But in reality, only three out of the 1,500 or so bat species feed on blood and they do not live in the UK or Europe. They prefer warmer climates and are found in the tropical areas of the Americas.

Even vampire bats target mostly livestock or other animals, not humans. Far more common are bats that feed on insects, fruit, nectar or even fish. These varied diets make bats essential to ecosystems.

3. Bats don’t deserve the rap they get for disease

Yes, bats can carry viruses and pathogens (as many animals do). But disease spillover to humans usually happens when bats are stressed by habitat loss, disturbance, or forced into closer contact with us or other animals. If blame is to be cast, it lies with us humans.

As for the COVID pandemic, it’s possible a person rather than an animal brought the virus to the live animal market in Wuhan.

4. Bats aren’t blind

Have you ever heard someone say that bats are blind? Maybe this idea comes from the fact that bats fly in unusual ways and are completely nocturnal in some regions. But bats have good vision supplemented by a sixth sense: echolocation. It helps them “see” the details of their environment.

Bat sonar navigation is fine-tuned to help them avoid obstacles such as trees and vegetation, and it helps them find food such as insects flying in the air or resting on plants. This system is comparable to some of our most advanced technology, such as the sonar submarines use to navigate in the darkness of the ocean.

5. Bats are givers, not takers

In the UK, bats eat insects – and a lot of them. This natural pest suppression helps reduce crop damage, control mosquito populations and relieve pressure on farmers to use chemical insecticides. But in tropical regions, bats do even more. They offer pollination, seed dispersal and vegetation regeneration services that are critical to ecosystems and agriculture.

In 2021 my colleagues and I conducted a study in Mexico showing that bats improve both yield and fruit quality of an important cactus fruit crop in Mexico. This was the first direct evidence of the economic value of bat pollination services, estimated at US$2,500 (£1,8060) per crop hectare.

We can taste their benefits here in the UK too. Do you drink tequila or mezcal? Well, bats are the main pollinators of that group of plants, called agaves.

6. Bats aren’t pests

You may have got the wrong idea from those depictions of bats as hellish creatures but these animals are closely entwined with their environment. Bats use weather cues to time key life cycles (hibernation, migration, reproduction). And these activities need to coincide with the availability of food. For example, insectivorous bats rely on insects emerging at predictable times. But as climate change makes spring warmer and shifts rainfall patterns, insects may appear earlier or in altered numbers.

These risks are especially relevant for insect eaters in temperate zones like the UK, where seasonality is strongly marked. A European study from 2025 of temperate bats warns that weather changes could push bat activity out of sync with prey availability.

We don’t yet know how severe the consequences will be. But if bats can’t feed on insects anymore, pest outbreaks and crop losses could rise.

7. Bats are lovers, not loners

Many bats are highly social and cooperative. Female vampire bats, for instance, are known to share blood meals with roost-mates that failed to feed that night, even when those bats are not related to them. They also spend large amounts of time social grooming, which not only helps with hygiene but also strengthens bonds between bats.

In other cave-roosting species, mothers form large nurseries and help care for each other’s young. They share grooming and protection duties and help with the thermoregulation of newborns.

Recent research on the spectral bat (Vampyrum spectrum), a carnivorous bat and one of the largest in the Americas (with a wingspan of about one metre), shows that these carnivores live in close family groups like parents and pups. Using cameras inside tree roosts, scientists observed adults bringing prey to their young, grooming, greeting each other, and even leaving and returning together, a level of cooperation rarely seen in carnivorous mammals.

These social bonds challenge the Hollywood image of bats as eerie loners of the night. Instead, bats live in rich communities built on cooperation and social bonding.

Veronica Zamora-Gutierrez receives funding from The Royal Society, British Cactus and Succulent Society.

– ref. Seven things Halloween and Hollywood get wrong about bats – https://theconversation.com/seven-things-halloween-and-hollywood-get-wrong-about-bats-267341

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Richard Whitman, Member of the Conflict Analysis Research Centre, University of Kent; Royal United Services Institute

Following another week of diplomatic flip-flopping in the United States, Ukraine’s European allies did not disappoint when it came to the fulsomeness of their diplomatic rhetoric. Yet concrete action to strengthen the capabilities Ukraine needs to win the war remained at a snail’s pace.

After a less than successful meeting in the White House on October 17 between the American and Ukrainian presidents, Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine and its European allies once again scrambled to respond to US equivocation with public affirmations of support for Kyiv.

A meeting of EU foreign ministers on Monday October 20, a summit of EU leaders on Thursday October 23, and a gathering of the coalition of the willing on Friday October 24, provided plenty of opportunities for such statements. For good measure, the Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, paid a visit to Washington on October 21 and 22 before joining the leaders of the coalition of the willing on Friday.

The core message from all these meetings was that where the Trump administration sends ambiguous signals, Ukraine’s more steadfast European supporters are still keen to demonstrate their mettle.

When they met on Monday in Brussels, EU foreign ministers had a packed agenda. On Ukraine, the EU’s foreign affairs chief, Kaja Kallas, reiterated the bloc’s support for what she described as “Trump’s efforts to end the war” and condemned Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

The following day, Tuesday October 21, brought diplomatic whiplash, when it transpired that there had been another apparent shift in the White House. The Budapest summit between Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, was postponed until further notice. The supposed host, Hungary’s Kremlin-friendly prime minister, Viktor Orban, and Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, maintained that preparations for the meeting were continuing. But Trump was unequivocal. He would not waste time on a meeting if a peace deal was not a realistic prospect.

In an unusual moment of clarity, the US president then appeared to realise that he needed to demonstrate actual consequences for Russia obstructing a peace agreement. On October 22 the US announced sanctions on two of Russia’s largest oil companies – Rosneft and Lukoil – the first sanctions package imposed on Russia in Trump’s second term.

There is a grace period until November 21 to allow for the necessary winding down of transactions with, and divestment from, the two companies. Nonetheless, the mere announcement of the sanctions has already led to major Indian and Chinese clients beginning to pull out from their deals with Russia’s energy giants. Additional sanctions against the Russian banking sector and companies involved in oil infrastructure are apparently also being contemplated in the White House.

After much deliberation to overcome internal divisions, the EU followed suit. On October 23, it announced its 19th package of sanctions against Russia. This also targeted an oil trader and two refineries in China and banks in Central Asia.

In addition, the EU confirmed that a decision had been taken on the rules of the transition to a complete ban on any Russian gas imports. This will take full effect at the end of 2027.

All these efforts are critical to increasing pressure on Russia and are long overdue. But their immediate effect is uncertain. Russia has responded with the usual performative defiance. It has tested a new nuclear-powered missile and carried out a readiness drill for the country’s nuclear forces, overseen directly by Putin.

More help needed

With Russia’s air and ground wars against Ukraine continuing unabated, the other major challenge for Kyiv’s allies is providing assistance.

Here, progress has stalled. The US continues to withhold permission for Ukraine to use long-range missiles against targets deep inside of Russia. The mooted supply of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine by the US has been scotched. Meeting with coalition leaders on Friday, Zelensky kept pressing for deep-strike weapons, stressing that when the US threatened to supply Tomahawks to Ukraine, Putin was willing to negotiate.

Even more pressing is the issue of how to cover Ukraine’s financial needs. Kyiv’s most recent estimate of the country’s unmet external financing needs for 2026-27 stands at US$60 billion (£45 billion).

At the European Council meeting on October 23, leaders reiterated their commitment to “continue to provide, in coordination with like-minded partners and allies, comprehensive political, financial, economic, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support to Ukraine and its people”. However, crucially, no agreement was reached on how the necessary funds would be mobilised.

There is strong support for using frozen Russian assets to assist Ukraine, including from the coalition of the willing and the US. A proposal to provide Ukraine with a loan secured by these frozen Russian assets has been around for some time.

It has not been finalised due to two major obstacles. The first was Ukraine’s refusal to accept EU conditions that while some of the money could be used to buy weapons, none of the funds should be spent on procuring them from the US. The second, more critical, issue was a demand from Belgium – where most of the frozen Russian assets are held at the Euroclear securities depository – for robust guarantees that the burden for any Russian litigation and retaliation be collectively shared by EU members.

Despite all the signalling from the EU’s leadership in the run-up to last week’s gathering in Brussels that these two major obstacles to approving the loan were being overcome, the meeting ended with EU leaders postponing a decision to their next meeting in December.

At the end of a week of concentrated attention on Russia’s war against Ukraine, the outcome was therefore a repetition of recent behaviour. The Trump administration flip-flopped and the coalition of the willing produced little more than a statement of intent to continue their support for Ukraine. The track record of Kyiv’s European partners to slow-walk the necessary goods for Ukraine’s defence continues. There’s mounting evidence suggesting that they will not stretch themselves to go beyond securing Ukraine’s immediate survival.

Unsurprisingly, a credible pathway to ending the war with a just and stable peace is still lacking.

Richard Whitman has received funding from the Economic and Research Council of the UK as a Senior Fellow of the UK in a Changing Europe initiative. He is a past recipient of grant funding from the British Academy of the UK, EU Erasmus+ and Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Senior Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), and an Academic Fellow of the European Policy Centre in Brussels. He is a past Associate Fellow and Head of the Europe Programme of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House).

Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

– ref. Ukraine: another week of diplomatic wrangling leaves Kyiv short of defensive options – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-another-week-of-diplomatic-wrangling-leaves-kyiv-short-of-defensive-options-268023

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ben L Murphy, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Liverpool

The UN’s top court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), demanded that Israel allow aid into Gaza in an advisory opinion on October 22. It held that Israel is in breach of its obligations as a UN member state by having failed to do so adequately over the past two years.

The opinion was requested ten months ago by the UN general assembly after Israel’s parliament banned the UN Relief and Works Agency (Unrwa) from operating in territories occupied by the country. Unrwa has long played a pivotal role in delivering humanitarian aid to Palestinians.

In its verdict, the ICJ unanimously reaffirmed that the use of starvation as a method of warfare is prohibited under international law. The court also ordered Israel, by ten votes to one, to agree to and facilitate humanitarian relief in Gaza provided by the UN and its entities.

This aspect of the opinion should be celebrated. The precarious ceasefire in Gaza has not been accompanied by a simultaneous influx of aid. Conditions of famine, destitution and death continue to define the day-to-day experience of those living in Gaza.

However, some observers will be sceptical about whether the ICJ’s advisory opinion will have any tangible impact. A collection of judicial and institutional pronouncements on the illegality of Israel’s conduct in Gaza over the past two years has fallen on deaf ears.

These include the ICJ’s January 2024 order for Israel to take all measures to prevent genocide in Gaza, which a recent UN human rights council commission of inquiry report concluded it is committing.

The International Criminal Court also has outstanding arrest warrants for the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant. Issued for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza, these warrants have not been enforced.

The ICJ’s recent opinion will be added to this list. Israel did not participate in the oral proceedings for the opinion, and in a post on social media immediately after the verdict, the country’s foreign ministry stated that it “categorically rejects” the court’s findings.

UN falling short

In its advisory opinion, the ICJ held that “Israel has an obligation to cooperate in good faith with the United Nations by providing every assistance in any action it takes”. Here, the court was referring to action by Unrwa to assist Palestinians in Gaza. But this statement should prompt consideration of other types of “action” the UN has failed to take over the past two years of war.

As the ICJ said in its recent verdict, self-determination for the Palestinian people should include the “right to an independent and sovereign state”. However, Palestine continues to be denied full UN membership – a key element of statehood.

In May 2024, a majority of states in the UN general assembly determined that Palestine qualified for membership in accordance with the UN charter. But, despite only nine states voting against the resolution from a total of 193, Palestine was not granted membership.

This was a result of the UN’s dysfunctional structure. The five permanent members of the UN security council (China, France, Russia, the UK and US), the organ that is tasked with maintaining international peace and security, have veto power to block a resolution from being adopted.

And as Israel’s strongest military and diplomatic backer, the US has used its veto power continuously to defend Israeli interests. As long as Israel effectively wields a proxy veto at the security council through its alliance with the US, the UN’s ability to take action in support of the Palestinian people will be restricted and this never-ending loop will continue.

Judicial and institutional pronouncements on Israel’s conduct can have a broader cumulative effect in the pursuit of the realisation of Palestinian self-determination. A timely pronouncement can also be an important rhetorical tool in the quest for concrete goals, such as the reopening of humanitarian routes in Gaza.

But it is important to be aware of the fact that the UN is not a neutral arbiter of rights and obligations. In its current form, which allows members of the security council to block resolutions based on their own national interests, it is complicit in the current humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.

Ben L Murphy 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. ICJ tells Israel to let UN aid flow into Gaza – but UN’s own failures throughout the war loom large – https://theconversation.com/icj-tells-israel-to-let-un-aid-flow-into-gaza-but-uns-own-failures-throughout-the-war-loom-large-268222

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rebecca Hamer, Research associate, Sheffield Hallam University

Two stories of abuse have repeatedly captured the nation’s attention. The first relates to Prince Andrew’s friendship with financier Jeffrey Epstein, even after Epstein was convicted for sex offences. The second is the group-based child sexual abuse in Rotherham, Rochdale and other cities.

Prince Andrew has come under mounting pressure over the posthumous publication of a memoir by Virginia Giuffre a victim of Epstein’s who also accused Andrew of abuse. In 2022, Andrew settled a civil sexual assault case brought by Giuffre, for an undisclosed sum.

At the same time, the victims of grooming gangs have accused the government of failing them by mishandling an inquiry into the crimes committed against them.

I work with survivors of childhood sexual abuse, including in Rotherham, and the services that support them. While it would be disingenuous to claim that all survivors’ experiences are the same, there are important similarities in these stories, as well as their abusers.

---

Read more:
How to make sure the new grooming gangs inquiry is the last

---

Their backgrounds may differ – wealthy financier or Pakistani taxi driver from Yorkshire – but sexual abusers of children, especially where group grooming is involved, share some traits.

In her memoir, Giuffre accused Andrew of being “entitled – as if he believed having sex with me was his birthright”.

Entitlement, underpinned by misogyny, and the othering and denigration of particular girls and women, is evident in many cases of child sexual abuse. Abusers may have close relationships with some women, but have a set of criteria – conscious or subconscious – that render the girls they abuse as “other”, and deserving of being exploited or used.

Another common thread is commodification of women and girls. Epstein trafficked underage girls via private jet to his island where he “entertained” other high-profile men. He leveraged his wealth and power to exploit girls to impress his peers.

Grooming victims in Rotherham and other cities in the UK were also trafficked, often by networks of taxi drivers. They were taken to dilapidated flats above takeaways, where they were also forced or coerced into sex with associates of men who had manipulated their way into being trusted by vulnerable girls.

Regardless of the sums involved or the nature of the currency (fiscal, kudos, business arrangements), abusers often view the women and girls they abuse as a means to improve their own personal lot.

That may be money changing hands, or a sense of brotherhood and respect from other powerful men. Investigations into Epstein have revealed fawning letters to him, allegedly written by high-profile politicians including Donald Trump and Peter Mandelson.

The legacy of trauma

All survivors of child sexual exploitation have suffered highly traumatic experiences in their formative years. This impacts their sense of who they are, what they are worth and can do, and their perception of other people.

It also affects their psychological health. PTSD is frequently misdiagnosed as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and other chronic mental health conditions. They may become further stigmatised and othered, feeling blamed for their abuse, as the symptoms of their trauma are treated as individual dysfunction.

Trauma shows itself in physical symptoms too – chronic fatigue and chronic pain, or affecting the heart, brain and nervous system. Many now-adult survivors I have spoken to have described the physical and psychological injuries that their experiences of abuse inflicted upon them. They have felt unable to leave the house, or injured themselves to try and overcome the physical flashbacks of their abuse.

When Giuffre died by suicide earlier this year, her family said: “In the end, the toll of abuse is so heavy that it became unbearable for Virginia to handle its weight.”

---

Read more:
Virginia Giuffre’s treatment in the media highlights the great consequences of accusing high profile men of abuse

---

The trauma of being dismissed

The UK government’s inquiry into grooming gangs now faces months of delays, after candidates to lead the inquiry pulled out, and multiple women resigned from the inquiry’s victims liaison panel.

It’s not surprising to see survivors questioning the validity of an inquiry overseen by professionals with backgrounds in the police and social work – organisations that they feel have abandoned them.

Survivors of childhood sexual abuse regularly describe feeling “gaslit”, diminished and silenced by people with more power than them. In a way, it is a replication of the trauma they experienced at the hands of predatory abusers in their childhood.

Abuse survivors also have different notions of justice, or what they want from speaking out. But whether it’s through an inquiry, the courts, campaigning or a memoir, survivors want to be heard and believed when they share their story.

Giuffre and the UK grooming gangs survivors have this in common, too. They have all been doubted, intimidated and abused for their bravery of speaking out.

Police are looking into claims that Prince Andrew asked his bodyguard to uncover information on Giuffre, although there is no suggestion that individual took any such action. But the Met reportedly did not investigate allegations against Andrew that were released as part of the Epstein files.

Many survivors in Rotherham had frequent contact with police, who viewed them as disruptive and problematic. Survivors were dismissed as “child prostitutes”, a grossly inaccurate term that blames the victim of child sexual exploitation. Grown men were referred to as their “boyfriends”, rather than identified as criminals and abusers.

Often, survivors feel let down by organisations whose duty it is to protect. Their hesitance to be represented by these same services again is understandable.

But there is a possibility for positive change. I have heard many stories of the enormous benefits of trauma-focused work, including physical and cognitive techniques to ground the mind and body in the present and to soothe the nervous system. Survivors value being supported by professionals who understand their experiences and the impact through a trauma-informed lens.

Survivors who have been able to access support like this describe being able to stand proud in their community, to speak up for themselves, set boundaries and recognise themselves as important, capable and worthy of respect.

Rebecca Hamer receives funding from Innovate UK for a pilot developing an equine based trauma-stabilisation pathway for women with substance use problems.

– ref. From grooming gangs to Virginia Giuffre, this is the common thread in abuse – https://theconversation.com/from-grooming-gangs-to-virginia-giuffre-this-is-the-common-thread-in-abuse-268153

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Juan Pablo Ferrero, Senior Lecturer in Latin American Politics, University of Bath

Javier Milei, Argentina’s self-styled anarcho-capitalist president, has secured a resounding victory in legislative midterm elections. Following a year marked by radical austerity, economic upheaval and political scandals, this outcome is nothing short of extraordinary.

Milei’s La Libertad Avanza coalition defied expectations to secure more than 40% of the nationwide vote, substantially outperforming the main opposition Fuerza Patria coalition’s roughly 32%. This triumph bolsters the president’s legislative power and, critically, positions him as a strong contender for reelection in 2027.

The elections were widely interpreted as a referendum on Milei’s tenure, which began in December 2023. His victory is a testament to his successful strategy of polarisation and his ability to present himself as the sole purveyor of hope and “redemption” amid prolonged economic stagnation and declining real incomes.

Yet the narrative of this win is also inextricably linked to a dramatic intervention by the US government to stabilise Argentina’s shaky economy. This intervention transformed a local legislative contest into a global geopolitical flashpoint.

Milei’s first year as president was characterised by a “chainsaw” approach to public spending, cutting tens of thousands of government jobs and freezing public investments. These measures were painful, contributing to business closures and job losses. But they also delivered tangible – albeit fragile – macroeconomic gains.

Annual inflation, which peaked at 289% in April 2024, was brought down to about 32% by October 2025. The country also achieved its first fiscal surplus in more than a decade. However, the more immediate electoral lifeline was the government’s intense focus on managing the price of the US dollar.

The longstanding instability of Argentina’s own currency, the peso, coupled with frequent high inflation has created a dual system where the peso is used for daily transactions there but the dollar is preferred for savings and larger purchases, like real estate.

And Milei’s administration has gone to great lengths to control the exchange rate, thereby engineering a temporary but palpable sense of stability just ahead of the polls. This stability was crucial for voters battered by volatility.

It also came at a high cost: a heavy reliance on Washington’s financial backing. As Argentina’s central bank reserves dwindled and a currency crisis loomed, the US government – under President Donald Trump – moved with speed to rescue the situation.

A US$20 billion (£15 billion) currency swap agreement between the US Treasury and Argentina’s central bank was formalised on October 20. This financial assistance, which was quickly followed by an additional announced facility of up to US$20 billion sourced from private banks and sovereign funds, was undeniably timed to shore up Milei’s position before the election.

Trump explicitly linked the continuation of this aid to a Milei victory, warning: “If he loses, we are not going to be generous with Argentina”. Milei’s win is a clear victory for his ideological ally in Washington, who championed the financial lifeline as a strategic move to support a “great philosophy” and “make Argentina great again”.

The US government’s overt and decisive intervention marks a shift not seen in Latin America since perhaps the cold war. It signals that Argentina, and Latin America more broadly, is back on the geopolitical chessboard.

For the US, this is less about ideological affinity and more about strategic resource competition. Latin America holds vast reserves of natural resources, including critical minerals such as lithium that are essential components of the global clean energy supply chain.

Washington’s support for Milei is a move to challenge China’s expanding economic and political foothold in the region. It ensures that a key resource provider and trade partner remains firmly within the US orbit. Milei is, in turn, keen to facilitate American investment in key sectors such as oil, gas and mining. These sectors are all central to his economic recovery plans.

A reckoning for the opposition

The election results have definitively confirmed a deep and persistent political polarisation in Argentina. The centre-left opposition’s traditional strategy – waiting for the incumbent’s austerity and scandals to generate discontent – failed to deliver a victory. This should force a period of fundamental soul-searching for the opposition.

But, in my opinion, Milei’s success is not simply the product of a “crisis of representation”, where traditional parties are failing. He instead appears to be a faithful representative of a new, reactive global society. This society is deeply sceptical of institutional mediation, preferring strong executive leaders and perceived “problem solvers” over consensus-based politics.

---

Read more:
Argentina: despite the scandals, Milei’s politics are here to stay

---

Milei’s radical experiment has survived its first great electoral test. His party, despite its limited base in the Argentine Congress, secured enough seats to be a formidable legislative force. This means it is now capable of upholding presidential vetoes and advancing critical tax and labour reforms.

He has also set a powerful new trajectory for the country – one that is tightly bound to the geopolitical strategies of the US, its indispensable new partner. As I have argued before, Milei’s politics are here to stay in Argentina and Latin America.

Juan Pablo Ferrero 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. Javier Milei’s victory in Argentina’s midterm elections is also a win for Trump – https://theconversation.com/javier-mileis-victory-in-argentinas-midterm-elections-is-also-a-win-for-trump-268339

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Phil Johnstone, Visiting Fellow, School of Global Studies, University of Sussex; University of Tartu; Utrecht University

Donald Trump’s recent visit to the UK saw a so-called “landmark partnership” on nuclear energy. London and Washington announced plans to build 20 small modular reactors and also develop microreactor technology – despite the fact no such plants have yet been built commercially anywhere in the world.

The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, promised these plans will deliver a “golden age” of nuclear energy that will also “drive down bills”. Yet the history of nuclear power has been decades of overhype, soaring costs and constant delays. Around the world, the trends point the wrong way.

So why the renewed excitement about going nuclear? The real reasons have less to do with energy security, or climate change – and far more to do with military power.

At first sight, the case may seem obvious. Nuclear supporters frame small modular reactors, or SMRs, as vital for cutting emissions, meeting rising demand for electricity from cars and data centres. With large nuclear plants now prohibitively expensive, smaller reactors are billed as an exciting new alternative.

But these days even the most optimistic industry analyses concede that nuclear – even SMRs – is unlikely to compete with renewables. One analysis in New Civil Engineer published earlier this year concluded that SMRs are “the most expensive source per kilowatt of electricity generated when compared with natural gas, traditional nuclear and renewables”.

Independent assessments – for instance by the formerly pro-nuclear Royal Society – find that 100% renewable systems outperform any energy system including nuclear on cost, flexibility and security. This helps explain why worldwide statistical analysis shows nuclear power is not generally linked to carbon emissions reductions, while renewables are.

Partly, the enthusiasm for SMRs can be explained by the loudest institutional voices tending to have formal pro-nuclear remits or interests: they include the industry itself and its suppliers, nuclear agencies, and governments with entrenched military nuclear programmes. For these interests, the only question is which kinds of nuclear reactors to develop, and how fast. They don’t wonder if we should build reactors in the first place: the need is seen as self-evident.

At least big nuclear reactors have benefited from economies of scale and decades of technological optimisation. Many SMR designs are just “powerpoint reactors”, existing only in slides and feasibility studies. Claims these unbuilt designs “will cost less” are speculative at best.

Investment markets know this. While financiers see SMR hype as a way to profit from billions in government subsidies, their own analyses are less enthusiastic about the technology itself.

So why then, all this attention to nuclear in general and smaller reactors in particular? There is clearly more to this than meets the eye.

The hidden link

The neglected factor is the military dependence on civil nuclear industries. Maintaining a nuclear armed navy or weapons programme requires constant access to generic reactor technologies, skilled workers and special materials. Without a civilian nuclear industry, military nuclear capabilities are significantly more challenging and costly to sustain.

Nuclear submarines are especially important here as they would very likely require national reactor industries and their supply chains even if there was no civil nuclear power. Barely affordable even vessel by vessel, nuclear submarines become even more expensive when the costs of this “submarine industrial base” is factored in.

Rolls-Royce is an important link here, as it already builds the UK’s submarine reactors and is set to build the newly announced civil SMRs. The company said openly in 2017 that a civil SMR programme would “relieve the Ministry of Defence of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability”.

Here, as emphasised by Nuclear Intelligence Weekly in 2020, the Rolls-Royce SMR programme has an important “symbiosis with UK military needs”. It is this dependency that allows military costs (in the words of a former executive with submarine builders BAE Systems), to be “masked” behind civilian programmes.

By funding civil nuclear projects, taxpayers and consumers cover military uses of nuclear power in subsidies and higher bills – without the added spending appearing in defence budgets.

When the UK government funded us to investigate the value of this transfer, we put it at around £5 billion per year in the UK alone. These costs are masked from public view, covered by revenues from higher electricity prices and the budgets of supposedly civilian government agencies.

This is not a conspiracy but a kind of political gravitational field. Once governments see nuclear weapons as a marker of global status, the funding and political support becomes self-perpetuating.

The result is a strange sort of circularity: nuclear power is justified by energy security and cost arguments that don’t stand up, but is in reality sustained for strategic reasons that remain unacknowledged.

A global pattern

The UK is not unique, though other nuclear powers are much more candid. US energy secretary Chris Wright described the US-UK nuclear deal as important for “securing nuclear supply chains across the Atlantic”. Around US$25 billion a year (£18.7 billion) flows from civil to military nuclear activity in the US.

Russia and China are both quite open about their own inseparable civil-military links. French president Emmanuel Macron put it clearly: “Without civilian nuclear, no military nuclear, without military nuclear, no civilian nuclear.”

Across these states, military nuclear capabilities are seen as a way to stay at the world’s “top table”. An end to their civilian programme would threaten not just jobs and energy, but their great power status.

The next frontier

Beyond submarines, the development of “microreactors” is opening up new military uses for nuclear power. Microreactors are even smaller and more experimental than SMRs. Though they can make profits by milking military procurement budgets, they make no sense from a commercial energy standpoint.

However, microreactors are seen as essential in US plans for battlefield power, space infrastructure and new “high energy” anti-drone and missile weaponry. Prepare to see them become ever more prominent in “civil” debates – precisely because they serve military goals.

Whatever view is taken of these military developments, it makes no sense to pretend they are unrelated to the civil nuclear sector. The real drivers of the recent US-UK nuclear agreement lie in military projection of force, not civilian power production. Yet this remains absent from most discussions of energy policy.

It is a crucial matter of democracy that there be honesty about what is really going on.

Phil Johnstone is a Visiting Professor at the University of Tartu, Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Utrecht, and Visiting Fellow at the University of Sussex. He is an unpaid member of the Sussex Energy Group, the Nuclear Consultation Group, a Patron of the Nuclear Information Service, and serves on the advisory board of the Medact Nuclear Weapons group.

He and Andy Stirling previously received funding from the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) for research that underpins some of the insights in this blog.

Andy Stirling is Emeritus Professor at the University of Sussex. Among many previous government and intergovernmental policy advisory appointments, he currently serves on the sociology sub-panel of the UK Research Excellence Framework 2029 and the Research Council for the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. He is an unpaid member of the Sussex Energy Group, the Nuclear Consultation Group, a Patron of the Nuclear Information Service and Nuclear Education Trust and a trustee for Greenpeace UK. He served in 2022-3 as an expert advisor for the official UK Government review of the DESNZ Nuclear Innovation Programme and (with Phil Johnstone) received funding from the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) for research that underpins some of the insights in this blog.

– ref. The hidden military pressures behind the new push for small nuclear reactors – https://theconversation.com/the-hidden-military-pressures-behind-the-new-push-for-small-nuclear-reactors-266301

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Glenn Fosbraey, Associate Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester

In the last ten years, Bruce Springsteen has cemented his status as a bona fide music legend.

In that time, he has won the Presidential Medal of Freedom, had a worldwide bestselling book been the subject of the acclaimed film Blinded By The Light (2019), and seen his studio albums continue to scale the higher reaches of the charts.

It’s as a live act, though, that Springsteen has flourished the most. Known for a relentless work ethic which has seen him touring almost non-stop since the early 1970s, Springsteen’s recent world tour has been his most lucrative, best-selling, and longest to date. On the back of all this, it’s no real surprise that “the boss” (as fans call him) has now been given the biopic treatment.

Bruce Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere stars Jeremy Allen White in the title role. The majority of the film focuses on the period between 1981 and 1982, where, in the aftermath of number one LP The River and a sold-out world tour, a disenchanted Springsteen channelled his inner turmoil into the songs that would eventually form his next album, Nebraska (1982).

As well as a lyrical shift from his earlier work, Nebraska was a sonic departure, recorded on a four-track tape machine in his bedroom. Released on September 30 1982, Nebraska was as stark and minimalist as any album from a major rock star. Coming at the peak of Springsteen’s commercial success so far, it was an enormous risk.

Devotees will undoubtedly appreciate the deep-dive into a cult favourite album. But for the casual fan or interested cinema-goer, Deliver Me from Nowhere will likely feel underwhelming.

Despite getting the thumbs up form The Boss himself, White never quite convinces in the role. While he does an admirable job depicting the gentler side of Springsteen, he lacks the jutting-jawed physical presence that so defines the star’s stage persona.

The film is interspersed with black and white flashbacks to Freehold New Jersey 1957, where an eight-year-old Springsteen struggled to get attention from his disengaged, hard-drinking father (played by Stephen Graham). The distant father trope is well-worn ground in the music biopic genre (see Bohemian Rhapsody, Rocket Man and Love and Mercy) and it falls to Graham to pull off the unenviable task of providing context for why our titular rock star is so fragile, broken and unstable.

That Graham manages to achieve this in minimal screen-time is one of his finest acting achievements yet. His nuanced performance brings a complexity to what, in other hands, may have merely been a paint-by-numbers character.

Sadly, others didn’t escape this fate. Springsteen’s friend Matt Delia (Harrison Gilbertson) is ridiculously underdeveloped. Sound engineer Mike Batlan (Paul Walter Hauser) is a glorified delivery man, first bringing the four-track recorder to Springsteen’s house, then the cassette it produces to manager Jon Landau (Jeremy Strong) and doing little else in between. Love interest Faye Romano (Odessa Young), meanwhile, seemingly only exists as a vehicle to deliver a series of cliché-heavy lines such as “I just wish you’d let me in” and “until you’re honest with yourself, you’ll never be honest with me”.

Sadly, the clichés aren’t exclusive to Faye. Towards the end of the film, Delia is saying goodbye to Springsteen after driving him to his new home in Los Angeles. As he turns to leave, Delia calls his name, Springsteen turns, Delia goes to say something but can’t seem to get the words out. Springsteen waits expectantly, Delia starts to speak, then thinks better of it and walks out. The implication, of course, is that Delia had something heartfelt to say, but for whatever reason was unable. Had I not seen the same technique used a hundred times already on screen (though never in real life), it might have been emotional.

Perhaps the biggest sledgehammer of a line, though, and one which very much laughs in the face of the old “show don’t tell” writing adage, comes when John Landau informs record executive Al Teller (David Krumholtz) that “it’s like Bruce is channelling something deeply personal”. Yes – we’ve been seeing that for the last hour, John, but thank you for the glaring neon arrow just in case we missed it.

In contrast, though, the depiction of depression is extremely well handled. The film manages to avoid stereotypes such as hysteria, violent outbursts, or sufferers who are represented as always sad or depressed (in real life depression is not necessarily a constant state of mind).

Depression is demonstrated by Springsteen letting people down, being unable to articulate his feelings, and withdrawing from social situations. And even if the film does fall short in many ways, the music is always there to rescue it. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who was unable to resist playing Nebraska on repeat the second I was outside.

For everyone but the most hardcore fans, skipping the film altogether might be the best option. Especially as the album that inspired it has been given the box-set treatment, with five-disc set Nebraska ’82: Expanded Edition released last week (a coincidence, I’m sure).

---

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.

Glenn Fosbraey 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. Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere is an underwhelming ode to ‘the boss’ – https://theconversation.com/springsteen-deliver-me-from-nowhere-is-an-underwhelming-ode-to-the-boss-268426

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Karl Pike, Lecturer in British Politics/Public Policy, School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London

If you blinked you may have missed it. Labour has a new deputy leader, Lucy Powell, who won the contest to replace Angela Rayner.

The position of deputy comes down to a vote of party members and affiliated supporters, and this contest was seen as an opportunity to give Keir Starmer’s leadership the thumbs up or thumbs down.

Members have gone for the latter, selecting Powell over Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, who was the Number 10 favourite for the role. In the end, Powell won 54% of the votes to Phillipson’s 46%.

Phillipson is popular in the party, and appears to have faced down grumbles from private schools about Labour’s VAT reforms. But polling and party mood had suggested Powell would win, even though Starmer had sacked her from his cabinet in September. This is proof both that politics is an unpredictable ride and that Labour’s internal politics is not currently blissful.

And although this was the first time since 2007 that Labour has held a contest for deputy leader while in office, turnout was just 16.6%.

Who is Lucy Powell?

Powell is no stranger to Labour leadership teams and of course only very recently served in Starmer’s government.

Having contested and lost the seat of Manchester Withington in the 2010 general election, Powell worked for Ed Miliband as Labour went into opposition, helping him establish himself as party leader.

A byelection in the Manchester Central constituency saw Powell selected and then elected for Labour in 2012, where she moved into shadow ministerial and shadow cabinet roles. Powell left the shadow cabinet in 2016, as Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership came under pressure from the parliamentary Labour party. She returned to frontbench Labour politics after Starmer became leader in 2020.

Based on her career so far, Powell is often characterised as being on the “soft left” of Labour – a label that could be used to describe many Labour party members, but which also obscures much variety, and different ideological perspectives. The “soft left” Powell is closer to the centre of that amorphous political grouping.

In choosing the candidate he did not favour, members are sending the prime minister a message that they, and many of those engaged with the party through trade unions, are not feeling motivated by the government’s performance – to say the least.

The deputy leader can play an important role within the parliamentary Labour party. They have a seat on the party’s National Executive Committee and are often involved in the party’s campaign machinery. They can act as a sounding board for MPs wanting to express views about political strategy, policy direction and legislative business.

Powell, who served as leader of the House of Commons in Starmer’s cabinet, already has experience of this kind of role. Her new role is simultaneously more formal and informal than her previous job.

As the elected deputy leader, Powell clearly has a legitimate role in discussing Labour’s ups and downs, privately and publicly. But from a governing perspective, the new deputy leader is outside of the cabinet and formal government decision-making – at least for now. This could be a recipe for further instability – and that was the argument against Powell’s candidacy during the contest.

That being said, Powell is experienced and has shown loyalty to the party. As the old adage goes, divided parties don’t win elections, and Powell will not want to make things worse for Labour.

What next?

Labour is in the doldrums. Losing the Caerphilly Senedd by-election was a sign that next year’s elections (which include elections to the Welsh and Scottish parliaments, as well as elections in England) may be very bad for Labour – meaning Starmer will come in for serious criticism.

---

Read more:
Plaid Cymru’s staggeringly large victory in Caerphilly is a warning to both Labour and Reform

---

He had already faced speculation about his position earlier in the autumn, including Manchester mayor Andy Burnham’s positioning prior to and during the party conference season. This demonstrated the unease felt after Labour’s first year.

Powell was right to dismiss the narrative connecting her candidacy to Burnham. The new deputy leader will instead be someone listened to in any analysis of Starmer’s leadership, particularly after the elections in 2026.

One big thing has not changed: Labour’s difficulty governing, stemming from Starmer’s cautious and ideologically confusing leadership. The next big political challenge to face is the budget, due to be delivered by Rachel Reeves on November 26.

The chancellor is in a difficult position, at least in part because Labour painted itself into a corner on tax policy before the 2024 general election.

Governing in these tumultuous times was always going to be difficult for Labour – but the leadership’s strategy has undoubtedly made it harder. This deputy leadership election may be looked back upon as a sign that the Labour party as a whole started to rethink its approach.

Karl Pike has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. He is a member of the Labour Party and before becoming an academic was a political advisor for the Labour Party.

– ref. Lucy Powell becomes Labour’s deputy leader – what that means for the party and Keir Starmer – https://theconversation.com/lucy-powell-becomes-labours-deputy-leader-what-that-means-for-the-party-and-keir-starmer-268410

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Louis Bayman, Associate Professor in Department of Film Studies, University of Southampton

Horror has always helped us establish the boundaries of acceptability by giving a name and shape to what transgresses them. Much of what constitutes horror stems from childhood, a time when boundaries and ideas of transgression are first being set.

Children can often encounter the world as a frightening place, full of unseen, mysterious powers. Any child who has been told that the monsters under the bed aren’t real knows just how little that reassurance helps their very real sense of fear.

---

Read more:
Scary stories for kids: Watership Down made me aware of my mortality at age four

---

It is the adult attitude to monsters that is harder to understand. As a society, we largely no longer believe in sprites and demons. However, we still fear the possible bad influence they could have on children’s minds. The 1984 film Gremlins is a good example of this.

Gremlins is about a young man who receives a new pet for Christmas. Billy’s father hasn’t bought him a cat or a dog but a cute little creature known as a mogwai, which he procured from a mysterious seller in Chinatown. Billy, who names the mogwai Gizmo, just has to follow three essential rules: do not expose him to light, he must be kept away from water, and, most important of all, he must never be fed after midnight.

---

This article is part of a series of expert recommendations of spooky stories – on screen and in print – for brave young souls. From the surprisingly dark depths of Watership Down to Tim Burton’s delightfully eerie kid-friendly films, there’s a whole haunted world out there just waiting for kids to explore. Dare to dive in here.

---

Gizmo is cute. He has big round eyes and chubby cheeks and a bashful smile that looks up expectantly at Billy, as if Billy is the centre of his universe. He babbles but can’t speak, snuggles softly and plays. Gizmo is, in other words, a representation of a child.

Billy spills water on Gizmo and finds out that this breeds a litter of littler mogwais. The more rambunctious of the new litter, Stripe, manages to trick Billy into feeding them after midnight, at which point they form into cocoons and then hatch into gremlins.

Gremlins are violent, sadistic, destructive pleasure-seekers, and their principle pleasure is mayhem. They have teeth and claws and scaly skin, and eyes that look with gleeful hatred at those who get in their way. Gremlins are, in other ways, also a representation of a child.

The psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud discussed the roots of the uncanny in the familiar, something that is altered just enough to become horrific. A pet, a toy, a bedroom at night, a child, have a comforting familiarity. But they are also classic sources of terror.

We are not scared of that which is different from us; we are scared of what is close to us – something that we thought was familiar, that is suddenly made strange.

What could be more familiar and yet more strange than a child? At once, both an idealised figure of helpless innocence and an unrelenting force of energetic indiscipline, a child is the most deeply human and the most deeply alien of creatures.

The Gremlins destroy Billy’s house, swing from the lampshades and take his mother hostage, all with the television constantly on. The scenario is surely familiar to many a parent, even more so given that the film takes place at Christmas.

Through various ever more ingenious methods – you may never look at a food blender the same way again – Billy, his mother, and his co-worker Kate (who is traumatised by Christmas after her father broke his neck trying to descend a chimney), manage to kill the gremlins off. The owner of the Chinatown emporium comes back to reclaim the mogwai (the word is Chinese for “evil spirit”), but not before chiding the family, and westerners in general, for their inability to take care of nature.

The film suggests that various rules have been transgressed. Our crazed desire to accumulate ever more things is done without thinking of the consequences. The films also poses the question about the limits of knowledge.

When Billy takes his new pet to school his teacher wants to experiment on it, a Gothic figure of the amoral scientist that goes back at least to Frankenstein. At the same time, the gremlins rampaging around the American suburb clearly reference moral panics over immigrants.

The discovery of the mogwai in Chinatown draws on a long tradition of orientalist fantasies of a magical, exotic but dangerous East, grafted onto a more modern association of east Asia with cheaply manufactured consumer goods.

The violence of Gremlins led American theatres to introduce a special PG-13 certificate. Here in the UK, I saw it in the cinema, aged five. I am not sure it was the children’s film my mother expected when she got me a ticket. But I loved it – and I think your kids will love it too.

Gremlins is suitable for children aged 13+

---

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.

---

Louis Bayman 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. Scary stories for kids: Gremlins and the terror of normal, even cute, things becoming horrific – https://theconversation.com/scary-stories-for-kids-gremlins-and-the-terror-of-normal-even-cute-things-becoming-horrific-267788