Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicholas Vincent, Professor of Medieval History, University of East Anglia

In his speech to Congress during a trip to the US to mark the country’s 250th anniversary, King Charles made repeated references to Magna Carta, the medieval English charter that laid the foundations for the modern rule of law. Dating back to 1215, Magna Carta also established for the first time that the monarch was not above the law. Charles used his speech to reference the common Anglo-American tradition of law, and of how the charter has been cited in more than 160 US judgments of the US Supreme Court.

It was notable that the king chose to cite this ancient charter, which stands as a symbol of protecting freedom and guarding against tyranny, at such a tricky moment for US-UK relations. Perhaps not surprisingly in the context of an erratic and controversial US president, the remarks from the king were well received by parts of the audience.

In fact, Charles enjoyed a standing ovation when he stated that Magna Carta was the very “foundation of the principal that executive power is subject to checks and balances”. In other words, it serves as the basis for the rule of law.

Charles is only the third ruling British monarch to visit the US. But during all three visits, Magna Carta has been trumpeted in support of a supposedly very special alliance. King George VI, Charles’ grandfather, began this in 1939. Back then, he visited the New York World Fair where Lincoln Cathedral’s original Magna Carta of 1215 was on display as the centrepiece of the British pavilion.

---

Read more:
How King Charles charmed the US while taking digs at Trump

---

War broke out that same year, and so Lincoln’s Magna Carta became stranded in the US. It was guarded in the gold depository at Fort Knox, Kentucky, until it could be returned to England in 1946.

At a low point in British fortunes following both the fall of France and the Blitz, in the summer of 1941, prime minister Winston Churchill even considered gifting it to the American people. Had he done so, this would have served as a reminder of America’s responsibilities to war-torn Europe.

In 1976, when Charles’ mother, Queen Elizabeth II, visited Washington for the bicentenary of American independence, there was again talk – not least from the British prime minister Harold Wilson – of gifting a Magna Carta to the US.

In the end, this was resolved by the presentation of a replica crafted in gold and enamel (which is now somewhat sheepishly displayed in the crypt of the US Capitol).

Legacy in US statute

In all of this, Magna Carta for many Americans remains an icon of the rule of law, or what in the US is called “due process”. Where only four of the charter’s original 60 clauses are still operative under English law, the entire text was incorporated in the statute books of no less than 17 US states, beginning with South Carolina in 1836 and ending with North Dakota in 1943.

Images of England’s King John presenting Magna Carta to his barons are carved or painted in many state capitols or court houses, including on the vast bronze doors of the Supreme Court building in Washington.

The US National Archives (thanks to a long-term loan), and Harvard Law School both possess originals of the English charter. That of the National Archives is via a reissue of 1297, sold to the presidential candidate Ross Perot in 1984, while Harvard’s is from a 1300 reissue, purchased in 1946 as a mere “copy” for US$27.50 (around £7 at the time). This was reauthenticated in 2025 as a lost (and therefore extremely valuable) original.

And in the UK, an acre of Runnymede in England, where Magna Carta was sealed, was granted to the American people in perpetuity in 1965. This was done both in honour of a shared respect for the principle of liberty, and as a memorial to President John F. Kennedy, assassinated in 1963.

Of course, there are aspects of this story that belong more to the realm of myth than reality. For instance, of Magna Carta’s many appearances in US supreme court judgments, a surprising number cite it not as a touchstone of liberty or the rights of man, but in defence of commercial or corporate privilege.

Even so, the standing ovation for King Charles and his remarks about checks and balances suggest that Magna Carta remains a potent symbol. In what was widely received as a pitch-perfect speech, the king reminded the land of the free that the price of US (or indeed UK) freedom is not only eternal vigilance, but a healthy respect for the shared Anglo-American past.

Nicholas Vincent 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. ‘Executive power is subject to checks and balances’: why King Charles cited Magna Carta in the US Congress – https://theconversation.com/executive-power-is-subject-to-checks-and-balances-why-king-charles-cited-magna-carta-in-the-us-congress-281887

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Eliza Bechtold, Programmes Manager and Research Fellow, the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford

The Trump administration has called on TV network ABC to “take a stand” after a joke from its late night comedy host Jimmy Kimmel offended the US president and first lady.

Two days before the White House Correpondents’ dinner on April 25, Kimmel broadcast what he said was a “roast” of the Trump administration. Roasts are typically quite savage comedic attacks which have become a traditional part of the dinner.

Trump, who was famously the target of jokes from former president, Barack Obama, at a dinner in 2011, had never attended the dinner while in office. This year he opted to attend, but the comedian’s spot was taken by what was described as a “mentalist”.

So Kimmel said he decided to supply the roast on his show as an “all-American” version of the Correspondents’ Dinner. In what he said was a joke about the 24-year age difference between the couple, he described Melania Trump as “having a glow like an expectant widow”. But after a would-be assassin tried to launch a murderous attack two days later at the dinner, the Trumps have demanded his sacking.

“Enough is enough. It is time for ABC to take a stand. How many times will ABC’s leadership enable Kimmel’s atrocious behaviour at the expense of our community,” Melania Trump wrote in a post on X.

But it appears that ABC, a subsidiary of Disney, is instead standing by Kimmel, who has not been taken off air, in contrast to an episode in September 2025 when Kimmel was suspended after comments he made following the death of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk, a close friend of the Trumps. After a public outcry, ABC relented and restored Kimmel’s show.

In response, Brendan Carr, the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has brought forward a review of ABC’s station licences, which were previously not scheduled until 2028 or later. Carr’s actions follow a press conference at the White House on April 26 at which press secretary Karoline Leavitt said coverage critical of Trump, including from his Democrat opponents, was responsible for the rise in political violence in the US by creating what she called a “leftwing cult of hatred”.

These examples highlight the politicisation of “free speech” by the Trump administration as a cudgel to silence disfavoured viewpoints under the guise protecting the public from harm.

First amendment protection for free speech

But these political debates are becoming increasingly distanced from the first amendment. That is, the interpretation of the first amendment by the Supreme Court and the protections it provides to individuals and entities, including media outlets and broadcast companies, from government interference. The wider this gulf becomes, the greater the space between the principles underlying the expansive protections afforded to speech in the US and the public’s understanding of the democratic principles that underpin these protections.

This is more important than ever in the Trump era. Actions taken by the administration to target broadcast networks and individuals for political speech are precisely what the first amendment protects against. It was designed, among other things, to protect individuals, entities and the press from government interference by creating an open marketplace in which ideas compete freely.

This is particularly true for dissenting political speech, which is the core of the first amendment. This explains why government interference with speech based on “the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker” – known as “viewpoint discrimination” – is expressly prohibited.

Additionally, whether and to what extent speech is offensive is irrelevant to the protection it enjoys. When it comes to the value of public debate, the first amendment is not neutral. Indeed, as a Supreme Court judgment, Baumgartner v. United States (1944) found: “One of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures.” Moreover a more recent judgment, Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988), found that “robust political debate” is expressly encouraged, given that such debate “is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office”.

Importantly, the Supreme Court found in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) that such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate and that public figures as well as public officials will be subjected to “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks”.

---

Read more:
New York Times v Sullivan: the 60-year old Supreme Court judgment that press freedom depends on in Trump era

---

The motive of the speaker is also irrelevant, as the Supreme Court held in Hustler v Falwell that while a “bad motive” may be deemed controlling for tort liability and in other areas of the law, “the first amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures”.

Stakes couldn’t be higher

By expressly linking Democrat criticisms of the president, and pointed critiques (however off-colour) from Kimmel and his fellow political satirists to an upsurge in political violence, the Trump administration is trying to silence criticism of its actions. But it’s also clear that this behaviour is precisely what the first amendment prohibits.

Ironically, the media often portrays these episodes as “feuds” between Trump and his critics.

But when viewed through the lens of the first amendment and its core values in this context, the stakes are much higher. These episodes constitute an effort to wrest control of public discourse by interfering in the marketplace of ideas in order silence those critical of the government.

And history tells us that a government that can silence its critics often does so in pursuit of unchecked power. Viewed through this lens, perhaps the greatest threat to American democracy is the government itself.

Eliza Bechtold 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. Trump uses assassination attempt to justify his assault on first amendment rights to free speech – https://theconversation.com/trump-uses-assassination-attempt-to-justify-his-assault-on-first-amendment-rights-to-free-speech-281757

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Trudy Meehan, Lecturer, Centre for Positive Psychology and Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences

When a man stabbed Jewish people in Golders Green, London, in what police declared a terrorist incident, the story spread fast – through news alerts, social media and the whispered conversations of anxious adults. When this happens, children notice.

Whether they catch a fragment of a TV bulletin, overhear a parent on the phone, or simply sense that something has shifted in the atmosphere at home, the news has a way of reaching them before they are ready. The question isn’t really whether to talk to children about violence and fear; it’s how.

First, it’s important to know that children have the resilience and capacity to process difficult topics, but bear in mind that this needs to happen in a supportive environment.

Start with safety. Ensure your child feels relaxed and secure. Safety comes from routines, keeping daily rhythms and practising rituals that remind everyone you are together and safe – for example, a nighttime story or song, a special time on the couch after dinner.

Your capacity to deal with issues like violence and fear is the most important factor in contributing to your child feeling safe during these conversations. If you feel overwhelmed or anxious, wait until you feel calmer and more grounded, or have someone to support you with the conversation.

Some families – particularly those who face racism or other forms of discrimination – will already be familiar with these conversations. But if this is new to you, the main thing to do is to be honest and clear. Be direct and specific. Avoid metaphors and euphemisms and vague ideas like “bad people”.

Adjust your language to the child’s age, but don’t overthink it. Simply pause often, ask questions, and watch their face for confusion.

Children don’t stay afraid for long. They move in and out of difficult feelings quickly, which is why short, repeated conversations work better than one big, serious talk.

Come back to them to check understanding and listen for misunderstandings. Ask them if they have any questions. And don’t be surprised if the child looks particularly bored or disinterested. Children prefer delight and joy and play rather than serious adult conversations. It doesn’t mean they are not listening or appreciating the explanation, it just means their priorities are elsewhere – and that’s a good thing.

Keeping children grounded amid fear

Limit media exposure and try to avoid talking about scary events around them – they are always listening and there’s huge room for misunderstanding when they hear rather than take part in conversations.

Research shows that if children are exposed to media and talk about fearful events, that it’s important what they hear is mediated through a supportive adult who can explain the content appropriately. They can pick up on the signs of fear and anxiety from adults, particularly in times of uncertainty, even if they can’t fully understand the words in the conversation.

Follow your child’s lead. Your job is to open the door. They decide whether to walk through it and when to leave. Don’t mistake silence for shutdown. Children often process fear through movement, play, singing, dancing, making and even breaking things.

It’s OK to say “I don’t know” to questions you can’t answer. And it’s OK to say: “I know the answer, but it’s too much information for you at your age, I’ll tell you a little bit now and explain more when I think you are old enough.”

Most important of all, for you and your child, look at your circle of safety. Remind your child they are safe here and now with you, that there is a community that you live in and link with who are there to support you and keep you safe. Focus on hope and efficacy and on what can we do right now for the future we want.

Trudy Meehan 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. How to talk to children when terrorist attacks and violence dominate the news – https://theconversation.com/how-to-talk-to-children-when-terrorist-attacks-and-violence-dominate-the-news-281879

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sarah Gerson, Lecturer in Developmental & Health Psychology, Cardiff University

What’s the point of play? Is it simply a way to keep children occupied, or something more? For some, it’s about learning literacy and numeracy. For others, it’s how friendships form and relationships deepen. But it can be all of these at once, and more.

Most parents recognise that play matters. But there’s less agreement on what kind of play is best. Should children be guided towards activities designed to build specific skills, like sports for coordination, or construction for maths and engineering? Or should the child’s own interests lead the way, regardless of perceived educational value?

Our research focuses on a type of play often dismissed as “just for fun” – playing with dolls. Across a series of studies, we found that doll play can help children understand other people’s thoughts and feelings. This is a skill that underpins social interaction throughout life.

There is pressure on parents to create the “right” environment for development, often filled with toys that promise clear educational outcomes. STEM-focused toys (science, technology, engineering and maths), in particular, are widely seen as beneficial for learning. Doll play, on the other hand, can be viewed as having little educational benefit.

Our findings challenge that assumption.

More than make-believe

When playing with dolls, children often play out scenes between characters. These may seem simple on the surface but could present opportunities for the child to develop social and emotional skills.

As parents, it seems obvious that playmates are important for building and learning about relationships and other people, and recognising others’ emotions (empathy). But what if children can develop these skills even when playing alone?

Previous studies have found that children who engage more in pretend play tend to have stronger social understanding and empathy. Earlier studies, however, didn’t often use controlled methods to separate out the different factors linking pretend play and social understanding.

So, we set out to test this more directly. We worked with children aged four to eight, assessing their ability to understand that others can hold different beliefs and desires to their own. This is an important milestone in social development. If children recognise that their own mental states may vary from others, this should help them better understand other people and know how to interact with them.

After that initial assessment session, children were randomly assigned either a set of dolls or a tablet with open-ended creative games. They were asked to play several times a week, with parents logging how and when play occurred. We didn’t instruct children how to play because we wanted to understand their natural behaviour.

---

Read more:
How realistic is Mattel’s new autistic Barbie?

---

After approximately six weeks, both sets of children came back and again completed the task about understanding others’ mental states. We found that the children who had been assigned dolls to play with, rather than tablets, showed a greater improvement in their understanding of others’ mental states during the intervening period.

The findings suggest that doll play can actively support the development of social understanding. This is consistent with prior research of ours showing that areas of the brain linked to social processing are activated during doll play, and that children use more language about thoughts and feelings when playing with dolls than when using tablets.

Why it matters beyond childhood

For parents, the message is reassuring – playing with dolls lets children practice skills that they can also use when playing with playmates, like understanding others, anticipating behaviour and responding appropriately.

These abilities matter far beyond childhood. They help us collaborate, resolve conflicts and navigate relationships. In a world that often feels increasingly divided, the capacity to see things from another person’s perspective is not just useful – it’s essential.

Sarah Gerson received funding for this project from Mattel Inc.

Ross E Vanderwert received funding from Mattel for this research.

Salim Hashmi received funding for this research from Mattel Inc.

– ref. Dolls beat screens for building children’s social skills, study finds – https://theconversation.com/dolls-beat-screens-for-building-childrens-social-skills-study-finds-280330

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David B Roberts, Associate Professor, School of Security Studies, King’s College London

Two months into the Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz is still mostly shut. Vessel traffic is running at a fraction of pre-war levels, with the patchwork of ceasefires, blockades and re-closures since February 28 not restoring confidence on the bridge of any tanker.

Hormuz has long been understood as one of the world’s central trade chokepoints. It normally carries around 20 million barrels of crude and oil products each day, as well as roughly a fifth of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. A third of the world’s helium and a similar amount of the urea that ends up as fertiliser also pass through the strait.

Plans and projects to diversify away from Hormuz have been on drawing boards for decades, and those workarounds are now being stress-tested as never before. The bypass infrastructure is doing roughly what architects had hoped, providing around 3.5 million barrels to 5.5 million barrels a day of crude capacity.

But this is still nowhere near enough.

Hormuz workarounds

The most important pipeline on the planet right now runs across Saudi Arabia. The East-West Pipeline – also known as Petroline – was built in the 1980s during the original Tanker war, when Iran and Iraq attacked merchant vessels in the Gulf as part of their wider conflict.

The pipeline’s capacity was expanded to a 7 million barrel emergency ceiling in 2019. However, the loading terminals in the city of Yanbu on Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea coast were never designed to carry this much oil this fast, and analysts tracking tanker traffic estimate that less oil is currently flowing through the pipeline than its theoretical ceiling.

From Yanbu, oil bound for Europe still has to cross Egypt via the Sumed pipeline, which has a capacity of just 2.5 million barrels per day. Although oil flows through this pipeline have surged by 150% since the start of the war, its comparatively small capacity remains a binding constraint on European supply.

Iran noticed the geoeconomic importance of Petroline and has targeted it accordingly. An Iranian drone strike on a pumping station in April knocked 700,000 barrels a day offline. Saudi Aramco, the operator, had the line back at full capacity within three days. While the repair time is reassuring, the fact of the strike is not.

The other half of the Gulf bypass story runs through the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline (Adcop) goes from Habshan to Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman side of the country. With a capacity of just under 2 million barrels per day, Adcop is the only major bypass that exits the Gulf directly into the Indian Ocean.

But as with Petroline, it has been targeted during the war. Iranian drone strikes on Fujairah on March 3, 14 and 16 set storage tanks on fire and suspended loadings. While Adcop offers some diversification for the UAE, it does not solve the targeting problem.

The situation is worse for the Gulf region’s other big oil producers. Iraq’s 3.4 million barrels per day of pre-war crude exports went almost entirely through the southern port city of Basra and the Strait of Hormuz.

There is one northern pipeline, connecting oil fields in Kirkuk to Ceyhan in Turkey. This pipeline was reopened in September 2025 after a two-and-a-half-year halt, with flows ramped up to 250,000 barrels a day in March. But this volume pales in comparison to what Iraq has lost.

Kuwait has it worse still. Pre-war crude exports ran at around 2 million barrels per day, with every barrel exiting through Hormuz. Kuwait has no pipeline alternative. Kuwait Petroleum Corporation declared force majeure in March, temporarily allowing it to suspend its obligations to meet delivery contracts.

This was extended on April 20, with the oil company saying it could not meet contractual obligations even if Hormuz reopened. Overcoming the damage that has been inflicted on Kuwait’s production base – and then ramping up production – will take months.

Qatar’s vulnerability is a different shape. Its pre-war crude exports were smaller than its Gulf neigbours, at around 0.6 million barrels per day. These exports all left Qatar via the strait. For Qatar, the story is gas. Its 77 million tonne LNG capacity at Ras Laffan is the largest in the world, supplying about 19% of global LNG trade. There is no alternative to shipping this gas through Hormuz.

Iran itself has built a Hormuz bypass: a 1,000-kilometre pipeline from Goreh at the head of the Gulf to a terminal at Jask on the Gulf of Oman. It is designed for 1 million barrels per day. But in practice, sanctions and unfinished terminal infrastructure have kept actual throughput at a fraction of design.

The US Energy Information Administration estimated that, in summer 2024, under 70,000 barrels per day were flowing through the pipeline. Loadings stopped altogether that September. According to Kpler, which provides real-time data on global shipping movements, only a single tanker – around two million barrels – has loaded at Jask in the war so far.

A call for more pipes in the Gulf, as there have been since the war began, is understandable. But it is no answer. Replicating Hormuz in pipelines would cost hundreds of billions of US dollars and a decade of construction. And at the end of it, new pipelines and terminals at Yanbu, Fujairah and wherever else would be no harder to reach with a drone than the old ones.

David B Roberts 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. What alternatives do Gulf states have to the Strait of Hormuz? – https://theconversation.com/what-alternatives-do-gulf-states-have-to-the-strait-of-hormuz-281805

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

Pope Leo’s words on Palm Sunday were pointed. “Jesus does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war”, he said during an address at the Vatican.

A few days later in early April, when Timothy Broglio, the archbishop for US military services, was asked on CBS’s Face the Nation if the Iran war is a “just war” in the tradition of the Catholic church, he said: “It is not. While there was a threat with nuclear arms, it’s compensating for a threat before the threat is actually realised.”

US Vice President JD Vance – a recent convert to Catholicism – and Mike Johnson, speaker of the House, pushed back, arguing that the conflict does fit within the church’s just war tradition.

Just war theory, first articulated by St Augustine in the fifth century, outlines the church’s moral guidelines for political and military leaders to consider before choosing to go to war. But it’s not static, and the church’s own position has become more restrictive in recent years.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, Jerry Powers, the director of Catholic Peace Building Studies at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, explains how the Catholic church’s just war tradition evolved and the influence it’s had on US military thinking. Powers was a senior advisor on international policy for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops during the Iraq war, and was involved in efforts to persuade the Bush administration not to invade.

He sets out the difficulty now facing Catholics serving in the US military, whose archbishop has now spoken out against the war they’re being asked to fight. “It puts military officers and especially soldiers in a real conundrum,” says Powers. “A soldier has no choice but to obey orders, and if you disobey orders you could very serious repercussions. The officer question is a different one because officers are more senior, and I think officers have to just resign their commission if at some point, they think this is an immoral war.”

Listen to the interview with Jerry Powers on The Conversation Weekly podcast. This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Katie Flood and Mend Mariwany and the executive producer was Gemma Ware. Mixing by Eleanor Brezzi and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Newsclips in this episode from CB S News, AP Archive, BBC, CBS Sunday Morning, ABC News, Rome Reports, KREM 2 News, MS NOW and WUSA 9.

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. A transcript of this episode is available via the Apple Podcasts or Spotify apps.

Gerard F. Powers received a grant from the Nuclear Threat Initiative that helped support the Catholic Peacebuilding Network’s Project on Revitalizing Catholic Engagement on Nuclear Disarmament. He is an expert consultant (unpaid) to the Holy See Mission to the UN. From 1987-2004, Powers was a senior advisor on international policy for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

– ref. What is a just war? Inside the war of words between the Trump administration and the Catholic church​ – https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-just-war-inside-the-war-of-words-between-the-trump-administration-and-the-catholic-church-281788

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joey Baxter, PhD Candidate in Biosciences, University of Sheffield

To mark International Dawn Chorus day we’ve asked wildlife experts to make their case for why their favourite songbird deserves your vote. Cast your vote in the poll at the end of the article and let us know why in the comments. We hope their words will inspire you to step outside and soak up some birdsong this spring.

Song thrush

Championed by Cannelle Tassin de Montaigu, Research Fellow in Ecology and Evolution, University of Sussex

When people talk about the UK’s best bird songs they often go straight for the big names – loud, dramatic performers that grab your attention. But quietly in the background is the song thrush, a bird whose song is far more impressive than it first appears.

What sets the song thrush apart is not volume or flair, but structure. Its song is built from short, clear phrases, each repeated two or three times before moving on. It’s as if the bird is politely checking that its audience is paying attention. In a dawn chorus that often feels a bit chaotic, there’s something refreshingly organised about it. It’s a bird that’s actually thought things through.

It might not have the dramatic flair of the common nightingale, and it’s less showy than some of the usual favourites. There are no soaring crescendos or dramatic flourishes. But that’s part of its charm. The song is neat, rhythmic and surprisingly memorable once you start listening for it.

In the early morning soundscape, where many birds seem determined to out-sing one another, the song thrush isn’t trying to steal the spotlight. It just quietly does its thing, and does it very well. Underrated? Definitely. Worth your vote? I’d say so.

Robin

Championed by Judith Lock, Principal Teaching Fellow in Ecology and Evolution University of Southampton

The European robin is a delightfully common sight in gardens. You will very likely have heard the characteristic “tic”, followed by a tuneful verse lasting a few seconds. In noisy urban environments they sing louder, less complex songs, in order to be heard.

The male robins use their spring song (January to June) to signal their quality to females, then forming breeding pairs, and to signal competitive ability to other males. The spring song lasts one to three seconds, composed of four to six short motifs. They have an impressive repertoire of about 1,300 motifs, indicating that song is the particularly important for robins, in comparison to birds that rely more on colourful plumage or behavioural displays to communicate with each other.

Most birds sing mainly in the morning but robins sing all day. People often mistake their lovely evening song for a nightingale’s. Constant territory defence from non-migrating robins means that the robin song is a year-round soundtrack too. From July to December, both males and females sing the autumn song, of higher-pitched long, descending notes, with interspersed warbles. This song is to defend their individual winter territories. This indicates that song first evolved first in songbirds to ensure survival, before it became a signal used by males for reproduction. Each robin’s song is dynamic, constantly changing in response to the condition and age of the bird, and their rival.

Great tit

Championed by Josh Firth, Associate Professor of Behavioural Ecology, University of Leeds

Its song may not be as flashy as the nightingale or as poetically melancholy as the blackbird. But scientists have been taught so much by the great tit’s song, heard across British habitats from ancient woodlands to urban gardens. This spring marks 80 continuous years of UK-based scientists studying great tits at Wytham Woods, Oxford, the world’s longest-running study of individually-marked animals.

The unique dataset includes a family tree totaling over 100,000 great tits, with some birds’ lineages traceable back 37 generations. Early research on
Wytham’s great tits during 1970s-1980s resulted in some the first studies to inform the scientific world about how bird song can help males find mates and defend territories, how larger song repertoires can bring more reproductive success, and how young birds learn these repertoires from neighbours (not just their fathers).

And a pioneering study published in 1987 taught us how male great tit song even tracks female fertility, increasing their singing efforts as their female partner’s egg-laying period approaches, and then quietening after she starts laying. Modern technological advances are allowing insight into the hidden meaning embedded in great tits’ songs. In-depth processing of 109,000 recordings of great tit songs has revealed how each bird’s melody tells the story of their own identity as well as that of their local culture and social circles.

A great tit’s age also affects their song: older males keep singing rarer, fading song types while younger birds adopt newer ones. So, Britain’s greatest song belongs to the great tit’s “teacher-teacher” call, for all it has taught us, and for all we have left to learn.

Chaffinch

Championed by Joey Baxter, PhD Candidate in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Sheffield

Why change a winning formula? As far as I’m concerned, the chaffinch sings the biggest banger that UK birds have to offer. While the blackcap attempts to impress with ostentatious bells and whistles, the chaffinch keeps things simple with a catchy riff. Where the starling goes for quantity and novelty, with a frankly plagiaristic repertoire of mimicry, the chaffinch goes for quality, singing proudly in the knowledge that it is delivering a true earworm.

Bubbling trills accelerate before tumbling downwards, slowing to rich watery chirps and finishing with the final flourish. This jaunty lick, the real hook of the song, is often punctuated by an upward inflection at its end, the rising intonation giving it the air of an unanswered question. The chaffinch’s song has rhythm, it has melody, and it’s instantly recognisable. It possesses the wisdom that sometimes it is better not to do everything, but to do one thing well.

Joey Baxter receives funding from UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), via the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC).

Josh Firth receives from UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), via the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

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

– ref. Which bird has the best song? These experts think they know – https://theconversation.com/which-bird-has-the-best-song-these-experts-think-they-know-281259

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Colin Clark, Professor of Sociology and Social Policy, University of the West of Scotland

No single issue has dominated the agenda ahead of the Scottish parliament election in May. But immigration, despite being a matter not devolved to Holyrood, has been part of campaigns. This is because some parties use it to feed wider anxieties about housing, jobs, public services and identity.

Glasgow has been a particular flashpoint because of its role as a City of Sanctuary for asylum seekers. About 6% of the UK’s asylum seekers live in Scotland, with over half in Glasgow, though data suggests this proportion is falling.

Reform UK has sought to capitalise on this. Although no small boats have landed on Scottish coastlines, Reform’s leader in Scotland, Malcolm Offord, unveiled a billboard in Glasgow with an image of migrants crowded into a dinghy. Large red text reads: “Scotland is at a breaking point.”

Polling shows that cost of living, health and the economy rank above immigration as voter priorities in Scotland. Yet these issues can be closely connected in public debate throughout the UK. If people worry about GP appointments, housing waiting lists or jobs, some politicians will blame migration – even if the underlying causes lie elsewhere.

Reform’s Scotland manifesto mentions “strangers” being “prioritised ahead of Scots” by local councils in terms of access to social housing. Offord has claimed that asylum seekers arriving in Glasgow are “jumping the queue”, and his party has promised to “prioritise local people” for such housing.

Asylum seekers are not prioritised for housing because of their immigration status. But Scottish councils are obliged to prioritise homeless people seeking temporary housing – who may be asylum seekers.

What the parties are saying

All major parties recognise that Scotland faces population and economic challenges. An ageing population, low birthrates and labour shortages are affecting sectors such as health, housing, agriculture, social care and hospitality.

Many industries understand that without immigration, parts of the Scottish economy would struggle. That reality has, for years, sustained a relatively broad pro-migration consensus across the Scottish political spectrum.

The governing Scottish National Party argues that Scotland needs a more flexible migration system tailored to Scottish demographic and economic needs. Its 2026 manifesto presents migration as both a social good and an economic necessity. The manifesto is also strong on refugee protection, and argues for a Scottish-specific visa scheme.

Reform UK, polling consistently as the second or third leading party, has spotlighted immigration in its manifesto. One of the party’s five core pledges is to “prioritise local people in communities and restore law and order”.

Like the SNP, the Scottish Liberal Democrats champion relatively pro-migration policies for Scotland. The Lib Dem manifesto states that the party “believe[s] in fairness for everyone, no matter who you are or where you come from”. The manifesto mentions making immigration policy that is “sensitive to the skills needs” of certain sectors, as well as allowing asylum seekers to work if they have waited more than three months for a decision on their application.

For Scottish Labour, the emphasis has been less on immigration and more on housing, jobs and public service reform. Its campaign focus on affordable homes, more support for teachers, improving childcare and better economic competency suggests an awareness that many Scottish voters are more concerned with delivery of key services than anti-migrant rhetoric.

The Scottish Greens approach migration through a lens of refugee protection, anti-racism and social justice, with a manifesto prioritising public services for everyone, regardless of immigration status. In addition to calling for the UK government to devolve immigration to the Scottish parliament, the party would also pilot giving asylum seekers the right to work.

The Scottish Conservative party, while aligned with UK-wide calls for firmer border control, has focused on taxation, public services, crime and policing, SNP competence and the state of the union in its manifesto. Issues of immigration and asylum are contained mainly to attacking the SNP. The Scottish Conservatives have accused the SNP of a “reckless” open-door policy on immigration that has led to “an influx of immigrants” and made Glasgow a “magnet for asylum seekers”.

Scotland’s immigration story

Scotland often tells itself a comforting political story: that it is a progressive society, more welcoming of newcomers, and less susceptible to anti-immigrant politics than other parts of Britain.

There is some truth in this. The Scottish government’s “New Scots” strategy is generally regarded as a positive statement for welcoming and integrating migrants to Scotland.

Survey data has generally shown attitudes in Scotland to be slightly more positive towards migrants and migration, while openly hostile rhetoric has been less common in mainstream politics. Yet national myths can conceal uncomfortable realities. Scotland is not immune to xenophobia, racism or populism, nor, as Reform’s rhetoric around social housing suggests, is it protected from the politics of scapegoating.

Public services are under pressure, housing shortages do exist, and trust in politics has weakened. But migrants did not create decades of underinvestment, stagnant wages or failures in social housing supply. Migrants are often caught within those same crises, even if headlines rarely acknowledge this.

Most of Scotland’s political parties are comfortable supporting the “good migrant” – NHS nurses, engineers, scientists, international students or seasonal workers. Far fewer defend asylum seekers, undocumented migrants or family reunion rights. A hierarchy of deservingness can emerge: migrants are welcomed when economically useful, yet become politically expendable when portrayed as costly or controversial.

Scotland cannot be complacent in its self-image. Years of anti-Irish prejudice, racism towards minority ethnic communities, and longstanding discrimination against Gypsy and Traveller communities tell their own story. Matters of economic insecurity and contested identities can be converted into anti-migrant rhetoric.

Immigration matters in Scotland because the country is vulnerable to the same pressures seen elsewhere. But ultimately, migrants should not be used as political cover for deeper failures of policy and governance.

Colin Clark 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. How immigration is playing a role in the Scottish election, even though policy is set in Westminster – https://theconversation.com/how-immigration-is-playing-a-role-in-the-scottish-election-even-though-policy-is-set-in-westminster-280235

Source: The Conversation – UK – By James Painter, Research Associate, Journalism, Reuters Institute, University of Oxford

A glance at recent front pages of many British newspapers leaves no doubt about the stridency of their views on net zero.

On January 13, for instance, the Express said the government must “Tell truth on ‘fantasy’ cost of net zero”, while the Mail’s headline on the same day used the same idea of “fantasy figures”. A few weeks later, a Telegraph headline claimed “Labour’s net zero extremism is ripping the heart out of Britain”.

But how representative are these headlines of wider coverage? To find out, colleagues and I analysed nearly 500 articles published over four months in 2023 across nine UK newspapers (both right- and left-leaning), looking at pieces where net zero appeared in the headline.

We focused on the presence of statements which were factually inaccurate, or misleading (defined as the omission of a credible counter-argument).

Outright inaccuracies were relatively rare. We found 22 examples, partly because we used a narrow definition. But misleading claims were very common.

This was especially true in opinion and editorial pieces. In four right-wing outlets – the Telegraph, Mail, Express and Sun – more than 70% of such articles contained at least one misleading statement.

Because a single misleading statement may not be representative of an overall article – perhaps appearing in a quote – we then looked at those articles where there was a pattern, containing at least three misleading statements.

We found 50 such articles, of which 92% were published in the right-wing press, and the vast majority in editorials and opinion pieces. Of the editorials and opinion pieces we flagged at the Telegraph, Mail, Express and Sun, between 39% and 60% included at least three misleading statements.

Articles which contain at least three misleading statements:

The most common misleading statements concerned the potentially high cost of net zero, the various ways the policy was being implemented, and claims about the unfair distribution of costs. These claims were often presented without acknowledging opposing evidence or arguments – for example, that the costs of inaction were also high or possibly higher, or that experts dispute the figures presented in the article.

By contrast, left-wing publications were more likely to mention the high costs of inaction and the potential co-benefits of net zero such as improved health or better air quality.

In this context, remember that in July 2025 the UK government’s Office for Budget Responsibility found that the cost of bringing emissions down to net zero is significantly lower than the economic damages of failing to act. It also found those net zero costs will be much lower than previously expected.

Scrutiny – but fairer and better-informed

This isn’t a call for newspapers and journalists to avoid scrutinising net zero. It’s a policy that will be funded in part by British taxpayers, and may impose significant and uneven costs on different sectors of the population.

But coverage that focuses only on these costs in isolation, or that cherry picks data to support a single view, risks giving readers an incomplete picture. Fairer and better-informed coverage would mention on a regular basis the in-depth findings of a range of experts on the costs of inaction and the co-benefits of action.

The Times, for example, shows that it is possible to quote experts from two sides. In our 2023 sample we found several articles, including some in right-leaning newspapers, where the high cost of net zero is mentioned alongside the benefits of taking action, or that also added the qualification that many climate experts dispute the high costs.

A final thought: in its March 2026 report, the UK’s official advisory Climate Change Committee said that the “cost” of cutting UK emissions to net zero could be less than the cost of a single fossil-fuel price shock, while a net-zero economy would be almost completely protected from future spikes.

I looked in vain for a front-page headline in the Sun, Express or Mail screaming that reaching net zero would be cheaper for the UK than a fossil fuel crisis, such as the one triggered by the war on Iran.

James Painter receives funding from the Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment, London School of Economics.

– ref. How does the UK press report net zero? We studied 500 articles to find out – https://theconversation.com/how-does-the-uk-press-report-net-zero-we-studied-500-articles-to-find-out-280701

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Elisabetta Magnanti, Visiting Research Fellow, English, Trinity College Dublin

Some medieval texts have barely survived. Beowulf, the Old English masterwork, exists today because of a single manuscript – one that narrowly escaped combustion in 1731. For such texts, the single manuscript is all important. The discovery of another copy would transform our understanding.

By contrast, a work like Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum (Ecclesiastical History of the English People) survives in more than 160 manuscripts. This volume of material has meant that scholars have tended to focus on just a few of the earliest copies, since these are most likely to preserve a text close to what Bede originally wrote. The result is that many later or less well-known manuscripts have received little detailed attention.

Now, however, computational methods that make it possible to analyse millions of words are changing that picture. Instead of relying on a narrow selection of manuscripts, we can begin to take the full breadth of the tradition into account. And that, in turn, has renewed the value of finding and studying additional copies.

Our own work, motivated by the potential of studying many manuscripts but – for now at least – using traditional methods to locate them, has led to some unexpected discoveries, including, in Rome, a previously overlooked early copy of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica. Remarkably, this manuscript also preserves one of the earliest versions of Cædmon’s Hymn, the earliest known poem in English.

Lost and found

The Historia Ecclesiastica was completed in 731 by the Venerable Bede, an English monk often described as the father of English history. It proved to be one of the most influential works of the western Middle Ages. Copies circulated across Europe and the British Isles from the mid-8th to the 16th century.

One of us, Magnanti, was conducting an ongoing hunt for new manuscripts of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica, and discovered in the National Central Library in Rome a copy of the text made at the Abbey of Nonantola in the north of Italy, less than a century after Bede’s death in 735. The manuscript had long been presumed lost and, as a result, had never previously been examined in detail by academics.

We have just published details of this discovery in the journal Early Medieval England and its Neighbours.

Rather than being lost, the manuscript had in fact been moved from Nonantola to the church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme in Rome by the 1650s. During the upheavals of the Napoleonic wars in the early 19th century, it was transferred again to the nearby church of San Bernardo alle Terme, from where it was subsequently stolen, along with other valuable manuscripts.

The book resurfaced in England almost two decades later, when it was acquired by Sir Thomas Phillipps, a 19th-century English book collector and self-described “velomaniac” (manuscript addict). Though Phillips died in 1872, the codex was not sold until 1948, when it entered the collection of the Swiss bibliophile Martin Bodmer. It then disappeared from view once again before being acquired by the National Central Library of Rome via the Austrian-born New York bookseller H.P. Kraus in the 1970s.

Cædmon’s Hymn

The newly rediscovered codex contains perhaps the fifth-oldest surviving complete copy of the Historia Ecclesiastica. As such, it is a hugely important witness to the transmission of Bede’s text to Europe in the century after he completed it.

Even more exciting, the manuscript proved to contain the third-oldest text of Cædmon’s Hymn. Cædmon’s story only survived thanks to Bede. He explains that Cædmon, an agricultural labourer working at Whitby Abbey in north Yorkshire, was at a feast when guests began to recite poems.

Embarrassed that he didn’t know anything suitable, Cædmon left for an early night. A figure then appeared to him in his dreams, telling him to sing about creation, which Cædmon miraculously did, producing his hymn – nine lines of intricately woven praise to God for creating the world.

Cædmon’s Hymn

Translated by Roy M. Liuzza

Now let us praise Heaven-Kingdom’s guardian,

the Maker’s might and his mind’s thoughts,

the work of the glory-father – of every wonder,

eternal Lord. He established a beginning.

He first shaped for men’s sons

Heaven as a roof, the holy Creator;

then middle-earth mankind’s guardian,

eternal Lord, afterwards prepared

the earth for men, the Lord almighty.

While admiring the hymn’s “beauty and dignity”, Bede baulked at including the original English in his Latin. Subsequent readers felt the absence, however, and supplied the original text, in the earliest cases adding it at the end of the Historia Ecclesiastica or in the margin. In the manuscript Magnanti discovered, the hymn appears in the actual text: the earliest such positioning by some 300 years.

Closer examination of the Rome Bede also revealed a major blunder: the scribes appear to have become confused and, between Books I and II of the Historia Ecclesiastica, switched to copying an entirely different text — a sermon on Christ’s descent into hell, prescribed for Easter Sunday preaching. This sermon had passed unrecorded in all the existing catalogues in which the manuscript is described, from 1166 to 2011.

Thanks to computational methods for transcription, collation and textual analysis, a fuller reconstruction of the manuscript tradition of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica may now be within reach. That makes discoveries like many the Rome manuscript has yielded just the tip of the iceberg.

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

– ref. We found a lost copy of the earliest surviving English poem in a medieval manuscript in Rome – https://theconversation.com/we-found-a-lost-copy-of-the-earliest-surviving-english-poem-in-a-medieval-manuscript-in-rome-281086