Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ezenwa E. Olumba, Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellow, Aston University

The US president, Donald Trump, is threatening military action in Nigeria over what he sees as the persecution of Christians there. He has accused the Nigerian government of not doing enough to prevent radical Islamists from committing “mass slaughter” against Christians in the west African nation.

In a video posted on social media on November 5, Trump said: “Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands and thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible.” He warned that, if US forces were to attack, it would be “fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians!”

Riley Moore, a Republican US congressman who has been asked by Trump to lead an investigation into violence against Christians in Nigeria, has previously called the country “the most dangerous place in the world to be a Christian”. He claims that more than 7,000 Christians have been killed in Nigeria in 2025 alone – an average of 35 per day. Hundreds more have been kidnapped, tortured or displaced, he says.

But, regardless of whether or not these figures are correct (assessing their accuracy is difficult), the US government’s framing of the violence in Nigeria as Islamists killing Christians oversimplifies a complex reality. Violence in Nigeria is driven by more than religion alone, with land disputes, politics, ethnicity, historical grievances and inequality all playing a part.

Violence in Nigeria has varying motives. In the north-western and north-eastern regions of the country, attacks are largely carried out by jihadist groups such as Boko Haram, Lakurawa and Islamic State West Africa Province. These groups seek to establish an Islamic caliphate in the region, and attack whoever opposes their ideology – Christian or otherwise.

Boko Haram has historically been the dominant Islamist militant group in Nigeria. The Brookings Institution estimates that Boko Haram has killed tens of thousands of people in Nigeria since 2009, and has displaced more than 2 million others. The regions of Nigeria in which jihadist groups operate are predominantly Muslim.

The motives for violence in other areas of Nigeria, including the fertile agricultural Middle Belt region, are different. The Middle Belt, which is mostly Christian, is badly affected by violent conflict between sedentary farmers and nomadic herders. The herders, who tend to be Fulani Muslims, move their livestock from one region to another.

I have studied this particular type of conflict in Nigeria since 2018. Violent conflicts between these groups of people are driven by poor governance, inequality, historical grievances and environmental injustice – and it would be inaccurate to suggest they are entirely motivated by religion.

They are best understood as eco-violence. The two groups clash over access to and control of water points and land, which leads to mass killings and the destruction of settlements. The Trump administration’s grouping of Nigeria’s violence together under the label of Islamist extremism is thus misleading.

Nigeria’s Middle Belt region:

The Middle Belt has become one of Nigeria’s most violent regions. Armed herder groups have been accused of staging attacks on farming communities that have resulted in mass murders, the burning of homes and barns and the displacement of millions of people.

In some areas, attackers have taken over and resettled in captured communities. Farmers have destroyed herds of livestock worth thousands of US dollars in retaliation, and have killed herders.

According to Amnesty International, over 10,000 people have been killed in attacks across the Middle Belt since 2023, with Benue and Plateau states accounting for the vast majority of these deaths.

In June 2025, armed attackers stormed the farming village of Yelwata in Benue state, killing around 200 people in the space of a few hours. Then, in early November, 17 people were killed by armed men believed to be Fulani herders in the farming settlement of Kwi and the town of Damakasuwa. Both of these places are located near the border between Plateau and Kaduna states.

A few days later, after Trump had threatened military action in Nigeria, suspected armed herders killed at least seven people in an attack on Anwuel village in Benue state. Herders have also been accused of carrying out attacks in other regions of Nigeria, including the south-west and south-east.

Amnesty International has blamed the escalating violence in Nigeria on the “shocking failure” of the country’s authorities to protect lives and property from attacks by armed groups and bandits. Rural communities say that Nigerian security agencies often fail to protect them, even when they are warned of impending or ongoing attacks.

However, Nigerians do not need a foreign saviour. What the country needs is a new constitution. The current constitution was created by a military administration, not through a democratic process. Many people have argued that it lacks legitimacy and centralises excessive power at the federal level.

This concentration of power has fuelled corruption, nepotism and generally poor governance, resulting in the rampant insecurity seen in Nigeria today. Nigeria needs an inclusive, democratically drafted constitution that reflects the will of its people.

It is troubling that it has taken a threat by the US president to again remind Nigerian leaders of their duties to protect civilians. But hopefully this results in better security and support for victims of violence in rural communities across Nigeria.

Ezenwa E. Olumba 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. Nigeria’s violent conflicts are about more than just religion – despite what Trump says – https://theconversation.com/nigerias-violent-conflicts-are-about-more-than-just-religion-despite-what-trump-says-268922

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Vaughan, Lecturer in International Security, University of Leeds

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has said that Russia may could carry out nuclear weapons tests for the first time since the cold war.

In what appears to be a response to a statement by Donald Trump on October 30, that he had ordered the US to restart nuclear tests “on an equal basis” with Russia and China, Putin said he’d been advised by his defence staff that it was “advisable to prepare for full-scale nuclear tests”.

At present there is no evidence that either Russia or China is conducting nuclear tests, which were discontinued by most nuclear states after the test ban treaties of the early 1990s.

---

Read more:
Nukes in space: a bad idea in the 1960s – an even worse one now

---

Trump may have been reacting to the news of two Russian weapons tests in late October. On October 21, Putin announced that Russia had tested the Burevestnik – the first of a new generation of nuclear-powered cruise missiles. Days later he revealed that Russia had also tested Poseidon, a nuclear-powered and capable underwater drone which operates like a torpedo.

The US Department of Energy has rowed back on the president’s statement, assuring the world that Washington has no plans for test nuclear detonations. It appears that Trump’s order may have come from his confusion between Russia’s recent tests of nuclear-capable delivery vehicles such as Burevestnik and Poseidon, and the testing of actual nuclear warheads.

Nonetheless, the two leaders’ nuclear bluster is a sobering reminder of the dangers posed by nuclear brinkmanship between the US and Russia.

It is worth remembering that at the height of the cold war, the superpowers prepared to settle their confrontation in the territories of central Europe with little regard for the millions they would kill. US strategists hoped that a “tactical” nuclear conflict might contain the war to Europe, sparing the continental United States.

Independent deterrent?

This is the context for the UK public accounts committee releasing a report last week which detailed further “delays, cost inflation, and deep-rooted management failures” in the RAF’s procurement of F-35 stealth fighter aircraft.

The F-35 is increasingly coming to be viewed in some US defence circles as an expensive failure. This year, however, the UK’s Labour government committed to buying 15 additional F-35B aircraft (having already ordered 48), but also adding 12 of the F-35A variant.

The F-35A is configured to carry the B61 nuclear gravity bomb. Although the British government trumpeted the return of “a nuclear role for the Royal Air Force” in the 2025 strategic defence review, the B61 is a US weapon which will be under US command and carried by a US-made platform. The B61 is a “tactical” but still immensely destructive nuclear weapon – which, as during the cold war, is intended for use on European battlefields in the hope of containing any conflict far from the US.

Additionally, the UK’s “independent nuclear deterrent” consists of British “Holbrook” warheads mounted on US Trident II missiles. While sole launch authority rests formally with the UK prime minister, the system is entirely reliant on US support and maintenance of the missiles for its continued operation. In the event of Scottish independence, Britain’s nuclear submarines might have to relocate to the continental US, because there are few suitable UK alternatives to the Faslane base, an hour north of Glasgow.

Elsewhere, in summer 2025, observers reported that US B61 bombs had returned to RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk, to be carried by US Air Force jets. They had been removed in 2008 amid easing tensions between Nato and Russia, but have returned amid more aggressive nuclear posturing by both Washington and Moscow.

The Nukewatch group said: “The new nuclear bombs … are entirely under the control of Donald Trump and could be used without the UK having any say at all in the matter. In fact, we wonder whether the UK government has even been notified by the USAF that the weapons are now stationed at Lakenheath.” The UK government remained silent on the matter.

This integration of UK and US nuclear forces has not been publicly deliberated. Jeremy Corbyn, the last political leader who tried to offer the electorate a meaningful choice on the matter, was forced to backtrack.

Incompatible with democracy

This is a clear demonstration that nuclear weapons and deterrence policies have always been incompatible with democracy. They require huge secrecy, and the speed involved means that launch decisions are out of the public’s hands. Instead, any decisions to use these incredibly destructive weapons – with all that this implies for the planet – are concentrated in the hands of individual leaders.

The logic of nuclear deterrence breaks down, however, once we remember that the UK’s control over its own nuclear weapons – not to mention the US weapons hosted on its soil – is very limited. The US could at any moment withdraw its assistance for the Trident programme, making questions of British willingness to fight a nuclear war irrelevant.

The F-35A purchase redoubles the UK’s commitment to serving as Donald Trump’s nuclear aircraft carrier. It makes the country a target in any nuclear war that might be started by two unpredictable and violent superpowers. Other US allies get the same treatment: Australian analysts lament that the Aukus submarine deal with the UK and US yokes the country’s future “to whoever is in the White House”.

Fortunately, the flipside of this reliance on the US is that it might be relatively easy for the UK to shut down its own nuclear programme. Aside from its role in the Nato nuclear mission, Trident has little strategic value when it comes to deterring the threats actually faced by the UK.

With so much of its nuclear weapons activity farmed out to the US, there may not be many domestic vested interests to oppose a change in UK policy if Washington does turn off the nuclear taps.

If the UK foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper, is serious about continuing Labour’s commitment to “progressive realism”, she should chart an independent path. Alternative, non-nuclear defence policies for the pursuit of internationally responsible “common security” could be implemented by a British government with the confidence to govern from London, not DC.

Tom Vaughan 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. Talk of new atomic tests by Trump and Putin should make UK rethink its role as a nuclear silo for the US – https://theconversation.com/talk-of-new-atomic-tests-by-trump-and-putin-should-make-uk-rethink-its-role-as-a-nuclear-silo-for-the-us-269040

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

At dawn on October 28, residents of Rio de Janeiro woke to the sound of gunfire. Battles continued throughout the day in the favelas of Alemão and Penha, as police mounted a huge operation targeting the Commando Vermelho, or the Red Command, one of Brazil’s largest organised criminal gangs.

In the days that followed, as graphic images showed lines of bodies on the streets, it emerged that at least 115 civilians and four police officers had been killed, making it the most violent police operation in Brazilian history.

A poll carried out two days after the raid indicated that 62% of Rio residents supported the raid – rising to 88% in the favelas. But there were also protests against alleged extrajudicial killings and condemnation by the UN and other human rights organisations.

The violent operation overshadowed the start of the Cop30 climate summit in Belem on the edge of the Amazon. At a press conference upon his arrival in Belem, Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who was not aware of the operation beforehand, condemned the raid as “diastrous” and a “mass killing”.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to Robert Muggah, founder of the Institute Igarapé and a research collaborator at the Brazil LAB at Princeton University, about how organised crime become so deeply embedded in Brazil – and if there’s a better way to confront it.

The origins of the Red Command lie in Brazilian prisons during the years of Brazil’s military dictatorship in the 1970s. “ The authorities at the time often would crowd common criminals together with left-wing political prisoners in the same jails,” explains Muggah. “ You had this almost metastasis happening between these different inmates and … an alliance emerged from these two groups called the falange vermelha, which means the red phalanx.”

Incubated in the prison system, the gang moved out in the street, shedding its left-wing ties as the dictatorship ended. “By the 1980s, you have a fairly well-organised group which is diversifying its income streams from what was typically bank robberies or targeted raids, to the cocaine economy,” Muggah says.

Today, the Red Command has expanded out of Rio and is present across Brazil and in neighbouring countries. “What you’ve seen over the past decade in particular is the penetration of organized crime, not into just new geographic areas, but entirely new sectors of the economy,” says Muggah.

Listen to the interview with Robert Muggah on The Conversation Weekly podcast, and read an article he wrote in Portuguese on the October 28 operation against the Red Command.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Katie Flood, Mend Mariwany and Gemma Ware. Mixing by Eleanor Brezzi and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Newsclips from AlJazeera English, Guardian News, DRM News, Itatiaia Patrulha, AFP Portuguese, Cross World News and NewsX World.

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 on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Robert Muggah is the co-founder of the Igarape Institute, a think and do tank in Brazil and a principal and co-founder of SecDev, a geopolitical and digital advisory group.

– ref. How organised crime took over areas of Rio de Janeiro – and why violent police raids won’t fix the problem – https://theconversation.com/how-organised-crime-took-over-areas-of-rio-de-janeiro-and-why-violent-police-raids-wont-fix-the-problem-269117

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrea Wright, Senior Lecturer in Teaching and Learning Development, Edge Hill University

In March 1955, an 18-year-old Jim Henson built a puppet from his mother’s old coat, a pair of blue jeans and some ping pong balls. The lizard-like creation first appeared on Afternoon, a television series on Washington D.C.’s WRC-TV, but became a regular on the five-minute Sam and Friends puppet sketch comedy show from May 1955. Over 70 years, the creature evolved into Kermit. The bright green frog now is a cultural icon.

To mark 70 years of The Jim Henson Company, the company has curated an auction of official memorabilia, including puppets, props, costumes and artwork. In a specially-recorded promotional video, Brian Henson, Jim’s son, provides a useful reminder that his father’s legacy is far greater than The Muppets.

Indeed, Henson made a significant contribution to the screen fairytale, a genre all too often dominated by Disney. To encourage fans and viewers to think beyond The Muppet Show and Disney, I offer a reappraisal of his career in my book The Fairy Tales of Jim Henson: Keeping the Best Place by the Fire.

By far the biggest section of the auction is made of items created for the productions and publicity from The Dark Crystal (1982) and the revival Netflix series The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance (2019). The original fantasy evolved from an idea Henson had to create a story around an anthropomorphised reptilian race, which eventually became the formidable Skeksis.

His collaboration with the British artist Brian Froud led to the evolution of the intricate world of The Dark Crystal. The film follows Jen (voiced by Stephen Garlick), a delicate, fey-like creature from the nearly-extinct Gelfling race. Jen embarks on a quest to save the planet Thra by healing the Dark Crystal. He must complete his mission before the “great conjunction”, an event that would give the evil Skeksis power over the fragile world forever.

This ambitious endeavour was not the first time that Henson had used a fairytale-inspired story or aesthetic. As early as 1958, following a trip to Europe, he began to develop a version of Hansel and Gretel. Although it remained unfinished, fairytales became an established strand in Henson’s work.

This included two unaired pilots called The Tales of the Tinkerdee (1962) and The Land of Tinkerdee (1964), as well as the three television specials that make up Tales from Muppetland (1969-72). The latter are playful, gentle parodies and a Muppetisation of the well-known stories Cinderella, The Frog Prince and The Bremen Town Musicians.

---

Read more:
The Muppet Christmas Carol turns 30: how the film became a cult classic

---

Fairytales even inspired two of Henson’s mid-1960s commercials for The Compax Corporation’s Pak-Nit and Pak-Nit RX – preshrunk fabrics used to make leisurewear. The ads were titled Shrinkel and Stretchel and Rumple Wrinkle Shrinkel Stretchelstiltzkin. Fairytale themes also appeared from time to time in segments of Sesame Street (1969-present) and The Muppet Show (1976–81).

Henson’s film Labyrinth (1986) is a beguiling blend of well-known coming of age fairy stories, most overtly Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865) and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900). These references are combined with original and innovative puppetry and design, and, of course, David Bowie as the charismatic Goblin King.

One of Henson’s final projects was the imaginative and technically inventive television series Jim Henson’s The Storyteller (1987-89). Inspired by her folklore studies at Harvard University, Lisa Henson encouraged her father to develop a show based on the rich European folk tale tradition, importantly, one that avoided the best-known tales, in favour of more the more unusual and challenging.

Fairytales are an important – and often overlooked – part of Henson’s legacy, from the final productions made during his lifetime to The Jim Henson Company’s later output (for example, Jim Henson’s Jack and the Beanstalk: The Real Story in 2001 and The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance). Fans are also consistently teased with rumours of a Labyrinth sequel or reboot. Most recently, Robert Eggers is reported to be directing.

Henson should be considered one of the foremost creators of screen fairytales of the 20th century. As his fans celebrate the 70th anniversary of his creations, it’s time for the world to rediscover his magical body of work, beyond the much-beloved Muppets.

---

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.

Andrea Wright 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. Why Jim Henson should be recognised as one of the foremost creators of fairytales on screen – https://theconversation.com/why-jim-henson-should-be-recognised-as-one-of-the-foremost-creators-of-fairytales-on-screen-268927

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michelle Spear, Professor of Anatomy, University of Bristol

Frankenstein’s creature is coming back to life – again. As Guillermo del Toro’s new adaptation of Mary Shelley’s gothic masterpiece airs on Netflix, we provide an anatomist’s perspective of her tale of reanimation. Could an assembled body ever breathe, bleed or think?

When Shelley wrote Frankenstein in 1818, anatomy was a science on the edge of revelation and respectability. Public dissection theatres drew crowds, body snatchers supplied medical schools with illicit corpses and electricity promised new insights into the spark of life.

Shelley’s novel captured this moment perfectly. Victor Frankenstein’s creation was inspired by real debates: Luigi Galvani’s experiments on frog legs twitching under electric charge, and Giovanni Aldini’s demonstrations making executed criminals grimace with applied current. To early 19th-century audiences, life might indeed have seemed a matter of anatomy plus electricity.

The first problem for any modern Frankenstein is practical: how to build a body. In Shelley’s novel, Victor “collected bones from charnel houses” and “disturbed, with profane fingers, the tremendous secrets of the human frame”, selecting fragments of cadavers “with care” for their proportion and strength.

From an anatomical perspective, this is where the experiment fails before it begins. Once removed from the body, tissues rapidly deteriorate: muscle fibres lose tone, vessels collapse and cells deprived of oxygen enter necrosis within minutes. Even refrigeration cannot preserve viability for transplantation beyond a few hours.

To reattach limbs or organs would demand surgical anastomosis – precise reconnection of arteries, veins and nerves using microsutures finer than a human hair. The notion that one could sew together entire bodies with “instruments of life” and restore circulation across so many junctions defies both physiology and surgical practice.

Shelley’s description of construction is vague; we estimate that the limbs alone would require over 200 surgical connections. Each piece of tissue would have to be matched to avoid immune rejection, and everything would need to be kept sterile and supplied with blood to stop the tissue from dying.

The electrical illusion

Let’s assume the parts settle into place. Could electricity reanimate the body? Galvani’s twitching frogs misled many into believing so. Electricity stimulates nerve membranes, triggering existing cells to fire – a fleeting simulation of life, not its restoration.

Defibrillators work on this principle: a well-timed shock can reset a fibrillating heart because the organ is already alive, its tissues still capable of conducting signals. Once cells die, their membranes break down and the body’s internal chemistry collapses. No current, however strong, can restore that balance.

The thinking problem

Even if a monster could be made to move, could it think? The brain is our most hungry organ, demanding constant oxygen-rich blood and glucose for energy. A living brain’s vital functions only work under tightly-controlled body temperature and depend on the circulation of fluids – not just blood but cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), too, pumped under appropriate pressure, delivering oxygen and carrying away wastes.

Brain tissue can stay alive for only six to eight hours once it is removed from the body. To keep it going for that long, it has to be cooled on ice or placed in a special oxygen-rich solution. During this time, the brain cells can still work for a while – they can send signals and release chemicals.

Cooling the brain is already used in medicine, for example, after a stroke or in premature babies, to protect the brain and reduce damage. So, in theory, cooling a donor brain before a transplant could help it survive longer.

If we can transplant faces, hearts and kidneys, why not brains? In theory, a rapidly transplanted brain could have its vessels connected to a new body. But the severed spinal cord would leave the body paralysed, without sensation, requiring artificial ventilation.

With circulation restored, pulsing CSF flow and an intact brainstem, arousal and wakefulness might be possible. But without sensory input, could such a being have complete consciousness? As the organ for every memory, thought and action we make, receiving a donor brain would be confusing, programmed with another mind’s personality and legacy of memories. Could new memories form? Yes, but only those born from a body severely limited by the absence of movement or sensation.

Controversial surgeon Sergio Canavero has argued human head transplants may enable “extreme rejuvenation”. But beyond the ethical alarms, this would require reconnecting all peripheral nerves, not just joining the spinal cord – a feat far beyond current capability.

Life support, not resurrection

Modern medicine can replace, repair or sustain many parts once considered vital. We can transplant organs, circulate blood through machines and ventilate lungs indefinitely. But these are acts of maintenance, not creation.

In intensive care units, the boundaries between life and death are defined not by the beating heart, but by brain activity. Once that ceases irreversibly, even the most elaborate support systems can only preserve the appearance of life.

Shelley subtitled her novel The Modern Prometheus for a reason. It is not just a story about science’s ambition, but about its responsibility. Frankenstein’s failure lies not in his anatomical ignorance but in his moral blindness: he creates life without understanding what makes it human.

Two centuries later, we still wrestle with similar questions. Advances in regenerative medicine, neural organoids and synthetic biology push at the boundaries of what life means, but they also remind us that vitality cannot be reduced to mechanism alone. Anatomy shows us how the body works; it cannot tell us why life matters.

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. Frankenstein: could an assembled body ever breathe, bleed or think? Anatomists explain – https://theconversation.com/frankenstein-could-an-assembled-body-ever-breathe-bleed-or-think-anatomists-explain-269112

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Moulin, Associate Professor in Philosophy and World Religions, University of Cambridge

An independent review of the national curriculum in England, commissioned by the government, has published its final report. One of the key recommendations is to work towards the addition of religious education (RE) to the curriculum. This would mean RE would have the same status as other humanities subjects for the first time.

The review recommends the creation of a “task and finish group” to devise a religious education curriculum. This would then potentially become part of the national curriculum.

In England, religious education is currently a “basic curriculum subject”. This means it is technically mandatory but not part of the national curriculum. This status has long been considered a source of problems. With no centrally determined curriculum, the quality of RE teaching is patchy. Many schools do not comply with the law in how they offer it.

But overall, the current “multi-faith” approach to RE teaching, enshrined in law in the 1988 Education Act, allows pupils to confront the big questions of life. They can develop an understanding of the diverse beliefs and practices of many different communities represented in Britain.

I am an academic expert who leads the training of teachers in how to deliver religious education. I believe any national curriculum content should embrace as fully as possible the principle of teaching religious education pluralistically. This means not adopting anyone’s or any particular understanding of religion as the only approach to learning, or the only approach to determining the curriculum.

Freedom of belief is one of the foundational principles of democracy. It is precisely because, and for, this principle that pluralistic religious education is essential.

Religious education in England

When state-administered education systems were first universalised in the 19th century, western nations either supported the religious education offered by the prevailing church of a given jurisdiction. There were some exceptions. France and the US, for instance, instigated a secular system with no official religion. To no small degree, though, these systems have been arguably culturally Christian.

The result is a map of religious education that strikingly resembles a map of the Christian reformation. For example, in Germany, students choose between secular ethics, Catholic, or Protestant instruction, or recently in some states, Islamic education.

The teacher is of that designated faith, trained and authorised by that religious authority. In predominantly Catholic countries, such as Poland, the Catholic church has a major stake in determining religious education in the state system.

In England, religious education has evolved differently. The state funds schools of a designated religion which can teach religious education to their own creeds. But most state-funded schools must teach about all the major religions represented in Great Britain.

There is very little data available on the impact of this form of religious education on individuals and society. But it is symbolic at least of a liberal, cosmopolitan and inclusive society that promotes tolerance.

The educational and social issues arising from teaching religious education in a religiously diverse and secular context have engaged English religious educators for the past 50 years. In response, they have advanced a fascinating array of ideas and methods of teaching about religions. These have drawn inspiration from postmodern philosophy, anthropology and sociology.

The latest iteration of these approaches is the “religion and worldviews” approach, advanced by many religious educators. It is based on the assumption that regardless of whether somebody practices or identifies with a religion, they still live life based on a personal construction of the world. The idea is that this can be studied just like any formalised religious or philosophical system.

On the face of it, the study of worldviews suggests a way to teach religious education pluralistically. It assumes everyone has their own worldview, which is potentially different from another’s. However, many people believe there is just one reality and the foundations of morality are more or less obvious.

This is particularly true of most religious believers. They may not see their religion as a human construct, but rather a source of God’s revelation to humankind. It is also true of many non-religious people who believe in science as the objective foundation of human knowledge.

Teaching religious education pluralistically is more radical and exciting than setting one or other parameters on each other’s beliefs in order to approach them educationally. It has to be open to completely opposing accounts of reality and the possibility of our knowledge of it. This allows for something of much value in education – the development of minds that can hold and weigh up contradictory accounts at once.

However, it can only be achieved by a curriculum that assumes no overarching narrative itself. Instead, it must fairly represent and interrogate the deep differences that actually characterise religious diversity in the real world.

Daniel Moulin 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. Making RE part of the national curriculum will promote tolerance – but only if it’s taught in the right way – https://theconversation.com/making-re-part-of-the-national-curriculum-will-promote-tolerance-but-only-if-its-taught-in-the-right-way-266964

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dan Baumgardt, Senior Lecturer, School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol

It seems contradictory: the pills you’re taking for headaches might actually be perpetuating them. Medication-overuse headache is a well-documented medical phenomenon, but the good news is it’s often reversible once identified.

Over 10 million people in the UK regularly get headaches, making up about one in every 25 visits to a GP. Most headaches are harmless and not a sign of a serious problem. Although many people worry they might have a brain tumour, less than 1% of those with headaches actually do.

---

Read more:
What Davina McCall’s colloid cyst removal can tell us about brain tumours

---

Because there are so many possible causes of headaches, GPs must play detective. A detailed medical history and examination are essential, sometimes followed by specialist referral.

The challenge lies in determining whether a headache signals a serious underlying cause, or is benign. Even benign headaches, however, can greatly affect a person’s daily life and still need proper care.

Treatment depends on the type of headache. For example, migraines may be treated with anti-sickness medicine or beta blockers, while headaches related to anxiety or depression might improve with mental health support. Lifestyle changes, such as dietary changes and exercise, can also help manage many types of long-term headache.

However, doctors often see another type of persistent headache that has a clear pattern. Patients report getting repeated headaches that started or got worse after taking painkillers regularly for three months or longer.

This can happen in people with migraines, tension headache, or other painful conditions like back or joint pain. Some may take several types of medication, often more and more frequently, and end up stuck in a frustrating cycle that doesn’t seem to make sense at first.

The probable diagnosis is medication-overuse headaches. This condition is thought to affect about 1–2% of people and is three-to-four times more common in women.

The culprit is often the painkillers themselves. Opiates like codeine, used to treat moderate pain from injuries or after surgery, come with a long list of side-effects including constipation, drowsiness, nausea, hallucinations – and headaches.

It’s not just strong opiate-based medications that can cause headaches. Common painkillers like paracetamol and NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, such as ibuprofen) can also play a role. Some medications even combine paracetamol with an opiate, such as co-codamol.

Paracetamol has a simpler side-effect profile compared with drugs like codeine. When taken within the recommended daily limits – which depend on age and weight – it is generally a safe and effective painkiller. This has contributed to its widespread use and easy availability.

However, taking more than the recommended dose or using it too often can be very dangerous. This can lead to serious – sometimes fatal – complications, such as liver failure.

Even though side-effects are less common, studies have shown that regular use of paracetamol alone can also trigger chronic headaches in some people.

Other drugs besides painkillers can also cause problems. Using triptans too often – medications to stop migraine attacks – can also lead to medication-overuse headaches.

The term “overuse” might make it sound like patients are taking more than the recommended daily dose, which can happen and brings its own serious risks. However, in many cases of medication-overuse headaches, patients are neither exceeding dose limits nor taking the medication every single day.

For paracetamol or NSAIDs, medication-overuse headaches may develop if they are taken on 15 or more days per month. With opiates, headaches can appear with even less frequent use – sometimes after just ten days a month.

That’s why it’s important to talk to a doctor if you need to use any painkiller, even over-the-counter ones, for a long time. Not everyone will develop medication-overuse headaches, and the risk seems to differ from person to person, meaning individual susceptibility plays a big role.

Treatment

Treating these headaches can be challenging. It’s often hard for patients to recognise on their own that their medication is causing the problem. The usual approach involves gradually stopping the medication under guidance, eventually stopping it completely.

This can seem unfathomable to patients, especially since they expect painkillers like paracetamol to relieve their headaches. Some worry their pain will get worse as they cut back. That’s why working closely with a doctor is essential – to confirm the diagnosis, monitor progress and plan the next steps in treatment.

If you’re having headaches on more than 15 days a month, it’s important to see your GP. Talking it through can help identify underlying causes and explain these often debilitating symptom patterns. Keeping a headache diary – noting symptoms and daily details – can also support the diagnosis.

Why some medicines, especially painkillers, can make headaches worse isn’t fully understood. However, it’s important to be aware of this now well-established link and seek medical advice.

Only when some patients stop taking certain medications altogether do they discover the uncomfortable truth: that their pain was being fuelled by the very drugs they depended on.

Dan Baumgardt 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. Could pain medication be causing your headaches? – https://theconversation.com/could-pain-medication-be-causing-your-headaches-266912

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lisa Vanhala, Professor of Political Science, UCL

Ten years after the world agreed on an historic framework for climate action, the very features that made the Paris agreement possible are now holding it back. Designed to foster cooperation, it has instead become a system for forging agreement rather than delivering change.

As world leaders head to Belém, Brazil, for “Cop30” – the 30th session of the international climate negotiations – here’s how the system broke, and how we can begin to fix it.

Back in 2015, the Paris agreement was not a foregone conclusion. Climate change isn’t one problem but many overlapping thorny issues, from the enormity of the challenge of trying to stop global warming to the huge disparities in states’ capacities to respond and the escalating intensity of catastrophic floods, wildfires and rising seas.

The Paris agreement was designed to achieve cooperation – which it admirably did. Through the UN, it brought all 195 countries together to establish a global policy framework, a triumph of multilateralism in a period where international cooperation was fraying on most other issues.

But reaching cooperation is supposed to be the beginning, not the end, of global climate governance.

Better than nothing – but not enough

Supporters rightly argue that the world is on a better path than it would be without the treaty. Before 2015, the world was on track for a catastrophic 4°C to 5°C of warming. Now, thanks to national pledges, we are on course for around 2.5°C to 3°C. That’s still unsafe but better than where we would have been without the agreement.

For the first time in history, renewables generate more electricity than coal. A new “loss and damage” fund will soon start helping vulnerable countries cope with climate change.

Yet, progress is slowing down and has even stagnated according to some measures. Global warming projections for 2100 are flatlining, with little improvement over the past few years. Emissions continue to increase. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached the highest level ever recorded last year. The fact that no UN climate summit agreement mentioned the idea of transitioning away from fossil fuels until 2023 suggests that movement on this front is likely to be very slow at best.

The seeds of its undoing

So what’s not working? One core feature of Paris is its flexible, bottom-up approach, where countries get to decide on their own targets and timelines. In theory, this allows for a diversity of approaches. In practice, it has allowed some countries to do the bare minimum or even try to obstruct the process.

The Paris agreement also hasn’t meaningfully changed some of the core practices that drive warming, including the financing, producing and consumption of fossil fuels. When it comes to fossil fuels, ironically, building in this level of flexibility into the agreement has resulted in a trenchant inflexibility among some countries to phase down.

Another problem with Paris system is the continued dominance of sovereign states and the exclusion of other key players such as businesses and citizen groups. The voices of those communities, for example Indigenous peoples, most impacted by climate change are often left out of the conversation. The biggest oil companies are responsible for far more greenhouse gases than most countries yet have no binding emissions limits under the Paris agreement.

Responding to climate change requires buy in from across all of society. Yet, recent climate summits have seen disproportionate representation of fossil fuel interests and negotiation leadership from countries who do not support the transition away from fossil energy. At the same time, most of the affected communities and innovators who are driving solutions and developing new technologies are left standing outside the negotiating rooms. Unless leaders take the interests of a wide array of groups seriously, the agreements they reach won’t be implemented.

The illusion of progress

The current system also falls short in terms of embedding the changes that are agreed at the annual summits. The case of the new loss and damage fund is illustrative. Despite celebratory headlines, progress has been slow. Delays are rife. Rich states overload under-resourced international bureaucrats, and attempt to outsource their responsibilities. Even the US$250 million (£192m) it is set to disburse is a drop in the ocean compared to the US$200 to US$400 billion a year that developing countries may need by 2030 to cope with storms, droughts, extreme heat and rising seas.

As I document in my recent book, Governing the End: The Making of Climate Change Loss and Damage, these big announcements often unravel in implementation. All of this activity and pledge-making gives the illusion of progress with relatively little meaningful action down the line.

Empowering implementors and innovators

There is now widespread recognition that climate multilateralism is falling short. Brazil’s President Lula has proposed creating a UN climate change council to speed up implementation. He wants this body to enhance accountability and coordination and to be linked to the UN General Assembly.

Others want “climate clubs” – smaller coalitions of like-minded governments, businesses and people focused on specific climate policy objectives like food security or protecting children from the consequences of climate change.

The huge growth in climate change litigation is in some ways the most promising avenue for holding governments to account. For example, a recent International Court of Justice advisory opinion on climate change has played an important role in clarifying 1.5°C as the “primary temperature goal” of the Paris agreement and was clear that national governments have a legal duty to actively prevent further climate breakdown.

But litigation is slow and expensive. Relying on courts to enforce existing commitments is a second-best solution in many cases. An improved system of accountability to ensure that national action plans align with the latest scientific evidence is needed.

With Cop30 approaching, one lesson is clear: cooperation was only the beginning. What the world needs now is concrete action and accountability rather than more delay and diversion. Without that, the Paris system risks becoming a symbol of good intentions rather than a driver of real change.

---

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.

---

Lisa Vanhala has received funding from the European Research Council and she has consulted for the United Nations Environment Program Copenhagen Climate Center, 3IE and the Adaptation Fund Technical Expert Reference Group.

– ref. As the Paris climate agreement turns ten, it’s showing its age – https://theconversation.com/as-the-paris-climate-agreement-turns-ten-its-showing-its-age-268147

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Peter Urwin, Director, Centre for Employment Research, University of Westminster

The number of 16 to 24-year-olds in England who are not in education, employment or training (Neet) currently stands at nearly one million.

In a recent document of proposed policy, the government has set out a range of initiatives to help them. These include new qualifications designed for young people who achieve grade two or below in maths and English GCSEs, and guaranteed access to education, training or work. But will these initiatives be successful?

There are a multitude of contributing factors that lead to young people becoming Neet. These include if they have caring responsibilities, special educational needs or disabilities, and mental health challenges. Essentially, though, there are two cross-cutting challenges that must be addressed.

First, too many young people in England reach age 16 with poor qualifications, having become disillusioned with education. England’s further education system faces an enormous challenge to help them achieve results that will enhance their employment prospects.

Second, this leaves them unprepared for employment in a labour market with diminishing opportunities for young, low skilled workers.

Each August, when GCSE results are released, statistics set out what proportion of 16-year-olds achieved a “pass” – a grade four or above – in their exams. Far less attention is paid to the approximately 30,000 young people who do not achieve a grade 1, the lowest grade, in GCSE English and maths.

Most of these young people have complex special educational needs and disabilities or are severely absent from school. Many are not entered for GCSEs at all.

More generally, in research with colleagues, we estimate that there are up to 80,000 lower attaining young people each year aged 16, who for instance, achieve grade two or below in maths and English. Despite a raising of the compulsory age for education and training to 18, many students still do not engage with post-16 learning after their GCSE year.

A key new initiative from the government to address this – detailed further in the recently published independent review into curriculum and assessment – is a reconsideration of the post-16 policy that requires GCSE resits in English and maths for those who do not achieve at least grade four.

For the lowest attaining young people, the pass rate for these resists is currently very low. The proposed introduction of new post-16 qualifications in these subjects at level one, one level below GCSE (level two), for the lowest attaining is therefore encouraging.

More generally, there is a refreshing recognition that not all young people will achieve level three – A-levels, T-levels or equivalent qualifications – by the age of 19 and get a job at this level. This includes a suggestion that good quality vocational education pathways will now “prepare students to progress directly into level two occupations” – jobs that require skill levels equivalent to GCSE.

Unfortunately, the new 16 to 19 level one maths and English qualifications that these students will need to take, are envisaged to support them “progressing onto GCSE” in these subjects. Acceptance that many low attainers struggle to achieve this does not seem to fit with a continued drive for them to get GCSE maths and English. Many level two occupations, such as bricklaying and plastering, do not require level two maths and English, so this seems unnecessary.

The job market

The “supply” of approximately 80,000 low skilled young people to the labour market each year is a long-standing problem in the UK as they are much more likely to be Neet.

Many of the government’s proposed policies are relevant to this challenge. The main approach is to provide “guarantees”.

The “youth guarantee” promises young people “access to education, training and/or help to get into work”, including a guaranteed job for those unemployed for over 18 months. The proposed “pathways to work guarantee” will “provide training, work experience and a guaranteed job interview”. There will also be a “guaranteed college place in reserve for all 16-year olds”.

However, the government’s proposals contain little practical consideration of the capacity needed to meet these commitments. Much of the focus on job guarantees (for instance, “payments of up to £3,000 per apprentice” for employers) will simply offset recent national minimum wage and national insurance contribution increases that likely reduce young people’s job opportunities. Local authorities already have similar duties regarding post-16 education guarantees.

The government has set out an ambitious plan for change. However, the lack of practical detail on challenges such as capacity, as well as limitations to any new spending, may constrain the achievement of this ambition.

The government’s commitment to a data-driven approach that joins up skills and employment is very encouraging. Working with colleagues, I am trying to inform this data-driven approach. I would suggest that reversing unintended consequences of previous policies, can be achieved at low cost.

Reintroducing partnership approaches between schools and further education providers, for occupational programmes that spanned the ages of 14 to 18, would better engage those who have become disillusioned with education and provide education and training that prepares them for a variety of level two occupations. Sectors such as construction, health and social care, for instance, are struggling to fill roles.

Any concern over the narrowing of a young person’s learning early in their school career can be mitigated by the government’s commitments to lifelong learning, and the recent national curriculum recommendations that these learners can still progress to level three “if that is the right option”.

Peter Urwin has received funding from UKRI, ESRC, Acas and the Nuffield Foundation,

– ref. England’s plans to get more young people working or studying don’t go far enough – employment expert – https://theconversation.com/englands-plans-to-get-more-young-people-working-or-studying-dont-go-far-enough-employment-expert-268606

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

Ukraine is having a tougher-than-usual time at the moment. On the frontlines, the battle of Pokrovsk is raging, and it does not look like Ukraine is winning it.

Nor do things look good for the country’s energy resilience after months of an intensive Russian air campaign targeting key infrastructure. According to the UN, this could trigger another major humanitarian crisis in the already war-ravaged country.

The geopolitical picture looks equally grim. The delivery of long-range Tomahawk missiles, sought by Kyiv for months now, has again been ruled out by the US president, Donald Trump. What’s more, after his meeting with the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, in South Korea on October 30, Trump said that the US and China would work together to end the war in Ukraine.

The possibility of a productive collaboration between Trump and Xi on peace in Ukraine, let alone its successful conclusion, is remote. And even if there was a Washington-Beijing sponsored deal, it would not be in Ukraine’s favour as became clear a few days later.

During a high-profile, two-day visit of the Russian prime minister, Mikhail Mishustin, to China on November 3 and 4, Beijing showed no signs of backing out of its partnership with Russia, which is key to sustaining the Kremlin’s war machine.

Nor does the continuing delay in approving an EU loan to Ukraine worth €60 billion (£53 billion) and backed by frozen Russian assets bode well for Kyiv.

Given all this bad news, it was therefore no surprise that Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, leapt at what looked, on the surface, like good news in the European commission’s latest assessment of Kyiv’s progress towards EU membership. The European commission notes in its report that Ukraine has made progress in all of the 33 different chapters of the accession negotiations. This is as remarkable as it is commendable given that the country has done so in the shadow of Russia’s aggression since February 2022.

Yet, in many areas, progress is modest at best. A more careful analysis of the 2025 commission report suggests that positive news, if any, is in the presentation, not the underlying facts.

For example, in relation to the fight against corruption the commission reports that recent developments “cast doubts on Ukraine’s commitment to its anti-corruption agenda”. This is primarily a reference to attempts by Zelensky’s government to limit the independence of the country’s anti-corruption institutions. The issue triggered massive public protests in the summer and forced a partial government climb-down.

Worryingly, the commission also notes “political pressure on anti-corruption activists” and “harassment and intimidation of journalists”. This includes “cases of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) related to journalistic investigations”.

Meanwhile, in the fight against serious and organised crime, the commission report states: “The freezing and confiscation of criminal assets remain very limited.” Other shortcomings concern limited progress on decentralisation, lack of transparency in recruitment to civil service positions, the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and the persistence of torture and ill treatment in the prison and detention system.

On the one hand, it is not surprising that these shortcomings exist. Ukraine has been fighting an existential war for almost four years. The country has only been a candidate country for EU membership since June 2022, four months after Russia launched its full-scale invasion. Accession negotiations didn’t start until December 2023.

Yet it is the persistence of these highly visible, easily exploitable problems related to fundamental values of the EU that are causing concern. Almost identical issues were raised in the European commission’s opinion on Ukraine’s membership application in 2022. It was raised again in the 2023 report and again in last year’s progress report on accession negotiations.

It may be an exaggeration to claim that Ukraine is experiencing a turn towards a more autocratic style of presidential government under Zelensky. But there clearly are signs that war-time politics in Kyiv has a darker side that does little to bolster the country’s credentials for EU membership.

Discord within

This provides easy ammunition for Ukraine’s detractors inside the EU. Chief among them is Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, whose obstruction tactics have frustrated European commission efforts on Ukraine’s accession.

Poland and Slovakia have joined Hungary in defying the EU’s effforts to complete an updated trade deal with Ukraine. Opposition to Ukraine from within the EU has now been further strengthened by the formation of a eurosceptic, hard-right populist government coalition in the Czech republic.

The EU’s foreign affairs chief, Kaja Kallas, continues to insist that membership for Ukraine by 2030 “is a realistic goal”.

But the EU’s enlargement commissioner, Marta Kos, is more guarded. She has noted that “future accession treaties will need to contain stronger safeguards” to “reassure our citizens in the Member States that the integrity of our Union and democratic values are ensured, also after the accession”.

In an interview with the Financial Times, she said that she did not “want to go down as the commissioner bringing in the Trojan horses”.

Given the detail in Ukraine’s 2025 progress report on areas where Kyiv clearly needs to make urgent improvements, this suggests that the tough times for Ukraine are likely to continue, and not just in its war with Russia.

Though the future of the EU and Ukraine have become ever more closely entwined since February 2022, there remains a bigger question for the EU. Its dilemma is how to balance holding the line on its membership standards and enabling Ukraine to hold the line against Russia.

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.

Tetyana Malyarenko receives funding from Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University.

– ref. Lack of progress on joining EU caps another bad month for Ukraine – https://theconversation.com/lack-of-progress-on-joining-eu-caps-another-bad-month-for-ukraine-268921