Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dafydd Townley, Teaching Fellow in US politics and international security, University of Portsmouth

There are masked men, and some women, on the streets in American cities, sometimes travelling in unmarked cars, often carrying weapons and wearing military-style kit. They have the power to identify, arrest, detain non-citizens and deport undocumented immigrants. They also have the right to interrogate any individual who they believe is not a citizen over their right to remain in the US.

These are agents from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, known as Ice. This is a federal law enforcement agency, which falls under the control of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and is playing a significant and contentious role in the implementation of Donald Trump’s tough immigration policy.

On the campaign trail Trump promised “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history”. And he is giving Ice more power to deliver his plans.

Since Trump took office in January, Ice funding has been significantly increased. Trump’s “big beautiful bill”, passed by Congress in July 2025, gave Ice US$75 billion (£55 billion) of funding for the next four years, up from around US$8 billion a year.

This funding boost will allow the agency to recruit more agents as well as adding thousands more beds plus extensions to buildings to increase the capacity of detention centres. There is also new funding for advanced surveillance tools including AI-assisted facial recognition and mobile data collection. There’s another US$30 billion going to frontline operations, covering removing immigrants and transport to detention centres.

The president has committed to deporting everyone who is in the US illegally, that is estimated by the Wall Street Journal to be about 4% of the current US population. For the past five months, the numbers of people being picked up by Ice agents has been ticking up fast.

Average daily arrests were up 268% to about 1,000 a day in June 2025, compared with the same month a year earlier. This was also a 42% rise on May 2025, according to data analysis from the Guardian and the Deportation Data Project. However, this is still considerably short of the 3,000 a day ordered by secretary of homeland security Kristi Noem and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.

Ice’s tactics have already attracted significant criticism. Right-leaning broadcaster Fox News has reported on how masked agents are not showing ID or naming their agency when picking up people in raids. Other reporting has highlighted allegations that American citizens are also sometimes being swept up in the raids.

The agency, currently led by acting director Todd M. Lyons, has three main divisions: the Enforcement and Removal Operations division, which identifies and deports undocumented immigrants as well as manages detention centres. The Homeland Security Investigations, which investigates criminal activities with an international or border nexus such as human trafficking, narcotics, and weapons smuggling. The Office of the Principal Legal Advisor provides legal advice to Ice and prosecutes immigration cases in court.

Lyons claimed that mask wearing was necessary because of Ice agents being “doxed” – when a person’s personal information such as names and home addresses are revealed online without their permission. Assaults on Ice agents have risen, he claimed. DHS data suggested that there were 79 assaults on Ice agents from January to June 2025, compared to ten in the same period in 2024.

Democratic House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries compared mask wearing by Ice agents to secret police forces in authoritarian regimes. “We’re not behind the Iron Curtain. This is not the 1930s.”

---

Read more:
ICE has broad power to detain and arrest noncitizens – but is still bound by constitutional limits

---

The Ice agency was established in 2003 by the George W. Bush administration, partly as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and was part of a broader reorganisation of federal agencies under the then newly created DHS. It incorporated parts of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and some elements of the US Customs Service.

According to the agency’s website, Ice’s core mission is “to protect America through criminal investigations and enforcing immigration laws to preserve national security and public safety”.

What’s changed?

At the start of the administration in January, the White House gave Ice the authority to hasten the deportation of immigrants that had entered the country with government authorisation during the previous administration. This “expedited removal” authority allowed Ice to deport individuals without requiring an appearance before an immigration judge.

As arrests have grown in the past months, Lyons told CBS News that Ice would detain any undocumented immigrant, even if they did not have a criminal record.

And the Trump administration has also allowed Ice agents to make arrests at immigration courts, which had previously been off limits. This restriction was introduced by the Biden administration in 2021 to ensure witnesses, victims of crimes and defendants would still appear in court without fear of arrest for immigration violations, unless the target was a national security threat.

However, Lyons rescinded those restrictions in May, part of a broader shift towards aggressive enforcement.

Much of the time, Ice has targeted illegal immigrants. But the agency has also arrested and detained some individuals who were residents (green card holders) or tourists – and, in some cases, citizens.

In recent weeks, according to the Washington Post, Ice has been ordered to increase the number of immigrants shackled with GPS-enabled ankle monitors. This would significantly increase the number of immigrants that are under surveillance. Ankle monitors also restrict where people can travel.

Sparking protests

There have been numerous public protests about Ice raids, most notably in California. This peaked on June 6 after Ice had conducted numerous raids in Los Angeles, resulting in clashes between agents and protesters. This led to the White House sending around 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, despite opposition from California governor Gavin Newsom.

Part of the friction between the Trump administation and the state is that Los Angeles and San Francisco have adopted local policies to limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities including Ice. California has sanctuary laws, such as SB 54, that prohibit local police and sheriffs from assisting Ice with civil immigration enforcement.

However, Trump shows every sign of pushing harder and faster to crack down on illegal immigrants, and Ice agents are clearly at the forefront of how he aims to do it.

Dafydd Townley 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. Masked and armed agents are arresting people on US streets as aggressive enforcement ramps up – https://theconversation.com/masked-and-armed-agents-are-arresting-people-on-us-streets-as-aggressive-enforcement-ramps-up-261499

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ian Whittaker, Senior Lecturer in Physics, Nottingham Trent University

Is there a massive undiscovered planet on the outer reaches of the Solar System? The idea has been around since before the discovery of Pluto in the 1930s. Labelled as planet X, prominent astronomers had put it forward as an explanation for Uranus’s orbit, which drifts from the path of orbital motion that physics would expect it to follow. The gravitational pull of an undiscovered planet, several times larger than Earth, was seen as a possible reason for the discrepancy.

That mystery was ultimately explained by a recalculation of Neptune’s mass in the 1990s, but then a new theory of a potential planet nine was put forward in 2016 by astronomers Konstantin Batygin and Mike Brown at Caltech (the California Institute of Technology).

Their theory relates to the Kuiper Belt, a giant belt of dwarf planets, asteroids and other matter that lies beyond Neptune (and includes Pluto). Many Kuiper Belt objects – also referred to as trans-Neptunian objects – have been discovered orbiting the Sun, but like Uranus they don’t do so in a continuous expected direction. Batygin and Brown argued that something with a large gravitational pull must be affecting their orbit, and proposed planet nine as a potential explanation.

This would be comparable to what happens with our own Moon. It orbits the Sun every 365.25 days, in line with what you would expect in view of their distance apart. However, the Earth’s gravitational pull is such that the Moon also orbits the planet every 27 days. From the point of view of an outside observer, the Moon moves in a spiralling motion as a result. Similarly, many objects in the Kuiper Belt show signs of their orbits being affected by more than just the Sun’s gravity.

While astronomers and space scientists were initially sceptical about the planet nine theory, there has been mounting evidence thanks to increasingly powerful observations that the orbits of trans-Neptunian objects are indeed erratic. As Brown said in 2024:

I think it is very unlikely that P9 does not exist. There are currently no other explanations for the effects that we see, nor for the myriad other P9-induced effects we see on the Solar System.

In 2018, for example, it was announced that there was a new candidate for a dwarf planet orbiting the Sun, known as 2017 OF201. This object measures around 700km across (Earth is roughly 18x bigger) and has a highly elliptical orbit. This lack of a roughly circular orbit around the Sun suggested either an impact early in its lifetime that put it on this path, or gravitational influence from planet nine.

Problems with the theory

On the other hand, if planet nine exists, why hasn’t anyone found it yet? Some astronomers question whether there’s enough orbital data from Kuiper objects to justify any conclusions about its existence, while alternative explanations get put forward for their motion, such as the effect of a ring of debris or the more fantastical idea of a small black hole.

The biggest issue, however, is that the outer Solar System just hasn’t been observed for long enough. For example, object 2017 OF201 has an orbital period of about 24,000 years. While an object’s orbital path around the Sun can be found in a short number of years, any gravitational effects probably need four to five orbits to notice any subtle changes.

New discoveries of objects in the Kuiper Belt have also presented challenges for the planet nine theory. The latest is known as 2023 KQ14, an object discovered by the Subaru telescope in Hawaii.

It is known as a “sednoid”, meaning it spends most of its time far away from the Sun, though within the vast area in which the Sun has a gravitational pull (this area lies some 5,000AU or astronomical units away, where 1AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun). The object’s classification as a sednoid also means the gravitational influence of Neptune has little to no effect on it.

2023 KQ14’s closest approach to the Sun is around 71AU away, while its furthest point is about 433AU. By comparison, Neptune is about 30AU away from the Sun. This new object is another with a very elliptical orbit, but it is stabler than 2017 OF201, which suggests that no large planet, including a hypothetical planet nine, is significantly affecting its path. If planet nine exists, it would therefore perhaps have to be farther than 500AU away from the Sun.

To make matters worse for the planet nine theory, this is the fourth sednoid to be discovered. The other three also exhibit stable orbits, similarly suggesting that any planet nine would have to be very far away indeed.

Nonetheless, the possibility remains there could still be a massive planet affecting the orbits of bodies within the Kuiper Belt. But astronomers’ ability to find any such planet remains somewhat limited by the restrictions of even unmanned space travel. It would take 118 years for a spacecraft to travel far enough away to find it, based on estimates from the speed of Nasa’s New Horizons explorer.

This means we’ll have to continue to rely on ground- and space-based telescopes to detect anything. New asteroids and distant objects are being discovered all the time as our observing capabilities become more detailed, which should gradually shed more light on what might be out there. So watch this (very big) space, and let’s see what emerges in the coming years.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Ian Whittaker 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. The hunt for ‘planet nine’: why there could still be something massive at the edge of the Solar System – https://theconversation.com/the-hunt-for-planet-nine-why-there-could-still-be-something-massive-at-the-edge-of-the-solar-system-261784

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Joseph Richardson, Senior Lecturer in Human Geography, Newcastle University

What does masculinity have to do with the climate? A surprising amount.

For example, significant figures in the manosphere combine misogyny with anti-environmentalism. Think Andrew Tate boasting of his fleet of cars and his private jet. And because care is central to climate action, it may be seen as “women’s work”.

I recently spoke at a panel event in Newcastle, organised by The Conversation and youth charity Cumberland Lodge, on youth, masculinity and the political divide. The sheer breadth of the discussion – between academics and teenage members of NE Youth on the panel and members of the audience – show how messages and beliefs about gender roles and masculinity are embedded in so many aspects of society and our lives.

My research explores what academics call ecological masculinities. This recognises that there are gender and class expectations of who takes the lead in climate action, like the ones I mentioned.

When young, working-class men – many of whom have never been invited into environmentalism before – get involved with climate action, this is more than helping the environment. It’s reshaping perceptions of who gets to play a caring role, including environmental care.

As part of my research, I’m working on the National Lottery Climate Action Fund project Birds, Bees, Bikes and Trees. This is a partnership between Gateshead’s Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art and North East Young Dads and Lads, a regional charity working with young fathers and their families. Through the project, young men get involved in planting trees, making pollinator habitats, and learning skills in bicycle maintenance.

In listening to the young men at the project launch of Birds, Bees, Bikes and Trees I learned that they live their lives locally. They do not go on holidays abroad. They visit local shops and the vast majority do not own a car – they walk, cycle or take public transport.

But they are not commended for their green citizenship. Instead, they are often marked by poverty and deprivation. This view, which sees them as lacking, consigns their demographic to marginalisation. They are seen as without education and without opportunity. It also helps explain why private car ownership is seen as aspirational.

Many areas of north-east England can be considered “left behind places”. At the panel event, attendees talked eloquently about how in their communities, stories of their hometown’s past industrial successes have become their inherited legacies. The decline of traditional industries, often associated with traditional ideas of masculinities, has created generational gaps, a vacuum in identity and purpose.

Opening up environmental care to young men brings opportunities. I am one of a team of beekeepers who tend to two beehives on the south facing roof of the Baltic.

These hives are managed by the North East Young Dads and Lads. Due to conditions at this site – looking after bees at 42 metres in the air – the young men are offered extra training that provides them with industrial skills, in this case industry standard health and safety certification for harness and lanyard working. This adds value to the their ecological efforts.

Young men involved in the project have become employed as beekeepers and cycling coordinators, as well as trained in bike maintenance, forest school leadership and outdoor first aid.

In the North East, though, environmental work has suffered a setback. Durham County Council – now run by Reform UK – has announced they’re removing the words equality and climate change from department names and have rescinded their climate emergency declaration.

This reflects the views of many Reform voters, who – according to YouGov polling – don’t see the environment as a key issue affecting the country.

But the net zero economy in the UK is already four times the size of the manufacturing sector. Challenging the narrative on masculinity – its relationship to caring, and to traditional forms of work – is beneficial for young men. One dad, now employed on the project as a community beekeeper and cycling coordinator, said:

Being more in touch with nature, not only the bees but the flowers and trees they forage on, has been an amazing experience … I see myself as a human worker bee in partnership with these fantastic little creatures, helping them produce a surplus of honey.

Planting trees, restoring bikes, inspecting bee hives and looking after green spaces isn’t just environmental work. It’s emotional work. It’s care work. And changing the narrative on who gets to do it is vitally important.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Michael Joseph Richardson receives funding from National Lottery Community Fund.

– ref. Why modern masculinity is a climate issue – https://theconversation.com/why-modern-masculinity-is-a-climate-issue-260868

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Simmonds, Strategy & International Business Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick

The last few months have been busy for Royal Mail. In late April, Czech businessman Daniel Kretinsky’s EP Group acquired its parent company, International Distribution Services, for £3.6 billion – a value well below the May 2021 peak of £6 billion.

Then, regulator Ofcom announced that from July 28 there would be changes to a regulatory framework called the universal service obligation (USO). This effectively determines delivery standards for Royal Mail – and has been seen as a major barrier to its profitability. The company, which was privatised in 2013, made an adjusted operating loss of £348 million in 2023-24 (and £419 million in 2022-23).

So what do the events of the past few months mean for its future?

It has seen letter volumes fall from a peak of 20 billion in 2004-5 to only 6.6 billion in 2023-24. At the same time, parcel volumes have grown to 3.9 billion – driven by a rise in home shopping. However, Royal Mail has struggled to manage this shift and maintain profitability, effectively downsizing letter infrastructure and rebalancing its workforce to reflect this.

Meanwhile, the costs of meeting its USO obligations have meant its performance has deteriorated. There is competition in letters – but only for the most profitable business. Delivery company Whistl collects and processes bulk business mail and pays Royal Mail to deliver “the last mile”. But Whistl sits outside the USO and can cherry-pick its market segment.

The new USO still requires Royal Mail to deliver first-class letters six days a week, but second-class deliveries will now be on alternate weekdays only. Parcel deliveries are five days a week. Crucially, the obligation applies to around 32 million UK addresses – all for the same price.

The target for delivering first-class post within one day is falling from 93.5% to 90%. For second-class, the three-day target is falling from 98.5% to 95%. There’s also a new target – 99% of all post must arrive no more than two days late.

In making these changes, Ofcom is seeking to strike a balance between reliability, affordability and sustainability. It believes the changes will save Royal Mail between £250 million and £425 million a year, ensuring the service will break even and continue.

However, the company’s 2024-25 performance is below the new targets (76.5% for first-class and 92.2% for second class). As such, it’s likely to come in for more fines from Ofcom to add to those totalling £16 million for the previous two years.

In addition, its ability to increase revenue by raising prices might be curtailed. Second-class prices are regulated – increases are linked to affordability and inflation. They have risen by 74% since 2013, while first-class prices are unregulated and increased by 183%. For comparison, inflation was around 40% over the same period.

Ofcom has said it may also regulate first-class costs, amid concerns that Royal Mail may raise them to such a level that demand disappears, leaving only second-class post.

Change must come

Despite growth, Royal Mail’s parcels business faces headwinds – its market share fell from 45% in 2014-15 to 35% in 2023-24. Competitors, including FedEx, DHL, Evri, DPD and Amazon are not encumbered by USO obligations. This means they can be leaner and more aggressive in their pricing.

In 2020, Royal Mail lost its monopoly with the Post Office, which now also offers services from Evri and DPD. These two companies recently announced a merger, which is awaiting approval by regulator the Competition and Markets Authority but could create a company delivering more than a billion parcels a year.

In addition to modernising sorting offices, Royal Mail will quickly need to adopt technology such as smart postboxes and parcel lockers in order to compete – but for now it is well behind. A recent contract with supermarket Sainsbury’s to put lockers in stores is a good start, but Royal Mail has only 1,500 lockers compared to Amazon’s 5,000 and Inpost’s more than 7,500.

The impact of the EP Group takeover may take some time to be realised. The guarantees given to the government and unions to get the deal done will limit the extent of change for the first few years. Key assurances include maintaining the USO (whatever form that might take) and regulatory compliance, as well as keeping headquarters and tax residency in the UK.

On top of this, it must also protect the brand, reinvest any pension surplus into Royal Mail, and it cannot sell off or break up the company, outsource services or make compulsory redundancies.

These legally binding commitments, supported by a government “golden share” with some veto powers, are not open-ended. Most are valid for five years but that of no compulsory redundancies was originally valid only until 2025. What happens after they expire is uncertain, but the business has to change significantly. Kretinsky has spoken of the need to modernise to keep pace with competitors. This means there will have to be significant change – sooner rather than later.

Improving productivity will be key, and that is very likely to mean redundancies and changes to work practices. Royal Mail’s management faced a series of damaging strikes in 2022 and 2023. But Kretinsky has sought to work with unions, principally the Communication Workers Union.

He has reached a three-year pay deal with greater job security. But efficiency needs to be improved if Royal Mail is to become profitable – and in a labour-intensive business that could mean difficult decisions and fewer employees.

What Royal Mail has in its favour however is its status as a trusted brand (although recent delivery performance may have tarnished that in some customers’ eyes). Changes to the USO will help in the short term. But the volume of letters will continue to fall and the company’s success will still depend on its ability to match capacity with demand while achieving its targets.

Further USO changes are inevitable. And so is the demise of first-class post, as price increases render it a low-volume, uneconomic service. The takeover is likely to accelerate change.

The parcels business will probably become an integral part of a pan-European logistics enterprise, alongside EP’s existing ventures and Royal Mail’s sister firm, parcel company GLS. This inevitably leaves the letters side of the company as a much smaller offering – with a very uncertain future.

Paul Simmonds 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. Royal Mail’s delivery pledges have changed. Here’s what the company could look like in future – https://theconversation.com/royal-mails-delivery-pledges-have-changed-heres-what-the-company-could-look-like-in-future-261643

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Malak Benslama-Dabdoub, Lecturer in law, Royal Holloway University of London

Emmanuel Macron’s pledge to formally recognise the state of Palestine will make France the first G7 country and member of the UN security council to do so. The question is whether others will follow suit. The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, is coming under mounting pressure from many of his MPs, and has recalled his cabinet from their summer recess to discuss the situation in Gaza.

Starmer is expected to announce a peace plan for the Middle East this week that will include British recognition of Palestinian statehood. Downing Street sources said recognition was a matter of “when, not if”.

Recognition of statehood is not merely symbolic. The Montevideo convention of 1933 established several criteria which must apply before an entity can be recognised as a sovereign state. These are a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government and the ability to conduct international relations.

The process involves the establishment of formal diplomatic relations, including the opening of embassies, the exchange of ambassadors, and the signing of bilateral treaties. Recognition also grants the recognised state access to certain rights in international organisations. For Palestinians, such recognition will strengthen their claim to sovereignty and facilitate greater international support.

Macron’s announcement was met with enthusiasm in many Arab capitals, as well as among Palestinian officials and supporters of the two-state solution. It was also praised by a number of European leaders as well as several journalists and other analysts as a long-overdue step toward a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, the reaction from other major powers was swift and critical. The US called it “a reckless decision” while the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said he “strongly condemned” it. Italy’s prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, called it “counterproductive”.

Within hours, it was clear that Macron’s announcement had both shifted diplomatic discourse and reignited longstanding divisions.

France’s decision is significant. It signals a departure from the western consensus, long shaped by the US and the EU, that any recognition of Palestinian statehood must be deferred until after final-status negotiations. The move also highlights growing frustration in parts of Europe with the ongoing violence in Gaza and the failure of peace talks over the past two decades.

Yet questions remain: what does this recognition actually entail? Will it change conditions on the ground for Palestinians? Or is it largely symbolic?

So far, the French government has offered no details on whether this recognition will be accompanied by concrete measures. There has been no mention of sanctions on Israel, no indication of halting arms exports, no pledges of increased humanitarian aid or support for Palestinian governance institutions. France remains a key military and economic partner of Israel, and Macron’s announcement does not appear to alter that relationship.

Nor is this the first time a western country has taken a symbolic stance in support of Palestinian statehood. Sweden recognised the state of Palestine in 2014, becoming the first western European country to do so. It was followed by Spain in 2024.

However, both moves were largely symbolic and did not significantly alter the political or humanitarian situation on the ground. The risk is that recognition, without action, becomes a gesture that changes little.

Macron’s statement also raised eyebrows for another reason: his emphasis on a “demilitarised Palestinian state” living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security. While such language is common in diplomatic discourse, it also reflects a deeper tension.

Palestinians have long argued that their right to self-determination includes the right to defend themselves against occupation. Calls for demilitarisation are often seen by critics as reinforcing the status quo, where security concerns are framed almost exclusively in terms of Israeli needs.

In the absence of a genuine political process, some analysts have warned that recognition of this kind risks formalising a state in name only – a fragmented, non-sovereign entity without control over its borders, resources or defence. Without guarantees of territorial continuity, an end to the expansion of Israeli settlements and freedom of movement, statehood may remain an abstract concept.

What would meaningful support look like?

If France wishes to go beyond symbolism, it has options. It could suspend arms exports to Israel or call for an independent international investigation into alleged war crimes. It could use its influence within the EU to push for greater accountability regarding illegal settlements and the blockade of Gaza. It could also support Palestinian institutions directly and engage with Palestinian civil society.

Without such steps, recognition risks being viewed as a political message more than a policy shift. For Palestinians, the daily realities of occupation, displacement and blockade will not change with diplomatic announcements alone. What is needed, many argue, is not just recognition but support for justice, rights and meaningful sovereignty.

France’s recognition of Palestine marks a shift in diplomatic tone and reflects broader unease with the status quo in the Middle East. It has stirred debate at home and abroad, and raised expectations among those hoping for more robust international engagement with the conflict.

Whether this recognition leads to meaningful changes in policy or conditions on the ground remains to be seen. Much will depend on the steps France takes next – both at the United Nations and through its actions on trade, security and aid.

Malak Benslama-Dabdoub 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. France is set to recognise the state of Palestine and the UK may follow – but what does it really mean? – https://theconversation.com/france-is-set-to-recognise-the-state-of-palestine-and-the-uk-may-follow-but-what-does-it-really-mean-262095

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ross Brown, Professor in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Finance, University of St Andrews

Craft brewer and pub chain BrewDog recently closed some of its pubs in a push to cut operating costs. Given it is partly owned by private equity firm TSG Consumer Partners, the loss-making firm is likely to face further organisational upheaval. After all, private equity firms generally specialise in cutting costs and selling assets.

This downsizing is indicative of the widespread demise of the on-trade beer market (that is, venues that sell beer for consumption on site). The sector is seeing six pubs close down in the UK each week.

It is also testament to the importance of a good finance mix and how this affects a firm’s evolution. Throughout BrewDog’s turbulent history the firm has rarely been out of the headlines, beginning when it launched its in-house equity crowdfunding model.

Labelled Equity for Punks, the scheme enabled non-professional investors to obtain small amounts of equity (that is, shares in BrewDog) in return for relatively small levels of investment (approximately £500). The firm says on its website that the scheme offered beer enthusiasts the chance to “own a slice of the brewery” and offered them “pretty awesome perks” including discounted beer.

From its launch in 2009 until the scheme closed in 2021, Equity for Punks raised £75 million and attracted more than 200,000 small-scale investors. This funding model had major upsides for the firm – generating tremendous growth and expansion over the past 15 years. This vast investment enabled BrewDog to open more than 100 bars and restaurants around the world, employing 3,000 staff.

But how does this funding model work – and who benefits?

First, it enables companies such as BrewDog to access substantial levels of funding from non-professional investors to grow the firm quickly. Second, it cements strong brand loyalty in its investor base. In return for relatively small levels of funding, individual investors obtained promotional benefits – access to new products and company events such as annual shareholder meetings.

Equity crowdfunding models like this are often pursued by growth-orientated, consumer-focused firms that want to expand very quickly. By contrast, most small firms favour more modest levels of growth that are more sustainable in the longer term.

The vast majority of small firms rely on debt finance from banks. But a minority of high-tech firms seek investment from professional investors – business angels (wealthy individuals using their own money) or venture capital (or VC – usually provided by an investment firm). For high-tech firms that want to scale up rapidly, sizeable chunks of VC (£10 million-£40 million) is often the most likely funding route.

The Equity for Punks crowdfunding initiative effectively enabled BrewDog to act like a firm-specific, in-house stock market for small-scale investors. But while some of these investors may have been happy just to support a business they believed in, many will have had little knowledge or experience of equity investment and the risks associated with it.

In essence, this generated easy access to finance for BrewDog, with few strings attached. While venture capitalists and angel investors take an active role in the firms they fund, the equity crowdfunding model offers little active participation for these small-scale investors.

Cautionary tale

As such, the benefits for these investors are less evident. Due to the structure of the subsequent fundraising campaigns, the terms and conditions for investors became less favourable and diluted their original equity stakes in the firm.

Although these small-scale investors still own almost one-third of BrewDog, due to the private nature of the firm the shares cannot easily be traded and they derive very little benefit from their investments. This is especially true while the firm is not making profits.

Unless the firm is acquired, creating demand for the shares, there is little opportunity for the equity punks to realise the value of their original investments in BrewDog. In contrast, under the traditional model of equity investment, VCs and angels would push for strategic measures such as a trade sale of the firm to generate a return on their investment.

The experience of BrewDog is a cautionary one for small-scale equity investors. While hugely beneficial for the recipients of the investment, individual investors might lack knowledge about the true value of their investments.

It is not just BrewDog that has provided small-scale equity investors with little return. In the UK, the main equity crowdfunding platforms have raised substantial capital for young businesses which has produced little return for investors.

Platforms like Crowdcube continue to expand rapidly and raise considerable sums for growth-orientated firms such as BrewDog. However, the benefits for investors are often illusory due to a lack of trade sales known as “exits”, which allow investors to sell their stake.

These platforms are of course legitimate means of raising funds and are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Some academic research suggests, however, that a lack of due diligence on the part of the platforms can lead to firms with limited track records gaining substantial sums of investment. This can open up the potential for fraudulent behaviour, which economists call the risk of moral hazard.

Investors are not a homogeneous group and have vastly different levels of knowledge surrounding the risks associated with equity investments.

The BrewDog story has become a ubiquitous and commonly used case study by business school academics. Rapid access to vast sums of capital allowed the firm to grow at breakneck speed but with little in the way of stakeholder guidance, supervision and stewardship from investors.

If BrewDog had undertaken more sustainable growth using conventional sources of finance, it’s possible that the firm would be in better shape than it is now. While growth is a policy mantra, the “rollercoaster” nature of rapid growth can entail considerable woes for the entrepreneurs and firms involved.

In a nutshell, small-scale investors were left exposed, with little in the way of concrete returns. For many of them, their beer dreams will have fallen flat. But nonetheless, the growth of equity crowdfunding in recent years has been huge. As such, there’s a case to be made for greater investor protection in this arena.

BrewDog and Crowdcube were approached about the claims made in this article but declined to comment.

Professor Ross Brown receives funding from the ESRC under grant number ES/W010259/1 for the project ” Understanding how constraints on access to finance and under-investment impact on productivity growth in smaller firms”.

– ref. BrewDog’s ‘Equity for Punks’ fuelled its rapid rise – but may have contributed to its struggles – https://theconversation.com/brewdogs-equity-for-punks-fuelled-its-rapid-rise-but-may-have-contributed-to-its-struggles-261909

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joelle Grogan, Senior Visiting Research Fellow, UCD Sutherland School of Law, University College Dublin

Whether the UK should leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has been a debate in UK politics for years. Conservatives have long accused the convention of interfering with government policy on migration and criminal justice, and have debated repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 (which enshrines the convention in UK law).

Stories of foreign criminal deportations stopped over a child’s taste for chicken nuggets, or having a pet cat, have fuelled the debate. These stories (although debunked) give the impression that human rights law undermines border control on the most trivial grounds.

Suella Braverman, who as Conservative home secretary was one of the most vocal advocates for leaving, has laid out a 56-page plan to do so. Current Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has commissioned a review into whether the UK should leave the ECHR and other international legal agreements.

But there are alternatives to leaving entirely. Labour justice secretary Shabana Mahmood has signalled plans for reform with a focus on foreign criminal deportations. On a visit to Strasbourg in June, Mahmood suggested that there is a perception that “the law too often protects those who break the rules, rather than those who follow them”.

Other signatories to the convention are concerned too – though none have called to leave it. In May 2025, nine countries led by Italy published an open letter calling on the European Court of Human Rights to “restore the right balance” between migration and the ECHR. They want states to have “more freedom” to tackle irregular migration and expel foreign national criminals.

How does the ECHR work?

It’s important to note that the ECHR has no right to asylum, nor a right to enter or remain in a country of which you are not a national. Deporting someone back to their country or to a safe third country does not violate the ECHR.

However, in exceptional cases, a person can challenge their removal on human rights grounds under the convention in UK courts or – very rarely – in Strasbourg. These are the cases that the UK is concerned about.

There are, generally speaking, two routes to this. A person may challenge their removal under Article 3 of the convention (prohibition of torture and other severe ill-treatment) if, for example, there is a serious risk that they may be tortured in the country to which they would be sent.

Or they can do so under Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life). For example, if they have children who are entirely dependent on them and unable to leave with them.

Article 3 is an absolute right: nothing can justify the use of torture or allowing a person to be tortured. Article 8 is a qualified – not absolute – right. It can be limited where this is lawful, proportionate and necessary to protect the wider public interest. Deporting a foreign national who has committed a criminal offence could be such a case.

If a person believes their rights have been violated through being deported, they can make an application to the European Court of Human Rights, but only if they have exhausted every domestic route in their national courts. This is not an appeal, and the court cannot overturn a domestic judgment or invalidate national law. However, a negative judgment legally obliges the member state to stop the violation and ensure it does not happen again.

Judgments by the European Court of Human Rights against the UK are rare. Since 1980, there have been only four cases where the court ruled that the UK violated the right to family life in a deportation case.

Within the UK, while information on how many foreign national criminal deportations have been stopped on human rights grounds is scarce, the most recent available data suggests that only 2.5% of Article 8 appeals against deportation (or 645 cases over six years) were successful in UK courts. Some of these could have subsequently been overturned, but that information is not publicly available.

How could it be reformed?

As governments throughout Europe look for ways to manage migration, some states are looking at reforming the ECHR on a Europe-wide level.

The text of the convention can be amended with the unanimous consent of all 46 members of the Council of Europe. This would likely take years to negotiate and come into force.

Alternatively, member states can issue a joint declaration to try to influence how the court interprets the convention. This might, for example, call for greater deference to national decisions related to migration and the right to family life.

While it’s certain that many states have concerns regarding migration, they might not necessarily have the same view on what to do about it. Denmark led an effort on ECHR reform in 2018. But its initial draft declaration, which emphasised the primacy of states and the secondary role of the court, was roundly criticised by other member states, and ultimately a much watered-down version was passed.

Reform within the UK

Current immigration rules set by parliament establish the conditions for when Article 8 can be applied.

These rules allow courts to consider how long the foreign offender facing deportation has lived lawfully in the UK, along with how socially and culturally integrated they are, and whether there would be “very significant obstacles” for them to integrate into another country. The rules also allow an Article 8 exception where deportation would be “unduly harsh” for any dependent children.

For serious crimes, foreign offenders “must show very compelling circumstances over and above” these conditions.

The Ministry of Justice has indicated that legislation will be introduced domestically to clarify Article 8 rules and to “strengthen the public interest test” so that fewer cases are treated as “exceptional”.

The government could legislate to require the courts to heavily weight the risk of reoffending, and the threat posed to public safety by the crimes committed, in their decision. These are already implicit when courts balance the rights of the individual with the public interest, and so likely to influence cases only at the margins, but could serve the delicate politics at play without breaching international obligations.

Alternatively, parliament could legislate – as advocated by the Conservatives – to exclude all deportation decisions from the scope of the Human Rights Act. This would abandon the principle that human rights are for everyone, and in many cases, it would allow people to be sent back to conflict zones or unstable countries. Doing so would be tantamount to a departure not just from the ECHR, but from the UK’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law, risking serious political and legal consequences both domestically and to the UK’s international standing. Even then, as former home secretary James Cleverly points out, it would not be a “silver bullet” to removing the obstacles to deportations.

There are no reforms to the ECHR that would “fix” the challenges of irregular migration, the causes of which are largely unrelated to human rights guarantees.

What can be fixed, however, is the lack of accurate information about the extent to which the convention limits migration policy – particularly foreign criminal deportations. For this, review of the application of Article 8 is welcome. Without clarification of where the ECHR fits within the wider pattern of immigration, we’re left with tall tales about cats and chicken nuggets swaying migration policy.

Joelle Grogan 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 the UK could reform the European convention on human rights – https://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-could-reform-the-european-convention-on-human-rights-259466

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Franklin Nobrega, Associate Professor, Microbiology, University of Southampton

If bacteria had a list of things to fear, phages would be at the top. These viruses are built to find, infect and kill them – and they have been doing it for billions of years. Now that ancient battle is offering clues for how we might fight back against antibiotic-resistant infections.

As more bacteria evolve to withstand our antibiotics, previously treatable infections are becoming harder – and in some cases, impossible – to cure. This crisis, known as antimicrobial resistance (AMR), already causes over a million deaths a year globally, and the number is rising fast. The World Health Organization has named AMR one of the top ten global public health threats.

Phage therapy – the use of phages to treat bacterial infections – is gaining attention as a potential solution. Phages are highly specific, capable of targeting even drug-resistant strains. In some compassionate-use cases in the UK, they have cleared infections where every antibiotic had failed. But phages still face a challenge that is often overlooked: the bacteria themselves.

Bacteria have evolved sophisticated systems to detect and destroy phages. These defences are diverse: some cut up viral DNA, others block entry, and a few launch a kind of intracellular shutdown to prevent viral takeover. In a new study published in Cell, my colleagues and I describe a system that works differently, called Kiwa. It acts like a sensor embedded in the bacterial membrane, detecting early signs of attack.

Exactly what Kiwa is sensing remains an open question, but our findings suggest it responds to the mechanical stress that occurs when a phage latches on to the cell and injects its DNA. Once triggered, Kiwa acts fast. It shuts down the phage’s ability to make the components it needs to build new phages, stopping the infection before it can take over the cell.

But just as bacteria evolve ways to defend themselves, phages evolve ways to fight back. In our latest experiments, we saw two strategies in play.

Some phages developed small mutations in the proteins they use to attach to the bacterial surface – subtle changes that helped them avoid triggering Kiwa’s detection system. Others took a different approach: they allowed themselves to be detected, but escaped the consequences.

These phages carried mutations in a viral protein that seems to be involved in how Kiwa shuts down the infection. We don’t yet know exactly how this works, but the result is clear: with just a few changes, the virus keeps replicating, even after Kiwa has been activated.

This evolutionary flexibility is part of what makes phages so powerful, and why they hold such promise in treating infections. But it also highlights a key challenge: to make phage therapy effective, we need to understand how these microbial battles play out.

Rules of engagement

If a bacterial strain carries a defence like Kiwa, not all phages will succeed against it. Some might be blocked entirely. But others, with just the right mutations, might slip through. That means choosing or engineering the right phage for the job is not just a matter of trial and error – it is a matter of knowing the rules of engagement.

Studying bacterial defence systems like Kiwa gives us a deeper understanding of those rules. It helps explain why some phages fail, why others succeed, and how we might design better phage therapies in the future. In time, we may be able to predict which bacterial defences a given strain carries, and select phages that are naturally equipped – or artificially tuned – to overcome them.

That is the idea behind our growing phage collection project. We are gathering phages from across the UK and beyond, including from public submissions – dirty water is often a goldmine – and testing them to see which ones can overcome the defences carried by dangerous bacteria. With over 600 types already catalogued, we are building a resource that could help guide future phage therapy, pairing the right phage with the right infection.

Kiwa is just one piece of the puzzle. Bacteria encode many such defence systems, each adding a layer of complexity – and opportunity – to this microbial arms race. Some detect viral DNA directly, others sense damage or stress, and some even coordinate responses with neighbouring cells. The more we learn, the more precisely we can intervene.

This is not a new war. Bacteria and phages have been locked in it for billions of years. But for the first time, we are starting to listen in. And if we learn how to navigate the strategies they have evolved, we might find new ways to treat the infections our antibiotics can no longer handle.

Franklin Nobrega receives funding from Royal Society and Wessex Medical Research.

– ref. How ancient viruses could help fight antibiotic resistance – https://theconversation.com/how-ancient-viruses-could-help-fight-antibiotic-resistance-261970

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Urban Wiesing, Professor of Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Tübingen

The US Food and Drug Administration recently convened a panel of experts to examine a sensitive and increasingly urgent question: should antidepressants be prescribed to women suffering from depression during pregnancy?

To the surprise of many in the American medical community, the panel included not only US-based experts but also three international voices known for their critical views on psychiatric medication. Their inclusion sparked immediate controversy and foreshadowed the disagreements to come.

At the heart of the debate is a long-standing assumption in American medical practice: while antidepressants may carry some risk to the unborn child, the dangers of leaving maternal depression untreated are usually greater. Yet this mainstream position was strongly challenged. A majority of the panel appeared unconvinced that the benefits of antidepressant use in pregnancy clearly outweigh the potential risks.

As the discussion unfolded, fundamental questions remained unresolved. What exactly are the risks to the unborn child? The panel offered different answers.

How substantial are the benefits to a pregnant woman? Some experts questioned whether antidepressants deliver meaningful help in these circumstances at all. And without clarity on these points, how can the the risk-benefit ratio be reliably assessed?

It’s a familiar scenario in science: experts looking at the same data but drawing different conclusions – not only about the facts, but how to interpret them. In this case, the division seemed to reflect deeper cultural and philosophical differences in how various countries approach mental health care during pregnancy.

The outcome of the panel’s deliberations reflected that divide, with no consensus reached.

To some extent, the conflict was embedded in the very design of the panel. When those with sharply opposing views are brought together without agreement on the evidence base, gridlock is a likely result. Still, the impasse underlines the need for more independent, high-quality research on the effects of antidepressants during pregnancy – research that can inform not only regulators but also doctors and patients.

Complicating matters further is the political climate. The current US health secretary – Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – has, critics argue, an uneasy relationship with scientific consensus, which makes trust in the process all the more fragile.

A warning label is not a substitute for a conversation

Still, the panel produced one tangible suggestion: a proposal from around half of its members to place a so-called “black box” warning on antidepressant packaging, alerting pregnant women to potential risks to the unborn child. Such warnings are typically reserved for the most serious medical concerns. But is this really the right approach?

A comparison often made is to cigarette packaging. But this analogy quickly breaks down. Cigarettes are freely bought; antidepressants are prescribed following a medical consultation. To issue a blunt warning on a medicine that has already been deemed appropriate by a doctor risks undermining the doctor–patient relationship.

If stronger warnings are needed, the real problem may lie in the consultation process itself, not in the packaging.

Pregnancy presents a unique ethical dilemma. The unborn child cannot give consent, and damage sustained in the womb can result in lifelong consequences. At the same time, untreated depression in a pregnant woman carries serious risks of its own – for both mother and child. This is a classic medical conflict, with no easy solution.

And while US law gives pregnant women the right to make such decisions – albeit with variation across states – it doesn’t solve the underlying uncertainty. That must be navigated through informed, respectful dialogue between doctor and patient, not by resorting to fear-inducing labels.

Ultimately, every case is personal. Every decision must take into account the individual’s mental health, support system, risk tolerance and values. What’s needed is thoughtful communication, prudent prescribing and careful balancing of benefit and harm. In short: good medicine.

What’s not needed is to heap more guilt on women already grappling with depression. If scientists and policymakers cannot agree, pregnant women should not bear the burden of that confusion. They deserve support, not stigma.

Urban Wiesing 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. No clear answers on antidepressants in pregnancy – https://theconversation.com/no-clear-answers-on-antidepressants-in-pregnancy-261724

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mark Forshaw, Professor of Health Psychology, Edge Hill University

There was a time, just a couple of decades ago, when researchers in psychology and health always had to engage with people face-to-face or using the telephone. The worst case scenario was sending questionnaire packs out to postal addresses and waiting for handwritten replies.

So we either literally met our participants, or we had multiple corroborating points of evidence that indicated we were dealing with a real person who was, therefore, likely to be telling us the truth about themselves.

Since then, technology has done what it always does – creating opportunities for us to cut costs, save time and access wider pools of participants on the internet. But what most people have failed to fully realise is that internet research has brought along risks of data corruption or impersonation which could be deliberately aiming to put research projects in jeopardy.

What enthused scientists most about internet research was the new capability to access people who we might not normally be able to involve in research. For example, as more people could afford to go online, people who were poorer became able to participate, as were those from rural communities who might be many hours and multiple forms of transport away from our laboratories.

Technology then leapt ahead, in a very short period of time. The democratisation of the internet opened it up to yet more and more people, and artificial intelligence grew in pervasiveness and technical capacity. So, where are we now?

As members of an international interest group looking at fraud in research (Fraud Analysis in Internet Research, or Fair), we’ve realised that it is now harder than ever to identify if someone is real. There are companies that scientists can pay to provide us with participants for internet research, and they in turn pay the participants.

While they do have checks and balances in place to reduce fraud, it’s probably impossible to eradicate it completely. Many people live in countries where the standard of living is low, but the internet is available. If they sign up to “work” for one of these companies, they can make a reasonable amount of money this way, possibly even more than they can in jobs involving hard labour and long hours in unsanitary or dangerous conditions.

In itself, this is not a problem. However, there will always be a temptation to maximise the number of studies they can participate in, and one way to do this is to pretend to be relevant to, and eligible for, a larger number of studies. Gaming the system is likely to be happening, and some of us have seen indirect evidence of this (people with extraordinarily high numbers of concurrent illnesses, for example).

It’s not feasible (or ethical) to insist on asking for medical records, so we rely on trust that a person with heart disease in one study is also eligible to take part in a cancer study because they also have cancer, in addition to anxiety, depression, blood disorders or migraines and so on. Or all of these. Short of requiring medical records, there is no easy answer for how to exclude such people.

More insidiously, there will also be people who use other individuals to game the system, often against their will. We are only now starting to consider the possibility of this new form of slavery, the extent of which is largely unknown.

Enter the bots

Similarly, we are seeing the rise of bots who are pretending to be participants, answering questions in increasingly sophisticated ways. Multiple identities can be fabricated by a single coder who can then not only make a lot of money from studies, but also seriously undermine the science we are trying to do (very concerning where studies are open to political influence).

It’s getting much more difficult to spot artificial intelligence. There was a time when written interview questions, for example, could not be completed by AI, but they now can.

It’s literally only a matter of time before we will find ourselves conducting and recording online interviews with a visual representation of a living, breathing individual, who simply does not exist, for example through deepfake technology.

We are only a few years away from such a profound deception, if not months. The British TV series The Capture might seem far-fetched to some, with its portrayal of real-time fake TV news, but anyone who has seen where the state of the art now is with respect to AI can easily imagine us being just a short stretch away from its depictions of the “evils” of impersonation using perfect avatars scraped from real data. It is time to worry.

The only answer, for now, will be to simply conduct interviews face-to-face, in our offices or laboratories, with real people who we can look in the eye and shake the hand of. We will have travelled right back in time to the point a few decades ago mentioned earlier.

With this comes a loss of one of the great things about the internet: it is a wonderful platform for democratising participation in research for people who might otherwise not have a voice, such as those who cannot travel because of a physical disability, and so on. It is dismaying to think that every fraudster is essentially stealing the voice of a real person who we genuinely want in our studies. And indeed, between 20–100% of survey responses have been found as fraudulent in previous research.

We must be suspicious going forward, when our natural propensity as amenable people who try to serve humanity with the work we do, is to be trusting and open. This is the real tragedy of the situation we find ourselves in, over and above that of the corruption of data that feed into our studies.

It also has ethical implications that we urgently need to consider. We do not, however, seem to have any choice but to “hope for the best but assume the worst”. We must build systems around our research, which are fundamentally only in place in order to detect and remove false participation of one type or another.

The sad fact is that we are potentially going backwards by decades to rule out a relatively small proportion of false responses. Every “firewall” we erect around our studies is going to reduce fraud (although probably not entirely eliminate it), but at the cost of reducing the breadth of participation that we desperately want to see.

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. How the internet and its bots are sabotaging scientific research – https://theconversation.com/how-the-internet-and-its-bots-are-sabotaging-scientific-research-261796