Nature reserve enjoys resurgence of bearded tits
RSPB Blacktoft Sands, in Goole, has experienced a record year in the breeding of bearded tits, also known as "beardies", which came dangerously close to extinction in the UK in the 1940s.
Around 120 pairs of the small, reedbed bird produced 500 young last year at the reserve – more than double the breeding success rate of previous years.
Pete Short, RSPB Humber Estuary reserves manager, said seeing the orangey-brown, long-tailed birds at the reserve was a "special nature spectacle".
In 1948, the English population of bearded tits was thought to be down to just two pairs at RSPB Minsmere, the society said.
The population then grew to about 100 pairs in south-east England in the early 1960s and have nearly doubled over the past 25 years.
The RSPB said the resurgence was down to 25 years of dedicated reedbed management at Blacktoft, including winter reed cutting.
Mr Short said: "Watching our bearded tits darting around the reedbeds is a special nature spectacle.
"Carefully managing wetlands is important for some of our rarest species and we're delighted that our management of the reedbeds is paying off.
"Wetlands are important to us all and without them we would lose so much."
Listen to highlights from Hull and East Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here.
Mission to save willow tit from extinction
Thousands of migrating birds arrive on coast
Bird lovers gear up for annual watch: 'You get a bit hooked'
RSPB Blacktoft Sands
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
17 Phrases Know-It-Alls Use To Flex Their ‘Superiority'
We've all dealt with those people who can't help but try to outshine everyone else in the room. They drop subtle (or not-so-subtle) phrases designed to make you feel like they know more, like they're the walking encyclopedia of the conversation. These individuals often enjoy showcasing their perceived intelligence with lines that can come across as dismissive, condescending, or annoying. Here's a breakdown of what they say and what they're really trying to accomplish. People love to whip out 'Well, technically…' when itching to correct you on something small, often irrelevant. It's not about adding depth to the conversation—it's about asserting their intellectual dominance by focusing on a minor detail. This phrase is a favorite among those who need to be right, even if the 'correction' doesn't matter in the grand scheme. It's less about accuracy and more about control. Their goal is to sound smarter, not to be helpful. These people rarely bring up 'technically' moments in good faith. It's usually a way to remind you who's supposedly more precise. Even when they're right, their delivery reeks of superiority. They enjoy spotlighting flaws, even minor ones, to inflate their ego. The tone says it all: they want to feel smarter than you. When someone tells you something is 'simple,' they're not being helpful—they're belittling you. It's their way of suggesting that you're making something more complicated than it needs to be. Even if the topic is nuanced, they reduce it to a basic level to make it seem like you're the one who's struggling. The subtext is loud and clear: 'I've got this figured out, why haven't you?' It's condescending, plain and simple. What they really mean is that your confusion is beneath them. They want to look like the expert in the room. By minimizing complexity, they elevate themselves. This tactic shuts down deeper discussion fast. It leaves you feeling talked down to, not enlightened. When someone says, 'I read somewhere that…', it's often their way of flexing their 'well-informed' status. The problem is that they rarely cite reliable sources or offer any real depth. It's just a tactic to make you feel like they're more in the know, even if what they're referencing is vague or irrelevant. It's a throwaway line meant to make them seem well-read and knowledgeable. Most of the time, it adds nothing valuable to the conversation. This phrase is a lazy attempt at credibility. They hope you won't question the source. It's meant to shut down your perspective by implying they've already done the homework. But vague references rarely impress anyone genuinely informed. It's more about sounding smart than being smart. When someone starts a sentence with 'Actually…', they're waving a flag that says, 'I'm here to correct you.' This one word is a classic way to interject and undermine whatever you've just said, whether or not they have any groundbreaking information to share. It's a subtle power move meant to establish their intellectual dominance. They want you to know they're smarter, even if the correction is pointless. Their 'correction' is often unnecessary, but the condescension is crystal clear. They thrive on these moments of interruption. It's less about clarity and more about control. They want the room to pause and admire their knowledge. Even when it's petty, they crave that moment of superiority. 'Actually' is rarely as harmless as it seems. Hearing this phrase can feel like nails on a chalkboard, especially when you already get it. It implies you're clueless, and the speaker is swooping in to save you with their vast knowledge. In reality, they're positioning themselves as the 'expert' in the conversation, leaving you as the uninformed bystander. It's one of those statements that instantly turns a discussion into a lecture. They assume the teacher role whether you want it or not. Their tone isn't about being helpful—it's about being superior. This is how they assert dominance in subtle social ways. They need you to recognize their authority, even if it's over something trivial. These people mistake condescension for clarity. Conversations stop being equal the moment this phrase is dropped. 'Everyone knows that' isn't just a phrase—it's a dig, a not-so-subtle way of making you feel like you're the only one in the dark. It's designed to make you question your intelligence and put the other person on a pedestal. They're saying, 'How could you not know this?' It's dismissive and shows they're more interested in appearing smart than engaging in a meaningful conversation. It's arrogance wrapped in casual phrasing. What they want is to highlight how behind you are. They crave the comparison between their brilliance and your supposed ignorance. These statements aren't about facts—they're about hierarchy. Making you feel small makes them feel big. That's their real goal here. This one is the verbal equivalent of a door slamming in your face. When someone says, 'You wouldn't understand,' they're not just shutting down the conversation but also implying that your brain can't handle the topic. It's a passive-aggressive way of belittling your intelligence while making them feel superior. The worst part is it doesn't invite a discussion—it's designed to make you feel left out and inferior. It sends a clear message that they think you're intellectually inferior to them. This phrase is all about exclusion and hierarchy. They aren't offering to explain—they're declaring you unworthy of understanding. It's a power play disguised as protection. They get to feel smarter while you're left feeling dismissed. It's about maintaining their self-image, not clarity. If someone starts with this, prepare yourself. What follows will be rude, no matter how much they try to sugarcoat it. This phrase is the ultimate passive-aggressive opener. They're permitting themselves to be condescending under the guise of politeness. They really mean, 'I'm about to put you in your place, but I want to look like I'm being civil while I do it.' Their tone says it all—smug, knowing, and superior. They think prefacing it this way softens the blow. In reality, it just makes them seem more manipulative. They want to insult you but hide behind fake manners. This isn't honesty—it's veiled hostility. This phrase is nothing short of an insult. It's a direct jab at your intelligence, as if they question whether you know the subject. It's not an innocent question—it's a statement wrapped in a question mark designed to belittle you. Instead of offering clarification or engaging in a real conversation, they use this to remind you that, in their eyes, you're out of your depth. It's designed to make you feel embarrassed and small. They don't want your answer—they want you to feel inferior. This phrase is about posturing, not discussion. It's dismissive and patronizing in equal measure. Their goal isn't understanding—it's dominance. People who say this aren't curious; they're condescending. Whenever someone says, 'It's common sense,' they're not being helpful—they're being condescending. This phrase implies that whatever you discuss should be so obvious that only a fool wouldn't get it. It's their way of saying that you lack basic understanding while they are enlightened. It's a dismissive line that shuts down real conversation. Instead of explaining, they're choosing to belittle. They use this to make themselves feel superior. It's not about facts—it's about ego. Their words are meant to humiliate, not clarify. When someone defaults to this phrase, they're signaling impatience and arrogance. It's a shortcut to making you feel small. This phrase is a favorite of people pretending they're experts, but their 'research' often consists of reading a few articles or watching a YouTube video. They use this line to back you into a corner, making it seem like their viewpoint is bulletproof because they've put in more 'work.' The reality is they're probably as informed as you are, but they'll claim superior knowledge to discredit your opinion. It's less about facts and more about authority. They want to win the argument, not exchange ideas. Their version of research rarely withstands scrutiny. It's a bluff to make you back down. They hope you won't challenge their so-called expertise. Saying this phrase signals they're done listening. They value appearing right over being open-minded. This is one of those humblebrag phrases that people drop to make it seem like you're late to the party. By saying, 'I've known that for ages,' they're trying to make you feel like you're behind the curve while they've been sitting on this information forever. It's dismissive, unnecessary, and another way to inflate their ego by making you feel like you're playing catch-up. It's not about sharing knowledge—it's about subtly putting you down. They want you to know they've been ahead of you all along. Their goal is superiority, not camaraderie. They frame themselves as more experienced, more informed, and ahead of the game. It's rarely said kindly—it's meant to highlight your ignorance. This isn't about facts; it's about status. They want you to feel embarrassed, not enlightened. This phrase is a classic move to shut down your perspective, regardless of whether their 'experience' is relevant. Even if it is, they use it to shut down the conversation because, in their mind, more experience equals superior knowledge. It's an automatic conversation ender, implying that their lived experience trumps your understanding, no matter what you bring to the table. They aren't offering insight—they're closing the door on your opinion. It's all about pulling rank. Experience doesn't always equal wisdom, but they want you to think it does. This phrase is about power, not collaboration. They want you to defer, not discuss. Once this line drops, they've signaled they're done listening. Their ego won't allow for debate. While this might seem like a friendly offer, it's often a backhanded way of saying you're doing something wrong, and they're here to save the day. The real meaning behind this phrase is, 'I know better than you, and you need my guidance.' It's condescending and often unnecessary, especially when you didn't ask for their help in the first place. They frame it as kindness, but it's rooted in superiority. They want credit for being the wiser voice in the room. This isn't generosity—it's about control. They believe their unsolicited advice is a gift you should accept. Dismissing your ideas feels like doing you a favor. Their 'help' isn't about your growth—it's about their ego. These words mask superiority as concern. This one's sneaky because it sounds like they're just offering an alternative perspective, but really, it's a way of saying their method is better than yours. It's a quiet way of implying that your approach is flawed and theirs is superior. Even if they don't outright say your way is wrong, the subtext is clear—they think they know better. It's dismissive, masked as casual commentary. They aren't offering advice—they're issuing judgment. Their words imply there's only one right way—their way. They want you to question your choices and defer to their experience. Subtle superiority is still superiority. It's rarely about improvement; it's about control. This phrase chips away at confidence while elevating their ego. When someone says, 'I'm pretty sure…' they cast doubt on what you've just said, even if they don't have solid evidence. It's a way of hedging their bets while implying they have a better handle on the topic. It's passive-aggressive because it sounds uncertain, but in reality, they're trying to gently correct you, whether or not they have the facts to back it up. They want to sound knowledgeable without fully committing. This gives them cover if they're wrong. This phrase is about planting seeds of doubt. They subtly question your grasp on reality. Even if they're wrong, they've unsettled your confidence. They use uncertainty as a weapon. It's less about facts, more about control. While this might sound diplomatic, it's often just a way for someone to end the conversation when they think they've won. By saying, 'Let's agree to disagree,' they're essentially saying, 'I'm right, but I'll let you have your little opinion.' It's a dismissive way to shut down further discussion and avoid engaging with your viewpoint. They want the final word without offering closure. It's condescension dressed up as civility. What they're saying is they're done respecting your perspective. They don't want dialogue—they want you to back down. This phrase isn't about respect, it's about control. It ends conversations on their terms, not yours. They leave feeling superior, not reconciled.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Fire at large farm buildings tackled by six crews
Firefighters have been battling a blaze affecting two large agricultural buildings in a village. Six crews were called to reports of a significant fire in Finchingfield, Essex, at 06:08 BST. They found a former poultry shed, measuring 40m by 10m (131ft by 33ft), was alight and the flames had spread to a second structure. The incident was scaled down at about 08:50, with two crews remaining to monitor the scene. One person wrote on social media that the firefighters had done an "incredible job" at containing the flames. Follow Essex news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X. Essex County Fire & Rescue Service
Newsweek
a day ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States With the Most, Least High School Graduates
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. West Virginia has the highest rate of graduation among public high school students, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). With score of higher than 90 percent, the state led the way on public high school graduation, with Tennessee, Kentucky, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts close behind. Newsweek has contacted the Department of Education via email for comment. Why It Matters High school graduation rates in the country have been on the rise based on NCES data. Between 2011 to 2012, the average adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR) for public high school students was 80 percent, but in 2021 to 2022, that number was 87 percent. While the data shows a rise in graduation rates as a whole, the increase has not been completely steady, with the coronavirus pandemic knocking the average ACGR down slightly. Following the passage of President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" earlier this month, education experts have voiced concern over what ramifications the wide-reaching legislation could have on children and schools. Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts could impact school budgets, experts warn, while the continued mass deportation of immigrants may strain schools as they try to support students whose family members have been detained. What To Know The NCES calculated the graduation rates in each state based on an ACGR—the percentage of public school students who graduate within four years of starting ninth grade with a regular diploma. For students with "the most significant cognitive disabilities," the score was measured by those with a state-defined alternate high school diploma. There was no available information for New Mexico or Oklahoma. While there were also other states that had ACGRs of 90, including Texas and Missouri, these states still fell into the category of ACGRs between 80 to less than 90 percent—suggesting these numbers may have been rounded up. States with the lowest ACGR include Arizona (77 percent), Alaska (78 percent), and Idaho (80 percent). Puerto Rico had the lowest ACGR across the board at 74 percent. Why the ACGR varies widely between states is multi-factorial. One reason is that states "have their own graduation requirements," Christopher Lubienski, director of the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy at Indiana University and elected member of the National Academy of Education, told Newsweek. For example, up until this school year, students in Massachusetts had to pass state-administered tests in English, mathematics, and a science in order to graduate, Richard Murnane, a professor of education and society at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, told Newsweek. "This is no longer the case, so Massachusetts graduation rates will be higher this year." Graduation rates may also vary due to the differences in numbers of private schools in states. "In some states with fewer private schools, most students go to public schools, so the ACGR there is more of a reflection of the total school population," Lubienski said. "But in other states where many students go to independent schools, it could be that the students most likely to complete school enroll in those non-public options, leaving public schools with more students who are less likely to complete school." These factors make it difficult to make accurate conclusions on what the ACGR says about education in each state, Lubienski told Newsweek. Broadly, factors that cause variation in education outcomes in states include "family incomes," Murnane said, pointing to Massachusetts as "a quite wealthy state." He also said that high school graduation rates depend on the percentage of students who are immigrants. "Many immigrants come with low English skills and have trouble doing high-school-level work. Others move back to their original countries before they graduate," Murnane said. He added that "when and where the economy is very strong, drop out rates tend to be higher because students leave school to take jobs." What People Are Saying Christopher Lubienski, director of the Center for Evaluation & Education Policy at Indiana University and elected member of the National Academy of Education, told Newsweek: "A more useful number would be looking at this issue over time. Assuming that a given state has maintained its same graduation requirement, changes over time would give us some indication as to whether schools are performing better or worse." He added: "Students are more likely to successfully complete school if they attend a well-resourced school, and have suitable family, community and school support systems in place." Richard Murnane, a professor of education and society at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, told Newsweek: "States differ in how well they track high school graduation rates. The data comes from individual high schools. High schools have incentives to state that students who leave prior to graduation have 'transferred' to another school rather than state they have 'dropped out.' Some states check on the accuracy of the reports from individual schools much more carefully than other states do." Mavis Sanders, a senior research scholar of Black Children and Families at Child Trends, nonprofit, non-partisan research organization, told Newsweek: "Graduation rates are complex outcomes shaped by a variety of factors, including the availability of jobs and career opportunities for individuals without high school diplomas, graduation requirements which differ by state, as well as specific supports and pathways to graduation—such as those implemented in states like Tennessee." She added: "Graduation rates also vary significantly across student groups and are influenced by factors such as socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, and English language proficiency. As such, graduation rates reflect broader issues of educational access and opportunity."
