Cross-border bid to create red squirrel strongholds
Wildlife trusts from across the north of England are teaming up with organisations in the south of Scotland for a five-year programme of restoring habitats and controlling grey squirrels.
The five-year plan will concentrate on fertility control of greys, with a contraceptive being introduced into the population.
Natural predators of greys, such as pine martens, will also be encouraged into new areas, while restoration of red squirrels habitats will also take place.
Alongside these initiatives, there will be a major push for communities, businesses and other organisations to get involved in saving the reds.
Dr Karen Blackport, from Selkirk-based Bright Green Nature, said: "There are lots of new, innovative threads for helping red squirrels being introduced in this programme."
Surveys have shown that about 75% of the UK's 160,000 red squirrels are to be found in Scotland.
Numbers are continuing to decline as non-native grey squirrels, which were first introduced to country estates from North America in the late 1800s, drive them out of habitats.
Greys also carry the squirrelpox virus, which is deadly to their red cousins.
The National Lottery Heritage Fund (NLHF) has provided £4.86m for the five-year Red Squirrel Recovery Programme.
About 50 voluntary conservation organisations have been involved in a 12-month development phase of the project, where a conservation plan was drawn up.
The Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere Partnership and Bright Green Nature will now team up with wildlife trusts in Northumberland, Cumbria, Lancashire and Merseyside for the next five-year phas.
Dr Blackport added: "All of the work that has been done to date by so many organisations has been instrumental in forming the work that we are taking forward.
"What is different this time is that it will be cross-border for the first time, and there will be an even greater emphasis on community engagement.
"We want to get many more people involved in helping this iconic species."
Listen to news for the Scottish Borders on BBC Sounds
More stories from South Scotland
Mike Pratt, chief executive of Northumberland Wildlife Trust, said: "We are all absolutely delighted to have been awarded funding from NLHF to ensure red squirrel survival as we truly believe this project will make a sustainable long-term contribution to preventing the extinction of red squirrels in England and southern Scotland.
"I'd like to say a massive thank you to all the community groups and volunteers who really worked and supported us over the past 12 months and helped turn our conservation dream into a reality."
Greys invade England's red squirrel strongholds
Disease that kills red squirrels moves north
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Patients whose lives were ruined after being ‘needlessly given cancer drug for years' sue NHS trust
More than 20 patients who say their quality of life was wrecked when they were needlessly given a highly toxic cancer drug are suing the NHS trust involved. Some people were prescribed temozolomide – which should normally be used for only six months – for more than a decade during treatment by the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust. They say the overprescribing left them with side-effects including secondary cancers and crippling fatigue. Earlier this year the Care Quality Commission was looking into at least 14 cases, but lawyers say more are emerging all the time. An investigation by lawyers Brabners found that, over the past two decades, numerous patients with brain and spinal tumours under the care of Professor Ian Brown were routinely exposed to prolonged and in some cases 'unnecessary' use of the chemotherapy drug, which has severe side-effects including extreme fatigue, confusion, sickness and seizures. The time periods temozolomide was given for allegedly ran contrary to medical and scientific guidelines. Standard NHS procedure is to use the drug over six months, and the drug manufacturer advises it be used for up to 12 months. One man said he was prescribed it for nearly two years longer than necessary, suffering extreme fatigue and low mood as a result. A woman in her twenties said she was misdiagnosed with cancer, receiving the drug needlessly for about eight years. Some patients are now having treatment for secondary cancers allegedly linked to overuse of temozolomide, the lawyers claim. Others claimed its prolonged use left them unable to pursue career ambitions and normal day-to-day activities because the chemotherapy was debilitating, with a long recovery time. Some reported loss of fertility or abnormal blood test results. The legal team says data shows that the trust's spending on the drug of £3.6m from 2009 to 2024 is 10 times that of other NHS oncology departments. The lawyers are now calling for an extended patient safety review and independent investigation, focusing in particular on treatment received by patients under Prof Brown dating back to 2006. The trust has been conducting an internal patient safety review, covering 2017 to 2023, when Prof Brown retired. A patient who identified only as Michael received an extra 22 cycles of temozolomide at the trust, despite his scans being stable. Prof Brown was not present during consultations, and Michael said he was always seen by a clinical nurse specialist. After suffering extreme fatigue and low mood, he learnt through news reports of mistreatment –not from the trust – that he should not have remained on treatment for so long, according to his lawyers. Another patient, identified only as Becky, says she received at least 100 cycles of the drug unnecessarily after being misdiagnosed with a brain tumour. Fiona Tinsley, head of medical negligence at Brabners, said: 'The extent of this scandal, and the physical and mental impact it has had on Prof Brown's patients cannot be underestimated.' She added: 'We believe there are many more patients out there who haven't yet come forward and some who may have sadly passed away. 'While we welcome the ongoing investigations being undertaken by the General Medical Council and Royal College of Physicians, we believe a full independent inquiry is necessary – including an extension of the trust's own review back to 2006 – not only to ensure justice for victims, but that processes are put in place to better identify and prevent such failings happening again.' A spokesperson for the trust told The Independent: 'We have comprehensively reviewed and spoken to all individuals who were receiving temozolomide (TMZ) treatment at the end of 2023 to ensure appropriate support and care plans are in place. 'A glioblastoma is an aggressive brain tumour with fewer than two per cent of patients surviving longer than 10 years. This is an extremely complex condition and all modes of treatment – surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy – carry the risk of complications and side-effects. 'National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) guidelines recognise that clinicians can exercise professional judgment appropriate to individual circumstances when offering treatment to patients. 'We have commissioned the Royal College of Physicians to conduct an independent review of a representative cohort of patients who received greater than 12 cycles of adjuvant TMZ between 2017 and 2023. 'As this process is ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage." It's understood that CQC inspectors have been in touch with the trust to understand the details, and seek assurances that patients are not at risk. The regulator will be reviewing more information to judge whether it needs to be involved. Solve the daily Crossword
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Do Employers Have A Rational Fear Of Hiring Disabled Staff?
Sir Charlie Mayfield, a stalwart of the UK business community and advisor to Liz Kendall, Work and Pensions Secretary, has recently been quoted in The Times stating that employers have a 'rational' fear of hiring disabled staff. During his review of workplace sickness, Mayfield concluded that adapting work to staff with health problems was a huge issue that required employers to change, but suggested extra duties on businesses were not the answer. He said: "We've got a large amount of legislation which places requirements on employers and it's partly because of that that a lot of employers see it as risky to employ disabled people. And so quite rationally, they don't, even though we all know that's not the right outcome." The context for these comments is one in which 2.5 million UK workers are permanently off sick, and 8.7 million workers identifying as disabled. There's been an increase of 800,000 people too unwell to work since 2019, which is unsustainable for workers, their life outcomes and financial stability as well as the national economy. Rights Versus Reality? So are Mayfield's comments and his discovery report for the Department of Work and Pensions yet another stick with which to beat disabled people? Or are his remarks click bait headlines, papering over some well reasoned insights which need to be surfaced, understood and addressed? Mayfield commented on the rise in Employment Tribunals and the extra duties on UK businesses: The present approach "pitches rights against reality. If someone's ill and they have a fit note, there's a stand-off almost between that person and their employer, who could be part of the solution. We need to move from a position where too much of this is about risk and fear, to one where we humanise this and encourage people to be talking of finding solutions." The adversarial narratives that exist between communities of lived experience and employers has swiftly deepened in recent years, with each group finding very different sources of advice online and increases in perceptions of conflict and unfairness from all sides – employee, colleague and employer. However, read deeper into the report, and Mayfield is recommending an incentivisation approach to disability employment (the proverbial 'carrot', rather than the legislative 'stick'). Crucially, he recommends that employers intervene early when someone is struggling, rather than lagging in the provision of adjustments or support. Indeed, failure to provide timely intervention is a frequent cause of employment tribunals, with compensation up to £230,000 in one recent case. A shift in responsiveness would be very welcome by the disabled and neurodivergent community and it seems pretty logical. Government support and incentives for early intervention seem rational, but we will need to think carefully about what to provide. Early Intervention Guidance Advice on disability adjustments for individuals from the government service Access to Work or in-house / private Occupational Health is routinely a first port of call for employees and employers respectively. Access to Work has been a lifeline for employees over the past few decades, and has funded services and equipment that exceeds the budgets of many small businesses. However, it has become so log jammed that there is a community pressure group now set up to raise awareness of the problem founded by Dr Shani Dhanda. Occupational health services can be excellent and provide or signpost the specialist advice needed. But costs have spiralled with a clinical, 'assessment first' provision when there are so many referrals. There's a lack of filtering so those with the greatest needs are getting the same level of intervention as those who need a simple set of strategies or some software. Some of the occupational health companies are delivering the same services that they recommend, which is a structural conflict of interest and risks driving up costs - this practice is banned in Access to Work and Disabled Students Allowance, for example. So while we're telling employers to do more, faster, we will also need to be clear about the 'how' and the 'what'. With grand policy gestures and an increasingly litigious atmosphere, the needs of the businesses risk being overlooked and on that note, Sir Mayfield's comments are on point. Advice on adjustments for health and disability needs to be a collaboration between employer and employee. An assessment should consult both parties, and review what the individual needs in relation to the resources available. For example, a higher cost burden might be acceptable for a larger business than a small business. Safety critical roles might not have as much flexibility as a standard role. It is therefore not possible to list reasonable adjustments for each physical, emotional or cognitive difficulty. These can act as guidance, but not definitive entitlements. The policy and specialist support environment is going to need to become more sophisticated, and more responsive to balancing needs and addressing conflict, unfairness and unreasonable requests / restrictions. This is not a straightforward ask. Needs-led models How can employers find good advice in a complex and risky environment? The needs-led model is a good alternative to the medical model, relying more on practical support than clinical diagnosis. At work, we don't need to know the cause of back pain to know that a first port of call is a desk assessment or moving and handling review. Improving knowledge of functional, everyday difficulties and potential scaffolding is within the grasp of HR with the occasional advice of specialists where needed. Up-skilling employer confidence and competence is a potential avenue to improving outcomes, particularly in the areas of emotional regulation and cognition-dependent task performance where the challenges and the solutions are not visible. Knowing what to provide can be a pragmatic, low-cost conversation – research indicates that the cheapest or free adjustments are typically the most welcome, and that employees prefer the ability to personalize rather than passively receive an off-the-shelf allocation. As the population ages, the disability inclusion problem is not going to go away. Employers who are not developing a straightforward and accessible pathway to inclusion – at the company and individual level – will remain at risk of employment tribunal losses. This isn't a question of rights versus reality, it is a question of taking charge of a business need versus sticking your head in the sand. The rational fear of tribunals can be replaced by a rational approach to managing a large and growing cohort of disabled employees. Given the urgency of resolving the problem at the national level, now is a great time to start a strategic workforce plan.
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Hackers Steal Passwords From UK's NHS With Sneaky Malware Tool
Ambulances parked outside the emergency department at the National Health Service's Royal Liverpool University Hospital in Liverpool, UK.
