Three Acres And A Cow

@threeacresacow.bsky.social

www.threeacresandacow.co.uk

Amount a pensioner receives in the UK is the lowest in Europe, just 2/3rds of France and barely 50% of Italy who are considered a 'poorer' country. Why is our pension 'unaffordable' when it is so low, and where is all our money actually going?

Bild

You often hear that the Welsh uplands are naturally treeless — too high, too wet, too exposed — and that the evidence for it is upland tree cover declining from the late Mesolithic, before farming even arrived. In Eryri, the pollen record shows the opposite. 1/🧵

Bild

I see that OpenAI's messaging of "if you give us all the money on Earth we will annoy some mathematicians" is being somewhat overshadowed by Anthropic's messaging of "if you give us all the money on Earth we will kill everyone". I'm slightly worried about what a compromise position might look like.

'Most of Britain was covered with wild, sprawling forest' is a common misconception about the time of the Norman Conquest. Usborne history books were an important part of my early obsession with archaeology but it's disappointing to see such a huge inaccuracy still being published.

Flap in an illustrated children's book reading 'Most of Brian was covered with wild, sprawling forest.'

Agree, a better question is how much power, wealth & influence do the descendants of the original Norman families that arrived with William, still have in today's UK. And is this power, wealth & influence something which is better for the whole population of the UK, its economy & society, or worse.

Stephen Bush@stephenkb.bsky.social · 2w ago

This is a good illustration of why 'was the Norman conquest ultimately good or bad for Britain?' is not a sensible question, in that 'predict what the world will be like in 3024, and the net effect of Donald Trump's re-election' is *also* a mug's game.

through the House of Commons, where MPs couldn't get out of each others' way in their rush to shove through a rights-destroying shit sandwich of a bill. Only in the Lords did the Law Society win any amendments, and these were few and weak. So many fundamental rights died in 9/11, killed by Labour/

/ to amend the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, a hodge podge of draconian measures across every kind of law the Home Office covered It was literally cobbled together from measures cut out of previous acts for being too illiberal, or unconstitutional Home Sec. David Blunkett rammed it/

25 years ago I was doing maternity cover at the Law Society of England & Wales, tending the Electronic Law Committee. We knew instantly that the Labour govt would gut human rights, especially privacy from surveillance, but also asylum and criminal law. They did. Within weeks we were fighting/

I know this isn't terrorism. You know this isn't terrorism. The authorities know this isn't terrorism. But, once again, they have labelled protesters "terrorists", as part of the long-running programme to ensure that no one dares protest about anything any more. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026...

Seven charged with damaging Trump’s Scottish golf course accused of ‘terrorist connection’

Course at Donald Trump’s Turnberry resort was painted with words ‘Gaza is not 4 sale’ and clubhouse was sprayed with graffiti

theguardian.com

I don’t mean to be rude here, but we *already* had the peer review on these racist doctrines decades ago. Hence why ‘race realism’ is a paradigmatic instance of pseudoscience: it’s been thrown in the dustbin of history long before many of us were even born. We don’t have to have this same ‘debate’

Sasha Gusev@sashagusevposts.bsky.social · last mo.

Academia is a unique space where people can pursue controversial questions wherever they lead. If the work is pseudoscience (and, in my view, Cofnas' race science clearly is), academia has effective channels for response: public criticism and peer-review.

Geologists and evolutionary biologists do not have to debate creationists. Astronomers do not have to debate pre-Copernican theories of the heavens. Doctors do not have to debate anti-vax nuts. Climate scientists do not have to debate industry-funded deniers. All that goes for racists times ten.

We have had this conversation so many times. You do not have to platform/debate obscene views that are also false. I wrote during a wave of pressure on progressives to compromise with far-right haters:

I can comprehend, and do, that lots of people don’t believe climate change is real, but is there some great benefit in me listening, again, to those who refuse to listen to the global community of scientists and see the evidence before our eyes? A lot of why the right doesn’t “understand” climate change is that climate change tells us everything is connected, everything we do has far-reaching repercussions, and we’re responsible for the whole, a message at odds with their idealization of a version of freedom that smells a lot like disconnection and irresponsibility. But also climate denial is the result of fossil fuel companies and the politicians they bought spreading propaganda and lies for profit, and I understand that better than the people who believe it. If half of us believe the earth is flat, we do not make peace by settling on it being halfway between round and flat.
Patrick Sturgis@patricksturg.bsky.social · last mo.

How about refuting them on theoretical and empirical grounds? That is kind of how science works. It doesn’t work by calling people names, refusing to engage with their claims and attempting to get them fired.

Landowners release ~50million pheasants a year into the countryside. It’s long past time this was regulated, such as through a stringent licensing regime. The government announced they’d explore licensing earlier this year; this piece is a useful update: www.theguardian.com/food/2026/au...

New licensing for game shoots could stop poisoning of birds of prey

Scheme planned for England could also curtail tradition of releasing pheasants for people to pay to shoot

theguardian.com

Count Binface has lots of perfectly sensible policies, but I’m horrified by his ignorance of frozen dairy product history. 99 ice creams are so called because they were invented at a shop at 99 Portobello High Street, in 1922. They won’t have cost 99p then - that was the equivalent of £50.04 today.

Bild

We herd that it’s Cow Appreciation Day... So we thought we'd share this delightful recipe book containing cures for cows from Ascott dated 1778-1813 Not sure how much the cows would have appreciated the Mercurial Ointment however, despite the inclusion of brandy...

The front page of the recipe book with the title 'A book of Valueable Receipt for Cows May 1778, R.Parrott, Astcott, Feb 8 1813'.Two inside pages of the recipe book containing descriptions of remedies and their ingredients for treating illnesses and diseases in cows.A recipe for Mercurial Ointment containing brandy, marshmallow ointment, tobacco ointment and mercury sublimate.