Hawk that attacked bald men is adopted by a bald man
The bird of prey, nicknamed 'Bomber Harris', attacked over 50 people in Flamstead, Hertfordshire, during a four-week reign of terror in March.
A falconer who helped trap the hawk previously told The Telegraph the bird 'saw bald men' and attacked them because it was 'hormonal'.
But the bird has now been adopted by Wayne Housden, a falconer who has recently had a buzz cut.
The 58-year-old village warden told The Telegraph that Bomber had changed – pointing to the fact he could shave his head without fear of attack.
'If you looked at me now, you'd say, 'he's bald',' Mr Housden said.
'I'm not worried about him. I've shaved my head and, when I shaved it, it was to the bone.
'But I go into his aviary and he doesn't attack me.'
Mr Housden, who lives near Flamstead, described his new friend as 'really tame', adding: 'He wasn't terrible. He was more scared than anything when he was caught.
'I can kiss him on the head. He nibbles around my neck and on my chin... He's so friendly to me. He's obsessed with me.'
For four weeks last year Flamstead ground to a halt.
Postmen stopped delivering mail, fearful scaffolders left work unfinished and villagers would not dare leave their homes without a hat, umbrella or hooded coat to protect themselves.
The siege was finally brought to an end when Steve Harris, 40, threw a cage over the bird after it followed him into his back garden.
The physiotherapist and father-of-two, who had been returning from a run, told The Telegraph that he and his children had not been in their garden for 'weeks and weeks' because of the attacks.
Mr Housden, who also owns another falcon, said that he had decided to adopt the bird after the police contacted him for help.
Bomber is now housed in a new £1,000 aviary which was built by Mr Housden.
The falconer said the idea that the bird might attack someone again was 'always in the back of your head' but added that 'he's got to go loose'.
He said that he has already started taking Bomber on excursions, including a visit to his friend's house.
'He's calmed down', Mr Housden added. 'He needed to calm down.'
Asked whether he thought the bird was misunderstood, he said: 'Yes he was.
'He's going to be going to a scarecrow festival in Flamstead and he will end up meeting everyone that he's hit on the head, so they will all see how he's changed.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
30 minutes ago
- Sky News
Nine out of 10 homeless women missing from official government figures, charities warn
Nine out of 10 homeless women are missing from official government figures, charities have said. Solace Women's Aid and Single Homeless Project have said their research shows that the current rough sleeping snapshot, carried out by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, is inadequate. The charities blame gender-biased collection methods and say 54% of homeless women are missed out of the official government counts because they spend the night in places not classed as rough sleeping - such A&E departments, bank foyers, or on public transport. According to the charities, women are less likely to visibly "bed down" on the street for the night due to the threat of gender-based violence. Instead, they choose to shelter in places such as buses and trains or 24-hour cafes, meaning they are overwhelmingly missed off traditional homelessness counts. Lucy Campbell, head of multiple disadvantage at Single Homeless Project has called it a "systemic failure", calling for the government to change how it carries its count of homeless women. The new figures have been outlined in a census report for England, which has assessed the gap between government counts and data gathered by 88 Local Authorities. The charities say that the government counted 680 women across 296 local authorities who were rough sleeping in 2024, but that Census Local Insights meetings identified 1,777 women across 37 local authorities that year. Sky News followed outreach workers at Single Homeless Project for the day as they searched for women with nowhere to sleep. Finding evidence of rough sleeping in the corner of a London park, Elise Godsal, specialist women's navigator at Single Homeless Project, said: "This is typically where you would find women, maybe more in the day, maybe in the night as well. It's somewhere quite secluded, still tucked away in the corner. But also, you're still in public. So if something happened and you felt like your safety was at risk, you could still make some noise." Visiting a busy train station, Eabha O'Farrell, also a specialist women's navigator at Single Homeless Project, said train stations are attractive places to rest because food and toilets are easily accessible and the women feel safe being "around a lot of other people". Sky News also spoke to Nadia, who grew up in care and became homeless at 21. She recounted how she went to sleep outside a Santander bank, but woke up being "kicked in the head". She told Sky News: "I've got kicked, I've got pissed on. I'd sleep in car parks, in blocks of flats, in bin sheds. Yeah, I can make home a cardboard box if I need to". A third of women (37%) reported they had been in some form of homelessness accommodation before sleeping rough, according to the 2024 Women's Rough Sleeping Census report. It concludes that current services are not meeting women's needs and aren't enough to prevent them from sleeping rough. A woman who completed the survey said: "I feel vulnerable. You have to rely on people who you can't trust and don't feel safe with. I don't have the money to go into restaurants for shelter and have to put myself at risk and do things I don't want to so I can get shelter for the night." Another said: "To keep safe for a woman is more difficult. I have been raped by people while sleeping rough in a bank doorway. I now ensure I am with a male rough sleeper at all times. I believe this is the safest option, but it doesn't mean I am safe." A Ministry of Housing spokesperson said: "We inherited devastating levels of homelessness and rough sleeping and know women can be particularly affected, including those hiding from harm.
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Munroe Bergdorf: ‘The most expensive thing I've bought? Gender-affirming surgery'
Born in Essex, Munroe Bergdorf, 37, studied at the University of Brighton and worked in fashion PR. In 2022, she became the first trans model on the cover of UK Cosmopolitan and in 2023 she published her book Transitional. She hosts the podcast The Way We Are and presents MTV UK's Queerpiphany. She is a UN Women UK Changemaker and a founding consultant of the UK Diversity and Inclusion Board of L'Oréal Paris. Her latest book is Talk to Me; her documentary, Love & Rage, launched in the UK last month and is available to stream from 14 July. She lives in London. Describe yourself in three words Passionate, loving, driven. What would your superpower be? Invisibility, so I can spy on people and get the gossip. Which words or phrases do you most overuse? I say 'scream' when I should just laugh, and it really annoys my friends. Which book are you ashamed not to have read? The Great Gatsby. What makes you unhappy? Being misunderstood by people I admire. Aside from a property, what's the most expensive thing you've bought? Gender-affirming surgery. Contrary to popular belief, it's not widely available on the NHS and a lot of it you have to pay for yourself. What is the worst thing anyone's said to you? Apart from stuff on social media, an ex-partner telling me I'm unlovable. What is your guiltiest pleasure? The Real Housewives franchise. What do you owe your parents? As you get older you start to realise your parents are just people and they're often just doing their best, so I owe them understanding and grace. What is the closest you've come to death? Before transitioning, I had a severe eating disorder. The doctor said, 'Your body's shutting down and if you don't improve your mental and physical wellbeing, you'll die.' Shortly after that, I started transitioning medically and my eating disorder resolved. To whom would you most like to say sorry, and why? Everybody I've lost to suicide. When someone dies in that tragic way, you always feel you could have done more. Which living person do you most despise, and why? Every single world leader currently making the world less safe for us all. Which living person do you most admire, and why? Victoria Rose, a British surgeon operating on children in Gaza. What did you dream about last night? I have a lot of dreams that involve running and yelling. I've just had Botox in my jaw because I'm grinding my teeth in my sleep. What is the worst job you've done? At university, I worked at a hotel in housekeeping. We saw so many weird things in people's rooms. Guests would leave sex and party stuff behind! If not yourself, who would you most like to be? Grace Jones or Madonna. When did you last change your mind about something significant? Cancel culture: getting stuck on the discourse rather than looking at the system. How often do you have sex? As often as I get to see my boyfriend. Would you rather have more sex, money or fame? Money, because fame's so transient and empty, and I've got enough sex. Tell us a joke I was so surprised when the stationery store moved.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
I watched YouTube for a week with my children. Here's what I learnt
At about 5pm every day, in the small window between after-school activities and dinner, my three and five-year-old daughters veg out in front of a screen. Sometimes they'll watch a cartoon on Netflix; occasionally they'll ask for CBeebies. The majority of the time, though, it's YouTube. The show they chose — or rather, that was algorithmically suggested — to watch one recent afternoon follows the adventures of a real-life brother and sister. They'd watched it before, as have many other children, since it's one of the most popular kids' channels on YouTube. While my daughters love the slapstick humour, to me it's like white noise, the background soundtrack to my multitasking. But the video they watched that day made me pay attention. In it the brother tricks his sister into thinking she has gained weight. Visibly upset, the little girl changes into a skimpy workout outfit to do star jumps, and later turns down a sandwich in favour of a plate of raw carrot sticks, before heading to her bedroom to weigh herself. I was horrified, both at what we were watching and at myself for letting my impressionable daughters access it. How was it, I wondered, that this type of content was being promoted on a platform marketed as family-friendly? And what else had they watched that had flown under my radar? According to Michelle Neumann, a professor of childhood education at the University of Sheffield who has carried out research on children's YouTube content, this is precisely the problem with a lot of what our kids are watching. 'On the surface many of these channels seem OK, so if a parent glances over their shoulder, they might think, that looks fun,' she says. 'But when you dig deeper, you realise there's a lot of problematic content.' So I set myself a challenge: for one week I would dig deeper, intently watching everything that my girls were looking at on YouTube to see what I would learn. I should preface my little experiment with a disclosure: my husband and I used to work for Google, which acquired YouTube in 2006. I joined in 2017, the year it emerged that bad actors were circumnavigating the platform's filters to run creepy, violent and explicit videos on YouTube Kids, the version of the app for under-12s. But the company's response to the scandal had been solid, I thought — introducing new guidelines for creators about what qualified as good children's content, beefing up its moderation and mass deleting inappropriate videos. • YouTube and the rise and rise of trash TV for kids In the years after the scandal, after we became parents, my husband and I found ourselves turning to the platform more and more for educational and entertainment purposes. The depth of content is simply unrivalled. For example, around the age of four, after reading a lift-the-flap history book in our local library, my eldest daughter developed a morbid fascination with the bubonic plague. Her endless curiosity quickly exhausted my limited grasp of 14th-century history, but I knew YouTube would have the answers. Sure enough, I found what seemed like an age-appropriate video that taught her everything she needed to know about the Black Death. She watched it repeatedly for months, until the next obsession took over (Egyptian mummies). This way of using YouTube is what Michael Robb, the head of research at Common Sense Media, the age-rating forum for parents, calls intentional — knowing what you're looking for and being deliberate about identifying it. The problem is, he says, it's just not reflective of how people actually use the platform. 'You could stay within a playlist that perhaps a parent has curated and have really good, high-quality content,' he tells me. 'But it's not how kids use YouTube, and it's not how it was designed.' When a carefully chosen video finishes, algorithmically powered suggestions on what to watch next can take kids down a rabbit hole of low-quality — even harmful — content. This became clear within about ten minutes of my week-long challenge. After watching a video where a monocle-wearing cartoon professor explained evolution (fuelled by another question that had left me stumped), what followed was a flurry of content that, had it appeared on terrestrial television, would have had the Ofcom complaints line ringing off the hook. In one video, which had more than a billion views, two young brothers showed off a homemade vending machine that spat out boxes of sugary cereal, fizzy drinks and chocolate bars. In another, a child played with what the video title described as 'girl' toys: a pretend sewing machine, a nail salon and a pink play kitchen (all things my girls love, I should add — but so, too, do lots of boys). • Apart from these (and other) examples of content that flouted UK broadcasting guidelines or featured dated stereotypes, most of what we watched might generously be called clickbait: content that promised to teach children to learn new words, say, but that ended up being a thinly disguised toy promotion. Many of the videos we watched had titles packed with educational-sounding buzzwords, but turned out to be garbage with no narrative arc, out-of-sync dubbing and, all too often, an undercurrent of consumerism. A spokesperson for YouTube told The Sunday Times: 'On YouTube Kids we provide parents with robust controls to decide what content to make available, whether approving specific content, choosing from age-appropriate categories, or the ability to block specific videos or channels.' They added that, after reviewing the links we shared, it had found no violations of its community guidelines. My experiment stacks up with what other (more rigorous) studies have found: the platform has a few gems, some quite shocking content and a hell of a lot of rubbish. 'We did some research a few years back and found that, while YouTube says it has a lot of educational, high-quality videos, really only a small percentage of the content could be classed that way,' Robb says. 'A lot of the videos that position themselves as being high quality or educational are very shallow.' By the end of the week I realised it was these types of videos that bothered me the most — content that Neumann described as 'wolves in sheep's clothing'. I feel well equipped to have conversations with my children about media content that very obviously challenges our family values. After watching the video that first triggered this article, I spoke to both my daughters about what we had just seen — how no food is inherently good or bad, about how we exercise to feel, not look, good. But knowing how to deal with the other, more innocuous-seeming content has left me as confused as when one of my kids asks me how birds evolved from dinosaurs. Colin Ward, a Bafta-winning former children's TV producer and member of the Children's Media Foundation, agrees that, like me, most parents are struggling to separate the wheat from the chaff. But he questions whether that type of pressure should be put on us in the first place. 'Parents can't be expected to police this — it's just not possible,' he says. Neither should we put our faith in the platforms to self-regulate, given their main concern is their bottom line. 'It's a very competitive market and they are focused on monetisation, so they're not going to change.' YouTube told The Sunday Times: 'We have strict advertising guidelines on YouTube Kids, and don't allow paid promotional content.' If we can't leave it to individuals or the free market to tackle, that leaves just one actor that might make a difference: governments. Ward knows that might not be popular with some people, but makes a point I think most parents will agree with. 'We all accept that there are some things that are important as a public service, whether it's the armed forces or parks, and that those things need taxes to support them and sometimes regulations,' he says. 'When it comes to our children having access to high-quality content and not just utter drivel, that too is surely a social good?' The present government has already indicated it will take action. Late last year the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, wrote to YouTube urging it to make high-quality programming more visible on its platform. She also suggested that, if this doesn't happen voluntarily, regulation might force its hand. YouTube told The Sunday Times that it 'continues to engage regularly with the culture secretary, as part of our ongoing efforts to support the UK's high quality children's content creators'. But while she and others work on that, what are parents to do? Ban our kids from accessing YouTube? Co-watch at all times? Neither seems realistic, at least not in my household. I have promised we will continue to apply a little more of that all-important intentionality. In other words, relying on our gut when deciding what might be an appropriate video for our kids, rather than ceding control to an algorithm.
