Authors
-
5teveh
-
6bsude
-
abbietoal
-
abigailane30
-
akcharl
-
amycortvriend
-
anfieldbhoy
-
anitawrzesniewska
-
FlowerViolet
-
asteven08
-
aysheaobrien1ca0bcf715
-
bethanyrdavies
-
bonnieleighmiddleton
-
bronaghvh
-
bwilleva
-
charlottejdann
-
cherylgardner2015
-
chris13418861
-
criminologyanon
-
criminologysocietyuon
-
davidjpalmer57
-
Demi King
-
drkukustr8talk
-
ej213
-
finlaywilliams24
-
Francine Bitalo
-
gilliansiddall
-
gregpaillet
-
Gwen
-
haleysread
-
hannahmaysmith
-
hanpearce93
-
helenpoole2
-
helentrinder
-
ifedamilola
-
jackrichmond21
-
jazzie9
-
jesjames50
-
justinkotze
-
kayleighwillis21
-
keziaasante
-
kirstyk196
-
klgrant1
-
liammiles1
-
Lilly Lewis
-
madams1965
-
Maddyk97
-
manosdaskalou
-
marlywindle
-
Maxine
-
meganking046
-
molliekel13
-
Mr_Hari_Parekh
-
nahidatakhtar
-
natalieh2000
-
npetfo
-
Paula Bowles
-
paulsquaredd
-
robynmansfield1
-
saffron_garside
-
Sallek Yaks Musa
-
samc0812
-
samtilley7
-
samuellangley
-
seanrj94
-
shanwareing
-
Shaun Ken-ucheonye
-
sineqd
-
Sophie Rowson
-
spatchett94
-
svr2727
-
tgomesx
-
Tré Ventour-Griffiths
-
tuesdaywoodward23
-
Vaseem Khan Ltd
-
wadzanain7
-
zeechee
-
zo3conneely
In memory of Ayshea
This week, we laid one of our own to rest. A beloved colleague and friend, Ayshea left us far too soon.
In these blogs, we often write about the big issues, the challenges we face, and the ways we seek to understand them. Yet we should never forget that change happens one person at a time. When Ayshea joined us, she was another colleague among many. It did not take long, however, to realise that she brought a unique perspective to everything she encountered, as anyone who has read her blog posts below will recognise.
The pain of an untimely departure is made all the greater by our ability to imagine what might have been. We reflect not only on the work she left behind, but also on the work she would undoubtedly have gone on to accomplish had she been given the time. It feels as though she stopped speaking in the middle of a sentence. For those who knew her, however, that seems almost impossible to imagine.
Every colleague remembers her differently. I remember a conversation we had about vegetarianism and its influence on rising fruit and vegetable prices for low-income families. Her inquisitive mind asked the kinds of questions that made you pause and think again. Her manner was gentle, her attention genuine, and her interest in others so disarming that it allowed you to explore your own thoughts without fear of judgement.
She was an activist without ever needing to speak of activism. She was a fighter without bluster, a thinker without rhetoric. She was a friend without conditions and a colleague without expectations. Above all, she was my friend.
Even now, I find myself expecting to hear her distinctive northern voice somewhere across campus. Some absences are difficult to accept because the presence they leave behind remains so strong.
Rest well, Ayshea. We will not forget you.
Exploring the National Museum of Justice: A Journey Through History and Justice
UK Justice v The Demonic and Others
The Caracas Job: International Law and Geo-Political Smash and Grab
Share this:
Water: Profit for some and poison for others
I recently came across a news story that seems to have appeared one day and vanished nearly as quickly. It didn’t hit the headlines, well not as I recall, it just appeared on my phone and then was gone. The story, well a by now well-rehearsed narrative about the transgressions of our water companies, but with a rather toxic twist. Not just about the untreated effluence released into our rivers and seas, but toxic industrial waste such as ‘cyanide, chromium, cadmium and mercury’ being accepted by the water treatment plants adding to the already overloaded treatment systems. Systems that it seems, in the main, are not designed or capable of dealing with it and consequently the highly toxic chemicals end up in waterways, the sea and on our lands as fertiliser.
Not only are the water companies knowingly accepting and disposing of this waste, but they are making millions of pounds doing so whilst turning a blind eye to the consequences. There is little by way of oversight or regulation and what oversight and regulation there is, is pretty much ineffective and outdated.
To put it simply, industries pay water companies to, I say this tongue in cheek, legitimately, poison our waters and our lands and ultimately, through the food chain poison us. And to rub salt into the wound, all concerned make huge profits which they then dole out to their shareholders and senior management.
On the face of it, much like the raw sewage scandals we’ve seen recently, it is simply a breach of regulation, a mistake, a result of underinvestment, a need for more funding, or quite simply a fuss about not a lot. Nothing to see here. Weather the storm of adverse media reporting for a while and the indignation of interested parties, even celebrities, and then just carry on.
Except, from a criminological point of view, this is not about mere breaches of regulation or mistake or other excuses, this is about harm being done and ultimately, it is about crime. Call it environmental crime, green crime, Zemiology, call it what you like but it still amounts to something pretty devastating for all of us.
Perhaps currently it is about damage to the waterways and landscapes but how long before a link is made between the release of these toxic substances and birth defects, or early mortality rates, firstly in our livestock and then ultimately in humans? How long before there is a call for a public inquiry and calls for reparation? At what point will the government be apologising for not getting to grips with the problem. Of course, it won’t be this government but a government of the future that whilst they can apologise, cannot really be held responsible, after all they weren’t there at the time. The victims will be doubly victimised as they pay the cost of being poisoned and then as taxpayers pay the cost of the cleanup. In the meantime, directors and other responsible parties will have disappeared with golden handshakes and lucrative pensions and shareholders will rapidly be offloading shares, having made significant profits. Former Ministers will be sitting in the House of Lords lamenting at the problem but denying any culpability through inaction. It will, as so many such cases do, just become another story about a historic failure at so many levels with few, if any, held to account.
As an aside, given the enormity of the potential for harm, I wonder why the story just fell by the wayside. If nothing else, surely government needs to take a look. Or maybe money and political manoeuvring are so much more important.
Having read this blog you may be interested in two television broadcasts: Buried with Michael Sheen and Toxic Toiwn
Share this:
Murder
The day I first heard about the murder of Damilola Taylor, it sounded like another story of urban violence. The details were shocking but not unusual. A broken glass bottle had been used as a weapon, causing a severe wound to the victim’s thigh. The injury severed a major artery and the victim later died in hospital. The attack took place in Peckham, South London, a place that was already associated in the public imagination with concerns about crime and disorder.
As a criminologist, nothing in the initial reports immediately stood out. Violence is not exclusive to cities, but its concentration and visibility often differ from those found in rural communities. News reports framed the killing as an act of senseless violence, another tragic incident in the broader landscape of urban crime. It was only as the story developed that it became clear this case was about far more than the act itself.
The victim was Damilola Taylor, a ten-year-old boy who never made it home from the library. His family had come to Britain from Nigeria, hoping to secure medical treatment for his sister. Instead, they became the centre of one of the most significant criminal cases in modern British history.
The public reaction was shaped by more than the brutality of the attack. Both the victim and the eventual perpetrators were children. Damilola was ten years old. Those later convicted were only twelve and thirteen at the time of the attack. The case challenged popular assumptions about violence, childhood, and responsibility. It forced the public to confront the uncomfortable reality that serious violence can emerge among the young and that its consequences are often devastating for entire communities.
Yet the criminological significance of the case lies not primarily in the violence itself but in the response to it.
The original trial ended in acquittals. Central prosecution evidence was undermined by concerns regarding witness reliability, while expert testimony suggested that Damilola’s injuries may have resulted from an accident rather than a deliberate attack. Questions emerged about the collection, interpretation, and presentation of evidence. The Taylor family expressed frustration with the criminal justice system, arguing that the investigation lacked the rigour their son’s death deserved.
What followed was a prolonged struggle over competing versions of events. Forensic evidence became a central battleground. Experts disagreed. Investigators faced criticism. Public confidence was tested. Eventually, a retrial produced convictions after DNA evidence linked two brothers to the attack. The criminal justice system ultimately secured guilty verdicts, but the process revealed the difficulties of investigating serious crime and maintaining public trust when institutional performance is called into question.
For local residents, the case became symbolic of wider concerns about neglect and marginalisation. Community members organised protests and campaigns demanding justice. They were not simply asking for convictions. They were questioning whether institutions were responding adequately to the needs of communities already struggling with poverty, violence, and limited political influence.
As public debate intensified, the murder became associated with broader discussions of knife crime and youth violence. Politicians, journalists, and commentators searched for explanations. Some focused-on culture. Others pointed to family breakdown, social exclusion, or failures of policing. In doing so, the discussion often moved away from the specific circumstances of Damilola’s death and towards competing political narratives about crime.
This is where criminology offers a different perspective.
For much of the public, murder is often understood through the lens of mystery and resolution. Who committed the offence? How was it done? Will justice be served? These questions dominate media coverage because they provide a compelling narrative. Criminology, however, asks different questions. What social conditions surround acts of violence? How do institutions respond to harm? Which voices are taken seriously, and which are ignored? What political interests shape public understandings of crime?
Viewed through this lens, the case becomes about much more than identifying offenders. It reveals how crime can expose institutional weaknesses, generate political controversy, and deepen existing social divisions. The debates surrounding Damilola’s murder were not only about individual responsibility. They were also about policing, justice, community trust, race, and belonging.
More than two decades later, what remains most important is not the symbolism attached to the case but the human tragedy at its centre. Damilola Taylor was a ten-year-old Yoruba boy who spent his final moments bleeding to death in a stairwell. Behind every discussion of policy, forensic evidence, and criminal justice reform stands a child who never returned home, and a family forced to live with unimaginable loss.
That is perhaps the most important lesson criminology can offer. Crime is not interesting because it is sensational. Crime matters because it causes harm. The true significance of Damilola Taylor’s murder lies not in its notoriety, but in what it reveals about the ways societies respond to suffering, the institutions entrusted with delivering justice, and the communities left to carry the consequences when they fail.
If you would like to find out more about Damilola Taylor and get involved with the trust which bears his name, more information can be found here.
Share this:
Screen Time and Square Eyes
Whilst I was on maternity leave the government guidance on screen time, Screen time guidance for under 5s was published. This included the phrase: ‘Juggling family life and raising children in a digital world can be challenging. Find out more about how to support healthy screen habits for children under 5’. The key points from the guidance are that if your child is under 2 screen time should be mostly avoided and if your child is 2-5 years old you should try to ensure that they have no more than an hour of screen time per day. There is also some screen time guidance for parents, with the suggestion that you should ‘be mindful’ of your own screen usage when with your child/children.
The reasons cited for this and the images provided seem to suggest that too much screen time is bad for children’s brains. I think for some parents there is probably a sense of relief that their concerns with screen time and there attempts at trying to limit this are validated by the government. I am sure others are probably not aware of the guidance at all.
Yet, this is another lot of guidance that is focused on the parents and perhaps another justification for the judgment of ‘bad parenting’. Yet, parents are sold screens of many varieties, phones, T.Vs, laptops, ipads etc. Children may notice that the lives of parents can sometimes revolve around screens because of screen usage when working at home, when communicating with people or when paying bills and using email for a variety of reasons. There are screens specifically marketed for children, such as kids electronic tablets, plus we are inundated with content aimed at children. There are whole franchises (like Disney) which are aimed at entertaining children via screens. For example, a browse of Disney Plus shows me that each Disney film tends to have a duration that exceeds the daily 1 hour screen time limit recommended by this guidance.
There is some brief reference to SEN children within the guidance but screen usage might also depend on different families. I.e., screen time might be useful sometimes within families that are navigating disabilities, single parenthood or the work and childcare juggle. It might also be a bit more difficult to limit screen time if you do not have a garden or have less money to pay for days out or frequently buy toys, books and activities to keep children entertained. We also seem to have a terrible issue within our mainstream culture in that the spaces that we frequent are not very family or child friendly so a screen may be a filler for those missing spaces or missed opportunities to go to the park in the winter as there’s no shelter, toilets and breastfeeding spaces etc.
Whilst growing up in the 90s I remember people telling me that I should not stand to near to the television because I will get ‘square eyes’, it is clear that we have a long standing culture of screen usage. The issue presented leave me to wonder how realistic is it to stick to this blanket style of guidance within our given context. Surely changes that could be made are not just about providing parents with guidance but also creating a better society?
Share this:
Exercise: necessity, privilege or only for the privileged?
In a world where switching off is increasingly difficult and people’s mental health is consistently being battered, the opportunity to exercise and move the body is encouraged, and personally, welcomed! There remains a large push to BE healthy and to take care of your body (physically and mentally), and exercising remains a recommended avenue to pursue inner peace, tranquillity and good health. With the poorer weather just around the corner (I’m assuming: although if the sunny warm days continue you’ll get no complaints from me), being able to exercise outside will become slightly more restricted (walking and running). So for those with gym memberships, or who aren’t afraid of the dark, exercise could continue no matter the season. But for many, exercise which is presented as a necessity (Physical Education compulsory in mainstream education); is a privilege. It’s based on availability of time, money, and confidence. Yet via the great powers that be (Social Media) it feels like it is a privilege we are made to feel guilty for not achieving or prioritising.
I write this from the perspective of someone who has always been active; swimming, running, badminton, gym memberships- I am someone who struggled with body image, size and whose mental health very much hinges on caffeine and endorphins. I was introduced to playing badminton with my Pa and brother on a rainy Sunday afternoon back when I was around 10 years old. And it’s a physical hobby which has been a staple in all of our lives since (it’s also how I met my partner and 3 of my closest friends: Good call Pa)! But badminton costs money- silly money. You have to pay to use the court, pay to borrow equipment or purchase your own. Many would have to pay to get to the sports centre (public transport, cars, e-bikes/scooters). Lots and lots of costs. Costs which many individuals and families cannot afford. You also need to have someone to play with. So not a solo activity. Therefore, being able to say you have access to all of the above is surely someone (myself included) in a privileged position.
As an adult, I’ve been a member of various gyms since graduating from University (with a break during the pandemic). Some of the gyms I’ve been a member of have been quite intimidating spaces. There have been women only spaces and classes which were very much welcomed but the gym is like its own separate social sphere (if you know, you know). There is an etiquette that is, but then sometimes is not, followed (trying to read social cues is impossible in a dark, headphone filled, loud environment- and this is coming from some who is privileged enough to be able to pick up on social cues with relative success- or at least thinks they can)! It’s confusing and intimidating, and so so loud! Music, people, weights crashing down! It’s a LOUD space. The memberships themselves usually involve a peak option (before and after the engrained 9-5 which costs silly silly money) and off-peak (during the day and weekends when many people work, have childcare responsibilities but thankfully just costs silly money). All of this reinforces the privilege someone needs to be able to exercise and access a gym (confident in loud dark environments, not impacted by loud banging noises, disposable income to spend, individual time to prioritise themselves and the physical ability to exercise on machines aimed at people without disabilities).
So, in an increasingly challenging world: poverty, hate, war, misogyny, racism, transphobia, disablism, homophobia, suicide, homelessness and the ever-increasing list, why does thinking about exercise and gym memberships matter? It probably doesn’t. But sometimes it’s important to reflect on what we do have and to think about and be mindful of the barriers others face. Exercise is encouraged of many of us: it has serious physical and mental health benefits (yay endorphins), but it’s a privilege on so many levels. I think it’s important it’s framed as such rather than simply as something we should be doing. It’s something many many people simply do not have the privilege to be able to do. And this needs recognising.
Share this:
Immigrants, AI and a lost sense of humanity
There have been some interesting and to be quite honest, quite scary pieces of news that have emerged over the last few weeks.
The more recent, concerns the risk to humanity from the unfettered development of AI and the recognition by several high-profile tech bosses that perhaps it’s time to put the brakes on. It’s not worth discussing the reaction from some political quarters, you all know who I mean, so I won’t. The point is this, humankind could theoretically and with increasingly likely odds, be wiped out by AI. As one of the tech bosses explained, imagine setting AI the problem of solving climate change and global warming (The same person that states AI is not a problem, thinks global warming doesn’t exist either). AI identifies the problem is caused by humans and decides the best way of solving the problem and saving the planet is to do away with humans. That is all very logical, but we would all agree, well most anyway, that the solution might be found in something a little less draconian. This made me think, what would AI make of the financial problems faced by the NHS for instance? Would it examine the burgeoning costs of the elderly? Perhaps there is a cut off point for their care, maybe this is tied into their usefulness to society. Horror, that we might be considering such things, but there is a logic to it and AI works on logic. However, it defies notions of humanity and the sanctity of life. Once we start on that road, where do we stop, the disabled, the seriously ill, the intellectually challenged? Uncontrolled use of AI logic without human emotion is starting to sound like well documented historical humanitarian nightmares.
Now you might think where do immigrants fit into this?
The recent news about the RNLI getting flak from far right wing activists for rescuing immigrants on a boat has certainly raised a few eyebrows. I’m still trying to understand the logic of calling someone a traitor for doing what they are supposed to do, rescue people and I’m lost for words that so many people fall in behind this rhetoric. But for now, just assume that I go along with the ‘stop the boats’ mantra and believe that the immigrants coming into this country on boats cause mayhem and go on crime sprees and rape and pillage with no regard to the law and that the state is powerless to stop them. We are all doomed. But I have this little niggle in the back of my mind, is the problem not either, at the other side of the channel where they embark on their perilous journey or, at this side of the channel when they disembark? A rather simplistic summation of a geopolitical problem but suffice to say for the sake of the argument, the problem is not in the channel itself other than a danger the immigrants present to themselves and shipping. The RNLI are there to rescue people from the water and have been for a very long time. What are they to do? It would be inhumane to ignore people in the sea if they were in difficulties, it would be inhumane to simply watch people in a dangerous situation until they got into difficulties (wait until the boat sinks then try to rescue a few of them). Even the hard of heart must surely want to save children and young people. Turn them back I’ve heard said. And just how should that be done? A group of volunteers trying to take desperate rescued people back to where they came from? Perhaps we should employ the navy to do so and risk them all drowning (more far right-wing nonsense). Where is the humanity in all of this? The RNLI crews are morally bound to do what they do, rescue people and bring them ashore safely. Blocking a port so that immigrants cannot be transferred inland to a detention centre defies logic. What are you going to do with them? Drive them back into the sea? Turning on the RNLI and its volunteers seems as illogical as attacking the fire brigade at a fire. I know, it has been known and beggars’ belief.
Would AI suggest that the problem is the RNLI? Logically that doesn’t seem to work unless of course you state that the RNLI’s remit is to save lives at sea providing, they are lives that are deemed worthy of saving, i.e., not immigrants with Black or brown skins.
Where do we stop with this? A person injured in a collision on the road is only entitled to help from the emergency paramedics if they are entitled to be in this country? Sounds like we are going to need to carry around ID cards of some sort and woe betide if you have a foreign accent and have a darker skin shade. You need to have your ID tattooed on your head just in case or maybe wear some form of badge.
The rhetoric of the far right, regarding a perceived problem that, incidentally, has no easy solution, is to stir up racial hatred. More reminiscent of historical humanitarian nightmares.
Uncontrolled use of AI and uncontrolled right-wing rhetoric and action are not that different. Unless someone works out how to herd the sheep in a different direction, humanity is doomed.
L-R Nazi Propaganda, a Robot Head and a RNLI Tamar Class Lifeboat
Share this:
Beyond the Price Tag: The Enduring Value of Higher Education
There is currently a growing public debate about the cost of higher education. At a time when the cost of living is widely recognised as a crisis, questions about whether university offers “value for money” have gained considerable momentum. Opinion polls, newspaper commentaries, and online discussions increasingly ask whether attending university is still worthwhile.
As a new cohort of students prepares to walk through the doors of universities across the country, it is perhaps the perfect time to reflect on the true value of higher education.
If there is an opportunity to understand that value, we must first consider the challenges universities have faced in recent years. The era of austerity was followed by the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit, global instability, and increasingly restrictive immigration policies across Europe, including the UK. Together, these developments have created significant pressures for universities and wider society alike.
These pressures have also affected the labour market. Graduate employment pathways that were once seen as relatively secure have become increasingly uncertain. For many years, the link between higher education and access to better employment opportunities was a central justification for the introduction of tuition fees. As economic conditions changed, however, questions emerged about whether universities could continue to maintain their relevance to the job market. Yet focusing solely on graduate outcomes risks overlooking much of what universities actually offer.
Throughout these challenging years, universities have experienced reductions in funding, financial pressures, and declining international student recruitment. Despite this, they have continued to provide high-quality education, support local economies, and, in many regions, remain among the largest employers. University communities enrich society through research, innovation, public engagement, and outreach programmes that support local people and communities. In many respects, universities serve as centres of learning that extend far beyond their campuses.
Yet this is not their greatest strength.
As a new generation of students enters higher education, regardless of their subject or institution, they become part of a community dedicated to learning, discovery, and personal development. While higher education is often viewed simply as the next stage of the education system, it is fundamentally a different experience.
University education is adult education. Its purpose is not merely to transfer knowledge but to develop independent learners. Students are encouraged to engage critically with ideas, to take ownership of their studies, and to develop their own educational identities. As they progress through their degrees, they begin to shape their own areas of expertise and specialism.
Learning at university is inherently investigative. Unlike many previous educational experiences, students have greater freedom to determine what they study and how they study it. They choose topics for assignments, identify areas of interest, and explore perspectives that matter to them. This process develops not only subject knowledge but also critical thinking, problem-solving, research capability, and intellectual confidence. These are skills that remain valuable long after graduation.
It would, however, be impossible to discuss the value of university without recognising its broader impact on those who attend. For many students, whether they are the first in their family to enter higher education or not, university becomes one of the most memorable periods of their lives. It is a transformative experience that they will reflect upon for years to come.
University offers a unique opportunity to encounter new ideas, engage with unfamiliar perspectives, and challenge previously held assumptions. It is a time when students test not only theories and concepts but also themselves. They discover strengths they did not know they possessed and develop resilience through overcoming challenges. Importantly, they do so in an environment designed to support learning, growth, and development. It is a place where mistakes become opportunities to learn rather than reasons to fail.
University is often described as a rite of passage, but it is far more than that. The relationships formed between students and academic staff, among fellow students, and between students, employers, and the wider community can have a lasting impact. Many students build friendships that endure for a lifetime. Others choose to volunteer, contribute to community projects, or gain valuable employment experience while studying.
These experiences cannot easily be measured.
How do we quantify the achievement of a student who spent years being told that a career in retail represented the limit of their potential, only to graduate confidently discussing complex ideas in their chosen field?
How do we measure the transformation of a student who arrived from school having been bullied, lacking confidence and unable to speak in public, yet delivers an eloquent dissertation presentation before graduation?
What value can be attached to the student who was repeatedly told they would amount to nothing, only to stand proudly in a graduation gown surrounded by family and friends?
Universities provide opportunities and belonging for people from all walks of life. Students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, ethnic minority communities, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, immigrant and refugee backgrounds, and countless others find spaces where they are welcomed and encouraged to succeed. At its best, higher education is founded upon the principle that knowledge should be accessible and that potential should not be limited by circumstance.
For these reasons, and many more, the true value of higher education cannot be fully captured through metrics, rankings, salary data, or opinion polls. These measures may tell part of the story, but they cannot capture personal transformation, intellectual growth, confidence, belonging, or aspiration.
Most importantly, they cannot place a price tag on human potential.
So, to all of you crossing the threshold and joining a university this month, let me offer a warm welcome. You are about to begin a journey of self-discovery, growth, and learning. My colleagues and I look forward to guiding you through the wonderful world of knowledge.
“Welcome to higher education. Your journey starts here”.
Share this:
Taking a short break….back soon
The academic year 25/26 will shortly come to an end with the last assessments submitted and graded. Here at the Thoughts From the Criminology Team we’re going to take a little break before we jump back into planning for the new academic year. Don’t worry, we’ll be back with lots of interesting entries from September and after all, ‘absence makes the heart grow fonder’.
In the meantime, there’s plenty on the site to explore.
Enjoy your summer whatever you are up to!
Share this:
The schizophrenia of hate: An illogical logic
The latest news regarding the online racist abuse aimed at certain Netherlands players, following the team’s premature exit from the world cup, probably comes as no surprise to most and feels like it is no longer all that extraordinary. Sadly, it is almost normalised. We’ve seen this online abuse multiple times before aimed at different players, be they Black or women or any other section of society that fits the perverse pervading ideology of the time. Social media seems to have given bigots of all persuasions a voice. What was restricted to being voiced within groups, perhaps in pubs or other such settings, is now not only being voiced, but in a controlled and targeted way, a way designed to cause hurt and harm, a vindictive, personalised way targeting individuals, whilst also having a far wider reach. As with most crimes the causes and motives behind such hatred are often unclear. There is however a perceived logic behind the hatred. The Black footballers failed the nation the rest just didn’t do very well. The logic of hatred isn’t just aimed at sports stars; it is a cancer in every walk of life. The Israeli actions in the middle east fuelling hatred of Jews. The actions of individuals within the Asian community in parts of the UK involved in the grooming of children fuelling islamophobia and hatred of Asians. The actions of some of the travelling community involved in unauthorised encampments and crime fuelling the hatred of Travellers and Gypsies. The actions of Black asylum seekers involved in sexual offences fuelling the hatred of Black people and immigrants (a double hit there). And so, the list goes on, historical and contemporary evidence for why we should hate. There is a logic to the hatred, there is evidence that can be pointed to, and there are politicians, here and abroad, and the news media, that happily point to and provide that evidence, seeing the fruitfulness of stirring up the so-called indigenous masses to their advantage. Further evidence when those in authority tell us how it is. Of course, the hatred of these groups of people is not new, it can be seen in generations before us across the world, in some guise or another. But that hatred, is reinforced by the contemporary evidence selectively presented and voiced by institutions that have a vested interest in doing so. That’s the so-called logic of hatred.
And yet the people that display this hatred would happily support their football club/ nation if it is successful. The hatred is held in obeyance as the Black footballer thumps the ball into the opponent’s net. The same people that hate might happily, without thought, accept medical treatment from the Jewish doctor, the Muslim dental surgeon, the Black Immigrant nurse. They are the first in the queue at the kebab shop buying a donner kebab from the settled asylum seeker originating from the Middle East. Happy to consume an Indian or Chinese (food that is, not the person) served up by someone from Asia. They eat the vegetables and fruit picked by foreign labourers; nothing is shunned if it is to their personal advantage. That’s the illogical schizophrenia. There is for some an inbuilt underlying hatred of others, which defies logic. There is for many a convenient scapegoat for the ills that may have befallen them. It is the fault of the ‘other’, the Black, the Jew, the Muslim, the asylum seeker, not decades of social decline or governmental policy failure. The failure that has led to low living standards, or the housing crisis or the collapse of NHS or social care or manufacturing or unemployment or education. It is the fault of the ‘other’ and where else can that frustration be vented. There is some perverse logic in hating the ‘other’ albeit that logic is somewhat illogical.
Images
L-R George Orwell’s ‘Two Minute Hate’ and the Stand Up To Racism March in London on 17/03/2018
Share this:
JAY-Z’s Reasonable Doubt at Thirty
Today I’m talking about all things Jay Z. Reasonable Doubt, his debut album, turned thirty on the 25th of June, and Roc Nation has spent the last week or so turning New York into one long tribute to it. Pop ups in Dumbo, a takeover of the old Bowery subway station, a limited-edition of JAŸ-Z30 library card to celebrate the album. As most of you do know that hip hop is one of the things I love outside of work, and that for me, it starts and ends with Tupac and Biggie, the two greatest to ever do it, full stop.
I can see my Gen Z students rolling their eyes before I’ve even finished the sentence, waiting to jump in with Drake or Kendrick Lamar again. Not being funny, but some things aren’t up for debate, Jay Z sits just below Biggie & Pac for me, and Reasonable Doubt is the reason why.
One of the nicest gifts I’ve ever had came from my friend Steph. She knew how much I love hip hop, so she got me the big book of Hip Hop. It’s not the sort of book you finish, really. You dip in and out of it, and there’s always something in there you missed the last time round. Evergreen, that one.
Unsurprisingly, while writing this piece I found myself back in the chapter on Jay-Z and Roc-A-Fella Records. Reading it again reminded me just how extraordinary their story really was. How broke Jay Z, Dame Dash and Kareem Burke actually were when they started Roc-A-Fella, pressing up their own vinyl out the boot of a car because no major record company would touch them, the hustle and bustle of Brooklyn, and all that jazz puts the whole album in a different light.
As someone who has spent much of his career studying crime, what has always fascinated me about the album is its honesty. Drug dealing is just the surface of it. Underneath is ambition, blocked opportunity, status, loyalty, and the sort of decisions people end up making when the straight road looks shut before they’ve even tried it.
Reasonable Doubt only got to number 23 on the Billboard 200 when it came out in 1996. Eighteen weeks on the chart, nothing spectacular by the standards of the time. It took years for people to properly understand what he’d made. And what he made, honestly, is one of the smartest debut albums hip hop has ever produced. The title alone shows you that. He’s borrowing the standard a magistrate/judge needs before it can sentence someone, and turning the whole record into his own defence, his own case file, laid out track by track. People often praise his lyricism, but I sometimes think that undersells what makes him extraordinary.
- Plenty of rappers can rhyme. Jay constructs worlds. His writing is economical without ever feeling sparse. His metaphors unfold over multiple listens. His double and triple entendres have become the stuff of legend.
He could say more in sixteen bars than most artists manage in an entire album.
The features on that record still give me chills. Biggie turns up on Brooklyn’s Finest and it’s one of the great meetings of two people who both knew, somehow, that they were about to become big. Mary J Blige carries the hook on Can’t Knock the Hustle. Jaz O, Jay Z’s old mentor from the Marcy projects, shows up on Bring It On, which is its own quiet piece of history given how that relationship eventually soured. None of it sounds like a young artist borrowing credibility from bigger names. It sounds like a scene, people who’d known each other before any of them had a record deal.
Nobody was meant to get this record straight away. It took the slow route, the way things do when they turn out to be right rather than just popular for a minute. People are still reaching for it thirty years on, and that’s not nostalgia talking. It’s just that the story it tells about ambition and consequence hasn’t gone stale.
So yes, my Gen Z criminology students can keep trying to convince me that someone else deserves the title of greatest rapper alive.
Cool bro!
Then I’ll go home, pull Steph’s gift from the shelf, put on Reasonable Doubt, and remind myself why Jay-Z is, in my opinion, the greatest to ever pick up a mic who’s still with us.
And no… I’m still not getting into the Dr Dre and Rakim argument today, so go away.
