Home » Articles posted by Paula Bowles (Page 2)
Author Archives: Paula Bowles
Criminology for all (including children and penguins)!
As a wise woman once wrote on this blog, Criminology is everywhere! a statement I wholeheartedly agree with, certainly my latest module Imagining Crime has this mantra at its heart. This Christmas, I did not watch much television, far more important things to do, including spending time with family and catching up on reading. But there was one film I could not miss! I should add a disclaimer here, I’m a huge fan of Wallace and Gromit, so it should come as no surprise, that I made sure I was sitting very comfortably for Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl. The timing of the broadcast, as well as it’s age rating (PG), clearly indicate that the film is designed for family viewing, and even the smallest members can find something to enjoy in the bright colours and funny looking characters. However, there is something far darker hidden in plain sight.
All of Aardman’s Wallace and Gromit animations contain criminological themes, think sheep rustling, serial (or should that be cereal) murder, and of course the original theft of the blue diamond and this latest outing was no different. As a team we talk a lot about Public Criminology, and for those who have never studied the discipline, there is no better place to start…. If you don’t believe me, let’s have a look at some of the criminological themes explored in the film:
Sentencing Practice
In 1993, Feathers McGraw (pictured above) was sent to prison (zoo) for life for his foiled attempt to steal the blue diamond (see The Wrong Trousers for more detail). If we consider murder carries a mandatory life sentence and theft a maximum of seven years incarceration, it looks like our penguin offender has been the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice. No wonder he looks so cross!
Policing Culture
In Vengeance Most Fowl we are reacquainted with Chief Inspector Mcintyre (see The Curse of the Were-Rabbit for more detail) and meet PC Mukherjee, one an experienced copper and the other a rookie, fresh from her training. Leaving aside the size of the police force and the diversity reflected in the team (certainly not a reflection of policing in England and Wales), there is plenty more to explore. For example, the dismissive behaviour of Mcintyre toward Mukherjee’s training. learning is not enough, she must focus on developing a “copper’s gut”. Mukherjee also needs to show reverence toward her boss and is regularly criticised for overstepping the mark, for instance by filling the station with Wallace’s inventions. There is also the underlying message that the Chief Inspector is convinced of Wallace’s guilt and therefore, evidence that points away from should be ignored. Despite this Mukherjee retains her enthusiasm for policing, stays true to her training and remains alert to all possibilities.
Prison Regime
The facility in which Feathers McGraw is incarcerated is bleak, like many of our Victorian prisons still in use (there are currently 32 in England and Wales). He has no bedding, no opportunities to engage in meaningful activities and appears to be subjected to solitary confinement. No wonder he has plenty of time and energy to focus on escape and vengeance! We hear the fear in the prison guards voice, as well as the disparaging comments directed toward the prisoner. All in all, what we see is a brutal regime designed to crush the offender. What is surprising is that Feathers McGraw still has capacity to plot and scheme after 31 years of captivity….
Mitigating Factors
Whilst Feathers McGraw may be the mastermind, from prison he is unable to do a great deal for himself. He gets round this by hacking into the robot gnome, Norbot. But what of Norbot’s free will, so beloved of Classical Criminology? Should he be held culpable for his role or does McGraw’s coercion and control, renders his part passive? Without, Norbot (and his clones), no crime could be committed, but do the mitigating factors excuse his/their behaviour? Questions like this occur within the criminal justice system on a regular basis, admittedly not involving robot gnomes, but the part played in criminality by mental illness, drug use, and the exploitation of children and other vulnerable people.
And finally:
Above are just some of the criminological themes I have identified, but there are many others, not least what appears to be Domestic Abuse, primarily coercive control, in Wallace and Gromit’s household. I also have not touched upon the implicit commentary around technology’s (including AI’s) tendency toward homogeneity. All of these will keep for classroom discussions when we get back to campus next week 🙂
Share this:
Season’s Greetings
The Thoughts from the Criminology Team would like to wish all our readers and writers happy holidays. We’d also like to extend our thanks to everyone for your contributions, without you there would not be a blog and they are very much appreciated.
Wherever you are in the world and whether or not you celebrate Christmas, we extend our good wishes to you and wish you and yours a peaceful end to 2024. We’ll be back in 2025 with lots more criminological content, until then stay safe and well.
Share this:
A Love Letter: in praise of board games
This my fifth love letter, previously I have written in praise of poetry, art, Agatha Christie and the Thoughts from the Criminology Team blog. Since early childhood, I have loved playing games and today’s entry is dedicated to this form of media. In the early years, the focus on fun is paramount, after all who wants to play a dull game? Equally important, the educational aim of games is sometimes explicit, other times less so. Nevertheless, they help us learn to match and sort colours and shapes, to develop our counting skills in an applied setting and improve our memory recall, as well as spelling. Games likes Snap, Happy Families, Hungry Hippos, Snakes and Ladders, Guess Who, Junior Scrabble offer a variety of different ways for children to learn important skills whilst playing. These games enable even very small children to share space, develop important interpersonal skills like taking turns and learn to deal with winning, and of course, losing. Often the latter is a very slow and painful lesson to learn….and one that isn’t always remembered into adulthood!
Of course, one of the most explicit part of playing games is learning the rules of the game, and of course, what happens when we deviate from those rules. It might lead to the loss of a turn or even forfeiture of the entire game. People interpret rules in different ways and families often develop their own “house” rules, but nevertheless there is always an agreed upon set of rules and a way of policing and punishing those who break them.
But once these lessons have been learned, what do games have to teach us as adults? I would say plenty! On a surface level, they offer an opportunity to relax and do something outside of our humdrum lives. Once the games have been purchased, they generally cost nothing to play unlike other forms of leisure time.1 Some can be played alone, others require competitors or even teams. They can aid our thinking, concentration and develop skills of strategy and tactics. They also have the general benefit of not being all consuming (unless at competition level), allowing for conversation to flow. The latter, conversing whilst doing something else, can often be useful for difficult emotional conversations, allowing people to open up without pressure (known colloquially as “health by stealth”).
But do board games have anything to offer to Criminology? Again, I would argue yes! Most games involve chance or luck, will you get the numbers you need, will you have the right pieces/cards in your hand, will the other person play their game in a way that benefits you? It is easy to recognise the role that luck or chance plays in games, but are we equally aware of their role in our lives. More importantly, as criminologists do we fully understand and acknowledge the role played by both in relation to criminality and victimisation?
We have no choice about whether we are born or not, when and where we arrive on the earth, who our parents are. These are all down to forces outside our individual and collective control. Our upbringing, our education, our employment opportunities are largely constrained by geography, money and influence. Compare the opportunities available to a baby born today in Sudan, with one born in the UK, another born in Palestine, and another born in Finland. Compare again, thinking about race, sex, class, disability, sexuality and so on. Very quickly you begin to understand the role played by chance and luck.
So if all of the above are imponderables, how much of a role does luck play in relation to criminality and victimisation? The regular publication of data relating to crime in postcodes, towns/cities and globally show huge diversity in the chance of victimisation. Lucky you, if you were born and live in the ‘Nordic countries of Europe (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, and Finland) who rank among the 25 safest globally, most of them also being among the top 10 happiest nations worldwide’. Less fortunate, if you were born in Haiti, Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan or Iraq identified as some of the most dangerous places on earth currently. It is not very difficult to imagine the difference in opportunities in fundamental human rights; food, shelter, healthcare, education and so on. In war ridden nations it is incredibly difficult to separate different typologies of victimisation and for the individuals living under these conditions, it makes no meaningful difference who is/are the perpetrators.
Even if you are living in a “peaceful” state2 such as the UK, there are vast differences in the opportunities available. If you have money you can buy a car to get to work in your evening/night job, if you don’t, maybe you can take a bus, failing that you can walk. Each of those journeys carries its own risks. Your sex, your race, your ethnicity, your sexuality, your abilities/disabilities, your age add the aggravating/mitigating factors and see your risk increase/decrease. All a matter of chance and luck
What about criminality, is this, as the Classical School of Criminology would have us accept, a matter of free will, weighing up the pros and cons and making a deliberate and calculating choice to commit crime? Or can we also identify the same issues of luck and chance as shown above? If your family is loving, everyone has good health, housing is secure, food is plentiful and there are plenty of educational and employment opportunities in your area, would you still choose a life of crime? If there is violence at home, poverty impacts health, housing and regular meals, making it challenging to study or work, would you perceive crime to be a choice?
And what of those board game rules and consequences, real life has its own rules, some written in the forms of laws, others engrained via family, friends, institutions; the norms of our society. In the board game, these rules apply equally (aside from luck and chance) but in real life, not so much. Consider racial and ethnic disproportionality and the treatment of vulnerable women in the CJS, as just two examples. We may all be playing in the same “Game of Life”, but luck, chance and the rules we are subjected to are very different when it comes to criminality and victimisation.
- I appreciate that there are some very expensive board games out there, as well as expansion packs to enhance play. ↩︎
- There are lots of academic arguments around what constitutes a peaceful state, most agree that it more than just the absence of war. Whilst the UK has not seen active warfare on its shores for decades, its military has been involved in conflict throughout the world for more than a century. ↩︎
Share this:
Victims of Domestic Violence Repeatedly Failed by UK Police Forces
On the last day of August 2024 I was invited to an event focused on “Victims of Domestic Violence Repeatedly Failed by UK Police Forces” held at Fenny Compton Village Hall. The choice of venue was deliberate, it was the same venue where Alan Bates brought together for the first time, just some of the many post-masters/mistresses impacted by, what we now recognise as, Britain’s largest miscarriage of justice. This meeting demonstrated that rather than one or two isolated incidents, this was widespread impacting 100s of people. Additionally, the bringing of people together led to the creation of the Justice for Sub-Postmasters Alliance [JFSA], a collective able to campaign more effectively, showing clearly that there is both strength and purpose in numbers.
Thus the choice of venue implicitly encouraged attendees to take strength in collectivity. Organised by three women who had lost daughters and a niece who instinctively knew that they weren’t the only ones. Furthermore, each had faced barrier after barrier when trying to find out what had happened to their loved ones leading up to and during their deaths. What they experienced individually in different areas of the country, shared far more commonality than difference. By comparing their experiences, it became clear that their losses were not unique, that across the country and indeed, the world, women were being subjected to violence, dying, grieving and being subjected to organisational indifference, apathy, if not downright institutional violence.
At the event, woman after woman, spoke of different women, very much loved, some had died, some had fled their violent partners (permanently, one hopes) and others who were still trapped in a living hell. Some spoke with confidence, others with trepidation or nerves, all filled with anguish, passion and each determined to raise their voices. Again and again they detailed their heartbreaking testimony, which again showed far more commonality than difference:
- Women being told that their reporting of domestic abuse incidents may make things much worse for them
- Evidence lost or disposed of by police officers
- Corrupted or deleted body worn camera footage
- Inability or unwillingness to recognise that domestic abuse, particularly coercive behaviour escalates, these are not separate incidents and cannot be viewed in isolation
- Police often dismissing women’s reports as examples of “minor” or “borderline” domestic abuse, when as detailed above, individual incidents in isolation do not reflect the lived experience
- History of domestic abuse ignored/disregarded whether or not recorded by the police
- Victims of domestic abuse being asked for forensic levels of detail when trying to report
- Victims of domestic abuse being incorrectly refused access by the police to access to information covered by Clare’s Law (Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme)
- The Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Honour Based Violence [DASH} forms treated as tick box exercise, often done over harried phone calls
- Victims of domestic violence, criminalised when trying to protect themselves and their children from violent partners
- When escaping from violent relationships women are placed in refuges, often far from their support networks, children move schools losing their friendship circles and breaking trusted relationships with teachers
- Suicide not investigated according to College of Policing own guidance: Assume Nothing, Believe nobody, Challenge everything!
- Police failing to inform the parents of women who have died
- Dead women’s phones and laptops handed over to the men who have subjected them to violence (under the guise of next-of-kin)
- The police overreliance on testimony of men (who have subjected them to violence previously) in relation to their deaths
- Challenges in accessing Legal Aid, particularly when the woman and children remain in the family home
- The lack of joined up support, lots of people and charities trying to help on limited resources but reacting on an ad hoc basis
- The police would rather use valuable resources to fight victims, survivors and their families’ complaints against them
The above is by no means an exhaustive list, but these issues came up again and again, showing clearly, that none of the women’s experiences are unique but are instead repeated again and again over time and place. It doesn’t matter what year, what police force, what area the victim lived in, their education, their profession, their class, marital status, or whether or not they were mothers. It is evident from the day’s testimony that women are being failed not only by the police, but also the wider Criminal Justice System.
Whilst the women have been failed, the criminologist in me, says we should consider whether the police are actually “failing” or whether they are simply doing what they were set up to do, and women are simply collateral damage. Don’t forget the police as an institution are not yet 200 years. They were set up to protect the rich and powerful and maintain control of the streets. Historically, we have seen the police used against the population, for example policing the Miners’ Strikes, particularly at Orgreave. More recently the response to those involved in violent protest/riots demonstrates explicitly that the police and the criminal justice system can act swiftly, when it suits. But consider what it is trying to protect, individuals or businesses or institutions or the State?
The police have long been faced by accusations of institutional racism, homophobia and misogyny. It predominantly remains a institution comprised of white, straight, (nominally) Christian, working class, men, despite frequent promises to encourage those who do not fit into these five classifications to enlist in the force. Until the police (and the wider CJS) are prepared to create a less hostile environment, any attempt at diversifying the workforce will fail. If it continues with its current policies and practices without input from those subjected to them, both inside and outside the institution, any attempt at diversifying the institution will fail. But again we come back to that word ‘failure’, is it failing if the institution continues to maintain the status quo, to protect the rich and powerful and maintain control of the streets?
But does the problem lie solely with the police and the wider criminal justice system, or are we continually failing as a society to support, nurture and protect women? Take for example Hearn’s astute recognition that ‘[f]or much too long men have been considered the taken-for-granted norm against which women have been judged to be different’ offers an alternative rationale (1998: 3).Many scholars have explored language in relation to women and race, identifying that in many cases the default is understood to be a white male (cf. de Beauvoir, 1949/2010, Lakoff, 1973, Spender, 1980, Eichler, 1988/1991, Penelope, 1990, Homans, 1997). As de Beauvoir evocatively writes, ‘humanity is male and man defines woman not in herself, she is not regarded as an autonomous being […] He is the Subject; he is the Absolute. She is the Other’ (de Beauvoir, 1949/2010: 26). Lakoff (1973) also notes that the way in which language is used both about them and by them, disguises and enables marginalisation and disempowerment. Furthermore, it enables the erasure of women’s experience. The image below illustrates this well, with its headline figure relating to men. Whilst not meaning to dismiss any violence, when women’s victimisation far outweighs that faced by men, this makes no logical sense.
Nevertheless, we should not forget men as Whitehead dolefully concludes:
‘to recognize the extent and range of men’s violences is to face the depressing and disturbing realization that men’s propensity for cruelty and violence is probably the biggest cause of misery in the world (2002: 36).’
Certainly numerous authors have identified the centrality of men (and by default masculinity) to any discussion of violence. These range from Hearn’s powerful assertion that it is ‘men [who] dominate the business of violence, and who specialize in violence’ (1998: 36) to Mullins (2006) suggestion that women act as both stimulation for men’s violence (e.g. protection) and as a limiter. Certainly, Solnit perceptively argues that armed with the knowledge that men are responsible for far more violence, it should be possible to ‘theorise where violence comes from and what we can do about it a lot more profoundly’ (2014: 25).
All of the challenges and barriers identified on the day and above make it incredibly difficult, even for educated well-connected women to deal with, this is compounded when English is not your first language, or you have a visa dependant on your violent partner/husband, or hold refugee status. As various speakers, including the spokeswoman for Sikh Women’s Aid made clear, heritage and culture can add further layers of complexity when it comes to domestic abuse.
Ultimately, the event showed the resilience and determination of those involved. It identified some of the main challenges, paid tribute to both victims and survivors and opened a new space for dialogue and collective action. If you would like to keep up with their campaign, they use the hashtag #policefailingsuk and can be contacted via email: policefailings.uk@yahoo.com
References
de Beauvoir, Simone, (1949/2010), The Second Sex, tr. from the French by Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany Chevalier, (New York: Vintage Books)
Eicler, Margrit, (1988/1991), Nonsexist Research Methods, (London: Routledge) (Kindle Version)
Hearn, Jeff, (1998), The Violences of Men, (London, Sage Publications Ltd)
Homans, Margaret, (1997), ‘“Racial Composition”: Metaphor and the Body in the Writing of Race’ in Elizabeth Abel, Barbara Christian and Helene Moglen, (Eds), Female Subjects in Black and White, (London: University of California Press): 77-101
Lakoff, Robin, (1973), ‘Language and Woman’s Place,’ Language in Society, 2, 1: 45-80
Mullins, Christopher W., (2006), Holding Your Square: Masculinities, Streetlife and Violence, (Cullompton: Willan Publishing)
National Centre for Domestic Violence, (2023), ‘Domestic Abuse Statistics UK,’ National Centre for Domestic Violence, [online]. Available from: https://www.ncdv.org.uk/domestic-abuse-statistics-uk/ [Last accessed 31 August 2024]
Penelope, Julia, (1990), Speaking Freely: Unlearning the Lies of the Fathers’ Tongues, (New York: Pergamon Press)
Solnit, Rebecca, (2014), Men Explain Things to Me, (London: Granta Publications)
Spender, Dale, (1980), Man Made Language, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul)
Whitehead, Stephen M., (2002), Men and Masculinities, (Cambridge: Polity Press)
Share this:
Everyone loves a man in uniform: The Rise and Fall of Nick Adderley
Some of our local readers will be familiar with the case of former Chief Constable Nick Adderley who was recently dismissed from Northamptonshire Police. The full Regulation 43 report can be found here and it provides an interesting, and at times, comical, narrative of the life and times of the now disgraced police officer.
The Regulation 43 report describes Adderley’s creation of a “false legend” of military service, whereby this supposed naval man fought bravely to protect the Falkland Islands (despite only being 15 when the conflict ended), rescued helicopters and ships in the height of battle, commanded men, was a military negotiator during the Anti-Duvalier protest movement in Haiti. In short, an all round real-life Naval action man! It’s pity for Adderley, that the Regulation 43 panel found none of this was true, instead a ‘Walter Mitty‘ like trail of lies were revealed throughout the investigation.
Nevertheless, not content with his brave military career, our intrepid hero decided he would take his considerable (in his estimation at least) skills into policing. First applying to Greater Manchester Police [GMP] (who turned him down on the grounds that there were ‘better candidates’) and then Cheshire Police. From Cheshire Police, he went to GMP and then to Staffordshire Police, finally arriving in Northamptonshire in the summer of 2018. Despite all of these different forces, all of the different application and promotion forms that our brave hero completed, not one person bothered to check that he was telling the truth. To check that this man, responsible for upholding law and order, was a fit candidate for the role. instead, I suspect, like so many it seems, we are so in love with our military and all its trappings, that we lose any sense of criticality when it comes to uniforms. After all who would dare to question a Chief Constable, whether a police officer, civilian worker or member of the public? Easier to keep parroting the mantra of “our brave boys”, than to think critically about institutions and their members, as the cartoon below demonstrates all too well.
At this point Adderley has been dismissed from Northamptonshire Police and banned from policing. In 2024 the Angiolini Inquiry published its report, which in part focused on police vetting and there is no doubt, post-Adderley the police as an institution, will undertake more soul searching. Additionally, some commentators have begun a campaign to have Adderley’s police pension reduced/removed. These matters will continue to rumble along for some time. But, in short, Adderley has been punished and publicly outed as a liar, but that does not begin to undo the immense harm his behaviour has inflicted on the community.
During his time at Chief Constable of Northamptonshire, Adderley called upon his supposed military history and experience to support his arguments and the decisions he made. For instance, the 2019 arming of Northamptonshire’s police with tasers or the 2020 launch of eight interceptors, described by Adderley as “a new fleet of crime-busting cars” or the 2021 purchase of “eight Yamaha WR450F enduro bikes“. To me, all of these developments scream the militarisation of policing. Since the very foundation of the Metropolitan Police in 1829, serving officers and the public have continually been opposed to arming the police, yet Adderley, with his military service, seemingly knew best. But what use is a taser, fast car or motorbike in everyday community policing, how do they help when responding to domestic abuse, sexual violence, or the very many mental health crises to which officers are regularly called? How do these expensive military “toys” ensure that all members of society feel protected and not just some communities? How can we ensure that tasers don’t do lasting harm to those subjected to their violence? Instead all of these developments scream a fantasy of both military and policing, one in which the hero is always on the side of the righteous, devoting his life to taking down the “baddies” by whatever means necessary.
Ultimately for the people of Northamptonshire we have to decide, can we view Adderley’s police leadership as the best use of taxpayers’ money, a response to evidence based policing or just a military fantasy of the man who lied? More importantly, the county and its police force will struggle to untangle Adderley’s web of lies and the harm inflicted on the people of Northamptonshire, making it likely that this entirely unevidenced push to militarise the police will continue unchecked.
Share this:
Taking a short break….back soon
The academic year 23/24 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 August and after all, ‘absence makes the heart grow fonder’.
In the meantime, there’s plenty on the site to explore.
Enjoy your July whatever you are up to!
Share this:
Aspiration and Independence: A tale of Lego, Learning and Universities
A couple of year’s ago to mark the completion of my PhD, my husband presented me with a Lego kit, a Lego typewriter to be precise! This was an incredibly thoughtful gift, a nod to the start of my working life where I had used a very similar typewriter daily at the Magistrates’ Court. It was also recognition of the years I had spent writing the thesis. Simultaneously, it was also rather a surprising kit, my only other foray into Lego as an adult was building a Lego Yellow Submarine some years before. That kit had taken me considerable hours to build, which I had enjoyed, in part because of my love for the Beatles. However, I digress….
I embarked upon building the typewriter, which looked rather big and scary in its box, and even more daunting when I saw the huge instruction manual and lots and lots of bags of pieces. Nevertheless, how difficult can it be to build a Lego kit? I started with confidence, working my way through the step-by-step instructions, occasionally accidentally missing a step and having to go back through the booklet. However, about halfway through, I got completely stuck, I couldn’t make sense of the diagram and turned to google. Here I found lots of articles and videos, each of which seemed to stress that this was an extremely challenging kit, one of the most complex produced to date and not for the faint hearted. Regardless, I found some information about my particular hurdle and carried on working my way through the steps.
As time went on, I found the idea that what I was doing was difficult, playing across my mind. Increasingly, as I found a part challenging, rather than working my way backwards and forwards through the instructions, trying pieces one way and another, in trial and error, I turned again and again to google. Of course, each time I did this, as well as the answer, I was confronted by the continual narrative of challenge and difficulty. As I went on, I felt as if I could not complete this kit. Then disaster struck! As I fought to put in a moving part, a part of the model collapsed, I obviously hadn’t pressed the pieces in hard enough. I found myself facing what had been almost complete model (only one bag of pieces to go) but was now a complete mess. Now, remember this is just a model, not a matter of life and death, but I felt this mistake deeply. All of the commentators, self-proclaimed Lego “experts” were right, this was not a kit for me, a mere amateur.
This anecdote, really ends there, the kit is still in pieces in its box. I haven’t been able to bring myself to dismantle what’s left and start again. The fact that I haven’t completed the kit, plays on my mind. I don’t give up on anything (my work, education and family history attest to this), but here I am defeated by a toy![i] This “failure” got me thinking about learning and teaching and the role self-belief (or the lack of it) plays in the academic journey. This chimes with recent thoughts around independence and aspiration when it comes to excelling in study.
First a proviso, this is not about my institution, but seemingly every educational establishment and more broadly society. Everywhere I look it seems that young people are being told that they are incapable, that they need support in all aspects of their lives, including studying. That university study is incredibly difficult and probably not something that can done without enormous support. Sometimes this is an implicit message absorbed on daily basis, other times more explicit, posters, advertisements advising how to defer assessments, how to get in touch with support services, where to go for financial guidance, people you can talk to and so on. Now all of these are really important, but they are not the primary purpose of a university. That purpose is to provide a space for education, for thinking, for reading, for intellectual discourse, a place full of challenging ideas, allowing individuals to develop themselves in a variety of different and sometimes, surprising ways. It is also a place to make mistakes on that learning journey. After all, if we knew everything before we started studying for a degree, there would be little point in studying.
Nevertheless, in the modern university, there is little tangible evidence that this is what a university is for. To quote Nike (1988) where is the “Just do it”. Where does it remind us, that humans are powerful, resourceful, adaptable, that we can learn anything we put our minds to, we can succeed? Where are the messages designed to build self-confidence, self-esteem, and aspiration. Yes, there is help available, don’t be afraid to ask for support! There is no stigma, you are paying for every part of your university experience. Yes, studying is challenging, but so are lots of things in life; learning to drive, holding down a job, caring responsibilities, many of which we rely upon others for support.
Obviously, there is a big difference between Lego and an academic qualification, nevertheless they both (comparatively) require a big financial outlay, levels of dedication, concentration, aspiration and a desire for successful completion. I have three degrees, each has cost me financially, temporally and emotionally. This studying has given me the lowest of lows and the highest of highs along the way, but I have grown in ways I could never have imagined at the beginning of my studies. Along the way I have utilised support from academics and university professional services, for which I am very thankful, but the hard work is mine. Even better, those three pieces of paper belong to me and me alone, they are proof of my stamina, my perseverance and my ability to bounce back again and again. Nobody, can take those away from me!
It is for all these reasons that I will complete that Lego set! But I also recognise that I may need some expert help to build up my confidence again. This time I won’t call upon academics for support, but another expert, my 11 year old grandson, who has proved time and again, that no Lego kit will defeat him! With perseverance and an expert who will gently guide and enable me, that Lego kit will be complete in no time. Watch this space for the finished article!
EDIT Sunday 18 February: Mission Accomplished
[i] Apologies to all Lego aficionados, I fully recognise that Lego is so much more than a toy.
Share this:
Is Britain really “the best country in the world for children”? Discuss
Criminology is a social science which means it is based on evidence. Quite often students and academics write x person believes that something is the case. My response to that is generally, Criminology is not a religion and therefore the issue of belief should not arise. However, as humans we aren’t always looking for evidence in our everyday lives. We have a system of values and beliefs which we live by whether those have come by religious or secular means. Some of these are incredibly problematic, evidence of racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and many other prejudices. Others are more gentle, reflective of the frailty of human beings and understanding of the mistakes we all make. These values and beliefs are so ingrained within us, we don’t often question whether they are right or wrong, but they do guide the way we think and behave as we progress through our lives. Maturity, the lived experience and learning, enable us to change, enhance or even discard, those values and beliefs, we once held dear.
It is therefore evident that no matter how hard we try, elements of belief cannot completely be eradicated, not in our personal lives and not in our professional or academic lives. Humans are social, they do not exist in a vacuum but are very much subject to the zeitgeist in which they find themselves living. These social influences impact how we understand our world, our behaviours and our words and it is this I want to explore in this blog entry.
As a society we recognise that we have vulnerable members, the elderly, the very young, the ill, the disabled, the pregnant and so on. Lots of words are written and spoken around the need to protect, support, nurture and enable people to thrive. Certainly, there is legislation to ensure provision, for example the Human Rights Act, 1998 and the Equalities Act, 2010 to name but two. Additionally, we are often reminded that we should #BeKind and to always consider #Wellbeing and #MentalHealth. All of which seemingly presents the UK as a caring, thoughtful environment in which to raise children….
This week in the media we have seen a frenzy of approbation focused on a BBC presenter accused of something (never quite made clear, what) that may or may not be criminal activity. Twitter and other forms of social media have been alive with supposedly “authoritative” commentary clutching onto every fragment of information they can find. It seems that commentators are divided into a number of camps:
- Those that are concerned with the legal ramifications of commenting
- Those that are concerned with the safety and security of those at the centre of this; those suspected of offending, those suspected of victimisation and the families of both
- Those that are concerned with using these events to promote a particular political viewpoint, generally around #DefundingTheBBC, #DontBuyTheSun or suggesting that this story is being used to cover up other more important news such as Boris Johnson’s failure to hand over his whatsapp messages to the Covid Inquiry
- Those that are concerned with accusing a variety of different people, regardless of any evidence to support, often using highly derogatory language.
Whichever camp commentators situate themselves within, it is evident that the furore has been created out of very little information. For many their arguments are based on the commentator’s personal prejudices, they like this person but they don’t like another and so on. In many cases we can see homophobia and bigotry on full display. Whilst some are claiming that this is done in the name of protecting children, it is never explained how this is achieved by engaging in witch hunt or writing “paedo” or similar pejorative terms on social media.
Running alongside the news story above, we have another story around children. This time, the focus is on unaccompanied refugee children and the immigration minister, Robert Jenrick. Despite the inclusion of a pledge in the government’s manifesto stating
“Britain should be the best country in the world for children. We want to reduce levels of child poverty, and have high ambitions for the quality of childcare, children’s health and support for vulnerable children for whom the state acts as a parent.”
https://www.willispalmer.com/special-report-what-the-main-political-parties-pledge-on-social-care/#:~:text=The%20Conservative%20Party,state%20acts%20as%20a%20parent.%E2%80%9D
Jenrick reportedly demanded that a mural, depicting Micky Mouse and other childhood friends, be painted over in an asylum seeker reception centre. Can you imagine, wanting to stop children seeing images of cartoon characters, familiar across the world, at a time when their vulnerability is so heightened?
Not so for Robert Jenrick, allegedly, he wanted to stress that this was a “law enforcement environment” and “not a welcome centre”. What kind of society accepts the placement of children in such a punitive space and regime? What happened to being the “best country in the world for children”?
My final example, comes not from mainstream media but a personal exchange on social media. This exchange began with the posting of a picture of a toy, long acknowledged by many as racist, a hangover from our imperial past. If you’re not sure which toy, I’m talking about, Dr Peter Olusoga discusses it far more eloquently than I can here. I’m not going to rehash the exchange I had, as Olusoga notes, it went along very predictable lines. But what struck me was this insistence that it was childhood memories long past that mattered. Not that adults and children might be upset or hurt by the image and the narrative which followed, but that the adult white women’s childhood memories be left unsullied.
Each of these occurrences screams the same hypocrisies, children only matter when it suits, even better when they are imaginary, rather than here in the flesh (they can come in handy when looking to bolster your own prejudices). They also demonstrate that the only view that matters is your own regardless of how that may impact on others well-being. It is time for ‘deeds not words‘! Until our society is willing to acknowledge and confront our prejudices, both individual and collective, we will continue to wonder how injustices arise….
Share this:
Sometimes it is very hard to find the words
This week our learning community lost one of our members; Kwabena Osei-Poku (known to his nearest and dearest as Alfred) who was killed on Sunday 23 April 2023. At such times, it is very difficult to find the right words, but to say nothing, would do a grave disservice.
The Thoughts from the Criminology Team would like to express our deepest condolences to the family, friends, and communities for whom Kwabena Osei-Poku (Alfred) was such an important person. We wish you time, space and peace to come together to mourn your terrible loss.
Share this:
I am not your “ally” (or am I?)
Today’s blog entry is a stream of consciousness rather than a finished entry with an introduction, middle and conclusion. It’s something that has been puzzling me for sometime, trying to work out why the term “ally” discomforts me and yet, not really coming to a firm conclusion. So I thought I’d explore it through a blog entry and would welcome anyone’s input to help me clarify and refine my own thinking and either embrace or reject the term.
Anyone that knows me, knows I love reading and of course, I love words. I love to play with them, say them, write them, discover new ones and trace the etymology as far as I can. Equally, I do not hide the fact that I try to understand the world through both pacifism and feminism. This makes me rather susceptible to interrogating and challenging the things that I see around me, including the written and spoken word.
The most obvious place to start when exploring words, is a dictionary, and this blog entry does similar. According to the Cambridge English Dictionary the term “ally” has three distinct definitions:
“a country that has agreed officially to give help and support to another one, especially during a war”
“someone who helps and supports someone else”
“someone who helps and supports other people who are part of a group that is treated badly or unfairly, although they are not themselves a member of this group”
Now for obvious reasons, I find the first definition problematic, put simply for me, war is a crime. The act of waging war includes multiple violences, some individual, some institutional, some structural and all incredibly harmful decades, or even centuries later. Definitions which have roots in the military and warfare leave me cold and I hate the way in which they infiltrate civilian discourse. For example “the war on drugs”, “the war on poverty”, “officer to the meeting” and the reshaping of the term “ally” for the twenty-first century” I definitely don’t want to be the “ally” described in that definition.
Definition two is also problematic, albeit for different reasons. This definition seems far too broad, if I hold the door open for you, is that me being an ally? If I help you carry your heavy bags, can I say I’m your ally? This seems a nonsensical way to talk about everyday actions which would be better described as common civility, helping each other along the way.Should I say “thank you kind ally” every time, someone moves out of my way, or offers their seat on the bus? It seems evident that this definition does not help me explore my reservations.
The third definition appears to come closest to modern usage of the term “ally”. This term can be applied to many different groups (as can be seen from the badges below and these are just some of the many examples). “whilst I identify as cisgender, I’m a trans ally”, whilst currently heterosexual, I’m a LGBTQ+ ally”, despite being white, I’m a BLM ally” and so on. On the surface this is very positive, moving society away from the nonsense of people describing themselves as “colour-blind”, “gender-blind” or such trite phrases as “we all bleed the same”, ignoring the lack of equity in society and pretending that everyone has the same lived experience, the same opportunities, the same health, wealth and happiness. Buying into the hackneyed idea that if only you work hard enough, you will succeed, that we live in a classless society and the only thing holding anyone back is their own inertia.
However, maybe my problem isn’t with the word “ally” but the word “I”, and the fact that the two words seem inseparable, After all who decides who is an ally or who is not, is there a organisation somewhere that checks your eligibility to be an ally? I’m pretty sure there’s not which means that that “ally” is a description you apply to yourself. After all you can buy the badge, the t-shirt, the mug etc etc, capitalism is on your side, provided the tills are ringing, there’s every reason to sign up. Maybe a tiny percentage of your purchases goes to financially benefit the people you aim to support, for example the heavily criticised Skittles Pride campaign which donated only 2p to LGBTQ+ charities (and stands accused of white supremacy and racism). Of course, once you have bought the paraphernalia, there is no need to do anything else, beyond carrying/wearing/eating your “ally” goods with pride.
All of the above seems to marketise and weaponise behaviour that should be standard practice, good manners if you like, in a society. Do we need a special word for this kind of behaviour or should we strive to make sure we make space for everyone in our society? If individuals or groups gain civil rights, I don’t lose anything, I gain a growing confidence that the society in which I live is improving, that there is some movement (however small) toward equity for all. Societies should not make life more difficult for the people who live in them, regardless of religious or spiritual belief, we have one opportunity to make a good life for ourselves and others and that’s right now, so why seek to dehumanise and disadvantage other humans who are on the same journey as we are.
Ultimately, my main concern with the use of term of “ally” is that it obscures incredibly challenging social harms, with colour and symbols hiding inaction and apathy. Accept the label of “ally”, wear the badge, if you think it has meaning, but if you do nothing else, this is meaningless. if you see inequality and you do not call it out, take action to remedy the situation, the word “ally” means nothing other than an opportunity to make yourself central to the discussion, taking up, rather than making, room for those focused on making a more just society.
I still remain uncomfortable with the term “ally” and I doubt it will ever appear in my lexicon, but it’s worth remembering that an antonym of ally is enemy and nobody needs those.
Thoughts from the criminology team 