Home » Crime
Category Archives: Crime
25 years is but a drop in time!
If I was a Roman, I would be sitting in my comfortable triclinium eating sweet grapes and dictating my thoughts to a scribe. It was the Roman custom of celebrating a double-faced god that started European celebrations for a new year. It was meant to be a time of reflection, contemplation and future resolutions. It is under these sentiments that I shall be looking back over the year to make my final calculations. Luckily, I am not Roman, but I am mindful that over 2025 years have passed and many people, have tried to look back. Since I am not any of these people, I am going to look into the future instead.
In 25 years from now we shall be heading to the middle of the 21st century. A century that comes with great challenges. Since the start of the century there has been talk of economic bust. The banking crisis slowed down the economy and decreased real income for people. Then the expectation was that crime will rise as it did before; whilst the juries may still be out. the consensus is that this crime spree did not come…at least not as expected. People became angry and their anger was translated in changes on the political map, as many countries moved to the right.
Prediction 1: This political shift to the right in the next 25 years will intensify and increase the polarisation. As politics thrives in opposition, a new left will emerge to challenge the populist right. Their perspective will bring another focus on previous divisions such as class. Only on this occasion class could take a different perspective. The importance of this clash will define the second half of the 21st century when people will try to recalibrate human rights across the planet. Globalisation has brought unspeakable wealth to few people. The globalisation of citizenship will challenge this wealth and make demands on future gains.
As I write these notes my laptop is trying to predict what I will say and put a couple of words ahead of me. Unfortunately, most times I do not go with its suggestions. As I humanise my device, I feel sorry for its inability to offer me the right words and sometimes I use the word as to acknowledge its help but afterwards I delete it. My relationship with technology is arguably limited but I do wonder what will happen in 25 years from now. We have been talking about using AI for medical research, vaccines, space industry and even the environment. However currently the biggest concern is not AI research, but AI generated indecent images!
Prediction 2: Ai is becoming a platform that we hope will expand human knowledge at levels that we could have not previously anticipated. One of its limitations comes from us. Our biology cannot receive the volume of information created and there is no current interface that can sustain it. This ultimately will lead to a divide between people. Those who will be in favour of incorporating more technology into their lives and those who will ultimately reject it. The polarisation of politics could contribute to this divide as well. As AI will become more personal and intrusive the more the calls will be made to regulate. Under the current framework to fully regulate it seems rather impossible so it will lead to an outright rejection or a complete embrace. We have seen similar divides in the past during modernity; so, this is not a novel divide. What will make it more challenging now is the control it can hold into everyday life. It is difficult to predict what will be the long-term effects of this.
During the late 20th and early 21st centuries drug abuse and trafficking seemed to continue to scandalise the public and maintain attention as much as it did back in the 1970s and 80s. Drugs have been demonised and became the topic of media representation of countless moral panics. Its reach in the public is wide and its emotional effect rivals only that of child abuse. Is drugs abuse an issue we shall be considering in 25 years from now?
Prediction 3: People used substances as far back as we can record history. Therefore, there will be drugs in the future to the joy of all these people who like to get high! It is most likely that the focus will be on synthetic drugs that will be more focused on their effects and how they impact people. The production is likely to change with printers being able to develop new substances on a massive scale. These will create a new supply line among those who own technology to develop new synthetic forms and those who own the networks of supply. In previous times a takeover did happen so it is likely to happen again, unless these new drugs emerge under formal monopolies, like drug companies who will legalise their recreative use.
One of the biggest tensions in recent years is the possibility of another war. Several European politicians have already raised it pretending to be making predictions. Their statements however are clear signs of war preparation. The language is reminiscent of previous eras and the way society is responding to these seems that there is some fertile ground. Nationalism is the shelter of every failed politician who promises the world and delivers nothing. Whether a citizen in Europe (EU/UK) the US or elsewhere, they have likely to have been subjected to promises of gaining things, better days coming, making things great…. only to discover all these were empty vacant words. Nothing has been offered and, in most cases, working people have found that their real incomes have shrunk. This is when a charlatan will use nationalism to push people into hating other people as the solution to their problems.
Prediction 4: Unfortunately, wars seem to happen regularly in human history despite their destructive nature. We also forget that war has never stopped and elusive peace happens only in parts of the world when different interests converge. There is a combination of patriotism, national pride and rhetoric that makes people overlook how damaging war is. It is awfully blindsided not to recognise the harm war can do to them and to their own families. War is awful and destroys working people the most. In the 20th century nuclear armament led to peace hanging by a thread. This fear stupidly is being played down by fraudsters pretending to be politicians. Currently the talk about hybrid war or proxy war are used to sanitise current conflicts. The use of drones seems to have altered the methodology of war, and the big question for the next 25 years is, will there be someone who will press THAT button? I am not sure if that will be necessary because irrespective of the method, war leaves deep wounds behind.
In recent years the discussion about the weather have brought a more prevailing question. What about the environment? There is a recognised crisis that globally we seem unable to tackle, and many make already quite bleak predictions about it. Decades ago, Habermas was exploring the idea of “colonization of the lifeworld” purporting that systemic industrial agriculture will lead to environmental degradation. Now it seems that this form of farming, the greenhouse gasses and deforestation are becoming the contributing factors of global warming. The inaction or the lack of international coordination has led calls for immediate action. Groups that have been formed to pressure political indecision have been met with resistance and suspicion, but ultimately the problem remains.
Prediction 5: The world acts when confronted with something eminent. In the future some catastrophic events are likely to shape views and change attitudes. Unfortunately, the planet runs on celestial and not human time. When a prospective major event happens, no one can predict its extent or its impact. The approach by some super-rich to travel to another planet or develop something in space is merely laughable but it is also a clear demonstration why wealth cannot be in the hands of few oligarchs. Life existed before them and hopefully it will continue well beyond them. On the environment I am hopeful that people’s views will change so by the end of this century we will look at the practices of people like me and despair.
These are mere predictions of someone who sits in a chair having read the news of the day. They carry no weight and hold no substantive strength. There is a recognition that things will change at some level and we shall be asked to adapt to whatever new conditions we are faced with. In 25 years from now we will still be asking similar questions people asked 100 years ago. Whatever happens, however it happens, life always finds a way to continue.
Share this:
Is the UK a good place to live? VI
As part of preparing for University, new students were encouraged to engage in a number of different activities. For CRI1009 Imagining Crime, students were invited to contribute a blog on the above topic. These blog entries mark the first piece of degree level writing that students engaged with as they started reading for their BA (Hons) Criminology. With the students’ agreement these thought provoking blogs have been brought together in a series which we will release over the next few weeks.
My opinion on whether the UK is a good place to live or not is based on who you are, where you live, your values and your main source of income.
While our country offers free health care and financial support to those in need, it also faces serious issues including crime, protests against the government and housing shortages. These problems raise public concern and impact various groups across society. Addressing these concerns is easier said than done.
From my perspective, some main factors that make a country “good” are free health care and education, equality, economic opportunities and fair wages, freedom of speech, human rights and low crime rates. These are qualities that exist in many countries, but rarely all in one.
So, is the UK a good place to live?
I feel that it depends on what part of the UK you live in. I believe that the north of the UK has a lot of good qualities, that I mentioned previously, that are lacking in the south. One of the best places in the UK to live is Northern Ireland which, prioritises human rights, economic opportunities, free health care and education as well as equality. Despite these positives, there is still significantly unfair wages found as well as high hardcore drug use.
In recent months, there have been many protests in the southern region of the UK, focused on issues like immigration, housing shortages and Keir Starmer not recognising the Palestine state. These protests have caused significant disruption for both the police force and political parties, as these protests have shown they will not stop until something is done about these issues. Not only does this waste police time and cause friction in parliament, but it affects everyday people from getting to work to accessing basic essentials.
Crime is another key factor that makes the UK a difficult place to live. Crimes such as gang violence, knife crime, sexual assault, drug use and theft are some of the top crimes committed in the UK, making many women feel unsafe whilst walking alone at night and causing a lot of young men to become victims of violence or are drawn into crime themselves.
Overall, where you live in the UK plays a huge role in shaping your quality of life. As someone who lives in the south of the UK and has visited the north, I can honestly say that the north is far more appealing, to the point where I would like to move to Northern Ireland in the future. The UK can also be a difficult place for immigrants to live, due frequent protests against them. Not only is it difficult for immigrants, but it is also getting increasingly hard for young people as work is getting challenging to find in our country. Many of us are left unemployed and unable to save for a car, a hour or even general daily expenses, something that I have experienced personally.
Despite all of this, I think that being able to understand crime, inequality and justice for all will help shape better societies. In the end, whether the UK is a good place to live depends on your situation, but there’s definitely room for change.
Share this:
Is the UK a good place to live? V
As part of preparing for University, new students were encouraged to engage in a number of different activities. For CRI1009 Imagining Crime, students were invited to contribute a blog on the above topic. These blog entries mark the first piece of degree level writing that students engaged with as they started reading for their BA (Hons) Criminology. With the students’ agreement these thought provoking blogs have been brought together in a series which we will release over the next few weeks.
When asked whether or not the UK is a good country to live in, the answer will almost certainly
depend on what we think makes a country “good” in the first place. All countries have negatives
and positives, but there are some aspects that stand out above the rest as requirements for a fair
and functioning society which makes a country better to live in. These include the protection of
human rights, the presence of democracy, the rule of law, and access to essential services like free
healthcare. Considering the UK through these points can help us decide whether it can be
classified as a good place to live.
Human Rights
One of the most important measures of a country is whether its citizens have basic human rights
and freedoms. In the UK, the most fundamental piece of legislation protecting human rights is the
Human Rights Act 1998. It protects freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly,
and the right to a fair trial. These rights give citizens the freedom to express their own opinions
freely and protest against government ideology without fear of repercussions and with the
knowledge that their voices will be heard. Of course, there are debates regarding the balance
between national security and freedom, but the fact that the rights are codified in UK primary
legislation makes it easier for citizens to invoke those rights in the UK courts.
Democracy
Another key aspect of a good country is democracy. In the UK, the citizens are eligible to vote for
parliamentarians, who in turn make decisions and pass legislations on their behalf. This is very
different from living under a dictatorship, where there is a single person or elite group with no one
else participating in the decision making process. The theory of parliamentary sovereignty holds
that the laws that the elected parliament enacts are paramount and no other body can question the
validity of the same. While others may resent that their own vote counts for nothing, the fact that
citizens collectively determine who governs them is fundamental to fairness and representation.
This ensures that individual citizens views are upheld by those representing them in parliament.
Rule of Law
The UK also upholds the rule of law. This concept means that no one is above the law, neither a
commoner nor a top politician. Everyone is answerable to the same rules, and this provides a
sense of justice and equality through society. A sound legal system guarantees the protection of
people from a misuse of authority and enables disputes to be resolved in a just way. This is one
principle that makes well-performing democracies distinguish from corrupt or autocratic
governments. The rule of law makes the UK a good place to live in because it ensures equality
amongst all individuals no matter their status or profession and ensures a compliant society.
The NHS
Lastly, another unique aspect that makes the UK stand out as an excellent place to reside is the
National Health Service (NHS). The NHS provides free healthcare at the point of need for UK
citizens and people can access medical care regardless of their earnings and socio-economic
background. This ensures that medical assistance is available in emergencies and day to day
without citizens worrying about how they can afford the fees. Access to medical care in most
countries is often very expensive and out of reach for people with modest earnings. The NHS,
although strained and tested, is still a symbol of compassion and equity and a service that people
in the UK have very strong affection for.
To conclude, it is clear when considering the UK in light of human rights, democracy, rule of law,
and the NHS, there are strong grounds which support the proposition that the UK is a good place
to live. There is no perfect country, but the aspects of the UK described above ensure that
individuals are protected, represented, treated equally, and cared for. These are the qualities of a
good society, and they suggest that, though it may not be perfect, the UK is a good nation to live in
overall.
Share this:
Is the UK a good place to live?: IV
As part of preparing for University, new students were encouraged to engage in a number of different activities. For CRI1009 Imagining Crime, students were invited to contribute a blog on the above topic. These blog entries mark the first piece of degree level writing that students engaged with as they started reading for their BA (Hons) Criminology. With the students’ agreement these thought provoking blogs have been brought together in a series which we will release over the next few weeks.
I believe that for a country to be a good place to live it would need to have 3 categories: good healthcare, a stable/reliable police force and a fairly good education. I think that the UK meets each of these categories to a certain extent due to the factors that would impact it.
The UK has great healthcare because due to the NHS. The NHS provides universal healthcare which would ensure that residents wouldn’t have to worry about the financial burden of medical treatment. This makes the UK a good place to live because it means that people are comforted by the fact that they are protected by NHS in regards to health. For instance, the healthcare system within America doesn’t provide free service to the citizens and is mostly used by those that have the insurance to pay for it. This would result in many people being unable to get the health service they need due to not having the money to pay for it, thus making America not a good place to live in. Therefore, in regards to healthcare the UK could be regarded as a good place to live.
The UK’s police force has been criticised for their inability to maintain justice within the past. This is because of moments of injustice that have existed in the police for quite some time. An example of this would be the Stephen Lawerence murder case where police have been accused of racism in the handling of the case. Furthermore, the CPS was criticised for not allowing the prosecution of certain cases and the handling of witnesses that have led to miscarriages of justice. An example of this would be the case of Damilola Taylor where the witness was proven to be lying which the CPS failed to check before the trial. This would suggest that the UK isn’t a good place to live as there are examples of police incompetence that causes failures in justice. However, in comparison to other countries the police in the UK can be seen to be useful in prevention of crime. For instance, the crime rate in America is 363.8 incidents per 100,000 people whereas in the UK the crime rate is 72 crimes per 1000 people. This would suggest that whilst the police may not be as effective in solving and preventing most crime, the crime is lower than other countries, suggesting that the UK would be a good place to live.
The UK’s education system is also a testament to whether it is a good place to live in. The UK is known for some of the world’s leading universities such as Oxford that cause young adults to thrive as well as mandatory primary/secondary education that gives most children access to schooling regardless of background. However, there is apparent inequalities that causes some pupils to underperform such as school preference to elaborated speech codes. The emphasis on education still makes me think of the UK as a good place to live in.
Share this:
Is the UK a good place to live?: III
As part of preparing for University, new students were encouraged to engage in a number of different activities. For CRI1009 Imagining Crime, students were invited to contribute a blog on the above topic. These blog entries mark the first piece of degree level writing that students engaged with as they started reading for their BA (Hons) Criminology. With the students’ agreement these thought provoking blogs have been brought together in a series which we will release over the next few weeks.
People have different views on whether the UK is a good place to live. Many people base their views on certain factors such as government, healthcare, housing, social benefits, work opportunities and a good environment to raise families.
Why is the United Kingdom a good place to live?
The United Kingdom is seen as good place because of many reasons, the main reason being that they provide services to those who need it, such as victims of war travelling to the UK. They receive free healthcare, housing, benefits to help live, by receiving these, it can help people build a new life and raise their families. Another reason is the healthcare, it is free meaning you do not have to pay insurance or hospital fees compared to if you were in countries like America. By being free, people move here so they have more access to the healthcare without paying for the services. Another reason is the cultural diversity, there are so many different things that embrace the different cultures such as restaurants, festivals etc. This encourages people to move to the United Kingdom to embrace and be educated on the different cultures and communities. There is also History and Culture which consists of a large variety of rich historical sites, museums, theatres, and architecture. There is also vibrant arts and music scenes. Another reason is the United Kingdom is a relatively safe and stable place to live in as the crime rates are quite low and decreasing, which encourages people to move here compared to other countries with higher crime rates. Additionally, there is a vast amount of Nature and Travel to explore, there is beautiful countrysides (e.g. Lake District, Scottish Highlands, Cornwall) and different public transport to use to get you to the many places.
Why is the United Kingdom a bad place to live?
- However, the United Kingdom can be seen as a bad place for many reasons, one of which is the weather, the weather is always dark, rainy, gloomy which can discourage those who prefer warmer weather. There is also Cost of Living, with prices increasing, cities like London are extremely expensive and there are rising housing costs, especially for renters. Prices in food shopping have also increased meaning that people living here may struggle to survive with the increased costs, especially those who don’t have a job or have travelled over for a safer place to live. Another reason is the NHS Strain, while it’s free, waiting times can be long and can be exhausting this is due to the underfunding and staff shortages have caused issues. Additionally, another reason is the Housing Crisis this is especially in big cities, a lack of affordable housing, long waiting lists for social housing which can cause an increase in homelessness.
Conclusion
Overall, I believe that the United Kingdom is a good place to live but could be improved to be a better place than it is now.
Share this:
A Criminal Called Bob
It was years ago that Bob was born in St. Mary’s Hospital. His mum delivered a relatively healthy baby that she called Robert, after her father despite kicking her out when he found out that she was pregnant from a casual encounter. Bob’s early memory was of a pain in the arm in a busy place he could not remember what it was. His mother was grabbing his arm an early sign that he was unwanted. He would remember many of these events becoming part of everyday life. He remembers one day a stern looking woman came to the place he was living with his mother and take him away. This was the last time he would ever see his mother; he was 5 or 6. A few years afterwards his mother will die from a bad heart. Later, he would find out it was drugs related.
The stern looking lady will take him to another place to live with a family. One of many that he would be placed in. At first, he tried to get to know the hosts but soon it became difficult to keep track. He also lost track of how many times he moved around. There were too many to count but the main memory was of fear going into a place he did not know to stay with people who treated him as an inconvenience. He owned nothing but a bin bag with a few clothes and people will always comment on how scruffy he looked. He remembers discovering some liquorice allsorts in a drawer with the kid he was sharing the room with. He cannot forget the beating he got for eating some of them. The host was very harsh, and they used the belt on him.
School was hell for Bob. As he moved from place to place the schools also changed. The introduction to the class was almost standard. Bob is joining us from so and so and although he lives in foster care, I hope you will be making him feel welcomed…and welcomed he was. The bullying was relentless so was the name calling and the attacks. On occasion he would meet an aloof man who was his “designated tutor”. His questions were abrupt and focused only if he was behaving, if he was making any trouble, if he did as was told. It was hardly ever about education or any of his needs. He remembers going to see him once with a bruised eye to be asked “what did you do?”
And he did a lot! Early on he learned that in order not to go hungry he must hide food away. If he was to meet a new person, he had to show them that he is cannot be taken for granted, he needed to show them he can handle himself. Sometime during his early teenage years his greeting gesture was a headbutt. Violence was a clear vehicle for communication. One person is down the other is up. This became a language he became prolific in. He could read a room quickly and in later years be able to assess the person opposite. If he can take him or not!
The truth that others kept talking about around him became a luxury and an unnecessary situation. Lying about things got him to avoid punishment and any consequences to any of his actions. The only problem was when he was get caught lying. The consequences were dire. So, what he needed to do was to become very good at it. He did. He could lie looking people straight in the eye and not even blink about it.
Later in life he discovered this was an amazing talent to possess. It was useful when he was stealing from shops, it was good when people asking him for the truth, it was profitable when his lies covered other people’s crimes. Before he turned 18, he was an experienced thief and a creative liar. His physique allowed him to take to violence should anyone was to question his “honesty”. When he was 15, he discovered that a combination of cider and acid gives him such a buzz. To mute his brain and to relax his body even for little was so welcomed. This habit became one of his most loyal relationships in his life.
In prison he didn’t go until he was 22 but he went to a young offender’s institution at the age of 17 for GBH. The “victim” was a former friend who stole some of his gear. That really angered him; even days after the event in court he was still outraged with the theft. He was still making threats that he will find him and kill him, in some very graphic descriptions! The court sought no other way but to send him away. From the age of 22 he would become a “frequent flyer” of the prison estate! A long list of different sentences ranging from everything on offer. Usually repeated in pattern; fine, community sentence, prison….and back again! By the time he was 35 he had been in prison for more than 8 years collectively. He did plenty of offender management courses and met a variety of probation and prison officers, well-meaning and not so good. Some tried to help, and others couldn’t care but all of them fade in the background.
Now at the ripe age of 45 he is out of the prison, and he is sofa surfing and claiming universal credit. He gets nothing because he has unpaid fines, so he is struggling financially. In prison he did a barista apprenticeship, but he cannot find any work. As it stands, he is very likely to be recalled back to prison, if the cold weather doesn’t claim him first.
In context, there are some lives that are never celebrated or commemorated. There are people who exist but virtually no one recognises their existence. Their lives are someone else’s inconvenience and in a society that prioritises individual achievement and progression they have none. Bob is a fictional character. His name and circumstances are made up but form part of a general criminological narrative that identifies criminality through the complexity of social circumstance.
Share this:
Is the UK a good place to live?: II
As part of preparing for University, new students were encouraged to engage in a number of different activities. For CRI1009 Imagining Crime, students were invited to contribute a blog on the above topic. These blog entries mark the first piece of degree level writing that students engaged with as they started reading for their BA (Hons) Criminology. With the students’ agreement these thought provoking blogs have been brought together in a series which we will release over the next few weeks.
Whether the UK is a good place to live is up for debate in recent months, but some necessary requirements to ensure that it is include having access to democracy and free healthcare, but the rising cost of living in the UK can suggest the opposite; however, this is dependent on each individual.
On the one hand, the UK government has democracy, which allows for people to elect representatives to make and govern the laws. Allowing for democracy in society allows for more progressive and forward-thinking views, such as the legalisation of gay marriage in 2013. This benefits future generations as it reinforces the idea of equality and respect. In comparison to America, which can be argued to be under a dictatorship, as it severely limits the citizens’ freedom, such as by making abortion illegal. This is done to maintain a political belief that is thought to be superior. Therefore, democracy is beneficial and a requirement of a good country, as it sets a standard for elected representatives to uphold the key morals.
An opposing thought is that the UK has quite high living costs, with transportation rates, as an example, increasing, making it costly for students and workers to get to their destinations. Stagecoach have implemented a pay no more than £3 scheme recently as an effort to keep bus fare to a minimum. However, this is still ineffective. Students like myself that needed to take multiple buses to sixth form suffered from such high rates, costing around £60 a month towards bus fare. As a result of the high transportation rates, this can result in students in lower-income households missing out on their education due to prioritising money. Also, it can prevent people looking for employment from jobs that are further away, as a good portion of their salary would be going towards this. Therefore, this demonstrates that to ensure the stability of making the UK a good place to live, reforms need to be made in order to reduce the rising costs which dramatically impact the quality of life for people living here, as it still instils the priority of needing to survive first and delays employment and education.
Alternatively, the UK is a good place to live, as we have access to publicly funded healthcare regardless of your financial status. This relieves financial pressures of high medical costs without the need to sell assets, as patients are protected through the equal care being provided, which can be argued is a fundamental human right that everyone deserves to have. Ultimately, through having the NHS, it provides better economic benefits to the UK, as it reduces the strain of families going to be in poverty. Therefore, by having publicly funded healthcare, it has the ability to strengthen the country by promoting equality through equal care of each patient regardless of their financial status, which enhances the fact that the UK is a good place to live.
Living in the UK can come with many benefits, such as having democracy and access to free healthcare, but this shadows the negatives that it is becoming increasingly difficult to live here due to rising costs of living as well as the fact that the weather is not great.
Share this:
Is the UK a good place to live?: I
As part of preparing for University, new students were encouraged to engage in a number of different activities. For CRI1009 Imagining Crime, students were invited to contribute a blog on the above topic. These blog entries mark the first piece of degree level writing that students engaged with as they started reading for their BA (Hons) Criminology. With the students’ agreement these thought provoking blogs have been brought together in a series which we will release over the next few weeks.
The UK is widely favoured and known across the world due to its many attractions and key figures that reside in and outside of London, such as: the Harry potter franchise, the London eye, Buckingham palace, Shakespeare, Windsor castle, stone henge, big ben, and many more. But despite all of its magnificent attractions it raises the question “Is the UK actually a good place to live”?
What are the benefits of living in the UK?
- The NHS
- Education is free
- Diversity in culture
- Strong labour laws
In the UK we have something called the NHS (national health service), which allows UK residents to receive free healthcare when it’s needed due to it being primarily funded by general taxing and national insurance contributions. Although it’s important to note that the NHS isn’t subject to only the UK but also Scotland and Wales too.
Education is often looked at as one of the core necessities that a child must have, so it makes sense that it would be free right? Unfortunately, in many countries’ education is seen as a luxury (for certain demographics) rather than a need. Due to this, I would argue that it’s a benefit, no matter how obvious it may seem.
In the UK there are a variety of cultures and races which I personally believe is beautiful because not only are we able to enjoy the gift of multiple different cuisines, but we’re also able to grow up with the ideology that we’re not so different from one another even if we may appear that way (which is a valuable lesson for children to learn and cherish as they grow older).
The benefit of having strong labour laws also ties into my previous point about diversity since it protects citizens from discrimination (Equality act 2010) in the workplace. Not only that but it also ensures that workers are paid at least minimum wage, they don’t face unnecessary/unlawful wage deductions, they receive time off for holidays, workers will be protected if they report an incident at work, workers can’t be dismissed from work without good reason (Employments act 1966), and that they’re not overworked (48 hours a week max).
What are the disadvantages of living in the UK?
- Although most services are free, there are still charges that may apply to medications, prescriptions, dental treatment and eye care. However, it’s still important to note that if you’re in full education or you have other exemptions (such as universal credit or a disability) these may not apply; there are also other circumstances where they also may not apply.
- It’s true that the UK is incredibly diverse but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a constant problem of racism, it just means that there’s more people who can relate to the same issue. It goes without saying that even with labour laws in place, and the never ending resources that someone could use to educate themselves on a specific topic that is unique to a certain race, many people still experience discriminatory behaviours. While its understood that this is an issue everywhere in the world, I don’t think it should be normalised. Rather than dismissing it with a permissive attitude, I think everyone should work towards eradicating such ideologies and behaviours.
- The minimum wage isn’t enough to actually live on, which leaves multiple people homeless or struggling to stay afoot. Thus, leading to more unethical methods to gaining money or other necessities. It should go without saying that the minimum wage should be enough to be somewhat comfortable, or better yet survive on… which evidently isn’t the case for some.
What are the requirements for a good country? :
Those in power would have to love and care for their people. By that I mean- their own money shouldn’t be on the forefront of their mind when it comes to prioritising needs such as having a stable income to live on. Not only that but those in power shouldn’t have a secret racial or gender bias that peeks out whenever they’re trying to make a change. For obvious reason, this would be incredibly damaging to society on a whole, not just for those targeted. Last but not least, I believe that housing should be an option for everyone, even the less fortunate. It shouldn’t be a luxury to have a place to live, everyone deserves comfort, especially in their darkest moments; housing should be provided for those that need it, especially individuals with children.
Share this:
A thin veneer of respectability – management culture in uncertain times
I’ve long been interested in management culture in organisations, particularly policing and other organisations that provide a service, rather than a product per se. Although, management jargon might suggest that, in thinking outside the box, the service is a product, produced by a human resource, and therefore productivity is as easy to measure as that of a product coming off a conveyor belt; nothing like a bit of Neo-Taylorism (Pollitt, 1993) to get the party started.
Anyway, enough of that, the other day in a student discussion I was talking about policing and ethics and professionalism and all that stuff. Stuff that, I was trying to convey, was easier said than done because the social world is both complex and complicated. We happened to discuss the Mission and Vision of New York Police, and it reminded me of research carried out regarding how the New York Police recorded, or more to the point failed to record, crimes (Eterno and Silverman, 2012). Some of the crimes were very serious and at least one case led to an offender going on to commit more crime, when had the original crime been recorded, he might well have been caught before inflicting further serious harm.
This all occurred in the nineties at a time when crime in New York was through the roof and when Mayor Guiliani and Commissioner Bratton were at the helm. Under their stewardship, crime came down, detection rates went up, and Bratton was hailed as a hero with a suggestion that he could become the new commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in this country. Those of you that are old enough to remember will know it was more than just mooted by government sources. Zero Tolerance policing (based on the much-criticised Broken Windows Theory) had been forged in New York and Jack Straw our home secretary was talking about it being introduced here. The so-called success also lay in the fact that CompStat had been introduced in New York where borough commanders were publicly hauled over the coals and humiliated if their crime figures were not up to scratch. The fact that they had little or no control over crime (Hough, 1987), and the reduction of crime had more to do with the declining crack market (Bowling, 1999), was neither here nor there. What Bratton and Guiliani had done was to throw a thin veneer of respectability over the crime problem.
Eterno and Silverman (2012) through their research, however, threw a whole new light on what turned out to be corrupt practices and, research in England and Wales began to throw up the same issues in crime recording practices on this side of the ‘pond’ (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, 1999; 2000). In this country the practices emanated from government’s preoccupation with statistics and the measurement of success through what can only be described as bean counting or what was officially known as objectives and Key Performance Indicators. The Audit Commission and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) applied pressure on forces to ‘perform’ and league tables were developed and published, the media love league tables. The ideal place to be; mid table. That way no-one scrutinised what you were doing. Crime figures were massaged to produce the desired results. There was a whole industry in examining and manipulating statistics. If you were at the bottom of the table, then interventions were put in place. An action plan was imposed, the rationale behind the figures was ignored, this was not about quality, although the action plans were dressed up as quality improvement, this was simply about applying sufficient pressure to get forces to produce pleasing statistics. The pressure was applied at the top, but very quickly through managerial manoeuvring, became a problem for those at the bottom. Chief constables were quick to point out the failures of departments and individuals in departments. CompStat but in a different guise came to the fore. What became clear was that those at the bottom were supposedly, both ‘lazy and incompetent’. If they weren’t, they were certainly made to feel that they were.
The corrupt practices that ensued (manipulation of crime statistics, misclassification of crimes, failure to record crimes, detection of crimes that were not really detected) were a direct consequence of overburdened frontline staff being charged with producing results that were not within their control and managers, rather than managing expectations, directing operations through innuendo and veiled threats. Or in some cases such as CompStat, very direct threats. Officers that were ignorant of the issues such practices might cause, obliged and were fêted as being exemplary, others that were not compliant, perhaps because they knew what the consequences were to the public, were shunned and humiliated, until they bowed to the inevitable. The bottom line was simply to cheat and not get caught, forget integrity and ethics, those values were just not worth the stress. Although of course, the cheats if caught, were on their own as managers pointed to current published policy and rules (not the real policy and rules though). Some forces ended up in deep water as whistle-blowers spilled the beans on what was going on and the press had a field day. Institutional reputations took a major blow and to this day the Office for National Statistics carries a rider about the validity of police statistics.
Over a period of time, to some extent, the issues of performance management were addressed at government level, but the culture had become so inculcated that problems continued and manifest themselves in different ways to this day.
What of this tale? My observations are that other organisations are not immune to this phenomenon particularly in times of financial stress and political uncertainty. A management culture that either wittingly or unwittingly pushes staff on the front line, to make unethical decisions may produce a thin veneer of respectability, but they fail society miserably and risk significant reputational damage whilst doing so.
It seems to me that organisations can learn a great deal from the historic mismanagement of policing and the lack of ethical leadership in uncertain times.
References
Bowling, B. (1999) The rise and fall of New York murder: Zero tolerance or crack’s decline? The British Journal of Criminology, 39 (4), p.p. 531–554.
Eterno, J. A. and Silverman E. B. (2012) The Crime Numbers Game: Management by Manipulation. Boca Raton: CRC Press
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (1999) Police Integrity: securing and maintaining public confidence. London: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (2000) On the Record: Thematic Inspection Report on Police Crime Recording, the Police National Computer and Phoenix Intelligence System Data Quality. London: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.
Hough, M. (1987) Thinking About Effectiveness. In Reiner, R. and Shapland, J. (eds.), Why Police? Special Issue on Policing in Britain: British Journal of Criminology, 27, 1, p.p. 70-79
Pollitt, C. (1993) Managerialism and the Public Services: Cuts or Cultural Change in the 1990’s. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Share this:
LET THEM EAT SOUP
Introduction
What is a can of soup? If you ask a market expert, it is a high-profit item currently pushing £2.30 (branded) in some UK shops[i]. If you ask a historian[ii], it is the very bedrock of organised charity-the cheapest, easiest way to feed a penniless and hungry crowd.
The high price of something so basic, like a £2.30 can of soup, is a massive conundrum when you remember that soup’s main historical job was feeding poor people for almost nothing. Soup, whose name comes from the old word Suppa[iii](meaning broth poured over bread), was chosen by charities because it was cheap, could be made in huge pots, and best of all could be ‘stretched’ with water to feed even more people on a budget[iv].
In 2025, the whole situation is upside down. The price of this simple food has jumped because of “massive economic problems and big company greed[v]. At the same time, the need for charity has exploded with food bank use soaring by an unbelievable 51% compared to 2019[vi]. When basic food is expensive and charity is overwhelmed, it means our country’s safety net is broken.
For those of us who grew up in the chilly North, soup is more than a commodity: it is a core memory. I recall winter afternoons in Yorkshire, scraping frost off the window, knowing a massive pot of soup was bubbling away. Thick, hot and utterly cheap. Our famous carrot and swede soup cost pennies to make, tasted like salvation and could genuinely “fix you.” The modern £2.30 price tag on a can feels like a joke played on that memory, a reminder that the simplest warmth is now reserved for those who can afford the premium.
This piece breaks down some of the reasons why a can of soup costs so much, explores the 250-year-old long, often embarrassing history of soup charity in Britain and shows how the two things-high prices and huge charity demand-feed into a frustrating cycle of managed hunger.
Why Soup Costs £2.30
The UK loves its canned soup: it is a huge business worth hundreds of millions of pounds every year[vii], but despite being a stable market, prices have been battered by outside events.
Remember that huge cost of living squeeze? Food inflation prices peaked at 19.1% in 2023, the biggest rise in 40 years[viii]. Even though things have calmed down slightly, food prices jumped again to 5.1% in August 2025, remaining substantially elevated compared to the overall inflation rate of 3.8% in the same month[ix]. This huge price jump hits basic stuff the hardest, which means that poor people get hurt the most.
Why the drama? A mix of global chaos (like the Ukraine conflict messing up vegetable oil and fertiliser supplies) and local headaches (like the extra costs from Brexit) have made everything more expensive to produce[x].
Here’s the Kicker: Soup ingredients themselves are super cheap. You can make a big pot of vegetable soup at home for about 66p a serving, but a can of the same stuff? £2.30. Even professional caterers can buy bulk powdered soup mix for just 39p per portion[xi].
The biggest chunk of that price has nothing to do with the actual carrots and stock. It’s all the “extras”. You must pay for- the metal can, the flashy label and the marketing team that tries to convince you this soup is a “cosy hug”, and, most importantly everyone’s cut along the way.
Big supermarkets and shops are the main culprits. They need a massive 30-50% profit margin on that can for just putting it on the shelf[xii]. Because people have to buy food to live (you can’t just skip dinner) big companies can grab massive profits, turning something that you desperately need into something that just makes them rich.
This creates the ultimate cruel irony. Historically, soup was accessible because it was simple and cheap. Now, the people who are too busy, too tired or too broke to cook from scratch-the working poor are forced to buy the ready-made cans[xiii]. They end up paying the maximum premium for the convenience they need most, simply because they don’t have the time or space to do it the cheaper way.
How Charity Got Organised
The idea of soup as charity is ancient, but the dedicated “soup kitchen” really took off in late 18th century Britain[xiv].
The biggest reasons were the chaos after the Napoleonic wars and the rise of crowded industrial towns, which meant that lots of people had no money if their work dried up. By 1900 England had gone from a handful of soup kitchens to thousands of them[xv].
The first true soup charity in England was likely La Soupe, started by Huguenot refugees in London in the late 17th Century[xvi]. They served beef soup daily-a real community effort before the phrase “soup kitchen” was even popular.
Soup was chosen as the main charitable weapon because it was incredibly practical. It was cheap, healthy and could be made in enormous quantities. Its real superpower was that it could be “stretched” by adding more water allowing charities to serve huge numbers of people for minimum cost[xvii].
These kitchens were not just about food; they were tools for managing poor people. During the “long nineteenth century” they often fed up to 30% of a local town’s population in winter[xviii]. This aid ran alongside the stern rules of the Old Poor Laws which sorted people into “deserving” (the sick or old) and the ‘undeserving’ (those considered lazy).
The queues, the rules, and the interviews at soup kitchens were a kind of “charity performance” a public way of showing who was giving and who was receiving, all designed to reinforce class differences and tell people how to behave.
The Stigma and Shame of Taking The Soup
Getting a free bowl of soup has always come with a huge dose of shame. It’s basically a public way of telling you “We are the helpful rich people and you are the unfortunate hungry one” Even pictures in old newspapers were designed to make the donors look amazing whilst poor recipients were closely watched[xix].
Early British journalists like Bart Kennedy used to moan about the long, cold queues and how staff would ask “degrading questions” just before you got your soup[xx]. Basically, you had to pass a misery test to get a bowl of watery vegetables, As one 19th Century writer noted, the typical soup house was rarely cleaned, meaning the “aroma of old meals lingers in corners…when the steam from the freshly cooked vegetables brings them back to life”[xxi].
For the recipient, the act of accepting aid became a profound assault on their humanity. The writer George Orwell, captured this degradation starkly, suggesting that a man enduring prolonged hunger “is not a man any longer, only a belly with a few accessory organs”[xxii]. That is the tragic joke here, you are reduced to a stomach that must beg.
By the late 19th Century, people started criticising soup kitchens arguing that they “were blamed for creating the problem they sought to alleviate”[xxiii]. The core problem remains today: giving someone a temporary food handout is just a “band-aid” solution that treats the symptom but ignores the real disease i.e. not enough money to live on.
This critique was affirmed during the Great Depression in Britain, when mobile soup kitchens and dispersal centres became a feature of the British urban landscape[xxiv]. The historical lesson is clear: private charity simply cannot solve a national economic disaster.
The ultimate failure of the system as the historian A.J.P. Taylor pointed out is that the poor demanded dignity. “Soup kitchens were the prelude to revolution, The revolutionaries might talk about socialism, those who actually revolted wanted ‘the right to work’-more capitalism, not it’s abolition[xxv]” They wanted a stable job, not perpetual charity.
Expensive Soup Feeds The Food Bank
The UK poverty crisis means that 7.5 million people (11% of the population) were in homes that did not have enough food in 2023/24[xxvi]. The Trussell Trust alone gave out 2.9 million emergency food parcels in 2024/2025[xxvii]. Crucially, poverty has crept deeper into the workforce: research indicates that three in every ten people referred to in foodbanks in 2024 were from working households[xxviii]. They have jobs but still can’t afford the supermarket prices.
The charities themselves are struggling, hit by a “triple whammy” of rising running costs (energy, rent) and fewer donations[xxix]. This means that many charities have had to cut back, sometimes only giving out three days food instead of a week[xxx]. The safety net in other words is full of holes.
The necessity of navigating poverty systems just to buy food makes people feel trapped and hopeless which is a terrible way to run a country[xxxi].
Modern food banks are still stuck in the old ways of the ‘deserving poor.’ They usually make you get a formal referral—a special voucher—from a professional like a doctor, a Jobcentre person, or the Citizens Advice bureau[xxxii].It’s like getting permission from three different people to have a can of soup.
Charity leaders know this system is broken. The Chief Executive of the Trussell Trust has openly said that food banks are “not the answer” and are just a “fraying sticking plaster[xxxiii].” The system forces a perpetual debate between temporary relief and systemic reform[xxxiv]. The huge growth of private charity, critics argue, just gives the government an excuse to cut back on welfare, pretending that kind volunteers can fix the problem for them[xxxv].
The final, bitter joke links the expensive soup back to the charity meant to fix the cost. Big food companies use inflation to jack up prices and boost profits. Then, they look good by donating their excess stock—often the highly processed, high-profit stuff—to food banks.
This relationship is called the “hunger industrial complex”[xxxvi]. The high-margin, heavily processed canned soup—the quintessential symbol of modern pricing failure—often becomes a core component of the charitable food parcel. The high price charged for the commodity effectively pays for the charity that manages the damage the high price caused[xxxvii]. You could almost call it “Soup-er cyclical capitalism.”
Conclusion
The journey from the 18th-century charitable pot to the 21st-century £2.30 can of soup shows a deep failure in our society. Soup, the hero of cheap hunger relief, has become too pricey for the people who need it most. This cost is driven by profit, not ingredients.
This pricing failure traps poor people in expensive choices, forcing them toward overwhelmed charities. The modern food bank, like the old soup kitchen, acts as a temporary fix that excuses the government from fixing the root cause: low income. As social justice campaigner Bryan Stevenson suggests, “Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime”[xxxviii]. No amount of £2.30 soup can mask the fact that hunger is fundamentally an issue of “justice,” not merely “charity”.
Fixing this means shifting focus entirely. We must stop just managing hunger with charity[xxxix] and instead eliminate the need for charity by making sure everyone has enough money to live and buy their own food. This requires serious changes: regulating the greedy markups on basic food and building a robust state safety net that guarantees a decent income[xl]. The price of the £2.30 can is not just inflation: it’s a receipt for systemic unfairness.
[i]Various Contributors, ‘Reddit Discussion on High Soup Prices’ (Online Forum, 2023) https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/comments/1eooo3o/why_has_soup_gotten_so_expensive
[ii] Philip J Carstairs, ‘A generous helping? The archaeology of Soup Kitchens and their role in post-medieval philanthropy 1790-1914 (PhD Thesis, University of Leicester 2022) https://figshare.le.ac.uk/articles/thesis/A_generous_helping_The_archaeology_of_soup_kitchens_and_their_role_in_post-medieval_philanthropy_1790-1914/21187117?file=37564186
[iii] Soup – etymology, origin & meaning[iii] https://www.etymonline.com/word/soup
[iv] Philip J Carstairs, ‘A generous helping? The archaeology of soup kitchens and their role in post-medieval philanthropy 1790–1914’ (Summary, University of Leicester 2022)(https://figshare.le.ac.uk/articles/thesis/A_generous_helping_The_archaeology_of_soup_kitchens_and_their_role_in_post-medieval_philanthropy_1790-1914/21187117)
[v] ONS, ‘Food Inflation Data, UK: August 2025’ (Trading Economics Data) https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/food-inflation
[vi] The Trussell Group-End Of Year Foodbank Stats
https://www.trussell.org.uk/news-and-research/latest-stats/end-of-year-stats
[vii] GlobalData, ‘Ambient Soup Market Size, Growth and Forecast Analytics, 2023-2028’ (Market Report, 2023) https://www.globaldata.com/store/report/uk-ambient-soup-market-analysis/
[viii] ONS, ‘Consumer Prices Index, UK: August 2025’ (Summary) https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices
[ix] Food Standards Agency, ‘Food System Strategic Assessment’ (March 2023) https://www.food.gov.uk/research/food-system-strategic-assessment-trends-and-issues-impacted-by-uk-economic-condition
[x] Wholesale Soup Mixes (Brakes Foodservice) https://www.brake.co.uk/dry-store/soup/ambient-soup/bulk-soup-mixes
[xii] A Semuels, ‘Why Food Company Profits Make Groceries Expensive’ (Time Magazine, 2023) https://time.com/6269366/food-company-profits-make-groceries-expensive/
[xiii] Christopher B Barrett and others, ‘Poverty Traps’ (NBER Working Paper No. 13828, 2008) https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c13828/c13828.pdf
[xiv] Philip J Carstairs, ‘A generous helping? The archaeology of soup kitchens and their role in post-medieval philanthropy 1790–1914’ (Summary, University of Leicester 2022)(https://figshare.le.ac.uk/articles/thesis/A_generous_helping_The_archaeology_of_soup_kitchens_and_their_role_in_post-medieval_philanthropy_1790-1914/21187117
[xv] Philip J Carstairs, ‘A generous helping? The archaeology of soup kitchens and their role in post-medieval philanthropy 1790–1914’ (Summary, University of Leicester 2022)(https://figshare.le.ac.uk/articles/thesis/A_generous_helping_The_archaeology_of_soup_kitchens_and_their_role_in_post-medieval_philanthropy_1790-1914/21187117
[xvi] The Soup Kitchens of Spitalfields (Blog, 2019) https://spitalfieldslife.com/2019/05/15/the-soup-kitchens-of-spitalfields/
[xvii] Birmingham History Blog, ‘Soup for the Poor’ (2016) https://birminghamhistoryblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/soup-for-the-poor/
[xviii] [xviii] Philip J Carstairs, ‘A generous helping? The archaeology of soup kitchens and their role in post-medieval philanthropy 1790–1914’ (Summary, University of Leicester 2022)(https://figshare.le.ac.uk/articles/thesis/A_generous_helping_The_archaeology_of_soup_kitchens_and_their_role_in_post-medieval_philanthropy_1790-1914/21187117
[xix] Journal Panorama, ‘Feeding the Conscience: Depicting Food Aid in the Popular Press’ (2019) https://journalpanorama.org/article/feeding-the-conscience/
[xx] Journal Panorama, ‘Feeding the Conscience: Depicting Food Aid in the Popular Press’ (2019) https://journalpanorama.org/article/feeding-the-conscience/
[xxi] Joseph Roth, Hotel Savoy (Quote on Soup Kitchens) https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/soup-kitchens
[xxii] Convoy of Hope, (Quotes on Dignity and Poverty) https://convoyofhope.org/articles/poverty-quotes/
[xxiii] Philip J Carstairs, ‘A generous helping? The archaeology of soup kitchens and their role in post-medieval philanthropy 1790–1914’ (Summary, University of Leicester 2022)(https://figshare.le.ac.uk/articles/thesis/A_generous_helping_The_archaeology_of_soup_kitchens_and_their_role_in_post-medieval_philanthropy_1790-1914/21187117
[xxiv] Science Museum Group, ‘Photographs of Poverty and Welfare in 1930s Britain’ (Blog, 2017) https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/photographs-of-poverty-and-welfare-in-1930s-britain/
[xxv] AJ P Taylor, (Quote on Revolution) https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/soup-kitchens
[xxvi] House of Commons Library, ‘Food poverty: Households, food banks and free school meals’ (CBP-9209, 2024) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9209/
[xxvii] Trussell Trust, ‘Factsheets and Data’ (2024/25) https://www.trussell.org.uk/news-and-research/latest-stats/end-of-year-stats
[xxviii] The Guardian, ‘Failure to tackle child poverty UK driving discontent’ (2025) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/sep/10/failure-tackle-child-poverty-uk-driving-discontent
[xxix] Charity Link, ‘The cost of living crisis and the impact on UK charities’ (Blog) https://www.charitylink.net/blog/cost-of-living-crisis-impact-uk-charities
[xxxi] The Soup Kitchen (Boynton Beach), ‘History’ https://thesoupkitchen.org/home/history/
[xxxii] Transforming Society, ‘4 uncomfortable realities of food charity’ (Blog, 2023) https://www.transformingsociety.co.uk/2023/12/01/4-uncomfortable-realities-of-food-charity-power-religion-race-and-cash
[xxxiii] The Trussell Group-End Of Year Foodbank Stats
https://www.trussell.org.uk/news-and-research/latest-stats/end-of-year-stats
[xxxiv] The Guardian, ‘Food banks are not the answer’ (2023) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/29/food-banks-are-not-the-answer-charities-search-for-new-way-to-help-uk-families
[xxxv] The Guardian, ‘Britain’s hunger and malnutrition crisis demands structural solutions’ (2023) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2023/dec/27/britain-hunger-malnutrition->
[xxxvi] Jacques Diouf, (Quote on Hunger and Justice, 2007) https://www.hungerhike.org/quotes-about-hunger/
[xxxvii] Borgen Magazine, ‘Hunger Awareness Quotes’ (2024) https://www.borgenmagazine.com/hunger-awareness-quotes/
[xxxviii] he Guardian, ‘Failure to tackle child poverty UK driving discontent’ (2025) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/sep/10/failure-tackle-child-poverty-uk-driving-discontent
[xxxix] Charities Aid Foundation, ‘Cost of living: Charity donations can’t keep up with rising costs and demand’ (Press Release, 2023) https://www.cafonline.org/home/about-us/press-office/cost-of-living-charity-donations-can-t-keep-up-with-rising-costs-and-demand
[xl] The “Hunger Industrial Complex” and Public Health Policy (Journal Article, 2022) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9437921/
Thoughts from the criminology team 