Home » Criminology
Category Archives: Criminology
What price justice?
It was reported in the news a couple of days ago that a super complaint has been lodged against the police in England and Wales in respect of their handling of sexual offence cases (The Guardian 15.12). Not long before that article was published, another gave us the news that prisoners have erroneously been released from prison (BBC 5.11). These stories sandwiched another, that concerning the abolition of trial by jury for offences attracting anything less than three years imprisonment (BBC 02.12). The rationale behind these proposals is the reduction of the appalling backlog of court cases awaiting trial.
These stories beg the very simple question what an earth is going on with the criminal justice system? To say it is in crises would be an understatement. The system is broken, and it is hard to see how it can be fixed but perhaps it isn’t difficult to see how it got into its present state.
The justice process is complex and above all else, for it to work effectively, it is costly and by its very nature, it is inefficient. And this has presented problems for successive governments over decades. The conundrum, how to deliver a cost effective, efficient criminal justice system. Put simply the mantra seems to have been how do you achieve cheap justice?
The various components of the criminal justice system are interdependent, when one part fails, it has a knock-on effect to the others. Each part of the criminal justice system has seen so called efficiency and economy drives over the decades, and the consequence has been a cut in service across the board.
How many times do we hear complaints that the police just don’t turn up when a crime is reported or that they are disinterested? But have a look at the sustained cuts in budgets, the burgeoning costs of policing as the social and technological worlds change around us and the constant reprioritising of policing efforts and, it is little wonder that there is no one to turn up or that the crime you are reporting just isn’t important enough. Or maybe the people that do the policing are simply just worn out, disenchanted and frustrated by a system that fails their efforts at every turn. They even conspire to fail themselves.
And what of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)? Understaffed and under crude directions to enforce tests and codes to minimise court cases as best they can. With a little bit of research, you can find complaints against the CPS relating to the changing of the threshold in relation to sexual offences. To some extent CPS lawyers act as judge and jury before a defendant is even charged. Economic perhaps, effective, no. This has a knock-on effect to the police who then pre-empt that decision making. No point in sending a file to the CPS just to see it knocked back. The CPS must of course also have a mind to the backlog in the courts, no point sending a case there if it won’t be heard for months, if not years on end. And then the courts. The consistent closure of courts, both magistrates and crown over the years beggars belief. There is no local justice now, if you are defendant, witness or victim, you will be travelling miles to get to the allotted court. And if you do make it, the chance of your case being heard on that day is a lottery. As for legal aid, a pipe dream. Defendants in court trying to defend themselves and having to be assisted by the court clerk because quite frankly, they do not have a clue. But then who would? All of this presupposes the case gets to court in a timely fashion. You try remembering what happened 3 years ago when cross examined by a solicitor or barrister.
And prisons, well, overcrowded, understaffed and failing to provide anything but the basics, if that. Many a report suggests a crumbling prison estate and inhumane conditions within prisons. There has to be something fundamentally wrong with a system that allows prisoners to walk out the gates and then sees vast sums of money and resource poured into trying to find them. Efficient, or effective, not really. As for rehabilitation, don’t even bother thinking about it.
And what of you and I, the public? What faith do you have in the criminal justice system? Is it little wonder that victims will not report crimes, and if they do, they quickly lose interest in supporting a prosecution. If the police rely on the public to help them investigate cases, what hope have they got if the public have no faith in them or the rest of the system?
The problem with successive governments is that they have been too keen to cut costs without understanding or caring about the impact. And they are too quick to judge when things go wrong, pointing the finger anywhere but at themselves. They fail to see the system as a whole; they just seem to fail to see.
Justice costs money. Cutting cases that can go to trial by jury simply displays a lack of interest in justice or incompetence in governing or perhaps both. A government that fails to deliver justice for its citizens is failing in its fundamental duty as a government. The problem is, it’s not only this government that has failed us; the failures go a long way back and any attempt to fix the issues requires a fundamental shift in policy and a significant injection of public money that is just not available. Well, that’s what they will have us believe anyway.
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:
Same shit, different day
I’ve thought long and hard about whether or not to write this blog, it contains nothing new, it adds nothing to the discussion and it is borne of frustration, not just mine. Nevertheless, if the same thing keeps happening, then why not keep shouting about it, even if no-one appears to be listening.
Recently I attended an event supposedly focused on Violence Against Women & Girls [VAWG], the organisers, the venue, the speakers remain anonymous, because this is not about specific individuals or organisations. Instead, as the title indicates, the issues raised below are repeated again and again, across different times and place, involving different people, with different claims to knowledge. Nevertheless, they have far more in common than they would care to acknowledge.
In September 2024, the government announced a commitment to halving VAWG over the next decade. The announcement itself was rather confused, seemingly conflating the term VAWG with Domestic Abuse [DA] whilst simultaneously promising to ‘take back our streets’. The latter horribly reminiscent of the far right’s racists diatribe around taking back our country. But I digress, in the government statement there is no mention of sexual violence, despite Rape Crisis England and Wales’ assertion that 1 in 4 women and girls over 16 have been subjected to sexual assault or rape. Similarly, Refuge suggest that 1 in 4 women will be subjected to forms of domestic abuse across their lifetimes. The statistical data is shaky, the problems with reporting are well documented, but ask any woman, and they will tell you about their own experiences and those of friends and families. A brief glance at the Everyday Sexism Project or Everyone’s Invited will give you some idea of the scale of the violences facing women and girls.
But to return to the latest VAWG event, there have been very many of these, all following the same pattern. Crowds of women in the audience, all experts, some professional, some academic, some through victimisation, some through vicarious victimisation and of course, some of those women encapsulate more than one of those categories, they are not mutually exclusive. So how do we harness and utilise this great body of knowledge, experience and expertise? The sad answer for events like this, is 99% of the time, we don’t. They’re there to sit quietly and listen to the same old narrative from police leaders and officers, saying that the institution has got it wrong in the past, but has learnt lessons and is now doing much better. Noticeably, there are few men in the audience, only those compelled to attend by their employment, after all VAWG explicitly mentions women and girls so it must be a female problem, despite the fact that the violences are predominately carried out by men.
To really drive the message home, we have speakers who can’t be bothered to prepare an accessible presentation for their audience. Relying instead on their white privilege, their charisma and charm (think a poor parody of a 1990’s Hugh Grant in a Richard Curtis film), with their funny little anecdotes of how they met a woman who changed their view on VAWG. Or how primary school teachers are usually women, and that’s where the problems begin, they just don’t do enough to support our little boys and young men on their journeys. Similarly, mothers who don’t pay enough attention which mean their sons go onto to become these violent men. We have white women too, ones that want the audience to focus on women who have been killed by men, but who cannot actually be bothered to find out how to say their names, stumbling over any name that is not anglicised.
In the audience it is notable that there are few Black and Brown women present. Even when they are invited as speakers, they are cut short, talked over, their names forgotten or mispronounced. They are the add-ons, a pathetic attempt at inclusivity, but don’t worry they’re never the main attraction. That spotlight is always reserved for men. No wonder Black and Brown women can’t face attending, or leave part way through, they’re sick and tired of being patronised while they pick up the broken pieces of men’s violences.
So what do women actually learn from these events? They learn to keep quiet, to pretend they’re learning something, but in the breaks they get together and talk about their frustrations, their ongoing exclusion from discussions. They learn that the problem belongs to them. That not only have they got to mop up women’s blood, sweat and tears, using plenty of their own in the process, to support and rebuild women after trauma, they are also responsible for the boys and men.
It really does not have to be this way! In every community there are women of all colours, all religions, all sexualities, all nations, doing the hard work. Building each other up against a maelstrom of never ending male violence, not to mention the additional violences of racism, microaggressions and exclusion. These are the experts, these are the people with whom the solutions lie. The police have had almost 200 years to get it right, they are nowhere near, time for them to move over and let the real experts do the talking, whilst they listen and start to hear and learn!
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:
Grief through art and privilege
Recently, I find myself constantly listening to Cat Burns’ (2025) new album ‘How to be Human’. An incredibly catchy, moving and soulful album. Lyrically, it navigates two types of grief; the death of a loved one (father and grandfather) and the end of a relationship. The lyrics are poignant and the melodies peaceful yet emotional. For somebody who has had this album hit too close too home, it is very much a ‘box of tissues at the ready’ type of album with some ‘get up and dance’ tracks included too.
Engaging with art (music, literature, print) which embodies and navigates grief can assist some in the healing process. Different people frame different emotions which hit in a whole new way. Music, art, literature are a necessity for human kind: but they are also a privilege. A privilege for those who can create, access and afford. Space, money, creativity are needed to create but also arguably to consume art as well. Is this fair given the unfortunate reality that we all will/have been bed fellows with grief, and these resources could help people process/address/feel?
This got me thinking about the broader collective which is grief: grieving for a previous version of yourself, grieving people, grieving a home, grieving something you want but cannot have, the ending of a relationship, loss of income. When I think about it, we grieve all sorts, yet these types of grief are not ‘mainstream’, or at least I hadn’t perceived them as such. And as I thought about grief, it made me think of those within the Secure Estate (children and adults), grieving the loss of loved ones, of relationships, of possibilities and of their liberties. Are they afforded the space to grieve? They are viewed as criminally responsible, and therefore deserving of punishment, and part of this punishment is loss but how do they process this? Do they view this loss of liberty in terms of grief? Are they afforded this privilege? I highly doubt it, and I wonder if this framing of grief and loss is something which needs deeper consideration when looking at rehabilitation. How can you rebuild and move forward if you haven’t processed, or at least begun to process, the loss. The loss of who you were, the loss of time, the loss of relationships, skills, knowledge etc.
In my humble opinion the album is beautiful and has made me deal with a new wave of feelings: but I think this is a good thing. As Burns (2025) identifies in ‘All this love’: it’s just part of the process. A process, given my positionality, I am privileged to be navigating with music, literature, family and friends. A privilege not afforded to all, or for all forms of grief. I think this should change. Grief can be all consuming, even on days when you think you’re on your feet, suddenly the rug is pulled from beneath you. And the tools you have, the space to be and to feel, are essential. So why then do we only afford them to some?
Bibliography:
Burns, C. (2025) ‘How to Be Human’. Available at Amazon Music (Accessed 31st October 2025)
Rosen, M. (2004) Sad Book. Somerville, MA: Candlewick Press
Savage, M. (2025) ‘Cat Burns’ new album shows a softer side to the Traitors star’, BBC, 31st October. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2pxz14ypro (Accessed 11th November 2025)
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:
UK Justice v The Demonic and Others
The sanctity of a civilised court room demands rationality, but the laws of the distant and not so distant past in this jurisdiction are entrenched in the uncanny. Rules safeguarding the impartiality of the jury are grim “wards” against the spiritual chaos that once dictated verdicts. The infamous case of the Ouija Board jurors, aka R v Young[i] only thirty years ago is not merely a legal curiosity: it is a modern chilling echo of a centuries old struggle defining the judiciary’s absolute commitment to a secular process that refuses to share its authority with the spectral world. The ancient rule, now applied to Google and the smartphone, has always been simple: the court cannot tolerate a decision derived from an unvetted external source.
When Law Bowed To The Supernatural-Ancient Past?
For millennia, the outcome of a criminal trial in Britain was terrifyingly dependent on the supernatural, viewing the legal process as a mechanism for Divine Judgement[ii]. The state feared the power of the otherworldly more than it trusted human evidence.
Prior to the 13th century, the determination of guilt was not based on evidence but on the Judicium Dei [iii](Judgement of God). The accused’s fate lay not with the court but with the elements of the earth itself.
The Ordeal of Hot Iron: The accused would carry a piece of red-hot iron. If their subsequent wound was judged “unclean” after three days-a sign of God withholding his grace-the accused was condemned to death. The burden of proof was literally placed upon a miracle.
The Ordeal of Cold Water: This was an essential test in early witch-finding. If the bound accused floated, the pure water was thought to reject them as impure agents of the Devil, condemning them as guilty. The collapse of these ordeals after the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 was the first, forced act of separation between the secular law and the spiritual realm, necessitating the creation of a human, rational jury[iv]
Legislating against the Demonic: The Witchcraft Acts
Even after the rise of the jury, the judiciary was consumed by the fear of the demonic. The Act against Conjuration, Witchcraft and dealing with evil and wicked Spirits 1604 (1 Jas.4 1. c. 12)[v] made contacting the demonic a capital felony, ensuring that the courtroom remained a battleground against perceived occult evil.
The Pendle Witch Trials (1612): This event is a spectral stain on UK legal history. Ten people were executed based on testimony that included spectral evidence, dreams, and confessions extracted under duress. The judges and juries legally accepted that the Devil and his agents had caused tangible harm. The failure to apply any rational evidential standards resulted in judicial murder.[vi]
Even the “rational” repeal in the Witchcraft Act 1735 (9 Geo. 2. c. 5),[vii] which only criminalised pretending to use magic (fraud), haunted the system. The prosecution of medium Helen Duncan in 1944 under this very Act, for deceiving the public with her spiritualist services, demonstrated that the legal system was still actively policing the boundaries of the occult well into the modern era, fearful of supernatural deceit if not genuine power.
The Modern Séance: R v Young and the Unholy Verdict
The 1994 murder trial of Stephen Young[viii], accused of the double murder of Harry and Nicola Fuller, brought the full weight of this historical conflict back into the spotlight. The jury, isolated and burdened with the grim facts of the case, succumbed to an uncanny primal urge for absolute certainty.
The jury had retired to a sequestered hotel to deliberate the grim facts of the double murder.During a break in deliberations on the Friday night, four jurors initiated a makeshift séance in their hotel room. They used paper and a glass to fashion a crude Ouija board, placing their life-altering question to the “spirits” of the deceased victims, Harry and Nicola Fuller.
The glass, according to the jurors’ later testimony, moved and chillingly spelled out the words “STEPHEN YOUNG DONE IT.”
The Court of Appeal, led by Lord Taylor CJ, ruled that the séance was a “material irregularity” because it took place outside the official deliberation room (in the hotel). This activity amounted to the reception of extrinsic, prejudicial, and wholly inadmissible evidence after the jury had been sworn. The verdict was quashed because a system based on proof cannot tolerate a decision derived from ‘the other side’
The core rule remains absolute: the verdict must be based only on the facts presented in court. The modern threat to this principle is not possession by a demon, but digital contamination, a risk the law now treats as functionally identical to the occult inquiry of 1994.
The Digital Contamination: R v Karakaya[ix]
The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015) was the formal legislative “ward” against the digital equivalent of the séance.
The New Medium: In the 2018 trial of Huseyin Karakaya, a juror used a mobile phone to research the defendant’s previous conviction. The smartphone became the unauthorised medium. The Legal Equivalence: The Juries Act 1974, s 20A (inserted by CJCA 2015)[x] makes it a criminal offence for a juror to intentionally research the case. In the eyes of the law, consulting Google for “defendant’s past” is legally equivalent to consulting a ghost for “who done it.” Both are dangerous acts of unauthorized external inquiry.
The Court of Appeal, in R v Karakaya quashed the conviction because introducing external, inadmissible evidence (like a prior conviction) created a real risk of prejudice, fundamentally undermining the fair trial principle raised in Young.
The lesson of the Ouija Board Jurors and the digital contamination in R v Karakaya is a chilling warning from the past: the moment the courtroom accepts an external, unverified source—be it a spirit or a search engine—the entire structure of rational justice collapses, bringing back the judicial catastrophe of the Pendle Trials. In 2025, the UK criminal justice system continues to fight the ghosts of superstition, ensuring the verdict is determined by the cold, impartial scrutiny of the facts.
[i] R v Young [1995] QB 324
[ii]R Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water: The Medieval Judicial Ordeal (Oxford University Press 1986). (https://amesfoundation.law.harvard.edu/lhsemelh/materials/BartlettTrialByFireAndWater.pdf)
[iii] J G Bellamy, The Criminal Law of England 1066–1307: An Outline (Blackwell 1984) p42
[iv] Margaret H. Kerr, Richard D. Forsyth, Michael J. Plyley
The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Spring, 1992), pp. 573-595
[v] https://archives.blog.parliament.uk/2020/10/28/which-witchcraft-act-is-which/
[vi] https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/The-Pendle-Witches/
[vii] Witchcraft Act 1735 (9 Geo. 2. c. 5) https://statutes.org.uk/site/the-statutes/eighteenth-century/1735-9-george-2-c-5-the-witchcraft-act/
[viii] R v Young [1995] QB 324
[ix] R v Karakaya[ 2020] EWCA Crim 204
[x]The Juries Act 1974, s 20A https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/23/section/20A
Thoughts from the criminology team 
