Home » Criminology Team (Page 2)
Category Archives: Criminology Team
Technology: one step forward and two steps back
I read my colleague @paulaabowles’s blog last week with amusement. Whilst the blog focussed on AI and notions of human efficiency, it resonated with me on so many different levels. Nightmarish memories of the three E’s (economy, effectiveness and efficiency) under the banner of New Public Management (NPM) from the latter end of the last century came flooding back, juxtaposed with the introduction of so-called time saving technology from around the same time. It seems we are destined to relive the same problems and issues time and time again both in our private and personal lives, although the two seem to increasingly morph into one, as technology companies come up with new ways of integration and seamless working and organisations continuously strive to become more efficient with little regard to the human cost.
Paula’s point though was about being human and what that means in a learning environment and elsewhere when technology encroaches on how we do things and more importantly why we do them. I, like a number of like-minded people are frustrated by the need to rush into using the new shiny technology with little consideration of the consequences. Let me share a few examples, drawn from observation and experience, to illustrate what I mean.
I went into a well-known coffee shop the other day; in fact, I go into the coffee shop quite often. I ordered my usual coffee and my wife’s coffee, a black Americano, three quarters full. Perhaps a little pedantic or odd but the three quarters full makes the Americano a little stronger and has the added advantage of avoiding spillage (usually by me as I carry the tray). Served by one of the staff, I listened in bemusement as she had a conversation with a colleague and spoke to a customer in the drive through on her headset, all whilst taking my order. Three conversations at once. One full, not three quarters full, black Americano later coupled with ‘a what else was it you ordered’, tended to suggest that my order was not given the full concentration it deserved. So, whilst speaking to three people at once might seem efficient, it turns out not to be. It might save on staff, and it might save money, but it makes for poor service. I’m not blaming the young lady that served me, after all, she has no choice in how technology is used. I do feel sorry for her as she must have a very jumbled head at the end of the day.
On the same day, I got on a bus and attempted to pay the fare with my phone. It is supposed to be easy, but no, I held up the queue for some minutes getting increasingly frustrated with a phone that kept freezing. The bus driver said lots of people were having trouble, something to do with the heat. But to be honest, my experience of tap and go, is tap and tap and tap again as various bits of technology fail to work. The phone won’t open, it won’t recognise my fingerprint, it won’t talk to the reader, the reader won’t talk to it. The only talking is me cursing the damn thing. The return journey was a lot easier, the bus driver let everyone on without payment because his machine had stopped working. Wasn’t cash so much easier?
I remember the introduction of computers (PCs) into the office environment. It was supposed to make everything easier, make everyone more efficient. All it seemed to do was tie everyone to the desk and result in redundancies as the professionals, took over the administrative tasks. After all, why have a typing pool when everyone can type their own reports and letters (letters were replaced by endless, meaningless far from efficient, emails). Efficient, well not really when you consider how much money a professional person is being paid to spend a significant part of their time doing administrative tasks. Effective, no, I’m not spending the time I should be on the role I was employed to do. Economic, well on paper, fewer wages and a balance sheet provided by external consultants that show savings. New technology, different era, different organisations but the same experiences are repeated everywhere. In my old job, they set up a bureaucracy task force to solve the problem of too much time spent on administrative tasks, but rather than look at technology, the task force suggested more technology. Technology to solve a technologically induced problem, bonkers.
But most concerning is not how technology fails us quite often, nor how it is less efficient than it was promised to be, but how it is shaping our ability to recall things, to do the mundane but important things and how it stunts our ability to learn, how it impacts on us being human. We should be concerned that technology provides the answers to many questions, not always the right answers mind you, but in doing so it takes away our ability to enquire, critique and reason as we simply take the easy route to a ready-made solution. I can ask AI to provide me with a story, and it will make one up for me, but where is the human element? Where is my imagination, where do I draw on my experiences and my emotions? In fact, why do I exist? I wonder whether in human endeavour, as we allow technology to encroach into our lives more and more, we are not actually progressing at all as humans, but rather going backwards both emotionally and intellectually. Won’t be long now before some android somewhere asks the question, why do humans exist?
Share this:
Cost of Living Crisis: Don’t worry it’s the Sovereign’s Birthday!*
On Saturday 31st May 2025, on Wellington Arch there was an increased presence of police. It was a sunny, albeit windy day in central London, and lots of people (tourists and locals) raised questions around why there appeared to be an increased police presence on this final Saturday of the May half term. At around 1pm approximately, what appeared to be hundreds of uniformed royal officers on horseback paraded through Wellington Arch into Hyde Park. They appeared to have come from Buckingham Palace. It was quite a sight to see! Every Sunday, there is a small parade, known as Changing of the Guard, but this was a substantially bigger ordeal. There is usually 2/3 police bikes that escorts the parade on the Sunday but not the numbers of Police (vans, bikes and officers) out on this sunny Saturday. It is over quickly, but the amount of people power, and I would imagine money, this has used seems quite ridiculous.
It turns out the large parade on May 31st was a ‘practice run’ for the Trooping of the Colour, which will occur on Saturday 15th June 2025. The Trooping of the Colour marks the ‘official’ birthday of the British Soverign and has done so for over 260years (Royal Household, 2025). It involves “Over 1400 parading soldiers, 200 horses and 400 musicians […] in a great display of military precision, horsemanship and fanfare to mark the Sovereign’s official birthday” (Royal Household, 2025). Having seen this every year, it is quite a spectacle and it does generate a buzz and increase in tourism to the area every year. I know the local small businesses in the surrounding areas are grateful for the increase in people, and it draws tourists in globally to view which generates money for the economy. But given the poverty levels visibly evident in London (not to mention those which are hidden), is this a suitable spend of money? Add on the more alarming issues with the monarchy and what it represents steeped in the clutches of empire and fostering hierarchies and inequalities, should this ‘celebration’ still be occurring? It’s the ‘Official’ Birthday of the Sovereign, but how many Birthdays does one need?
According to a Freedom of Information Request, the Ministry of Defence claimed in 2021, the Trooping of the Colour cost taxpayers around £60,000 (not the cost of the event, as there would have been other monies attached to funding this). Imagine what good this money could do: the people it could feed, the people it could provide shelter for, the medical treatment or research it could fund! Given this was 2021, I am going to hazard a guess that in 2025 this is going to cost significantly more. And for what? The Monarchy is the visual embodiment of empire, and according to the National Centre of Social Research, support for and interest in the Monarchy has been steadily declining for the past decade (NCSR, 2025). So even if people choose to ignore the horrific past of the British Sovereigns, it would appear that many are not interested in the Monarchy, regardless of its history (NCSR, 2025). I am aware the Royal family, and these ‘celebrations’, bring in income and generates global interest which translates to the argument that having a Monarchy is ‘economically viable’, but when you look at the disadvantage elsewhere, especially in London, its hard not to question clinging on to such traditions and the expense of meeting people’s basic needs. There is no critical consideration of what maintaining these traditions might suggest, or how they might impact those most effected by the British Empire and Colonialism. So why are these ‘celebrations’ persisting, and why are they having a practice run when steps away from them, in the underpass by Hyde Park Tube station there are people sleeping rough and begging for food? It feels as though there is a serious disconnect between what society needs (affordable homes, food, reasonable living wage, rehabilitation programmes, support and care) and what society will get (a glorified Birthday party for the ‘British Sovereign’).
*Note: the title of the blog should be read dripping in sarcasm.
References:
The National Centre for Social Research (2024) British Social Attitudes: Support for the Monarchy Falls [online]. Available at: https://natcen.ac.uk/news/british-social-attitudes-support-monarchy-falls-new-low [Accessed 4th June 2025].
The Royal Household (2025) What is Trooping the Colour? [Online]. Available at: https://www.royal.uk/what-is-trooping-the-colour#:~:text=The%20Trooping%20of%20the%20Colour,mark%20the%20Sovereign’s%20official%20birthday [Accessed 4th June 2025].
Share this:
The future of criminology
If you have an alert on your phone then a new story may come with a bing! the headline news a combination of arid politics and crime stories. Sometimes some spicy celebrity news and maybe why not a scandal or two. We are alerted to stories that bing in our phone to keep ourselves informed. Only these are not stories, they are just headlines! We read a series of headlines and form a quick opinion of anything from foreign affairs, transnational crime, war, financial affairs to death. We are informed and move on.
There is a distinction, that we tend not to make whenever we are getting our headline alerts; we get fragments of information, in a sea of constant news, that lose their significance once the new headline appears. We get some information, but never the knowledge of what really happened. We hear of war but we hardly know the reasons for the war. We read on financial crisis but never capture the reason for the crisis. We hear about death, usually in crime stories, and take notice of the headcount as if that matters. If life matters then a single loss of life should have an impact that it deserves irrespective of origin.
After a year that forced me to reflect deeply about the past and the future, I often questioned if the way we consume information will alter the way we register social phenomena and more importantly we understand society and ourselves in it. After all crime stories tend to be featured heavily in the headlines. Last time I was imagining the “criminology of the future” it was terrorism and the use of any object to cause harm. That was then and now some years later we still see cars being used as weapons, fear of crime is growing according to the headlines that even the official stats have paused surveying since 2017! Maybe because in the other side of the Atlantic the measurement of fear was revealed to be so great that 70% of those surveyed admitted being afraid of crime, some of whom to the extent that changes their everyday life.
We are afraid of crime, because we read the headlines. If knowledge is power, then the fragmented information is the source of ambiguity. The emergence of information, the reproduction of news, in some cases aided by AI have not provided any great insight or understanding of what is happening around us. A difference between information and knowledge is the way we establish them but more importantly how we support them. In a world of 24/7 news updates, we have no ideological appreciation of what is happening. Violence is presented as a phenomenon that emerges under the layers of the dark human nature. That makes is unpredictable and scary. Understandably so…
This a representation of violence devoid of ideology and theory. What is violence in our society does not simply happens but it is produced and managed through the way it is consumed and promoted. We sell violence, package it for patriotic fervour. We make defence contracts, selling weapons, promoting war. In society different social groups are separated and pitted against each other. Territory becomes important and it can be protected only through violence. These mechanisms that support and manage violence in our society are usually omitted. A dear colleague quite recently reminded me that the role of criminology is to remind people that the origins of crime are well rooted in our society in the volume of harm it inflicts.
There is no singular way that criminology can develop. So far it appears like this resilient discipline that manages to incorporates into its own body areas of work that fiercely criticised it. It is quite ironic for the typical criminology student to read Foucault, when he considered criminology “a utilitarian discipline”! Criminology had the last laugh as his work on discipline and punishment became an essential read. The discipline seems to have staying power but will it survive the era of information? Most likely; crime data originally criticised by most, if not all criminologists are now becoming a staple of criminological research methods. Maybe criminology manages to achieve what sociology was doing in the late 20th century or maybe not! Whatever direction the future of criminology takes it will be because we have taken it there! We are those who ought to take the discipline further so it would be relevant in years to come. After all when people in the future asked you what did you do…you better have a good answer!
Share this:
Extortionate Concert Tickets and the Cost of Access
In the realm of live music, few things can compare to the amazing feeling of a packed venue, a beloved band, and the shared energy of thousands of fans singing in unison. But for many, especially those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, this dream remains frustratingly out of reach not due to lack of passion, but because of skyrocketing ticket prices driven by monopolized ticketing systems. Using the example of the band Oasis and their upcoming tour.
The recent announcement of Oasis’ long-awaited reunion concerts sent shockwaves through the music world; particularly for fans who have waited over a decade to hear some of their classic songs sung live again. The excitement was quickly tempered by the reality of ticket prices and the process of getting tickets. Standard Oasis tickets before any premium charges were reportedly being resold for upwards of £300, with official prices starting around £75. For a band rooted in working-class Manchester, the irony is stark: the people who Oasis originally resonated with most are now priced out of seeing them live. Oasis is just an example of this, this can be seen with many different artists globally, and it raises a question of should something be done, and if so, who needs to make the first step and what should that first step be?
At the heart of this issue are ticketing giants who dominate the live event landscape. These companies often employ dynamic pricing models similar to airline pricing where ticket prices fluctuate based on demand. In theory, this aims to reflect market value. In practice, it frequently drives up costs to exploit fan enthusiasm, creating a system that prioritizes profit over accessibility. Worse still, these companies allow and often profit from reselling schemes that further inflate prices. It is only recently where some sites have now put procedures in place for tickets to be resold at the same value to which they were purchased. Additionally, there is the issue of bots buying hundreds of tickets during presales then relisting them on other sites for extortionate prices.
Now to put it into perspective, are there more pressing issues globally that need to be addressed, the answer is yes. However, in the world of criminology where we are constantly thinking about harm, what should be a crime or criminalised, it poses an interesting question and debate. The consequences are significant, particularly for lower-income individuals. Live music, once a unifying and accessible cultural experience, has become a luxury. For a working-class fan, spending £300 on a single concert excluding travel, accommodation, and other costs is unlikely. Add to this the current economic constraints they may be facing elsewhere, and it makes it even more unlikely.
In a world where there are so many pressures, restrictions, worries and concerns, music can be a form of escape and enjoyment. So, should ticket companies be held more accountable? Should there be stronger regulations to prevent price gouging and limit resale abuses? Governments could enforce price caps, mandate transparent pricing structures, or require a certain percentage of tickets to be sold at accessible prices. Additionally, artists themselves may have a role to play; by partnering with ethical ticket vendors or pushing for more equitable ticket distribution. I managed to get tickets at face value price after trying for the third time recently, this was through a process of receiving a unique code via email as a result of being identified as one of the many who had failed on previous occasions. In this sense, I may be classed as one of the lucky ones.
Oasis, a band that once embodied the voice of working-class Britain, now symbolizes a broader issue: the commercialisation of joy. Music should transcend economic boundaries rather than reinforcing them.
Share this:
#UONCriminologyClub: Introduction to Criminology with Dr Manos Daskalou
In celebration of the 25 years of Criminology at UON, we have been hosting a number of events that demonstrate the diversity and reach criminology has as a discipline in different communities. In a spirit of opening a wider dialogue we have created a series of online classes for young home educated learners (10-15) to provide some taster sessions about criminology. This is a reflection of the very first one.
Setting up a session for young learners is not an easy feat! The introduction session was about to set the tone with the newly formed “Criminology Club” like the old Micky Mouse Club, only with more crime and less mice! The audience of our new crime-busters was ready to engage. The pre-session activity was set and the tone for what was to follow was clear. For an hour I would be conversing on crime. To get through the initial introductions with the group, we went over the activity. Top crimes and reasons for arranging them in that order. Our learners went into a whole range of criminalities and provided their own rationale for what they thought made them serious. There is a complex simplicity in this activity; regardless of age or experience, our understanding and most importantly justification of crime, tells us more about us, than the person committing it. Once we were done with the “pleasantries” we moved into the main part of the class.
Being an introductory session, it was important to set it right; telling a story and framing it into a conversation is important. What’s the best way to start the story of crime, but to tell a story we all know about when growing up; a fairy-tale. Going for a classic fairy-tale seemed to be the best way to go!
For this session the fairy tale chosen was Cinderella.
“I really enjoyed today’s session! I feel enlightened – Dr @manosdaskalou was great and I really loved the activities. I didn’t know the original story of Cinderella – it’s so horrifying. I didn’t think of crime in fairy-tales before but now I will be on the look out.” (Quinn age 12).
The original tale, like most fairy-tales has a fairly brutal twist that reinforces strongly the cautionary tale within the story. This was an audience participation narration and the help of the “crime-busters” was necessary every step of the way. Understanding the types of crimes being committed at every turn of the tale, while wondering if this was to be regarded appropriate behaviour now. Suddenly the fairy tale becomes an archive of social trends, beliefs and actions, captioned into the spin of the story. The hour was far too little time covering a simple fairy tale!
“I would like to thank Dr @manosdaskalou for today. I had an amazing time. The only thing I didn’t like was when it ended. I like stories so I enjoyed when we talked about Cinderella, I didn’t realise how gruesome the original one was!” (Paisley age 10).
There is something interesting running over a familiar tale and looking at it from a different perspective. The process of decoding messages and reviewing narratives. For a younger audience the terms may sound incomprehensible but it is amazing how much narrative analysis the new “crime-busters” did! Our social conventions are so complex yet despite that a child at the age of 10 can pick them up and put them in the right order. Seeing them confronting the different dilemmas, the story took them on so many different levels, was an interesting process. It is always a challenge to pitch any material at the right level but on this occasion, for this group, about this story in this instance, the “crime-busters” were introduced to Criminology!
“We had so much fun today in our first criminology lesson with Dr @manosdaskalou from UON. Time flew by so quickly, I was so interested in everything we were discussing and wanted to know more and more. In today’s session we pulled apart the fairytale Cinderella discussing what crimes the characters in it had committed and why. I thought this was a really great idea. I was having so much fun in the lesson that I didn’t realise how much I was actually learning but now that we have finished I realise I know much more about criminology and how to study a classic text with Criminology in mind. A big thank you to @manosdaskalou who made it an incredibly fun and engaging session. I’m sure I speak for most of us when I say I can’t wait to come back next time and learn more.” (Atty aged 14).
The end of the session left the group of “crime-busters” wanting more. Other colleagues will continue offering more sessions to an early generation of learners getting to know the basics about “Criminology” a discipline that many people think they know from true crime, little realising we spend so much time dispelling the myths! Who would imagine that the best way to do so, was to tell them a fairy tale.
Share this:
Does compassion have a place in Criminology or is this a forgotten element in Justice?
In recent months, I’ve been thinking about the idea of compassion and its diminishing presence in societies. Let me start by saying this blog wasn’t prompted by any specific event, but rather by observing the increasing prevalence of hate speech in media and public discourse. More and more, we are seeing this troubling pattern manifesting across all levels of society – from world leaders mocking marginalised populations, citizens spreading hate speech online, media outlets amplifying divisive rhetoric in the name of balanced reporting, workplaces failing their employees on many grounds, public institutions are becoming more and more intolerant of the ‘other’ – extending into criminal justice systems where overcrowded prisons, harsh sentencing guidelines, limited rehabilitation programmes, and the stigmatisation of former offenders all continue to reflect this absence of compassion.
Against this backdrop of increasing hostility, the teachings of Pope Francis (1936 – 2025) offer a powerful counterpoint that resonates beyond religious boundaries. He consistently championed respect, dignity, and compassion towards all people. You don’t have to be religious to recognise the universal truth in his words: “A little bit of mercy makes the world less cold and more just.” This intersection of justice and mercy naturally leads us to examine criminology through that very compassionate lens, because the moment we strip compassion from our criminal justice systems, the consequences become counterproductive. By this, I mean rehabilitation becomes secondary to punishment, criminogenic factors become ignored, recidivism rates become affected as former offenders encounter insurmountable barriers to reintegration and so forth.
The question I want you to ponder over this sunny weekend is: What defines us when compassion vanishes from our interactions? When hatred becomes our default response? Personally, I believe compassionate approaches to criminology do not weaken justice – they strengthen it by addressing root causes while maintaining accountability. I won’t elaborate further here, but if you’re interested in exploring these concepts more deeply, consider enrolling in my new module launching this September on global perspectives of crime, where a comparative approach to understanding and responding to crime will also be explored.
Have a lovely sunny weekend!
Share this:
25 Years of Criminology at UON: Looking Back
This year Criminology at UON is celebrating its 25th Anniversary! Exciting times! In line with the celebrations, the Criminology Team have organised a number of events as part of these celebrations. Ranging from the ‘Changing the Narrative’ VAWG event, organised by Dr @paulaabowles and the Deputy Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (PFCC), to a school’s event in June offering out miniature taster sessions to interested, local year12 students (more details T.B.C). As well all the exciting events, we have also had reflections from the Team around what it means to them and their journey with Criminology at UON. It is my journey which I would like to share with you now.
My journey begins in 2012 as a bright eyed and bushy tailed first year student moving away from home to Northampton to study Criminology. Having never done any Criminology, Psychology, Sociology, or Law before I was feeling very much out of my depth. However, little did I realise that my A-levels in Philosophy, Ethics and English Language would hold me steady. The first year was quite overwhelming: there were lots of tears and uncertainties. I remember it taking the entire summer between year 1 and year 2 to get my head around Harvard Referencing. But I survived! It was not until the end of year 2 and beginning of year 3 where I would say I began to ‘thrive’ in the discipline. As a student, one of my highlights was doing a research placement in year 2. Academically, I gained skills which prepared me for the dissertation in the final year, but it also brought me out of my shell much more. Pretty sure there were tears here as well- this has been a common feature of my journey with Criminology (as student and staff)!
In 2015 I graduated from UON with a BA in Criminology and in the September of that year began in the role as an Associate Lecturer in Criminology. This was incredibly scary but also incredibly rewarding. It was very interesting to be on ‘the other side’ of academia having so recently graduated and it took a fair amount of time to transition from student to staff (as academics we are also students so the transition is never fully complete)! I was involved on modules I had not had the privilege of studying and was able to work closely with esteemed colleagues I’d looked up to for so long and who had had a large impact in moulding the criminologist I was (and am today). In the September of 2020, after achieving my MSc in Criminology, I became a full-time lecturer and remain so five years later. The course and University has changed a lot in those 5 years, with some fabulous new modules in the BA and BA Criminology with Psychology courses, new colleagues offering a range of expertise and passion for areas within the discipline and some epic trips with a number of the student cohorts we have been blessed to have.
There have been challenges too, and lots of tears (especially from me), but the progress and evolution of Criminology at UON in the 13 years I have been a part of it have been monumental! Hopefully there will be even more positivity to come in the future. I feel incredibly grateful and blessed to have been involved with Criminology at UON for so long, and always look back on my student days with fondness. I’ve enjoyed my role as a member of staff and enjoyed being a part of the events the Team have organised and the new course which we have designed. A huge ‘Thank you’ must be written to the ‘founding father of Criminology at UON’ @manosdaskalou, without whom my, and many others, journey with Criminology at UON might be non-existent! So cheers to 25 years of Criminology at UON, the ‘founding father’, and to many more wonderful years (and hopefully less tears)!
Share this:
25th Year Reflection
I have been part of Criminology at UON as BA Criminology student, then Associate Lecturer then Lecturer in Criminology for about 13 years in total. My last reflection on my Criminology journey was in 2020 as I had just embarked on my new role as a Lecturer in Criminology. Every now and then I reflect on how lucky I am to be able to have a job role which has the potential to encourage a passion for learning, reading, writing, critical thinking as well as other life skills.
When reflecting on the 25th year Criminology anniversary I think mostly of the old Park Campus that I used to frequent and study at as a student. It had quite a nice feel to it and there was also enough surrounding nature for a famous badger to make this place part of its habitat! There were less books available online when I was an undergraduate compared to today so I have fond memories of going to the library often to have a browse and coming away with as many criminology related books that I could fit in my bag at once. Finding places where I could study for hours that were less frequented than the main library also gave me a bit of a buzz. There also used to be a Pavilion bar near to where the majority of exams would take place, one of my favorite past time memories is sipping on a beer in the Pavilion just after the end of my final third year Criminology exam season, (whilst secretly thinking of how I thought the exams went much better than expected).
When reflecting I am also reminded of how lecturers like Dr @manosdaskalou and Dr @paulaabowles can be incredibly inspirational and influential at guiding academic paths (such as my own!). The re-occurring ideas that ‘criminology is everywhere’ and that we should ‘question everything’ has boded well for helping me to make difficult decisions and in thinking about how I interacted with people when I was working within crime related industries.
In more recent years staff and students have moved to a new campus, have worked and studied through the challenges that come with Covid-19 and contextual uncertainties. This year has had some highlights for me, such as working on a new module Imagining Crime. Whereby we used inspiration from the novel 1984 by George Orwell to task students with committing weekly ‘thought crimes’ by seeing/hearing/reading about something criminological and questioning this by using critical thinking. Listening to the development of critical thinking via the ‘thought crime’ method has been a delight. The flexible, creative and multidisciplinary nature of criminology is also quite fabulous for maintaining interest in criminology over a long period of time but also for venturing into new and less explored areas. For instance, staff and students in Imagining Crime had the pleasure of attending a guest speaker session with @saffrongarside about children’s literature and the environment this academic year – at a time when Northampton itself seemed to be struggling to cope with flooding. Of course, this did highlight the importance of seeing environmental issues as criminological issues, but also the importance of considering children’s books as criminologically cultural artifacts, was something completely new and intriguing for me. I also gained a lot from hearing what our students (who are predominantly) young people think about environmental issues outside of the mainstream media angles that I have seen.
To round up, I loved my student life whilst studying BA Criminology and I am sure many others will say ‘ditto to that’. Long may the love for Criminology at UON continue!
Share this:
Criminology in the neo-liberal milieu
I do not know whether the title is right nor whether it fits what I want to say, but it is sort of catchy, well I think so anyway even if you don’t. I could never have imagined being capable of thinking up such a title let alone using words such as ‘milieu’ before higher education. I entered higher education halfway through a policing career. I say entered; it was more of a stumble into. A career advisor had suggested I might want to do a management diploma to advance my career, but I was offered a different opportunity, a taster module at a ‘new’ university. I was fortunate, I was to renew an acquaintance with Alan Marlow previously a high-ranking officer in the police and now a senior lecturer at the university. Alan, later to become an associate professor and Professor John Pitts became my mentors and I never looked back, managing to obtain a first-class degree and later a PhD. I will be forever grateful to them for their guidance and friendship. I had found my feet in the vast criminology ocean. However, what at first was delight in my achievements was soon to be my Achilles heel.
Whilst policing likes people with knowledge and skills, some of the knowledge and skills butt up against the requirements of the role. Policing is functional, it serves the criminal justice system, such as it, and above all else it serves its political masters. Criminology however serves no master. As criminologists we are allowed to shine our spotlight on what we want, when we want. Being a police officer tends to put a bit of a dampener on that and required some difficult negotiating of choppy waters. It felt like I was free in a vast sea but restrained with a life ring stuck around my arms and torso with a line attached so as to never stray too far from the policing ideology and agenda. But when retirement came, so too came freedom.
By design or good luck, I landed myself a job at another university, the University of Northampton. I was interviewed for the job by Dr @manosdaskalou., along with Dr @paulaabowles (she wasn’t Dr then but still had a lot to say, as criminologists do), became my mentors and good friends. I had gone from one organisation to another. If I thought I knew a lot about criminology when I started, then I was wrong. I was now in the vast sea without a life ring, freedom was great but quite daunting. All the certainties I had were gone, nothing is certain. Theories are just that, theories to be proved, disproved, discarded and resurrected. As my knowledge widened and I began to explore the depths of criminology, I realised there was no discernible bottom to knowledge. There was only one certainty, I would never know enough and discussions with my colleagues in criminology kept reminding me that was the case.
Why the ‘neo-liberal milieu’ you might ask, after all this seems to be a romanticised story about a seemingly successful transition from one career to another. Well, here’s the rub of it, universities are no different to policing, both are driven, at an arm’s length, by neo liberal ideologies. The business is different but subjugation of professional ideals to managerialist ideology is the same. Budgets are the bottom line; the core business is conducted within considerable financial constraints. The front-line staff take the brunt of the work; where cuts are made and processes realigned, it is the front-line staff that soak up the overflow. Neo-Taylorism abounds, as spreadsheets to measure human endeavour spring up to aide managers both in convincing themselves, and their staff, that more work is possible in and even outside, the permitted hours. And to maintain control, there is always, the age-old trick of re-organisation. Keep staff on their toes and in their place, particularly professionals.
The beauty of being an academic, unlike a police officer, is that I can have an opinion and at least for now I’m able to voice it. But such freedoms are under constant threat in a neo-liberal setting that seems to be seeping into every walk of life. And to be frank and not very academic, it sucks!
Share this:
Will Keir Starmer’s plans to abolish NHS England, help to save the NHS?
In a land-mark event, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has unveiled plans to abolish NHS England, to bring the NHS back into government control. Starmer justifies much of this change with streamlining operations and enhancing efficiency within the NHS, that in recent years has faced a backlash following long queues and an over-stretched staff pool. Moreover, this is part of Starmer’s plan to limit the power of control from bureaucratic systems.
NHS England was established in 2013 and has taken control and responsibility of the NHS’s daily operational priorities. Primarily, NHS England is invested in allocating regional funds to local health care systems and ensuring the smooth delivery of health care across the NHS. However, concerns, particularly in Parliament have been raised in relation to the merging of NHS England and the Department’s of Health and Social care that is alleged by critics to have brought inefficient services and an increase of administrative costs.
Considering this background, the plans to abolish NHS England, for Starmer come under two core priorities. The first is enhancing democratic accountability. This is to ensure that the expenditures of the NHS are contained within government control, thus it is alleged that this will improve efficiency and suitable allocation of spending. The second is to reduce the number of redundancies. This is backed by the idea that by streamlining essential services will allow for more money to be allocated to fund new Doctors and Nurses, who of course work on the front line.
This plan by Starmer has been met with mixed reviews. As some may say that it is necessary to bring the NHS under government control, to eliminate the risks of inefficient services. However, some may also question if taking the NHS under government control may necessarily result in stability and harmony. What must remain true to the core of this change is the high-quality delivery of health care to patients of the NHS. The answer to the effectiveness of this policy will ostensibly be made visible in due course. As readers in criminology, this policy change should be of interest to all of us… This policy will shape much of our public access to healthcare, thus contributing to ideas on health inequalities. From a social harm perspective, this policy is of interest, as we witness how modes of power and control play a huge role in instrumentally shaping people’s lives.
I am interested to hear any views on this proposal- feel free to email me and we can discuss more!
Thoughts from the criminology team 