Home » Criminology Team (Page 5)
Category Archives: Criminology Team
A review of In-Extremis: The Life of War Correspondent Marie Colvin
Recently, I picked up a book on the biography of Marie Colvin, a war correspondent who was assassinated in Syria, 2012. Usually, I refrain from reading biographies, as I consider many to be superficial accounts of people’s experiences that are typically removed from wider social issues serving no purpose besides enabling what Zizek would call a fetishist disavowal. It is the biographies of sports players and singers, found on the top shelves of Waterstones and Asda that spring to mind. In-Extremis, however, was different. I consider this book to be a very poignant and captivating biography of war correspondent Marie Colvin, authored by fellow journalist Lindsey Hilsum. The book narrates Marie’s life before her assassination. Her early years, career ventures, intimate relationships, friendships, and relationships with drugs and alcohol were all discussed. So too were the accounts of Marie’s fearless reporting from some of the world’s most dangerous conflict zones, including Sri-Lanka, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Hilsum wrote on the events both before Marie’s exhilarating career and during the peak of her war correspondence to illustrate the complexities in her life. This reflected on Marie’s insatiability of desire to tell the truth and capture the voices of those who are absent from the ‘script’. So too, reporting on the emotions behind war and conflict in addition to the consistent acts of personal sacrifice made in the name of Justice for the disenfranchised and the voiceless.
Across the first few chapters, Hilsum wrote on the personal life of Marie- particularly her traits of bravery, resilience, persistence, and an undying quest for the truth. Hilsum further delved into the complexities of Marie’s personality and life philosophies. A regular smoker, drinker and partygoer with a captivating personality that drew people in were core to who Marie was according to Hilsum. However, the psychological toils of war reporting became clear, particularly as later in the book, the effects of Marie’s PTSD and trauma began to present itself, particularly after Marie lost eyesight in her left eye after being shot in Sri-Lanka. The eye-patch worn by Marie to me symbolised the way she carried the burdens of her profession and personal vulnerabilities, particularly between maintaining her family life and navigating her occupational hazards.
In writing this biography, Hilsum not only mapped the life of one genuinely awesome and inspiring woman, but also highlighted the importance of reporting and capturing the voices of the casualties of war. Much of her work, I felt resonated with my own. As an academic researcher, it is my job to research on real-life issues and to seek the truth. I resonated with Marie’s quest for the truth and strongly aligned myself to her principles on capturing the lived experiences of those impacted by war, conflict, and social justice issues. These people, I consider are more qualified to discuss these issues than those of us who sit in the ivory towers of institutions (me included!).
Moreover, I considered how I can be more like Marie and how I can embed her philosophies more so into my own research… whether that’s through researching with communities on the cost-of-living crisis or disseminating my research to students, fellow academics, policymakers, and practitioners. I feel inspired and moving forward, I seek to embody the life and spirit of Marie and thousands of other journalists and academics who work tirelessly to research on and understand the truth to bring forward the narratives of those who are left behind and discarded by society in its mainstream.
Share this:
A Love Letter: in praise of board games
This my fifth love letter, previously I have written in praise of poetry, art, Agatha Christie and the Thoughts from the Criminology Team blog. Since early childhood, I have loved playing games and today’s entry is dedicated to this form of media. In the early years, the focus on fun is paramount, after all who wants to play a dull game? Equally important, the educational aim of games is sometimes explicit, other times less so. Nevertheless, they help us learn to match and sort colours and shapes, to develop our counting skills in an applied setting and improve our memory recall, as well as spelling. Games likes Snap, Happy Families, Hungry Hippos, Snakes and Ladders, Guess Who, Junior Scrabble offer a variety of different ways for children to learn important skills whilst playing. These games enable even very small children to share space, develop important interpersonal skills like taking turns and learn to deal with winning, and of course, losing. Often the latter is a very slow and painful lesson to learn….and one that isn’t always remembered into adulthood!
Of course, one of the most explicit part of playing games is learning the rules of the game, and of course, what happens when we deviate from those rules. It might lead to the loss of a turn or even forfeiture of the entire game. People interpret rules in different ways and families often develop their own “house” rules, but nevertheless there is always an agreed upon set of rules and a way of policing and punishing those who break them.
But once these lessons have been learned, what do games have to teach us as adults? I would say plenty! On a surface level, they offer an opportunity to relax and do something outside of our humdrum lives. Once the games have been purchased, they generally cost nothing to play unlike other forms of leisure time.1 Some can be played alone, others require competitors or even teams. They can aid our thinking, concentration and develop skills of strategy and tactics. They also have the general benefit of not being all consuming (unless at competition level), allowing for conversation to flow. The latter, conversing whilst doing something else, can often be useful for difficult emotional conversations, allowing people to open up without pressure (known colloquially as “health by stealth”).
But do board games have anything to offer to Criminology? Again, I would argue yes! Most games involve chance or luck, will you get the numbers you need, will you have the right pieces/cards in your hand, will the other person play their game in a way that benefits you? It is easy to recognise the role that luck or chance plays in games, but are we equally aware of their role in our lives. More importantly, as criminologists do we fully understand and acknowledge the role played by both in relation to criminality and victimisation?
We have no choice about whether we are born or not, when and where we arrive on the earth, who our parents are. These are all down to forces outside our individual and collective control. Our upbringing, our education, our employment opportunities are largely constrained by geography, money and influence. Compare the opportunities available to a baby born today in Sudan, with one born in the UK, another born in Palestine, and another born in Finland. Compare again, thinking about race, sex, class, disability, sexuality and so on. Very quickly you begin to understand the role played by chance and luck.
So if all of the above are imponderables, how much of a role does luck play in relation to criminality and victimisation? The regular publication of data relating to crime in postcodes, towns/cities and globally show huge diversity in the chance of victimisation. Lucky you, if you were born and live in the ‘Nordic countries of Europe (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, and Finland) who rank among the 25 safest globally, most of them also being among the top 10 happiest nations worldwide’. Less fortunate, if you were born in Haiti, Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan or Iraq identified as some of the most dangerous places on earth currently. It is not very difficult to imagine the difference in opportunities in fundamental human rights; food, shelter, healthcare, education and so on. In war ridden nations it is incredibly difficult to separate different typologies of victimisation and for the individuals living under these conditions, it makes no meaningful difference who is/are the perpetrators.
Even if you are living in a “peaceful” state2 such as the UK, there are vast differences in the opportunities available. If you have money you can buy a car to get to work in your evening/night job, if you don’t, maybe you can take a bus, failing that you can walk. Each of those journeys carries its own risks. Your sex, your race, your ethnicity, your sexuality, your abilities/disabilities, your age add the aggravating/mitigating factors and see your risk increase/decrease. All a matter of chance and luck
What about criminality, is this, as the Classical School of Criminology would have us accept, a matter of free will, weighing up the pros and cons and making a deliberate and calculating choice to commit crime? Or can we also identify the same issues of luck and chance as shown above? If your family is loving, everyone has good health, housing is secure, food is plentiful and there are plenty of educational and employment opportunities in your area, would you still choose a life of crime? If there is violence at home, poverty impacts health, housing and regular meals, making it challenging to study or work, would you perceive crime to be a choice?
And what of those board game rules and consequences, real life has its own rules, some written in the forms of laws, others engrained via family, friends, institutions; the norms of our society. In the board game, these rules apply equally (aside from luck and chance) but in real life, not so much. Consider racial and ethnic disproportionality and the treatment of vulnerable women in the CJS, as just two examples. We may all be playing in the same “Game of Life”, but luck, chance and the rules we are subjected to are very different when it comes to criminality and victimisation.
- I appreciate that there are some very expensive board games out there, as well as expansion packs to enhance play. ↩︎
- There are lots of academic arguments around what constitutes a peaceful state, most agree that it more than just the absence of war. Whilst the UK has not seen active warfare on its shores for decades, its military has been involved in conflict throughout the world for more than a century. ↩︎
Share this:
Let’s talk about sex!
Very few topics receive attention as much as sex. A very primal human behaviour that gets people talking. In Criminology any discussion on sex contains those elements that make it less than appealing, abuse, exploitation and violation. Our focus on the criminal dimensions of sexual behaviour can disfigure the way we talk about it and misrepresent the joys of sex. It can be argued however that outlining the negatives gives way to a positive outlook to sex in a similar way to health professional’s focus on avoiding sexually transmitted diseases, leading to a healthy sexual life.
Sex is about affirming social relations, as part of our own intimacy. There is a variety on sex from feelings, practices and expressions that is as wide as humanity itself. It is a language we talk that needs no translation. This is why that abusive behaviours are regarded such a violation of the person. Rape, legally, is as serious as murder. The person victimised is losing something so intimate that it may never be recovered; one of the many reasons why people who suffered abuse are called survivors.
Our perspectives on sex changes and our society tried to accommodate them. Some years ago, Holland decided to include some scenes on “public liberal expressions on sexuality” as part of their material for their immigration test. This is a marked difference from the UK who decriminalised homosexuality but only behind closed doors.
Criminologically speaking there are certain elements that safeguard sexual behaviours. Age, relation, location and consent. The age of consent is recognising the minimum age any person can be legally responsible to engage in sexual relations. Under that age and it is statutory rape. Any relationship between close relatives in the UK can lead to imprisonment. Any sexual acts in public are regarded illegal, including sex in public toilets (cottaging) so sex remains behind closed doors. The final point is the most controversial; consent is paramount to any sexual relations. The important thing in sex is that we choose to engage with others or not.
Part of the criminological process is to ascertain how we understand consent and disseminate it to others. Academically there are several issues to consider and to investigate. This is one of criminology’s strengths to tap into the sociological and philosophical discourses offering some practical perspectives. In recent years the discussion about sex on campus for example has been one that raised awareness on consent. In criminology we discuss it in ways to amplify the importance of consent in sex and in relationships in general.
For a long time now, we have talked about safe spaces as a mechanism of allowing people to talk without judgement. We focus on educational practices that are focused on inclusion and empathy and disseminate work that challenges established notions that mythologise sexual relations and minimise the importance of consent.
Let’s explore some of the key points we disseminate. Sex is an individual right for all regardless of origin or identity, which makes it also a universal right. Law safeguards sexual relations, but the lack of reporting of sexual violence, the low conviction rate of those processed cases and the volume of unknowns underscore that we cannot resolve sexual violence legally. We cannot police sexual relations when our community does not prioritise the importance of safeguarding human rights. What we can do instead is to change that social discourse on sex. In one of my previous posts, I underscored the irony of proliferating legal interventions, whilst culturally we seem happy to receive expressions on misogyny, abuse and exploitation as legitimate expressions on sexuality. Policing sexual behaviours for example comes with a long history of retaining the straight man’s privilege of pleasure over all others. A privilege long retained unchallenged making the work of current and future criminologists even more pressing! At the end of this month, it is International Day of Consent in November 30, so from today until the end of the month, ask yourself what you have done to change the established narrative to make your own space more inclusive.
Share this:
Just semantics?
This summer has seen the opening of the first secure school in England and Wales. The idea of secure schools was first introduced in 2016 in line with reforming the youth secure estate given a wide range of failings across institutions and harms experienced by children placed in there. The original proposed date for opening one of the schools was 2020; but what is a four-year delay? In 2022 the National Audit Office reported the refurbishment of Medway Secure Training Centre (closed down in March 2020 following the harrowing findings by Panorama), where the new secure school would be, was costing approximately £36.5 million (National Audit Office, 2022). But will this new secure school actually change something within the youth secure estate, or this is more of the same but with a new sparkly name?
Oasis Restore (the first secure school in England and Wales) opened this summer and can hold up to 49 children. It is registered jointly as a Secure Children’s Home (SCH) and a secure academy which has raised concerns by Ofsted due to difference in size of Oasis Restore in comparison to other SCHs. Education is central to the secure school (although haven’t we heard this before with Secure Training Centres), with comments from Youth Justice Board (YJB) Chief Executive Steph Roberts-Bibby comparing Oasis Restore with University accommodation (Youth Justice Board, 2024). Apparently, the new secure school is a far cry from the unsafe, violent, prisons which already exist in the youth secure estate (SCT and YOIs). On a tour of the secure school earlier in the year, the Chief Executive was very positive about the physical environment and philosophies underpinning Oasis Restore where ‘strong relationships between staff and children are at the heart of the Oasis model’ and the importance of ‘having a space promoting learning, togetherness and care’ as being essential in line with rehabilitation (Youth Justice Board, 2024). So far, so good. The right words are being uttered, changes appear to have been made, but… we have been here before. The same rhetoric of the child’s best interests being promoted and being seen as ‘children first’: which is good. But is this round of reform just more of the same with different semantics?
End Child Imprisonment (2024) demonstrates how child imprisonment, which Oasis Reform still is, is beyond reform. There are ample examples of how the Youth Secure Estate has historically, and remains, a harmful unsafe environment which does not address the needs of the children they come into contact with. Missing from the positive comments from the Chief Executive of the YJB is the highlighting that the children who come into contact with the YJS are incredibly vulnerable and have often experienced traumas before their incarceration. The language is still all wrong: the myriad of challenges these children have already faced and will face within the YJS remain overlooked. In 2023 the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child urged the UK to introduce legislation directly prohibiting the use of solitary confinement, due the continuing harms/findings of its use: but so far, no comment from the UK Government. Time and time again, we see reforms brought in but with little to no actual change or improvement. Will Oasis Restore be the face of change of just another failure in a long line of failing reforms?
Something which rings true: “A recurrent theme in the history of child imprisonment is that evidence of failure and maltreatment is met with promises of reform which too frequently involve semantic amendment rather than changes of substance” (End Child Imprisonment, 2024, p.28). And as John Rawls argues when thinking about justice, if an institution cannot be reformed then it should be abolished. Is it finally time to abolish the child prisons which exist within society?
References:
End Child Imprisonment (2024) Why child imprisonment is beyond reform: A review of the evidence August 2024. [online] Available at: https://article39.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Why-child-imprisonment-is-beyond-reform.-A-review-of-the-evidence-August-2024.pdf [Accessed 14th October 2024].
Monster Ztudio/Shutterstock (2017) Change. [Online] Available at: https://ziplinelogistics.com/blog/navigating-change/ [Accessed 21.10.24].
National Audit Office (2022) Children in custody: secure training centres and secure schools. [online] London: National Audit Office. Available at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Children-in-custody-secure-training-centres-and-secure-schools.pdf [Accessed 17.10.24].
Rawls, J. (1971/1999) A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Youth Justice Board (2024) Inside the Oasis Restore Secure School. GOV.UK [online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/inside-the-oasis-restore-secure-school [Accessed 17.10.24]
Share this:
Realtopia?
I have recently been reading and re-reading about all things utopic, dystopic and “real[life]topic” for new module preparations; Imagining Crime. Dystopic societies are absolutely terrifying and whilst utopic ideas can envision perfect-like societies these utopic worlds can also become terrifying. These ‘imagined nowhere’ places can also reflect our lived realities, take Nazism for an example.
In CRI1009 Imagining Crime, students have already began to provide some insightful criticism of the modern social world. Questions which have been considered relate to the increasing use of the World Wide Web and new technologies. Whilst these may be promoted as being utopic, i.e., incredibly advanced and innovative, these utopic technological ideas also make me dystopic[ly] worry about the impact on human relations.
In the documentary America’s New Female Right there are examples of families who are also shown to be using technology to further a far right utopic agenda. An example includes a parent that is offended because their child’s two favourite teachers were (described as being) ‘homosexuals’, the parents response to this appeared to be taking the child out of school to home school the child instead, but also to give their child an iPad/tablet screen to use as a replacement for the teachers. Another example consisted of a teen using social media to spread far right propaganda and organise a transphobic rally. In the UK quite recently the far right riots were organised and encouraged via online platforms.
I would not advise watching the documentary, aside from being terrifying, the report and their team did very little to challenge these ideas. I did get the sense that the documentary was made to satisfy voyeuristic tendencies, and as well as this, it seems to add to the mythical idea that far right ideology and actions only exists within self identified far right extremist groups when this is not the case.
Mills (1959) suggests that people feel troubled if the society in which they live in has wide scale social problems. So might the unquestioning and increased use of technologies add to troubles due to the spreading of hate and division? And might this have an impact on our ability to speak to and challenge each other? Or to learn about lives different to our own? This reminds me of Benjamin Zephaniah’s children’s book titled People Need People (2022), maybe technologies and use of the internet are both connecting yet removing us from people in some way.
References
Mills, C. W. (2000) The Sociological Imagination. Fortieth anniversary edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zephaniah, B. (2022) People Need People. (London: Orchard Books)
Share this:
Black History Month 2024
We have entered Black History Month (BHM), and whilst to some it is clear that Black history isn’t and shouldn’t be confined to one month a year, it would be unwise not to take advantage of this month to educate, raise awareness and celebrate Blackness, Black culture.
This year the Criminology department is planning a few events designed to be fun, informative and interesting.
One event the department will hold is a BHM quiz, designed to be fun and test your knowledge. Work individually or in groups, the choice is yours. The quiz will be held on the 17th October in The Hide (4th floor) in the Learning Hub from 4.30-6pm.
The second event will draw on the theme of this year’s BHM which is all about reclaiming narratives. In the exhibition area (ground floor of the Learning Hub) we will be presenting a number of visual narratives. I will be displaying a series of identity trees from Black women that I interviewed as part of my PhD research on Black women in English prisons. With a focus on race and gender, these identity trees represent a snapshot of the lives and lived experiences of these women prior to imprisonment. The trees also highlight the hopes and resilience of these women. This event will be held on the 31st October between 4.30-6pm. Please do walk through and have a look at the trees and ask questions. The event is designed for you to spend as little or as much time as you would like, whether it is a brief look or a longer discussion your presence is much welcomed!
If you would like to be part of this event, whether that is sharing your own research (staff and students), or if you would like to use the space to share your own narrative as a Black individual please get in contact by the 21st October by emailing angela.charles@northampton.ac.uk or criminology@northampton.ac.uk
Lastly, I would like to put a spotlight on a few academics to maybe read up on this month and beyond:
A few suggestions for important discussions on Black feminism and intersectionality:
A few academics with powerful and interesting research that proved very important in my PhD research:
- Maria Adams
- Angela Davis
- Beth Richie
- Corretta Phillips
- Ruth Chigwada-Bailey
- Jason Warr
- Julia Chinyere-Oparah (previously Julia Sudbury)
Share this:
Labour’s Winter Fuel Allowance Cut: Austerity 2.0 and the need for De-commodification?
Last week, the Government voted as an overwhelming majority to scrap the winter fuel allowance. This has been met with fierce backlash from critics, particularly Labour MP Zara Sultana who stated her removal of taking part in ‘Austerity 2.0’. Meanwhile, in Prime Minister Questions, Kier Starmer defended the decision by referring to the ’22-billion-pound black hole’ that was left by the former Conservative Government (See Amos, 2024). This policy decision will mean that pensioners and vulnerable social groups across the UK will face a loss of financial support to pay for the ever-rising energy costs, particularly over the coming winter months. The health implications and fears onto those who will be affected were reported widely by critics. For example, Labour MP Rosie Duffield represented her constituents, some of whom were cancer patients who were severely worried about keeping warm this coming winter and relied on the winter fuel allowance as a reliable source of financial support (Lavelle, 2024).
This latest move initiated by Starmer’s Labour Government is primarily justified through the need for temporary acts of austerity, to balance the books and reduce the national debt and deficit which according to Starmer’s speech at the latest Prime Minister’s Questions now sits at over twenty billion.
A fundamental question here is not of the need for action to reduce the national deficit…. rather the question is- who should foot the bill? Latest figures show that within the same time as when the country scraps the winter fuel allowance, According to Race and Jack (2024), major energy companies such as British Gas announced its profits for 2023 has increased ten-fold to £750 million with the profits forecast to soar higher at the end of this year. There are calls by some politicians, including Zara Sultana to introduce a windfall tax that will put a cap on the gross profits gained by energy companies and large-scale businesses, through which these taxes can be put into public infrastructure, services, and spending. A common counterargument here however is how these businesses and corporations will remove themselves from the UK and situate themselves in alternative global markets, that through globalisation and free-market economy principles has become easier.
The scrapping of the winter fuel allowance demonstrates how under economic crisis, it is communities who foot the bill and suffer the consequences of government failure to protect public infrastructure and avoid generating a deficit and national debt. This policy also represents a balancing act between keeping corporations and businesses active players in the free-market economy versus protecting the countries most vulnerable and providing sufficient public infrastructure and utilities. Perhaps there is an alternative way between preserving the markets and re-orienting their purpose back to a public good…
Capitalist markets are led by profiteering… however, through the process of de-commodification, these markets are brought back under state(s) control and are re-oriented to serve a greater public good and social need (Soron & Laxer, 2006; Hilary, 2013). De-commodification turns the modes of production and consumption towards serving a greater public need. Whilst there is profit opportunities for those on the supply side, this is met with serving a greater public need. Essentially, de-commodification removes acts of disempowerment and the dependency of people from the markets and restores the power, much of which is placed back into state control. Perhaps, the model of de-commodification might not work in all contexts, particularly when one considers the intensification of globalisation and geopolitical insecurity, however there should be discussions on de-commodification…. As otherwise, the markets will continue to over-rule the state and communities will continue to pay the price…
References
Amos, O (2024) Starmer and Sunak clash on winter fuel payments at PMQs. BBC News. 11th September. Available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c303gm7qz3pt {Accessed 13th September 2024}.
Hilary, J (2013) The Poverty of Capitalism: Economic Meltdown and the struggle for what comes next. London: Pluto Press.
Lavelle, D (2024) Winter fuel pay decision ‘brutal’ and could lead to deaths, says Labour MP. The Guardian, 7th September. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/winter-fuel-pay-decision-brutal-labour-mp-rosie-duffield {Accessed 13th September 2024}.
Race, M., and Jack, S (2024) British Gas sees profits increase ten-fold. BBC News. 15th February. Available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68303647#:~:text=British%20Gas%20has%20announced%20its,of%20Russia’s%20invasion%20of%20Ukraine {Accessed 13th September 2024}.
Soron, D., and Laxer, G (2006) De-commodifying Public Life. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
Share this:
The power of collaboration in Higher Education
In today’s rapidly evolving landscape of higher education, interdepartmental collaboration and knowledge sharing are becoming increasingly vital. By rapid evolution, I mean the pressing challenges we face, including rising costs and finances, issues in student engagement and attendance, digital transformation and rise of new technologies, growing concerns about student wellbeing, and most importantly, the critical need to ensure a strong, positive student experience in the face of these challenges. While the idea of interdepartmental collaboration and knowledge sharing isn’t entirely new, its importance in addressing these complex issues cannot be overemphasised.
At my university, our faculty, the Faculty of Business and Law recently celebrated its ‘Faculty Best Practice Day’ on Wednesday, September 4th. This event, led by our deanery, was an opportunity for departments within the faculty to showcase their hard work, innovations, and fresh ideas across various areas – from teaching and research to employability and beyond. Personally, I view this day as an opportunity to connect with colleagues from different departments – not just ‘catch-up’ but to gain insight into their current activities, exchange updates and share ideas on developments within our sector and disciplines.
This event is particularly intriguing to me for three distinct reasons. Firstly, the ability for department representatives to present their activities to faculty members is invaluable. Departmental reps showcase their growth strategies, techniques for strengthening student engagement, and the support they provide for students after graduating. Some present their research and future directions for the faculty. Others present their external partnership growth, evidence-based teaching pedagogy, and other innovative approaches for enhancing student experiences. Also, these presentations often highlight advancements in technology integration and initiatives aimed at encouraging diversity and inclusion within the HE. All these presentations are not just impressive – they’re incredibly informative and inspiring. Secondly, the event regularly reinforces the need for collaboration between departments – a cornerstone of academia. After all, no single person or department is an island of knowledge. So the ability to collaborate with other faculty members is crucial as it provides opportunities for synergy and innovation, showcases our strengths. Thirdly, and on a personal level, the event fosters the need to learn best practices from others, and this is an aspect that has been tremendously helpful for my career. Such interactions provide opportunity for stronger collegiality, including insights into different approaches and methods that I can adapt and apply in my own work in ways that I can contribute to my professional growth and effectiveness.
In the most recent event, I attended a session on cultural literacy and awareness. Despite my years in higher education, I was particularly surprised to learn new things about cultural awareness that pertain not only to international students but to home students as well. This was an excellent session that also offered the opportunity to connect with colleagues from other departments whom you only know through email exchanges, but rarely see in person.
In sum, I strongly encourage everyone in academia to attend such events or create one if you can. Contribute to and engage with these events – for they equip us to break down traditional barriers between disciplines and provides us with an opportunity to learn from each other with an open mind. This is something I will continue to advocate for because fostering interdepartmental collaboration isn’t just beneficial – it’s essential. It is through these collaborative efforts that we can truly innovate, improve, and excel in our mission to educate and inspire the next generation.
Share this:
Everyone loves a man in uniform: The Rise and Fall of Nick Adderley
Some of our local readers will be familiar with the case of former Chief Constable Nick Adderley who was recently dismissed from Northamptonshire Police. The full Regulation 43 report can be found here and it provides an interesting, and at times, comical, narrative of the life and times of the now disgraced police officer.
The Regulation 43 report describes Adderley’s creation of a “false legend” of military service, whereby this supposed naval man fought bravely to protect the Falkland Islands (despite only being 15 when the conflict ended), rescued helicopters and ships in the height of battle, commanded men, was a military negotiator during the Anti-Duvalier protest movement in Haiti. In short, an all round real-life Naval action man! It’s pity for Adderley, that the Regulation 43 panel found none of this was true, instead a ‘Walter Mitty‘ like trail of lies were revealed throughout the investigation.
Nevertheless, not content with his brave military career, our intrepid hero decided he would take his considerable (in his estimation at least) skills into policing. First applying to Greater Manchester Police [GMP] (who turned him down on the grounds that there were ‘better candidates’) and then Cheshire Police. From Cheshire Police, he went to GMP and then to Staffordshire Police, finally arriving in Northamptonshire in the summer of 2018. Despite all of these different forces, all of the different application and promotion forms that our brave hero completed, not one person bothered to check that he was telling the truth. To check that this man, responsible for upholding law and order, was a fit candidate for the role. instead, I suspect, like so many it seems, we are so in love with our military and all its trappings, that we lose any sense of criticality when it comes to uniforms. After all who would dare to question a Chief Constable, whether a police officer, civilian worker or member of the public? Easier to keep parroting the mantra of “our brave boys”, than to think critically about institutions and their members, as the cartoon below demonstrates all too well.
At this point Adderley has been dismissed from Northamptonshire Police and banned from policing. In 2024 the Angiolini Inquiry published its report, which in part focused on police vetting and there is no doubt, post-Adderley the police as an institution, will undertake more soul searching. Additionally, some commentators have begun a campaign to have Adderley’s police pension reduced/removed. These matters will continue to rumble along for some time. But, in short, Adderley has been punished and publicly outed as a liar, but that does not begin to undo the immense harm his behaviour has inflicted on the community.
During his time at Chief Constable of Northamptonshire, Adderley called upon his supposed military history and experience to support his arguments and the decisions he made. For instance, the 2019 arming of Northamptonshire’s police with tasers or the 2020 launch of eight interceptors, described by Adderley as “a new fleet of crime-busting cars” or the 2021 purchase of “eight Yamaha WR450F enduro bikes“. To me, all of these developments scream the militarisation of policing. Since the very foundation of the Metropolitan Police in 1829, serving officers and the public have continually been opposed to arming the police, yet Adderley, with his military service, seemingly knew best. But what use is a taser, fast car or motorbike in everyday community policing, how do they help when responding to domestic abuse, sexual violence, or the very many mental health crises to which officers are regularly called? How do these expensive military “toys” ensure that all members of society feel protected and not just some communities? How can we ensure that tasers don’t do lasting harm to those subjected to their violence? Instead all of these developments scream a fantasy of both military and policing, one in which the hero is always on the side of the righteous, devoting his life to taking down the “baddies” by whatever means necessary.
Ultimately for the people of Northamptonshire we have to decide, can we view Adderley’s police leadership as the best use of taxpayers’ money, a response to evidence based policing or just a military fantasy of the man who lied? More importantly, the county and its police force will struggle to untangle Adderley’s web of lies and the harm inflicted on the people of Northamptonshire, making it likely that this entirely unevidenced push to militarise the police will continue unchecked.
Share this:
HE and the curse of generative AI
A good part of the last academic year was spent debating the use of AI in Higher Education. Well, that’s what it felt like in our department. It became clear early on that some of our students had taken to using AI to generate their essays. Whilst we, as academics, debated its use, a number of issues became apparent. First and foremost was that of detecting its use in summative work. Despite the university guidelines about using AI and the need to reference its use, indicating where and how it had been used, students were producing work and passing it off as their own. Some of my colleagues were bothered about how its use could be detected, whereas others promoted its use and advocated teaching students how to use it. The arguments abound about how it might be used, not just to generate ideas but also to help improve grammar, for example. There are arguments about how it can help provide a literature review, saving time and effort. There are arguments about how it can help with essay structure and can help with that writer’s block, so many of us suffer from.
Whilst I understand its uses and understand my own limitations in knowledge and understanding about its many uses, I cannot but help thinking that somehow those that advocate its use have been blinded by the allure of something shiny and new. They will say they are just keeping up with technology, in the meantime, the tech giants are making a fortune and leading us further and further into a toxic dependency on technology which they in turn generate to quench our insatiable appetite. For those of you that remember, what was wrong with ‘Word 6’?
My stance seems to be somewhat simplistic on the matter, that is my stance on using generative AI in Higher Education to produce summative work in our field. It seems to me that the use of generative AI to produce summative work, bypasses all that Higher Education seeks to achieve. The British Society of Criminology provides a comprehensive menu of knowledge and skills that a student studying criminology should be able to boast at the end of their degree programme. We do our best to provide the building blocks for that achievement and test, using a variety of methods, whether the students have that knowledge and skills to the requisite standard. At the end of their studies, the students receive a certificate and a classification which indicate the level of skills and knowledge.
How then can we say that a student has the requisite knowledge and skills if they are allowed to use generative AI to produce their work? If a key skill is the ability to analyse and synthesise, how does an AI generated literature review assist with that skill? How will an AI generated essay format help the student navigate the vagaries of report writing and formatting in the workplace (different formats according to audience and needs)? How does a grammar check help the student learn if the words produced by the AI tool are not understood by the student; they won’t even know if it’s the correct word or tense or grammar that has been used. Often the mistake made by those advocating the use of AI is that they forget about how we learn. Having something produced for you is not learning, nowhere near it.
Even if a student acknowledges the use of AI in their work, what does that bit of work demonstrate about the student? Would we credit a student that had simply copied a large chunk from a book, or would we say that they needed to demonstrate how they can summarise that work and combine it with other pieces of work? In other words, would we want the student to produce something that is theirs?
There are tools for detecting the use of AI, just as there are tools for detecting plagiarism, the problem is that the former are not that reliable and are likely to produce a significant number of false positives. The consequence of the worries around the use of AI by students is that some of my colleagues, both at the university and the wider community are advocating that we return to exams and the like. I think that would be a retrograde step. We need students to be able to read, explore, and write so that they can demonstrate some quite critical skills. Skills that employers want.
Whilst it seems right that we show students how to use AI, we need to be clear about its limitations. More importantly we need to be clear that its use can be debilitating as much as it is useful. Not everything that is shiny and new is what it purports to be, good honest graft has far more value. There are no shortcuts to learning. If graduates are unable to demonstrate the requisite skills for a job, then their degree holds little value. I fear that many will be cursing the day they ever discovered generative AI.
Thoughts from the criminology team 