Home » Criminology toolbox
Category Archives: Criminology toolbox
Who owns the past?
The question of whether museums remain relevant comes up often in discussions about heritage and old artifacts. Yet the evidence suggests they continue to play a vital role in modern society. People still visit them in huge numbers, and schools rely on them as living classrooms. According to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, museums in the UK welcomed over 40 million visitors in the past year, with attendance peaking in the summer months and during school holidays. Clearly, the appetite for museums hasn’t faded.
Part of their enduring appeal lies in their diversity. There are museums filled with towering dinosaur skeletons, others dedicated to technology from just a decade ago, and countless spaces in between. Among these institutions, some of the oldest — like the British Museum — continue to spark debate and fascination. Its vast collection spans human history, art and culture from across the world. Within its walls you’ll find globally significant artifacts such as the Parthenon Sculptures, the Rosetta Stone, the Ife Head from the Benin Bronzes, and the enigmatic Hoa Hakananai’a from Rapa Nui.
These objects draw millions not only because they are beautiful or ancient, but because they connect us to stories far larger than ourselves. Whether museums should continue to hold such items is an ongoing conversation — but their relevance, at least in the public imagination, remains undeniable. A statue in a museum can provide some understanding about sculpture and carving techniques but in the case of Hoa Hakananai’a it misses the context of its purpose.
The relevance of museums becomes even more pronounced when the objects they display belong to the heritage of other cultures. Calls for repatriation have grown louder in recent decades, often framed as reminders of a colonial past in which powerful nations acquired “beautiful” or culturally significant objects simply because they had the means to do so. For many communities, these artifacts are not just historical items but living symbols of identity, memory and continuity — and their absence is felt as a loss.
Museums often argue that they preserve artifacts and ensure their longevity for future generations. They present themselves as spaces where millions of visitors can immerse themselves in global culture. That is their position, but recent events, such as the Louvre heist, make it harder to accept this claim without question. Even more troubling is the way many of these artifacts were originally removed from their countries of origin. It is difficult to frame these actions as preservation rather than a form of cultural piracy.
The Parthenon Sculptures are a striking example. They were hacked into transportable pieces in the early 19th century to be displayed in what was intended to be the private museum of a Scottish aristocrat. Their removal took place a decade before Greece gained independence through revolution. When that aristocrat later fell into bankruptcy, he sold the sculptures to the British Museum for half his original asking price. This is just one of many transactions that undermine the argument that such acquisitions were motivated by respect for other cultures. Instead, they reveal a pattern of opportunism that continues to shape the debate today.
Therefore, it becomes reasonable to question whether some museums function as relics of a colonial past — institutions that still hold objects taken under unequal power dynamics. Returning artifacts to the communities and regions they originate from is increasingly seen as a step toward cultural justice. Although the Kingdom of Benin no longer exists in its historical form, the Edo people of Nigeria continue to identify with the bronze casts of the Obas (kings) they depict, and they have long called for their return.
The movement for repatriation is gaining international momentum as governments and museum authorities begin to return culturally significant pieces to their rightful communities. If the history and identity of people are the most important parameters, then why insist on keeping the originals in foreign institutions while offering only copies to the cultures that created them?
This leads to a deeper question: who owns the past? How do we curate the history and culture of peoples who endured colonial rule, displacement, or even extermination? Human history may be collective, but the cultural significance of certain artifacts reminds us that we must confront the crimes of the past — the looting, the violence, and the erasure — and recognise the need for justice for those who were wronged.
In the end, the relevance of museums in the twenty‑first century depends on their willingness to confront the legacies that shaped their collections. These institutions can no longer rely solely on their educational value or their role as guardians of global culture; they must also reckon with the histories of extraction, violence and inequality that brought many treasured objects into their halls. Repatriation is not about emptying museums but about rebalancing relationships, restoring dignity and acknowledging that cultural heritage carries meaning far beyond its aesthetic or historical worth. If museums choose to evolve to collaborate, to return what was taken, and to tell fuller, more honest stories they can remain vital spaces for learning and connection. But their future relevance will be measured not by the number of visitors they attract, but by the integrity with which they address the past and the justice they help shape for the generations to come.
Share this:
A head full of AI free magic
It’s been an interesting few weeks discussing ethics and professionalism with my students, well those that turn up, but that’s a different debate, albeit I guess, in a way linked to the essence of this blog. As usual, my head is full of what a former colleague would describe as ‘magic’. Lots of different seemingly daft ideas, formulated into some narrative that makes sense to me but is difficult to convey to the rest of the world. The latter I’m sure is not peculiar to me, it happens to most people when they have to start writing something, some call it writers’ block, I just call it searching for the starting point. The daft ideas though, I proudly claim as my own. And that is why so often I end up writing a load of ‘stuff’ and then deleting it or at least some of it. In writing, I’m aided by some spell checker built into the software that I’m using and suggestions, also built into the software, about grammar and sentence construction. The latter often hinders rather than anything else, ‘no I do not want to revise the sentence to be more succinct. Your succinctness makes no sense to me and does not convey what I want to say’. A bit of a ramble so far I know, but I’m not going to change it because I want to convey the head full of ‘magic’ phenomenon (those of you that can remember it, can now sing the little ditty that will stick in your head for the rest of the day) and the writing process. You no doubt will have noticed, well those of you that still have a pulse and the will to live, I have made no mention of AI. No use of AI to convey my head full of ‘magic’ ideas, no use of AI to help me start writing. Why, well let me put it to you very succinctly, these are my ideas, it’s my head full of ‘magic’. It does not belong to some machine, whatever appears on this screen, whilst I am writing, is mine and mine alone. I cannot imagine a time when I will be so devoid of thought, ideas, creativity or ability, that I will resort to asking a machine to provide me with the answer or the output. What would the answer look like if I did? Some verbose monologue that is boring, has little or no substance, is devoid of meaning and in the case of academic work, if this were such, is supported by pseudo or obscure, tentatively subject linked, or even fictitious, references. Verbal diarrhoea on screen. If you want evidence of this, ask any discerning academic about more recent student essays. I say discerning for good reason, a reason that I hope to make apparent in a short while.
Let me digress just a little. Recently in the news there has been momentum around the use of mobile phones by young people, or more to the point, what some will say is misuse of phones. Or, the more cynical and critical amongst us might say the abuse of young people by multinational tech giants. There to make money, tech companies have used algorithms, heuristics and goodness knows what to ensure young people are hooked on social media. To their credit, they have also invested vast sums of money trying to limit online abuse and harmful content. But let’s be honest, it’s like farting and then running around with some aerosol to try to cover up the smell. It still stinks but the air is a little better in a few places. Society and government are waking up to the harm caused by the use of technology by young people in this context and we have seen some countries introduce an outright ban on use by under 16s. Something being mooted in this country. Some schools have banned the use of phones in the classroom and as a consequence have seen youngsters returning to healthier past times like playing football or chatting, and of course misbehaving. I would suggest that we have been well behind the curve when it comes to realisation of the harm that is being caused to young people. As parents, we have even colluded in it, albeit more often than not, unwittingly. Those in education systems have probably done the same. But this seemed to creep up on society almost organically, fertilised by businesses whose raison d’être is to make money regardless of cost to humanity. Although they have always dressed it up as progress and of benefit to individuals and society at large. The emperor’s new clothes comes to mind.
But what of AI? There seems to be a clamour by government that as a country we need to jump on the AI bandwagon. AI is being foisted upon us, much the same as social media and the internet has been, by tech companies. We are being told the next generation will need to be AI savvy. But what does that mean? Whilst all of this is going on, there is growing research showing that AI is crippling people’s cognitive abilities. That AI will stop us from being able to analyse and be critical ourselves. Technology does this. Think about spelling, no longer do you need to worry about spelling because it is done for you, grammar, pretty much the same. No need to calculate things in your head, you can use a calculator, no need to remember phone numbers, they are all in your mobile phone, no need think up ideas, AI will do that for you, no need to read, AI will summarise it for you, no need, just no need. I am human but I have no need to think for myself.
And yet, armed with this knowledge individuals in educational institutions plough headlong into promoting AI to their students. This can help you find sources, this can help you when you are devoid of ideas, this can help you make your work better, this can help you …. Stop thinking for yourself. I and most of my colleagues are able to think for ourselves because we have grown up having to. I know what I know now, which as an aside is very little, because I have had to think for myself, work things out for myself. Along the way I have been aided by all sorts of people in all walks of life, but I am who I am because I can think for myself. But educational establishments these days concern themselves almost psychopathically with student numbers, finance and results. There seems to be little understanding of what education really means or for that matter, little concern. Institutional reputations are upheld at all costs, individual reputations forged on sycophantic behaviours with little regard to the impact on students or colleagues. Within this, institutions, driven by government and more importantly business rhetoric make AI central to their vision, their mission.
I wonder whether in a few years’ time there will be an inquiry somewhere, that suggests we have deprived a whole generation of the joy of being human. I wonder whether someone will say those individuals and institutions that so frivolously dabbled with AI, using students in a social experiment, were quite simply morally bankrupt in their drive to further their own ends. And at least some of my students know what Immanuel Kant would say about that!
Share this:
Not reading criminology? That’s criminal!
There are two kinds of criminology conversations I get embroiled in these days! Those with people who read criminology where we discuss many social/cultural phenomena under a specific lens or those with people who find criminology interesting, but consume popular crime instead. The first group with varying level of engagement is beginning to decode some tell-tell signs in current events, using their knowledge of the discipline, as a deciphering mechanism. The second group is quite different. Their understanding of crime is based on dramatisations and literary conventions around plots and characters. Even real crime is harbouring under the guise of some “exclusive” journalistic exposé…far from any basic criminological understanding.
Years ago, a colleague from Sociology told me a story regarding a family event. They were completing their PhD in the discipline, and they were questioned by an elderly person, as to what they would do when they finished their thesis. They responded in the usual way many graduate students tend to, about hoping to get into academia or get some funding for some further research. The elderly person didn’t seem satisfied…. they prompted further. What will be your specialism? What will you be able to tell people that you are proficient in? Society and people, the colleague replied! That’s hardly a skill, the old relative replied; we all live in society! The colleague was equally intrigued and offended. They thought that by offering a succinct response it would have helped their relative to understand without being confounded with notions on symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. This was a little anecdote that resonates with many social scientists, criminologists included, that whilst they try to explore people and culture around them, they are becoming distant to the actual people around them.
The degree of challenge in recent years seems to increase for disciplines where people in general have a vague idea of what it is. Many try to use psychological terms to explain other people’s behaviours, without realty appreciating, the clinical and scientific conditions of the term. That is relevant to criminology too. The representation of crime for public consumption has introduced some of the discipline’s terms into everyday parlance. From forensic terms on profiling, to the origins of criminality, expectations on crime are forged. A criminologist’s reaction to popular criminology pundits tends to be, well not quite, only to be met with disbelief of the criminology they know!
One of the ways to appeal to those interested in popular criminology and take them to the discipline will be to add some facts and figures that promote reality. Perhaps but that has been done before but only to give a gloss of “legitimacy” in fiction. It makes it more compelling, but it doesn’t really offer the depth of knowledge. To understand criminology, one must read criminology. The history is filled with colleagues who brought their imagination to the discipline. From Bonger’s Criminality and Economic Conditions to Jock Young and The Criminological Imagination there are books and papers that are waiting to be read by a new audience to try to figure out these ideas.
Maybe we all live in society and heard about crime and even experienced it, but to understand it we need some criminology. The discipline, as with all social sciences, is a dialogue between people ready to carry forward the next constructs that shall appear as crimes. If we read them and take part in these conversations maybe the area of harsh punishments, exclusion and persecution may not be as appealing. We are an academic discipline but at the same time we open the discussion to our community. So if you are neither a student, graduate, nor fellow academic and you are interested in criminology, why don’t you come to visit? https://www.northampton.ac.uk/about-us/contact-us/open-days/
Share this:
Self-Care: A Criminologist’s Confession
Let me be upfront, I study crime for a living. I am not a wellness guru. I do not own a journal with an inspirational quote on the cover and I have never once made a green smoothie by choice. So if you were expecting expert advice, I apologise. What I do have is a recently sustained injury, a pair of retired running shoes (not the picture above!), and something to say about all of it.
Back in November, I got injured during a light gym sesh. Nothing dramatic, no heroic story involving a marathon finish line or a training montage. My body simply decided it had opinions, and I had to stop running. For someone who uses running to decompress, that was not ideal. Turns out when you take away the one thing that clears your head, your head gets quite crowded.
Now, before I go any further, I need to take a moment to salute my old running shoes, ASICS Gel. It was fire! Two years of loyalty, two years of 6am starts, two years of rain, wind and whatever else the British weather threw at us, two years of bad days turned around, two years of grinding when the motivation was nowhere to be found. Never complained. Never let me down. Absolute workhorse!!. Round of applause for these guys. Rest well.
I did want to include a photo as a tribute. My wife looked at it this morning and said, “nah, that’s ugly, delete it.” So. No photo. The shoes deserved better and apparently so do you.
In their place, there is a new sheriff in town as you can see up there. Fresh out of the box, and performing very well so far. No complaints. High hopes. ASICS, run me my influencer cheque quick!!!!
Getting back into running after time off is humbling. Your lungs have apparently moved on with their lives. Your legs remember nothing. But we are getting there, slowly, steadily, without any illusions of grandeur. Some days are better than others. The weather has not always helped, although getting better.
But then, getting back to it, however slowly, has reminded me how much I had let self-care slide. It is easy to do. Life gets busy, work piles up, and suddenly taking care of yourself feels like one more thing on the to-do list.
So, from one person who is very much a work in progress: take care of yourselves. Whatever that looks like for you. It does not have to be running. It does not have to be anything impressive. It just has to be something.
I’ll be back with an update on how the new ones are getting on. Fingers crossed they have what it takes to fill those shoes. Literally.
Share this:
Crime II: Nature and Nurture?
Fifty years after Lombroso’s theory of the “born criminal” an American criminologist explored the origins of criminality from a different perspective. For Edwin Sutherland people weren’t born criminal but more likely influenced by their environment. Differential association became a theory that changed the focus from biology to environment. This change signified the change of focus within criminology from biological attributes to social features.
This change, whilst it appears to have capture a wider social sciences debate at the time is also the outcome of trying to understand a world in motion. Sutherland’s theory comes in the early 20th century after the First World War and a massive economic crash. These placed in doubt the scientific and political economy of the time, putting many of these earlier ideas to the test. Popular movements challenged the authority of the state and the way hegemony suppressed people. Differential association was exploring how people learn crime by observing others; it becomes what Kornhouser called a ‘cultural deviance theory’.
What Sutherland articulated is that crime is learned through group conflict, again attempting to explain all types of crime like the biological theories before. The 20th century with its fast pace, European (World) wars, was the embodiment of modernity, progression and change. The world outside Europe began to rise against colonial rule, whilst civil rights became a rallying objective for many disenfranchised groups. In most countries worldwide women got the vote in the 20th century whilst, many countries recognised unions, and civil rights organisations, a consequence of people’s mobilisation.
It comes as no surprise then that differential association was a theory of crime that tried to account for social change and understand criminality as a process that moves within this change. The foundations of the theory in its simplest form are straightforward, covered in 9 main points:
1. Criminal behavior is learned from other individuals.
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.
3. The principle part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.
4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes simple; (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of the law.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.
9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those needs and values, since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values.
The theory is more than a compilation of points and citing them is informative, but it doesn’t really explain the reach and extent. As a general theory of crime it can account for violent crime, theft and even white collar crimes. This reach of theory coincided with the wider discussion on “normative conflict” that focused on cultures. As discussions on cultural dominance, subcultures and the role of social groups became a sociological and criminological point these ideas introduced by Sutherland seemed to bare relevance.
There were questions already regarding the theory’s basis in terms of clarity as a cultural deviance theory, when culture focused away from poverty and social struggles. The cultural conflict seemed to resonate with certain crime categories, but it could not account for harm, leaving zemiologists to doubt the accuracy of its scope as theory. Furthermore, whilst the focus moved on from an arbitrary biology to the role of the environment some of the fundamental problems expected to be resolved in a general theory of crime remained unanswered.
So what is the answer? We can safely say that crime and most importantly criminality isn’t the product of a singularity nor its binary. How can we account for example for a social phenomenon whose definition of crime (in some instances) relies on law. A mechanism that the establishment uses to safeguard its privileges and position. The definitional factors therefore ought to transcend general conventions of biology or social interaction. Often they don’t, they merely describe the phenomenon but in closed cultural formats. There is a much more interesting and complex explanation that take us away from this binary. If you are more curious and you want to know more, why not join a criminology course and see if you can get the answer you expect or not. Criminology is a fascinating discipline not because we talk blood and bones but because we reflect on the current state of crime and imagine a world of crime (or free of crime) in the future. If you wish to share that imagination you can but join us!
https://www.northampton.ac.uk/courses/criminology-ba-hons/ https://www.northampton.ac.uk/courses/criminology-phd/ https://www.northampton.ac.uk/courses/criminology-with-psychology-ba-hons/ https://www.northampton.ac.uk/blog/why-i-chose-criminology/
Share this:
The coffee shop that’s worth more than its profit margin
Every morning follows the same rhythm. Finish my gym session, towel off, and head straight to the M&S café for my coffee. It’s not just about the caffeine – though God knows I need it. It’s about the ladies behind the counter who greet me with genuine warmth, who remember my order, who take pride in their work. In a world that often feels rushed and impersonal, their kindness has become my daily reset button.
But this isn’t really a story about my coffee ritual. It’s about what I’ve witnessed in that café—something far more important than any morning black americano.
The tables are always dotted with elderly faces. At first, I didn’t think much of it. But over time, as I’ve chatted with them, “I come here every Tuesday and Thursday,” one gentleman told me in the queue, staring at his menu. “Meet up with whoever’s about. Talk football, moan about the weather.” He smiled. “Beats sitting at home staring at the four walls, doesn’t it?” It’s beautiful, really. Watching strangers become friends over scones, toasties and crosswords. Seeing lonely people find their people, even if just for an hour.
The gentle hum of conversation about politics, memories, grandchildren, postwar Britain, the price of everything these days. This is what community looks like – unscripted, unglamorous, essential. I’ve become friends with some of them myself. They’ve told me about children who live too far away, partners they’ve lost, days that feel too long and too empty. For many, this café visit is their main activity. Their reason to get dressed. Their connection to the outside world.
A couple of days ago, I was at the gym when I overheard a conversation that stopped me mid-rep. They’re closing the café. The M&S café. Our café. I asked one of the staff members – one of those lovely ladies who makes this place what it is. She confirmed it quietly, almost apologetically, but couldn’t (or wouldn’t) share the details. The rumour mill says it’s about profit margins. The official line from M&S is that they’re repurposing spaces to create room for more popular products. More popular products!. And I felt something crack inside me.
If this is truly about profits, then we need to have a serious conversation about what we value as a society. Yes, businesses need to be viable. Yes, companies have shareholders and bottom lines and quarterly targets. I understand economics, I used to work in the financial services – a Bank to be precise, so I understand numbers. But when did we collectively decide that every single square foot of commercial space must justify its existence purely through revenue? This café might not be their most profitable location. But what’s the cost of closing it? Where exactly do we expect these elderly people to go?
“Just go to another café,” someone might say. But you’re missing the point entirely. This isn’t about coffee. It’s about familiarity. It’s about the staff who know your name. It’s about the community that’s been built, brick by brick, conversation by conversation, over months and years. You can’t just transplant that somewhere else. Community doesn’t work like that.
My elderly friends at the café (many of them in their 80s) represent a growing crisis we’d rather not acknowledge. Let me give you some numbers. According to a recent report on Age and loneliness in the UK, nearly 940,000 older people in the UK are often lonely – that’s one in fourteen people over 65 (Age UK 2024). And here’s the truly heartbreaking bit: 270,000 older people go an entire week without speaking to a single friend or family member.
Do you know how crazy that sounds? Not speaking to a single friend or family member!! A whole week!!
And loneliness doesn’t just make people sad—it kills. It increases the risk of depression, heart disease, stroke, dementia etc. This isn’t just about comfort or quality of life. This is a public health crisis. And yet, we’re closing the very spaces where people find connection. Where will they go? Costa? Starbucks? Even if they could afford the higher prices, those chains don’t foster the same sense of belonging. They’re designed for laptop workers and quick takeaways, not for lingering conversation and community building.
Councils cut funding for community centers – libraries operate on skeleton hours, now commercial spaces that accidentally became social lifelines are vanishing too.
I’m not naive. I know M&S isn’t a charity. I’m also aware they do good work by partnering with food banks and donating surplus food to people who need it. They clearly have a social conscience. But they brand themselves on quality, trust, and British values. Well, here’s a British value: looking after our elderly. Not abandoning them.
M&S, you have an opportunity here. An opportunity to position yourselves as a company that doesn’t just talk about community values but actually lives them. You could be the retailer that says, “We’re keeping our cafés open because we recognise they’re tackling one of the biggest health crises facing our aging population.” Imagine the goodwill. Imagine the respect. Imagine being the company that genuinely helps combat loneliness alongside all the good work you’re already doing – that’s how you truly stand tall amongst your peers.
There’s such thing as enough profit. There’s such a thing as being a responsible corporate citizen. There’s such a thing as recognising that some things – like providing a warm, safe space for lonely pensioners to find friendship – might be worth preserving even if it means slightly less room for those “more popular products.”
Our very own café will probably close. The space will be repurposed – maybe more retail shelving, maybe nothing at all. The decision-makers will never meet the people affected. They’ll never know about the Tuesday regular who’ll now have nowhere to go, or the widow who found a reason to leave the house, or the gentleman who finally made friends after his kids relocated to another country. And my morning ritual? I’ll find another coffee shop. I’ll survive.
But what about the people for whom this was so much more than coffee? What about the 270,000 older people who might go another week without speaking to anyone? What about your chance to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem?#
This is what the world is turning into: a place where community is a nice-to-have but never a must-have. Have we forgotten that sometimes the most valuable things can’t be measured on a balance sheet. We can do better than this.
What do you think? Are there spaces in your community facing similar threats? I’d genuinely love to hear your thoughts.
Reference list
Age UK (2024) Age UK’s new report shows ‘you are not alone in feeling lonely’. Available at: https://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-press/articles/age-uks-new-report-shows-you-are-not-alone-in-feeling-lonely/ (Accessed: 27 October 2025)
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.
Thoughts from the criminology team 
