Home » Current Affairs
Category Archives: Current Affairs
Why I refuse to join the hate train
In a world drowning in outrage, where every headline screams division and every scroll brings fresh fury, it’s easy to forget something fundamental: there’s still beauty everywhere.
Turn on the news and you’re bombarded with it all—bans, blame, and bitter arguments about who’s ruining what. Immigrants, the wealthy, the homeless, the young, the benefits claimants—everyone’s apparently the problem. It’s a relentless tide of negativity and moaning that can sweep you under if you’re not careful.
But what if we chose differently?
Here are a few things I noticed in the last couple of weeks:
I came across a book that someone left on a park bench with a note: “Free to a good home.” On another late night, a man saw a mother struggling—baby in one arm, shopping bags in the other—and didn’t hesitate to help her to her car. And if you’re thinking “why didn’t she use a trolley?” then you’re part of the problem I’m talking about, because there were no trolleys in that shop.
In another moment, a homeless person was offering water to a runner who’d collapsed in the heat, providing comfort when it mattered most.
Elsewhere, a teacher stayed late for his “troubled” student preparing for exams. When I asked why, he said: “Everyone calls him destructive. I refuse to lose hope. He’s just a slower learner, and I’ll support him as long as it takes.”
In another event, teenagers on bikes formed a protective barrier around an elderly woman crossing the road.
Small acts. Quiet kindness. The stuff that never makes headlines, doesn't trend on social media, and doesn't fuel debates.
The truth is, these things happen everywhere, all the time. While we’re busy arguing about who’s destroying society, society is quietly rebuilding itself through a million small kindnesses. The coffee lady in the Learning Hub who remembers your order. The elderly doorman at Milton Keyens Costco who draws smiley faces on reciepts and hands them to children on their way out, just to see them smile. The neighbour who randomly helps pick up litter in the neighbourhood with her girls every Sunday afternoon. The friend who texts to check in with the simple words “how are you?”
The truth is simple: for every voice spreading hate, there are countless others spreading hope. For every person tearing down, there are builders, healers, and helpers working in the quiet spaces between the noise.
Yes, problems exist. Yes, challenges are real. But so is the grandfather teaching his grandson about dignity and respect. So is the aunty teaching her niece how to bake. So is the library volunteer reading to the shelter dogs. So is the community garden where strangers become neighbours.
Today, I’m choosing to notice the nice. Not because I’m naive, but because I refuse to let the moaning and the loudest voices drown out the most important ones. The ones that remind us we’re more alike than different. The ones that choose connection over division.
Your turn: What nice thing will you notice today? Free your mind, pay attention—you'll see one.
Because in a sea of anger, being gentle isn’t weak or naive—it’s revolutionary.
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:
Britain’s new relationship with America…Some thoughts
Within the coming weeks, Keir Starmer is due to meet Donald Trump and in doing so has offered an interesting view into the complexities of managing diplomacy in the modern age. Whilst the UK and US work collaboratively through bi-lateral trade agreements, and national security collaborations, the change in power structures within the UK and USA marks significant ideological difference that can arguably present a myriad of implications for both countries and for those countries who are implicated by these relations between Britain and America. In this blog, I will outline some of the factors that ought to be considered as we fast-approach this new age of international relations.
It can be understood that Starmer meeting Trump, despite some ideological difference is rooted in a pragmatic diplomacy approach and for what some might say is for the greater good. In an age of continual risk and uncertainty, allyship across nations has seldom been more necessary nor consolidated. On addressing issues including climate change, national security, trade agreements within a post-Brexit adversity, the relationship between America and Britain I sense is being foregrounded by Starmer’s Labour Government.
Moreover, I consider that Starmer should tread carefully and not appear globally as though he is too strongly aligned with Trump’s policies, especially on foreign policy. This mistake was once made by Tony Blair, following the New Beginnings movement after 9/11. It is essential that whilst we maintain good relations with America, this does not come at a cost to our own sovereignty and influence on global issues. I see here an opportunity for Starmer to re-build Britain’s place on the global stage. Despite this as what some strategists might call a ‘bigger picture’, it goes without saying that Starmer may face backlash from his peers based on his willingness to enter a liaison with Trump’s Government. For many inside and outside of the Labour Party, the politics of Trump are considered dangerous, regressive, and ideologically dumbfounded. I happen to agree with much of these sentiments, and I think there is a risk for Starmer… that will later develop into a dilemma. This dilemma will be between appeasing the party majority and those who hold traditional Labour values in place of moving further into the clutches of the far right, emboldened by neoliberalism. It is no secret however that the Labour party has entered a dangerous liaison with neoliberalism and has alienated many traditional Labour voters and has offered no real political alternative.
Considering this, I sense an apprehension is in the air regarding Starmer’s relationship building with America and Donald Trump, that some might argue might be more counter-productive than good. Starmer must demonstrate political pragmatism and arguably the impact of this government and the governments to come will weigh on these relations… Albeit time will tell in determining how these future relations are mapped out.
Share this:
Criminology for all (including children and penguins)!
As a wise woman once wrote on this blog, Criminology is everywhere! a statement I wholeheartedly agree with, certainly my latest module Imagining Crime has this mantra at its heart. This Christmas, I did not watch much television, far more important things to do, including spending time with family and catching up on reading. But there was one film I could not miss! I should add a disclaimer here, I’m a huge fan of Wallace and Gromit, so it should come as no surprise, that I made sure I was sitting very comfortably for Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl. The timing of the broadcast, as well as it’s age rating (PG), clearly indicate that the film is designed for family viewing, and even the smallest members can find something to enjoy in the bright colours and funny looking characters. However, there is something far darker hidden in plain sight.
All of Aardman’s Wallace and Gromit animations contain criminological themes, think sheep rustling, serial (or should that be cereal) murder, and of course the original theft of the blue diamond and this latest outing was no different. As a team we talk a lot about Public Criminology, and for those who have never studied the discipline, there is no better place to start…. If you don’t believe me, let’s have a look at some of the criminological themes explored in the film:
Sentencing Practice
In 1993, Feathers McGraw (pictured above) was sent to prison (zoo) for life for his foiled attempt to steal the blue diamond (see The Wrong Trousers for more detail). If we consider murder carries a mandatory life sentence and theft a maximum of seven years incarceration, it looks like our penguin offender has been the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice. No wonder he looks so cross!
Policing Culture
In Vengeance Most Fowl we are reacquainted with Chief Inspector Mcintyre (see The Curse of the Were-Rabbit for more detail) and meet PC Mukherjee, one an experienced copper and the other a rookie, fresh from her training. Leaving aside the size of the police force and the diversity reflected in the team (certainly not a reflection of policing in England and Wales), there is plenty more to explore. For example, the dismissive behaviour of Mcintyre toward Mukherjee’s training. learning is not enough, she must focus on developing a “copper’s gut”. Mukherjee also needs to show reverence toward her boss and is regularly criticised for overstepping the mark, for instance by filling the station with Wallace’s inventions. There is also the underlying message that the Chief Inspector is convinced of Wallace’s guilt and therefore, evidence that points away from should be ignored. Despite this Mukherjee retains her enthusiasm for policing, stays true to her training and remains alert to all possibilities.
Prison Regime
The facility in which Feathers McGraw is incarcerated is bleak, like many of our Victorian prisons still in use (there are currently 32 in England and Wales). He has no bedding, no opportunities to engage in meaningful activities and appears to be subjected to solitary confinement. No wonder he has plenty of time and energy to focus on escape and vengeance! We hear the fear in the prison guards voice, as well as the disparaging comments directed toward the prisoner. All in all, what we see is a brutal regime designed to crush the offender. What is surprising is that Feathers McGraw still has capacity to plot and scheme after 31 years of captivity….
Mitigating Factors
Whilst Feathers McGraw may be the mastermind, from prison he is unable to do a great deal for himself. He gets round this by hacking into the robot gnome, Norbot. But what of Norbot’s free will, so beloved of Classical Criminology? Should he be held culpable for his role or does McGraw’s coercion and control, renders his part passive? Without, Norbot (and his clones), no crime could be committed, but do the mitigating factors excuse his/their behaviour? Questions like this occur within the criminal justice system on a regular basis, admittedly not involving robot gnomes, but the part played in criminality by mental illness, drug use, and the exploitation of children and other vulnerable people.
And finally:
Above are just some of the criminological themes I have identified, but there are many others, not least what appears to be Domestic Abuse, primarily coercive control, in Wallace and Gromit’s household. I also have not touched upon the implicit commentary around technology’s (including AI’s) tendency toward homogeneity. All of these will keep for classroom discussions when we get back to campus next week 🙂
Share this:
Cash Strapped, Vote-Buying, Petroleum Scarcity, and the Challenge of a 21st Century Election
Democratic elections are considered an important mechanism and a powerful tool used to choose political leaders. However, the level of transparency and the safety of votes, the electorates, and the aspirants as recent elections in supposed strong democracies indicate is not a given. Even more, in weak and fragile states, voters grapple with uncertainties including the herculean task of deciding on whom or perhaps what to pledge allegiance to?
Nigerians face such uncertainties as over 93 million voters are set to decide the new leadership of the most populous country in Africa in less than 24 hours. Three contestants: Ahmed Bola Tinubu of the ruling All Progressive Congress (APC); Peter Obi of the Labour Party(LP); and Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PSP) are considered the major contestants of the coveted seat of the presidency. All 3 contestants are neither strangers to political power nor free of controversies. Nevertheless, a plethora of problems awaits the successful candidate, including a spiking impatience with government policies from the populace.
Since assuming office in 2015, President Muhammadu Buhari has consciously implemented numerous policies aimed at changing the tide of the crippling economy of Nigeria. One of this was tightening control of foreign exchange and forex restrictions to minimise pressure on the weak exchange rate of the naira against other currencies, and to encourage local manufacturing. Furtherance to this, the government implemented more restrictions including closing all its land borders in August 2019 to curtail smuggling contrabands and to boost agricultural outputs. These policies have been criticised for increasing the hardship of the mostly poor masses and failing to yield desired goals, despite its resulting in an increase in local production of some agricultural products.
The aviation sector and multinational companies were also heavily impacted by the forex restrictions. International airliners were unable to access and repatriate their business funds and profits. As a result, some suspended operations while some multinationals closed down completely. Flawed policy articulation and implementation and a slow or total failure to respond to public disenchantment has been the bane of the 8 years of Buhari regime which ends in a few months. While the masses grappled with surviving movement restrictions during the Covid-19 lockdown, palliative meant for to ease their suffering were hoarded for longer than necessary, thereby provoking series of mass looting and destruction of the storage warehouses.
Demands for action and accountability over police reform also assumed a painful dimension. On 20 October 2020, peaceful protesters demanding the abolishment of a notoriously corrupt, brutal, rogue, and stubborn police unit called SARS were attacked by government forces who killed at least 12 protesters. Incidents as this supports Nigeria’s ranking as an authoritarian regime on the democratic index. Unsurprisingly, the regime appears numb to the spate of violence, insecurity, and recurring killings perpetrated by a complex mix of militias, criminal groups, terrorists, and state institutions as the #EndSARS massacre demonstrates. Thus, a wave of migration among mainly skilled and talented young Nigerians now manifests as a #Japa phenomenon. The two most impacted sectors, health and education ironically supply significant professionals in nations where the political class seek medical treatment or educate their children while neglecting own sectors.
Certainly, the legacy of the Buhari regime would be marred by these challenges which his party presidential candidate and prominent party stalwarts have distanced from. Indeed, they fear electorates would vote against the party as a protest over their suffering. Suffice it that Nigerians lived through the previous year in acute scarcity and non-availability of petroleum products, which further deepened inflation. Currently, cash scarcity is causing untold hardship due to the implementation of a currency redesign and withdrawal limits policy. The timing of the implementation of the policy coincides with the election and is thought to aim at curtailing vote-buying as witnessed in party primary elections. However, there is no guarantee that bank officials would effectively implement the policy.
Thus, as Nigeria decides, the 3 contestants present different realities for the country. For some, voting in the ruling APC candidate who has a questionable history could mean a continuation of the woes endured during the Buhari regime. The PDP candidate who was instrumental in the 2015 election of Buhari has severally been fingered for numerous controversies and corruption, despite having not been prosecuted for any. Similarly, allegations levelled against the LP candidate who has found wide popularity and acceptance amongst the young population has not resulted in any prosecution. However, while the candidate is popular for his anti-establishment stance and desire to change the current system, it is unclear if his party which has no strong political structure, serving governors, or representatives can pull the miracle his campaign has become associated with to win the coveted seat.
Share this:
Fifty Pounds Per Child Per Year
Usually I consume my news through the BBC app, although occasionally I enjoy getting the run down of political affairs from the horses mouth, so to speak. Often I watch the Prime Ministers Questions, getting riled up at the majority of topics raised. However, yesterday (9/06/21), I found myself getting particularly outraged and passionate at a certain issue that has also been highly reported in the news.
Earlier last week, the Prime Minister outlined his Covid recovery package for schools, he pledged £1.4bn to enable students to catch up on the work, education and socialisation that has been missed. The controversy appears when comparing this figure to £13.5bn, originally suggested by Education Policy Institute (Education Policy Institute, 2021). To put it into perspective, £1.4bn equates to about £50 per child, per year- apparently you certainly can put a price on children’s education. Even with Johnson’s additional £1bn funding that will stretch across the next three years, the ‘recovery’ package is frankly laughable, it was a move that saw the education recovery commissioner, Kevan Collins, resign in protest.
Putting funding and economics aside, I think that this was a prime example of how the importance of education is once again, being forgotten. The potential power of the education system is not being utilised by any means. Politicians are still not realising that education reform doesn’t have to mean tougher discipline and it doesn’t have to mean more Ofsted checks and it certainly doesn’t have to mean more stressful, ‘rigorous testing’ of students, something which former education secretary Michael Gove pushed for in 2013 (Adams, 2013).
“Simply making exams harder does not guarantee higher standards nor mean that students will be prepared for a job.”
~ Brian Lightman (Adams, 2013)
Forcing misbehaved children out of school through punitive disciplinary actions, suspensions and exclusions simply puts them on the road to loosing faith in the education system and increases their likely hood of antisocial behaviour, which can lead to criminal careers later in life. The importance of creating an educational environment that students actually want to be a part of cannot be understated.
Furthermore, the importance of altering the current curriculum is completely overlooked. School has the potential to give children and teenagers the ability to have more autonomy over so many aspects of their later life; adequate lessons about political ideology, history and the voting system, done in an accessible way, has the potential to raise more politically aware, inclined individuals that feel equipped to engage and participate in the democratic process on a local and national scale.
Appropriate finance and law classes could eventually go on to raise a higher number of adults who feel able to handle their money situations in a better, healthier way; they could also begin to understand their rights and the court processes better. Finally, focusing on the decolonisation of the curriculum could allow ethnic minorities and other marginalised demographics to learn about their ancestors, history and culture in a more mainstream, impartial way. The impacts of restructuring the standard and the content of the schooling curriculum could have an abundance of benefits, not only to individuals but to society itself.
However, with no clear moves for the education secretary to explore theses benefits further and implement any changes, along with the promised £50 per pupil, per year, it is evident that the potential power of the education system has once again been understated and that, education is, indeed, not a priority for the current government.
Adams, R., 2013. GCSEs to become more demanding and rigorous, says Michael Gove. [online] The Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jun/11/gcse-demanding-rigorous-michael-gove>
Education Policy Institute. 2021. EPI responds to the government’s new education recovery package – Education Policy Institute. [online] Available at: <https://epi.org.uk/comments/epi-responds-to-the-governments-new-education-recovery-package/>
A link for the Prime Minister’s Questions episode: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zQkiEAZ2oh0&feature=youtu.be
A link for the Prime Minister’s Question with BSL: https://youtu.be/ZgcnQqbChZs
Share this:
Ho ho homeless: Boris and reasons to be cheerful.
“Homeless Rough Sleeper” by Deadly Sirius is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
A week has passed since the election and our political parties have had time to reflect on their victory or demise. With such a huge majority in parliament, we can be certain, whether we agree with it or not, that Brexit will be done in one form or another. The prime minister at the first meeting of his cabinet, and as if on cue ready for my blog, in front of the cameras repeated the pre-election promise of 40 extra hospitals and 50,000 extra nurses.
Putting aside my cynicism and concern about how we, as a country, are going to grow enough money trees without our foreign agricultural workers after Brexit, I welcome this much needed investment. I should add here that in the true sense of fairness, pre-election, other parties were likewise offering wonderful trips to fairyland, with riches beyond our wildest dreams. Trying to out trump each other, they managed to even out trump Trump in their hyperbole.
However, rather appropriately as it turns out, whilst sitting in the waiting room at a general hospital on election day, I read a couple of disturbing articles in the i newspaper. Pointing to the fact that makeshift shelters are becoming increasingly common in British cities one article quoted statistics from Homeless Link showing that rough sleeping had increased by 165% since 2010 (Spratt, 2019). Alongside, another article stated that A&E admissions of homeless patients had tripled in the last eight years with 36,000 homeless people attending in the last year (Crew 2019). Whilst I am always cautious regarding statistics, the juxtaposition makes for some interesting observations.
The first being that the promised investment in the NHS is simply a sticking plaster that attempts to deal with the symptoms of an increasingly unequal society.
The second being that the investment will never be enough because groups in society are becoming increasingly marginalised and impoverished and will therefore become an increasing burden on the NHS.
Logic, let alone the medical profession and others, leads me to conclude that if a person does not have enough to eat and does not have enough warmth then they are likely to become ill both physically and probably mentally. So, alongside the homeless, we can add a huge swathe of the population that are on the poverty line or below it that need the services of the NHS. Add to this those that do not have job security, zero-hour contracts being just one example, have massive financial burdens, students another example, and it is little wonder that we have an increasing need for mental health services and another drain on NHS resources. And then of course there are the ‘bed blockers’, a horrible term as it suggests that somehow, it’s their fault, these are of course the elderly, in need of care but with nowhere to go because the social care system is in crises (As much of the right-wing pre-Brexit rhetoric has espoused, “It’ll be better when all the foreigners that work in the system leave after Brexit”). It seems to me that if the government are to deal with the crises in the NHS, they would be better to start with investment in tackling the causes, rather than the symptoms*.
Let me turn back to the pre-election promises, the newspaper articles, and another post-election promise by Boris Johnson.
My recollection of the pre-election promises was around Brexit, the NHS, and law and order. We heard one side saying they were for the people no matter who you were and the other promising one nation politics. I don’t recall any of them specifically saying they recognised a crisis in this country that needed dealing with urgently, i.e. the homeless and the causes of homelessness or the demise of the social care system. Some may argue it was implicit in the rhetoric, but I seem to have missed it.
In her article, Spratt (2019:29) quotes a Conservative candidate as saying that ‘nuisance council tenants should be forced to live in tents in a middle of a field’. Boris Johnson’s one nation politics doesn’t sound very promising, with friends like that, who needs enemies?**
* I have even thought of a slogan: “tough on poverty, tough on the causes of poverty”. Or maybe not, because we all know how that worked out under New Labour in respect of crime.
** The cynical side of me thinks this was simply a ploy to reduce the number of eligible voters that wouldn’t be voting Conservative but, I guess that depends on whether they were Brexiteers or not.
Crew, J. (2019) Homeless A&E admissions triple. i Newspaper, 12 Dec 2019, issue 2824, pg. 29.
Spratt, V. (2019) ‘You Just didn’t see tents in London or in urban areas on this scale. It’s shocking’: Makeshift shelters are becoming increasingly common in British cities. i Newspaper, 12 Dec 2019, issue 2824, pg. 29.
Share this:
A month of Black history through the eyes of a white, privileged man… an open letter
Dear friends,
Over the years, in my line of work, there was a conviction, that logic as the prevailing force allows us to see social situations around (im)passionately, impartially and fairly. Principles most important especially for anyone who dwells in social sciences. We were “raised” on the ideologies that promote inclusivity, justice and solidarity. As a kid, I remember when we marched as a family against nuclear proliferation, and later as an adult I marched and protested for civil rights on the basis of sexuality, nationality and class. I took part in anti-war marches and protested and took part in strikes when fees were introduced in higher education.
All of these were based on one very strongly, deeply ingrained, view that whilst the world may be unfair, we can change it, rebel against injustices and make it better. A romantic view/vision of the world that rests on a very basic principle “we are all human” and our humanity is the home of our unity and strength. Take the environment for example, it is becoming obvious to most of us that this is a global issue that requires all of us to get involved. The opt-out option may not be feasible if the environment becomes too hostile and decreases the habitable parts of the planet to an ever-growing population.
As constant learners, according to Solon (Γηράσκω αεί διδασκόμενος)[1] it is important to introspect views such as those presented earlier and consider how successfully they are represented. Recently I was fortunate to meet one of my former students (@wadzanain7) who came to visit and talk about their current job. It is always welcome to see former students coming back, even more so when they come in a reflective mood at the same time as Black history month. Every year, this is becoming a staple in my professional diary, as it is an opportunity to be educated in the history that was not spoken or taught at school.
This year’s discussions and the former student’s reflections made it very clear to me that my idealism, however well intended, is part of an experience that is deeply steeped in white men’s privilege. It made me question what an appropriate response to a continuous injustice is. I was aware of the quote “all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” growing up, part of my family’s narrative of getting involved in the resistance, but am I true to its spirit? To understand there is a problem but do nothing about it, means that ultimately you become part of the same problem you identify. Perhaps in some regards a considered person is even worse because they see the problem, read the situation and can offer words of solace, but not discernible actions. A light touch liberalism, that is nice and inclusive, but sits quietly observing history written in the way as before, follow the same social discourses, but does nothing to change the problems. Suddenly it became clear how wrong I am. A great need to offer a profound apology for my inaction and implicit collaboration to the harm caused.
I was recently challenged in a discussion about whether people who do not have direct experience are entitled to a view. Do those who experience racism voice it? Of course, the answer is no; we can read it, stand against it, but if we have not experienced it, maybe, just maybe, we need to shut up and let other voices be heard and tell their stories. Black history month is the time to walk a mile in another person’s shoes.
Sincerely yours
M
[1] A very rough translation: I learn, whilst I grow, life-long learning.
Share this:
‘Quelle surprise’: it’s all in the timing.
“Inauguration of Polish EU Presidency (011)” by Bruce MacRae is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 edited by SH
The Office of National Statistics has admitted to some frailties in its data collection around migration. What a shock it must have been to discover that the manner in which it collected the data was somewhat flawed, so much so that they have now downgraded the data to ‘experimental’.
It might seem almost laughable that an organisation that prides itself in, and espouses data accuracy and has in the past criticised police recorded figures for being inaccurate (we know they are) has itself fallen foul of inaccuracies brought about by its own ill thought out data gathering attempts. The issue though is far greater than simple school boy errors, these figures have had a major impact on government policy for years around immigration with calls for greater control of our borders and the inevitable identification of the ‘other’.
The figures seem to be erroneous from somewhere between the mid-2000s and 2016, although it is unclear how accurate they are now. New analysis shows that European Union net migration was 16% higher in 2015-16 than first thought. Whilst the ONS admits that its estimation of net migration from non-EU countries is overestimated, it is not clear exactly by how much this might be.
Such a faux pas led to the story hitting the news; ‘EU migration to UK ‘underestimated’ by ONS’ (BBC, 2019) and ‘Office for National Statistics downgrades ‘not fully reliable’ official immigration data as experts claim figures have been ‘systematically under-estimating net migration from EU countries’ (Daily Mail, 2019).
So, there we are the ONS gets statistics wrong as well and the adjusted figures simply support what Brexiteers have been telling everyone all along. But why release the figures now? When were these errors identified? Surely if they have been inaccurate until 2016 then the mistake must have been found some short time after that. So why wait until the eleventh hour when ‘Brexit means Brexit’ is about to come to a calamitous conclusion? And why those headlines? Why not the headline ‘Big mistake: net migration from outside the EU vastly overestimated’?
I’m not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories but at times it is difficult to overlook the blindingly obvious. So called independent bodies may not be that independent, the puppet master pulls the strings and the puppets dance. Little value in headlining facts that do not support the right-wing rhetoric but great political value to be had in muddying the waters about the EU and open borders.
This discourse ignores the value of migration and simply plays on the fears of the populace, these are well rehearsed and now age-old arguments that I and many others have made*. The concern though is when ‘independent institutions’ subtly start to join in the furore and the moral compass starts to become distorted, subjugated to political ideals. I can’t help but wonder, what would Durkheim make of it?
* It is well worth watching Hollie McNish’s Mathematics on YouTube.
Share this:
The tyranny of populism
Himmler (1943)
So, we have a new prime minister Boris Johnson. Donald Trump has given his endorsement, hardly surprising, and yet rather than having a feeling of optimism that Boris in his inaugural speech in the House of Commons wished to engender amongst the population, his appointment fills me with dread. Judging from reactions around the country, I’m not the only one, but people voted for him just the same as people voted for Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, the recently elected Ukrainian president.
The reasons for their success lie not in a proven ability to do the job but in notions of popularity reinforced by predominantly right-wing rhetoric. Of real concern, is this rise of right wing populism across Europe and in the United States. References to ‘letter boxes’ (Johnson, 2018), degrading Muslim women or tweeting ethnic minority political opponents to ‘go back to where they came from’ (Lucas, 2019) seems to cause nothing more than a ripple amongst the general population and such rhetoric is slowly but surely becoming the lingua franca of the new face of politics. My dread is how long before we hear similar chants to ‘Alle Juden Raus!’ (1990), familiar in 1930s Nazi Germany?
It seems that such politics relies on the ability to appeal to public sentiment around nationalism and public fears around the ‘other’. The ‘other’ is the unknown in the shadows, people who we do not know but are in some way different. It is not the doctors and nurses, the care workers, those that work in the hospitality industry or that deliver my Amazon orders. These are people that are different by virtue of race or colour or creed or language or nationality and, yet we are familiar with them. It is not those, it is not the ‘decent Jew’ (Himmler, 1943), it is the people like that, it is the rest of them, it is the ‘other’ that we need to fear.
The problems with such popular rhetoric is that it does not deal with the real issues, it is not what the country needs. John Stuart Mill (1863) was very careful to point out the dangers that lie within the tyranny of the majority. The now former prime minister Theresa May made a point of stating that she was acting in the national Interest (New Statesman, 2019). But what is the national interest, how is it best served? As with my university students, it is not always about what people want but what they need. I could be very popular by giving my students what they want. The answers to the exam paper, the perfect plan for their essay, providing a verbal precis of a journal article or book chapter, constantly reminding them when assignments are due, turning a blind eye to plagiarism and collusion*. This may be what they want, but what they need is to learn to be independent, revise for an exam, plan their own essays, read their own journal articles and books, plan their own assignment hand in dates, and understand and acknowledge that cheating has consequences. What students want has not been thought through, what students need, has. What students want leads them nowhere, hopefully what students need provides them with the skills and mindset to be successful in life.
What the population wants has not been thought through, the ‘other’ never really exists and ‘empire’ has long gone. What the country needs should be well thought out and considered, but being popular seems to be more important than delivering. Being liked requires little substance, doing the job is a whole different matter.
*I am of course generalising and recognise that the more discerning students recognise what they need, albeit that sometimes they may want an easier route through their studies.
Alle Juden Raus (1990) ‘All Jews Out’, Directed by Emanuel Rund. IMDB
Himmler, H. (1943) Speech made at Posen on October 4, 1943, U.S. National Archives, [online] available at http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-posen.htm [accessed 26 July 2019].
Johnson, B. (2018) Denmark has got it wrong. Yes, the burka is oppressive and ridiculous – but that’s still no reason to ban it, The Telegraph, 5th August 2018.
Lucas, A. (2019) Trump tells progressive congresswomen to ‘go back’ to where they came from, CNBC 14 July 2019 [online] available at https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/14/trump-tells-progressive-congresswomen-to-go-back-to-where-they-came-from.html [accessed 26 July 2019]
Mill, J. S. (1863) On Liberty, [online] London: Tickner and Fields, Available from https://play.google.com/store/books [accessed 26 July 2019]
New Statesman (2019) Why those who say they are acting in “the national interest” often aren’t, [online] Available at https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/01/why-those-who-say-they-are-acting-national-interest-often-arent [accessed 26 July 2019]
Thoughts from the criminology team 