Home » Harm
Category Archives: Harm
Water: Profit for some and poison for others
I recently came across a news story that seems to have appeared one day and vanished nearly as quickly. It didn’t hit the headlines, well not as I recall, it just appeared on my phone and then was gone. The story, well a by now well-rehearsed narrative about the transgressions of our water companies, but with a rather toxic twist. Not just about the untreated effluence released into our rivers and seas, but toxic industrial waste such as ‘cyanide, chromium, cadmium and mercury’ being accepted by the water treatment plants adding to the already overloaded treatment systems. Systems that it seems, in the main, are not designed or capable of dealing with it and consequently the highly toxic chemicals end up in waterways, the sea and on our lands as fertiliser.
Not only are the water companies knowingly accepting and disposing of this waste, but they are making millions of pounds doing so whilst turning a blind eye to the consequences. There is little by way of oversight or regulation and what oversight and regulation there is, is pretty much ineffective and outdated.
To put it simply, industries pay water companies to, I say this tongue in cheek, legitimately, poison our waters and our lands and ultimately, through the food chain poison us. And to rub salt into the wound, all concerned make huge profits which they then dole out to their shareholders and senior management.
On the face of it, much like the raw sewage scandals we’ve seen recently, it is simply a breach of regulation, a mistake, a result of underinvestment, a need for more funding, or quite simply a fuss about not a lot. Nothing to see here. Weather the storm of adverse media reporting for a while and the indignation of interested parties, even celebrities, and then just carry on.
Except, from a criminological point of view, this is not about mere breaches of regulation or mistake or other excuses, this is about harm being done and ultimately, it is about crime. Call it environmental crime, green crime, Zemiology, call it what you like but it still amounts to something pretty devastating for all of us.
Perhaps currently it is about damage to the waterways and landscapes but how long before a link is made between the release of these toxic substances and birth defects, or early mortality rates, firstly in our livestock and then ultimately in humans? How long before there is a call for a public inquiry and calls for reparation? At what point will the government be apologising for not getting to grips with the problem. Of course, it won’t be this government but a government of the future that whilst they can apologise, cannot really be held responsible, after all they weren’t there at the time. The victims will be doubly victimised as they pay the cost of being poisoned and then as taxpayers pay the cost of the cleanup. In the meantime, directors and other responsible parties will have disappeared with golden handshakes and lucrative pensions and shareholders will rapidly be offloading shares, having made significant profits. Former Ministers will be sitting in the House of Lords lamenting at the problem but denying any culpability through inaction. It will, as so many such cases do, just become another story about a historic failure at so many levels with few, if any, held to account.
As an aside, given the enormity of the potential for harm, I wonder why the story just fell by the wayside. If nothing else, surely government needs to take a look. Or maybe money and political manoeuvring are so much more important.
Having read this blog you may be interested in two television broadcasts: Buried with Michael Sheen and Toxic Toiwn
Share this:
Murder
The day I first heard about the murder of Damilola Taylor, it sounded like another story of urban violence. The details were shocking but not unusual. A broken glass bottle had been used as a weapon, causing a severe wound to the victim’s thigh. The injury severed a major artery and the victim later died in hospital. The attack took place in Peckham, South London, a place that was already associated in the public imagination with concerns about crime and disorder.
As a criminologist, nothing in the initial reports immediately stood out. Violence is not exclusive to cities, but its concentration and visibility often differ from those found in rural communities. News reports framed the killing as an act of senseless violence, another tragic incident in the broader landscape of urban crime. It was only as the story developed that it became clear this case was about far more than the act itself.
The victim was Damilola Taylor, a ten-year-old boy who never made it home from the library. His family had come to Britain from Nigeria, hoping to secure medical treatment for his sister. Instead, they became the centre of one of the most significant criminal cases in modern British history.
The public reaction was shaped by more than the brutality of the attack. Both the victim and the eventual perpetrators were children. Damilola was ten years old. Those later convicted were only twelve and thirteen at the time of the attack. The case challenged popular assumptions about violence, childhood, and responsibility. It forced the public to confront the uncomfortable reality that serious violence can emerge among the young and that its consequences are often devastating for entire communities.
Yet the criminological significance of the case lies not primarily in the violence itself but in the response to it.
The original trial ended in acquittals. Central prosecution evidence was undermined by concerns regarding witness reliability, while expert testimony suggested that Damilola’s injuries may have resulted from an accident rather than a deliberate attack. Questions emerged about the collection, interpretation, and presentation of evidence. The Taylor family expressed frustration with the criminal justice system, arguing that the investigation lacked the rigour their son’s death deserved.
What followed was a prolonged struggle over competing versions of events. Forensic evidence became a central battleground. Experts disagreed. Investigators faced criticism. Public confidence was tested. Eventually, a retrial produced convictions after DNA evidence linked two brothers to the attack. The criminal justice system ultimately secured guilty verdicts, but the process revealed the difficulties of investigating serious crime and maintaining public trust when institutional performance is called into question.
For local residents, the case became symbolic of wider concerns about neglect and marginalisation. Community members organised protests and campaigns demanding justice. They were not simply asking for convictions. They were questioning whether institutions were responding adequately to the needs of communities already struggling with poverty, violence, and limited political influence.
As public debate intensified, the murder became associated with broader discussions of knife crime and youth violence. Politicians, journalists, and commentators searched for explanations. Some focused-on culture. Others pointed to family breakdown, social exclusion, or failures of policing. In doing so, the discussion often moved away from the specific circumstances of Damilola’s death and towards competing political narratives about crime.
This is where criminology offers a different perspective.
For much of the public, murder is often understood through the lens of mystery and resolution. Who committed the offence? How was it done? Will justice be served? These questions dominate media coverage because they provide a compelling narrative. Criminology, however, asks different questions. What social conditions surround acts of violence? How do institutions respond to harm? Which voices are taken seriously, and which are ignored? What political interests shape public understandings of crime?
Viewed through this lens, the case becomes about much more than identifying offenders. It reveals how crime can expose institutional weaknesses, generate political controversy, and deepen existing social divisions. The debates surrounding Damilola’s murder were not only about individual responsibility. They were also about policing, justice, community trust, race, and belonging.
More than two decades later, what remains most important is not the symbolism attached to the case but the human tragedy at its centre. Damilola Taylor was a ten-year-old Yoruba boy who spent his final moments bleeding to death in a stairwell. Behind every discussion of policy, forensic evidence, and criminal justice reform stands a child who never returned home, and a family forced to live with unimaginable loss.
That is perhaps the most important lesson criminology can offer. Crime is not interesting because it is sensational. Crime matters because it causes harm. The true significance of Damilola Taylor’s murder lies not in its notoriety, but in what it reveals about the ways societies respond to suffering, the institutions entrusted with delivering justice, and the communities left to carry the consequences when they fail.
If you would like to find out more about Damilola Taylor and get involved with the trust which bears his name, more information can be found here.
Share this:
Are we any closer to justice for Grenfell?
June 14 2026 will mark 9 years since the disaster of Grenfell Tower. This week the Metropolitan Police Service [MPS} announced that they are planning to ‘seek criminal charges against 77 companies and people‘. They are hopeful that the CPS will reach a decision in time for the 10th anniversary commemorations in 2027. This is the culmination of almost 9 years of MPS investigation, c. 11,400 witness statements, 56 interviews under caution, involving 100s of police staff and costing many millions of pounds. In addition, the Grenfell Inquiry (already archived) disclosed over 320,00 documents, received over 1,600 witness statements, and held more than 300 hearings, costing the nation many more millions of pounds. So how is it, that after all this work, all the posing and answering of questions, all the soul searching, discussion and debate, we still seem to be no further in finding justice for the 72 people who died, the many who were harmed, both mentally and physically, those bereaved and their families and friend? Additionally, everyone saw this disaster unfold before their very eyes, whether they were at the scene or vicariously though the media. We all instinctively know what was experienced that night was avoidable, a human made tragedy, a crime, Whilst there is no one law which addresses the scale of this disaster, nevertheless all who bear witness recognise the horror, the injustice and the need for accountability.
Stormzy spoke for many at the Brit Awards in 2018, identifying those responsible as criminals, pointing out that the Criminal Justice System knows very well what to do with them. Many other artists, such as Edwin (below), Chris Ofili, Big Zuu and Lowkey (ft. Kaia) to name but a few, have also utilised their medium to make space for those critical perspectives to be seen and heard. You would think for a country famed for the spread of its CJS throughout its empire and created on the basis of Cesare Becarria’s principles of celerity [swiftness], certainty and severity, that justice would be not only done, but seen to be done. After all millions of people, both home and abroad, witnessed the events of that horrific night and they are watching to see that justice is delivered.
But to return to the start of this blog entry, the MPS announcement has received mixed responses, some are cautiously optimistic that change may eventually come. But many more are frustrated at the time this has taken, the lack of urgency demonstrated by successive governments, the perceived likelihood of any successful prosecutions, the list goes on. Grenfell United capture much of this in their response to the MPS ‘announcement.
Grenfell United are right to be concerned about the resourcing of the courts. In 2025 the National Audit Office reported that the Crown Court had a outstanding caseload of 67,284. This further increased by December 2025 to 80,203, who knows where it stands now. Just think of all those lives suspended in limbo – victims/survivors, defendants, witnesses, the bereaved and their families/friends – left waiting, unable to move on, unable to reach closure, unable to assess whether justice has been achieved. An institution at breaking point.
So does this mean that we’re now living in a lawless society where anyone can commit crime, no matter how serious, and get away with it? Not really, it just means that the CJS has a different perspective on violence and harm, going for what, in Criminology, we would describe as “low hanging fruit”. Rather than make sense of the complexities contained within Grenfell tower, there are many other crimes to be solved, ones that make the data look impressive. If you don’t believe me have a look at the list below:
- Omega Mwaikambo
- Reis Morris
- Eamon Zada
- Alvin Thompson
- Koffi Kouakou
- Daniel Steventon
- Moses Ettienne
- Antonio Gouveia
- Derrick Peters
- Elaine Douglas
- Tommy Brooks
But what do these names have in common? It may surprise you to know that they have all been convicted of crimes in relation to Grenfell Tower. However, not one of these people were involved in the building, maintenance or oversight of the Tower, neither were they involved in the response on the night or its aftermath. Instead, these people have been convicted of different crimes, ranging from posting photos of the dead on social media, to false claims to residency in Grenfell allowing them to access financial support, to running a cannabis farm within the Tower.
Let’s consider just two of these, survivor Omega Mwaikambo who took photos of a dead victim and posted them to facebook. Within two days of the fire’s outbreak, he was sentenced to three months imprisonment. A man who had lost his home and his belonging, traumatised, is incarcerated. Another example, on 6 March 2018, not even a year after the disaster, courts were able to sentence another survivor, Eamon Zada, to a 12 week suspended prison sentence plus a community service order of 200 hours for growing cannabis.
What this list above tells us is that the CJS has an appetite for justice, it can act with celerity, certainty and severity, when it wants to. It can recognise harm and culpability, but again, only when it wants to. At this point we also need to recognise the repeated well-founded allegations that the CJS operates with partiality and discrimination both in terms of race and gender. Much as I hate to think of crime in terms of triviality/seriousness, recognising the harms inherent in all crime , it is hard to comprehend that for the CJS, the crimes detailed above are seemingly more important than the lives of the former residents of Grenfell Tower.
To answer the question posed in the title, I would say no. Until the CJS, institutions, government and indeed, society changes its view on what is harm, what is crime and who are the dangerous members of our society, we can expect this injustice to continue and unfortunately, be repeated again and again.
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:
Global perspectives of crime, state aggression and conflict resolutions
As I prepare for the new academic module “CRI3011 – Global Perspectives of Crime” launching this September, my attention is drawn to the ongoing conflicts in Africa, West Asia and Eastern European nations. Personally, I think these situations provide a compelling case study for examining how power dynamics, territorial aggression, and international law intersect in ways that challenge traditional understandings of crime.
When examining conflicts like those in major Eastern European nations, one begins to see how geopolitical actors strategically frame narratives of aggression and defence. This ongoing conflict represents more than just a territorial dispute in my view, but I think it allows us to see new ways of sovereignty violations, invasions, state misconduct and how ‘humanitarian’ efforts are operationalised. Vincenzo Ruggiero, the renowned Italian criminologist, along with other scholars of international conflict including von Clausewitz, have contributed extensively to this ideology of hostility and aggression perpetrated by state actors, and the need for the criminalisation of wars.
While some media outlets obsess over linguistic choices or the appearance of war leaders not wearing suits, our attention must very much consider micro-aggressions preceding conflicts, the economy of war, the justification of armed interventions (which frequently conceals the intimidation of weaker states), and the precise definition of aggression vs the legal obligation to protect. Of course, I do recognise that some of these characteristics don’t necessarily violate existing laws of armed conflict in obvious ways, however, their impacts on civilian populations must be recognised as one fracturing lives and communities beyond repair.
Currently, as European states are demonstrating solidarity, other regions are engaging in indirect economic hostilities through imposition of tariffs – a form of bloodless yet devastating economic warfare. We are also witnessing a coordinated disinformation campaigns fuelling cross-border animosities, with some states demanding mineral exchange from war-torn nations as preconditions for peace negotiations. The normalisation of domination techniques and a shift toward the hegemony of capital is also becoming more evident – seen in the intimidating behaviours of some government officials and hateful rhetoric on social media platforms – all working together to maintain unequal power imbalance in societies. In fact, fighting parties are now justifying their actions through claims of protecting territorial sovereignty and preventing security threats, interests continue to complicate peace efforts, while lives are being lost. It’s something like ‘my war is more righteous than yours’.
For students entering the global perspectives of crime module, these conflicts offer some lessons about the nature of crime – particularly state crimes. Students might be fascinated to discover how aggression operates on the international stage – how it’s justified, executed, and sometimes evades consequences despite clear violations of human rights and international law. They will learn to question the various ways through which the state can become a perpetrator of the very crimes it claims to prevent and how state criminality often operates in contexts where culpability is contested and consequences are unevenly applied based on power, rather than principle and ethics.
Share this:
Christmas Toys
In CRI3002 we reflected on the toxic masculine practices which are enacted in everyday life. Hegemonic masculinity promotes the ideology that the most respectable way of being ‘a man’ is to engage in masculine practices that maintain the White elite’s domination of marginalised people and nations. What is interesting is that in a world that continues to be incredibly violent, the toxicity of state-inflicted hegemonic masculinity is rarely mentioned.
The militaristic use of State violence in the form of the brutal destruction of people in the name of apparent ‘just’ conflicts is incredibly masculine. To illustrate, when it is perceived and constructed that a privileged position and nation is under threat, hegemonic masculinity would ensure that violent measures are used to combat this threat.
For some, life is so precious yet for others, life is so easily taken away. Whilst some have engaged in Christmas traditions of spending time with the family, opening presents and eating luxurious foods, some are experiencing horrors that should only ever be read in a dystopian novel.
Through privileged Christmas play-time with new toys like soldiers and weapons, masculine violence continues to be normalised. Whilst for some children, soldiers and weapons have caused them to be victims of wars with the most catastrophic consequences.
Even through children’s play-time the privileged have managed to promote everyday militarism for their own interests of power, money and domination. Those in the Global North are lead to believe that we should be proud of the army and how it protects ‘us’ by dominating ‘them’ (i.e., ‘others/lesser humans and nations’).
Still in 2023 children play with symbolically violent toys whilst not being socialised to question this. The militaristic toys are marketed to be fun and exciting – perhaps promoting apathy rather than empathy. If promoting apathy, how will the world ever change? Surely the privileged should be raising their children to be ashamed of the use of violence rather than be proud of it?
Share this:
Navigating the Realm of Harm Reduction in the Midst of Chaos
In recent years, Canada has emerged as a trailblazer in progressive drug policy by embracing a bold approach to decriminalization. This paradigm shift represents a departure from the traditional punitive stance toward drug offenses, instead prioritizing harm reduction strategies. As the nation navigates the complex terrain of drug policy reform, it becomes evident that this move holds the promise of addressing public health issues more effectively.
The decriminalization of drugs in Canada is rooted in a recognition of the failure of punitive measures to curb substance abuse. Rather than treating drug addiction as a criminal issue, the emphasis is now on approaching it as a public health concern. By lifting criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs, the Canadian government aims to break the cycle of imprisonment and provide individuals struggling with addiction access to the help they need.
At the core harm reduction is a guiding principle in Canada’s evolving drug policy. Instead of focusing solely on preventing drug use, the emphasis has shifted to minimizing the negative consequences associated with it. This approach includes the distribution of clean needles, supervised injection sites, and access to overdose-reversing medications. By adopting harm reduction strategies, Canada aims to protect the well-being of both individuals using drugs and the broader community.
The decision to decriminalize drugs draws inspiration from the success of Portugal’s approach. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized the possession and use of all drugs, opting for a health-focused model. Over the years, Portugal has witnessed a decline in drug-related deaths, HIV infections, and problematic drug use. Canadian policymakers are eager to replicate these positive outcomes and shift the narrative around drug use from punishment to rehabilitation.
Despite the potential benefits, the decriminalization of drugs in Canada has sparked debates and concerns. Many people have argued that lenient drug policies may contribute to increased drug use, while others worry about the potential strain on public resources for addiction treatment. Furthermore, investigative reporter Tyler Oliveira has demonstrated the damaging effects of drug misuse and homelessness in Vancouver. From watching his investigation, I wonder whether the Canadian government could better use their resources to tackle issues pertaining to homelessness, rather than creating a wider problem of social ills. While there are calls to treat people with issues of addiction more humanely in Canada, Oliveira’s documentary is shocking and, in many ways, frightful. With images of large amounts of methamphetamine users unable to walk and becoming extremely violent to healthcare workers and the general public I wonder if this more towards progressive policy has gone too far (I don’t know how I would feel inhaling meth fumes on my way to my local shop).
Striking a balance between personal freedom and public welfare remains a challenge, but advocates believe that the emphasis on harm reduction will ultimately lead to better outcomes for everyone….
Decriminalization opens the door for more community involvement in addressing drug-related issues. Local initiatives, grassroots organizations, and community outreach programs gain significance as they become crucial players in the broader strategy of harm reduction. By empowering communities, Canada aims to foster a collaborative and compassionate approach to tackling the complex issue of drug addiction.
Canada’s journey toward the decriminalization of drugs represents a paradigm shift in the global war on drugs. By embracing harm reduction as a cornerstone of its strategy, the nation aims to prioritize the health and well-being of its citizens over punitive measures. The lessons learned from Portugal and other progressive models underpin the potential for positive change. As Canada continues to navigate the complexities of drug policy reform, the emphasis on harm reduction holds the promise of transforming the narrative around drug use and addiction. Only time will tell if this bold approach will lead to a healthier, more compassionate society.
Share this:
No April Fools
The first of April has consisted of a steep 54% rise in what energy company’s can charge customers for using energy, with further rises set to occur in October. This coincides with rises to other bills such as council tax, national insurance and water within a climate of inflation. Previous to this many were struggling to make ends meet…what are these people supposed to do now?
Russia’s atrocities and Covid-19 have been blamed for the steep price increases and inflation. I suspect that employers will be using this as a reason to not increase the persistent low rises in wages that workers are receiving, all whilst their bosses are becoming richer and richer. Of course, both Russia and Covid will have a significant impact on the economy, however, it does not take a genius to be aware that people have been struggling to survive well before this, hence terms like, food poverty, period poverty and fuel poverty predate these issues. Also, so do the persistent low rises in wages for workers.
Apparently, MPs are due a £2,200 pay rise which whilst it seems low (2.7%) compared to inflation, a few MPs themselves (such as Zarah Sultana) have stated that they do not need this pay rise as they already receive a high paying wage.
Oh, and let us not forget that the increasing energy prices will ensure that privatised fuel companies such as Shell and BP continue to profit, with a predicted profit of £40 BILLION for this year.
Meanwhile benefits for those who are not formally employed and spend a higher proportion of money on household bills and rent are set to increase by 3.1% – a rise which will not cover these price increases.
How is it that employers and the State cannot afford to pay people more – but can ensure high wages for the already rich, privileged and powerful?
It is not surprising that the government’s measures to deal with the problem, such as one-off payments and energy loans, have been heavily criticised as inadequate and significantly failing to support the lowest income homes. The government employs a group of elites and many are completely out of touch with reality. Apparently the man presiding over these measures, millionaire Rishi Sunak and his billionaire wife, often donate to charitable causes, such as donating £100,000 to Rishi’s former elitist private school. Because a private school in need is a pressing cause…yeah right!
The opposition parties have rightly criticised the Conservatives take on this but listening to Keir Starmer’s bumbling take on what Labour would do to solve these issues is also worrying. During an interview he stated that windfall tax could be a solution ‘for right now’ with no feasible long term plan. My usual vote for Labour in May will be damage control against more Tory time in power.
A long term TAX on THE RICH to use this money to support those that need it is not even that simple, given that the government accepts donations from the super-rich it is unlikely that decisions would be made to genuinely reduce inequality between the rich and poor. The world will never be a better place if those in power continue to focus on their own interests and huge profits in place of looking after people. The rise in energy prices on the first of this month was no April Fools’ joke…I really wish that it was.
Share this:
Meet the Team: Paul Famosaya, Lecturer in Criminology
Hi all! My name is Dr Paul Famosaya and I have just joined UoN as a Lecturer in criminology. Prior to joining UoN, I have taught as a Lecturer in criminology and policing at the University of Cumbria – where I contributed to the development and running of modules at both Undergraduate and Masters level. In addition, I have taught criminology at Middlesex University, London as an HP Lecturer (during my PhD days). So, over the years really, I have developed and taught a variety of modules around the theories of crime, the crimes of the powerful, global dimensions of crime, policing, new ideas in criminology, crimes & deviance, social exclusion, criminological frameworks etc. I also serve as a reviewer of a few international reputable journals.
In terms of my academic background, I completed my undergraduate degree in Nigeria, 2010 and then went straight on to complete my Masters in Criminology at Middlesex University, London. I then dived straight in to my PhD, which I completed also at Middlesex in 2019 – with my thesis focusing on police experiences, actions and practices.
I came into the world of Criminology simply for my interest in understanding the logic of corruption and the network of greed. I realised that these two components are largely the foundational problems of my home country Nigeria, and many other countries. So, the plight to unravel these dynamics from both institutional and personal level triggered my interest in the discipline. To a large extent, this interest has continued to strengthen my area of specialisation which concentrates largely on the areas of Critical and Theoretical criminology, Police culture, Social harms and Injustice. Criminology is something I’ve really enjoyed doing and while I have taught it for many years, I still consider myself to be a student of Criminology really.
I am currently completing another article on pandemics and criminology – so it’ll be cool to chat with colleagues looking at similar area(s). Looking forward to meeting everyone soon!
