Home » Injustice
Category Archives: Injustice
What price justice?
It was reported in the news a couple of days ago that a super complaint has been lodged against the police in England and Wales in respect of their handling of sexual offence cases (The Guardian 15.12). Not long before that article was published, another gave us the news that prisoners have erroneously been released from prison (BBC 5.11). These stories sandwiched another, that concerning the abolition of trial by jury for offences attracting anything less than three years imprisonment (BBC 02.12). The rationale behind these proposals is the reduction of the appalling backlog of court cases awaiting trial.
These stories beg the very simple question what an earth is going on with the criminal justice system? To say it is in crises would be an understatement. The system is broken, and it is hard to see how it can be fixed but perhaps it isn’t difficult to see how it got into its present state.
The justice process is complex and above all else, for it to work effectively, it is costly and by its very nature, it is inefficient. And this has presented problems for successive governments over decades. The conundrum, how to deliver a cost effective, efficient criminal justice system. Put simply the mantra seems to have been how do you achieve cheap justice?
The various components of the criminal justice system are interdependent, when one part fails, it has a knock-on effect to the others. Each part of the criminal justice system has seen so called efficiency and economy drives over the decades, and the consequence has been a cut in service across the board.
How many times do we hear complaints that the police just don’t turn up when a crime is reported or that they are disinterested? But have a look at the sustained cuts in budgets, the burgeoning costs of policing as the social and technological worlds change around us and the constant reprioritising of policing efforts and, it is little wonder that there is no one to turn up or that the crime you are reporting just isn’t important enough. Or maybe the people that do the policing are simply just worn out, disenchanted and frustrated by a system that fails their efforts at every turn. They even conspire to fail themselves.
And what of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)? Understaffed and under crude directions to enforce tests and codes to minimise court cases as best they can. With a little bit of research, you can find complaints against the CPS relating to the changing of the threshold in relation to sexual offences. To some extent CPS lawyers act as judge and jury before a defendant is even charged. Economic perhaps, effective, no. This has a knock-on effect to the police who then pre-empt that decision making. No point in sending a file to the CPS just to see it knocked back. The CPS must of course also have a mind to the backlog in the courts, no point sending a case there if it won’t be heard for months, if not years on end. And then the courts. The consistent closure of courts, both magistrates and crown over the years beggars belief. There is no local justice now, if you are defendant, witness or victim, you will be travelling miles to get to the allotted court. And if you do make it, the chance of your case being heard on that day is a lottery. As for legal aid, a pipe dream. Defendants in court trying to defend themselves and having to be assisted by the court clerk because quite frankly, they do not have a clue. But then who would? All of this presupposes the case gets to court in a timely fashion. You try remembering what happened 3 years ago when cross examined by a solicitor or barrister.
And prisons, well, overcrowded, understaffed and failing to provide anything but the basics, if that. Many a report suggests a crumbling prison estate and inhumane conditions within prisons. There has to be something fundamentally wrong with a system that allows prisoners to walk out the gates and then sees vast sums of money and resource poured into trying to find them. Efficient, or effective, not really. As for rehabilitation, don’t even bother thinking about it.
And what of you and I, the public? What faith do you have in the criminal justice system? Is it little wonder that victims will not report crimes, and if they do, they quickly lose interest in supporting a prosecution. If the police rely on the public to help them investigate cases, what hope have they got if the public have no faith in them or the rest of the system?
The problem with successive governments is that they have been too keen to cut costs without understanding or caring about the impact. And they are too quick to judge when things go wrong, pointing the finger anywhere but at themselves. They fail to see the system as a whole; they just seem to fail to see.
Justice costs money. Cutting cases that can go to trial by jury simply displays a lack of interest in justice or incompetence in governing or perhaps both. A government that fails to deliver justice for its citizens is failing in its fundamental duty as a government. The problem is, it’s not only this government that has failed us; the failures go a long way back and any attempt to fix the issues requires a fundamental shift in policy and a significant injection of public money that is just not available. Well, that’s what they will have us believe anyway.
Share this:
What should criminologists talk about?
Recently, Criminology with Psychology graduate, now PhD student @zo3conneely wrote an entry focused on the rise of the Reform Party in British politics, which you can find here. In response, we received a comment via social media, asking what this entry had to do with Criminology. As we always say in Criminology, all questions are welcome and valid, after all, for many of us our mantra is ‘question everything’! From a lay perspective, the question indicates a particular understanding of academic disciplines, it presupposes that Criminology has a very narrow focus. In this view, criminologists should stay in their own lane and focus purely and simply on what is commonly understood as crime, i.e. actions which are against the law.
But hang on, doesn’t that fall under the purview of those who study or practice criminal law, something neither I not Zoe have undertaken? Alternatively, is it the business of those who work in the field of criminal justice, investigating and processing those believed to have been involved in law-breaking? Again, not something either Zoe or I have experience of. If my colleagues in law and criminal justice are the experts in actions against the law, where does Criminology fit in and why include a discussion on political parties such as Reform in a blog dedicated to the discipline?
However, the answer is more complex than the original question would indicate. The answer is also much longer than the question. Criminology has been described as a rendezvous or umbrella discipline, a space where everyone can gather to discuss crime from all perspectives. This includes disciplines as diverse as Drama, History, Literature, Philosophy, Psychology as well as many others, including Politics. It is therefore, expected that those who write for a Criminology blog will be drawn from a diverse range of academic backgrounds, for instance, whilst I have a BA and a PhD in Criminology, my MA is in the History of Medicine. For my fellow bloggers, their academic journeys will also be reflective of their curiosity and their developing academic knowledge and skills. It is therefore anticipated that each academic brings their own unique academic knowledge and personal experiences to the discussion table. It is this which enables Criminology to take a holistic approach, we don’t and should not seek consensus, but incorporate as many diverse views as is possible. Only then can we gain a real understanding of the phenomena we call crime, criminality, victimisation, and of course, the responses to such.
But what of crime itself? Do we all have a shared understanding of what ‘crime’ is? After all, much of the time we don’t see crime, only potentially some evidence that is has occurred. Furthermore, it depends very much on time and space. If we were living in 1960’s Britain, suicide, abortion and homosexuality would all feature heavily in our list of crimes. However, suicide was decriminalised in 1961, and abortion and homosexuality were partially decriminalised in 1967, with the latter further decriminalised in 2003. Likewise, if we were to look further afield we would crimes listed in statute books that we do not have here, for example adultery is a crime in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and was only repealed in Taiwan in 2020. Thus it is quickly evident that crime is not static, it can change drastically through time and place. We also have to recognise that crime can be decriminalised and recriminalised, for example the overturning of Roe vs Wade in the USA, removes the constitutional right for those pregnant to access abortions. If it taught us nothing else, the Covid-19 pandemic showed us rights can be granted and rights can be taken away, which means that criminologists need to keep a very careful eye on both the past and the present.
Whilst my colleagues in law have as their focus current legislation and how it is practised, and my colleagues in criminal justice seek to ensure that the law is enacted and used to the letter of that law, criminology is much freer. After all, we need to know who is making those laws and why. Whilst we can answer quite simply parliamentarians, this does not tell us very much. We also need to know who, for example only 14% of the current parliament belong to the Global Ethnic Majority, a smaller percentage than the population proportionately. Of these 90, 66 are drawn from the Labour Party, 15 Conservative and 5 Liberal Democrats. Likewise, at the 2024 election 40% of MPs are women, despite women making up over 50% of the UK’s population. Let’s not even get started on the disproportionate number of privately educated MPs, or the lack of visibility of disability, sexuality and so on…. Needless to say, the UK parliament does not look like the vast majority of the British public. Yet these are the people make our laws, and if we don’t understand that as a criminological issue, we will soon come unstuck.
We all need to understand what is happening once those laws have been passed, who is delivering justice for the UK? Whether we look at Judges, Barristers, Solicitors, we find a predominance of white men, only when we look at the magistracy we begin to find some real diversity. But don’t forget magistrates are unpaid, lay members of the judiciary, so it is perhaps unsurprising that women make up 57% of this particular field. So what about criminal justice practitioners? If we look at the police for England and Wales, over 91% are white, 65% are men. In relation to His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service [HMPPS], over 54% are female, yet these are predominantly based within probation, not the prison service. So we begin to see that the people making, enacting and facilitation legislation and criminal justice do not look very much like the country’s population. Criminologically, this matters, how can we hope to tackle serious social harms like Violence Against Women and Girls [VAWG], homelessness, poverty etc when people have neither knowledge nor experience? Can we really talk achieve just outcomes if the people responsible do not look, sound like us, have very different, often privileged backgrounds which mean we have little shared experience?
Hopefully, this entry has gone a little way towards explaining why the discipline of Criminology (and of course, this blog) maintains an careful eye on politics, among a huge range of other interests. Don’t forget, Criminology is a positive discipline, focused on what could be, what ought to be, a fairer society for all of us.
Share this:
LET THEM EAT SOUP
Introduction
What is a can of soup? If you ask a market expert, it is a high-profit item currently pushing £2.30 (branded) in some UK shops[i]. If you ask a historian[ii], it is the very bedrock of organised charity-the cheapest, easiest way to feed a penniless and hungry crowd.
The high price of something so basic, like a £2.30 can of soup, is a massive conundrum when you remember that soup’s main historical job was feeding poor people for almost nothing. Soup, whose name comes from the old word Suppa[iii](meaning broth poured over bread), was chosen by charities because it was cheap, could be made in huge pots, and best of all could be ‘stretched’ with water to feed even more people on a budget[iv].
In 2025, the whole situation is upside down. The price of this simple food has jumped because of “massive economic problems and big company greed[v]. At the same time, the need for charity has exploded with food bank use soaring by an unbelievable 51% compared to 2019[vi]. When basic food is expensive and charity is overwhelmed, it means our country’s safety net is broken.
For those of us who grew up in the chilly North, soup is more than a commodity: it is a core memory. I recall winter afternoons in Yorkshire, scraping frost off the window, knowing a massive pot of soup was bubbling away. Thick, hot and utterly cheap. Our famous carrot and swede soup cost pennies to make, tasted like salvation and could genuinely “fix you.” The modern £2.30 price tag on a can feels like a joke played on that memory, a reminder that the simplest warmth is now reserved for those who can afford the premium.
This piece breaks down some of the reasons why a can of soup costs so much, explores the 250-year-old long, often embarrassing history of soup charity in Britain and shows how the two things-high prices and huge charity demand-feed into a frustrating cycle of managed hunger.
Why Soup Costs £2.30
The UK loves its canned soup: it is a huge business worth hundreds of millions of pounds every year[vii], but despite being a stable market, prices have been battered by outside events.
Remember that huge cost of living squeeze? Food inflation prices peaked at 19.1% in 2023, the biggest rise in 40 years[viii]. Even though things have calmed down slightly, food prices jumped again to 5.1% in August 2025, remaining substantially elevated compared to the overall inflation rate of 3.8% in the same month[ix]. This huge price jump hits basic stuff the hardest, which means that poor people get hurt the most.
Why the drama? A mix of global chaos (like the Ukraine conflict messing up vegetable oil and fertiliser supplies) and local headaches (like the extra costs from Brexit) have made everything more expensive to produce[x].
Here’s the Kicker: Soup ingredients themselves are super cheap. You can make a big pot of vegetable soup at home for about 66p a serving, but a can of the same stuff? £2.30. Even professional caterers can buy bulk powdered soup mix for just 39p per portion[xi].
The biggest chunk of that price has nothing to do with the actual carrots and stock. It’s all the “extras”. You must pay for- the metal can, the flashy label and the marketing team that tries to convince you this soup is a “cosy hug”, and, most importantly everyone’s cut along the way.
Big supermarkets and shops are the main culprits. They need a massive 30-50% profit margin on that can for just putting it on the shelf[xii]. Because people have to buy food to live (you can’t just skip dinner) big companies can grab massive profits, turning something that you desperately need into something that just makes them rich.
This creates the ultimate cruel irony. Historically, soup was accessible because it was simple and cheap. Now, the people who are too busy, too tired or too broke to cook from scratch-the working poor are forced to buy the ready-made cans[xiii]. They end up paying the maximum premium for the convenience they need most, simply because they don’t have the time or space to do it the cheaper way.
How Charity Got Organised
The idea of soup as charity is ancient, but the dedicated “soup kitchen” really took off in late 18th century Britain[xiv].
The biggest reasons were the chaos after the Napoleonic wars and the rise of crowded industrial towns, which meant that lots of people had no money if their work dried up. By 1900 England had gone from a handful of soup kitchens to thousands of them[xv].
The first true soup charity in England was likely La Soupe, started by Huguenot refugees in London in the late 17th Century[xvi]. They served beef soup daily-a real community effort before the phrase “soup kitchen” was even popular.
Soup was chosen as the main charitable weapon because it was incredibly practical. It was cheap, healthy and could be made in enormous quantities. Its real superpower was that it could be “stretched” by adding more water allowing charities to serve huge numbers of people for minimum cost[xvii].
These kitchens were not just about food; they were tools for managing poor people. During the “long nineteenth century” they often fed up to 30% of a local town’s population in winter[xviii]. This aid ran alongside the stern rules of the Old Poor Laws which sorted people into “deserving” (the sick or old) and the ‘undeserving’ (those considered lazy).
The queues, the rules, and the interviews at soup kitchens were a kind of “charity performance” a public way of showing who was giving and who was receiving, all designed to reinforce class differences and tell people how to behave.
The Stigma and Shame of Taking The Soup
Getting a free bowl of soup has always come with a huge dose of shame. It’s basically a public way of telling you “We are the helpful rich people and you are the unfortunate hungry one” Even pictures in old newspapers were designed to make the donors look amazing whilst poor recipients were closely watched[xix].
Early British journalists like Bart Kennedy used to moan about the long, cold queues and how staff would ask “degrading questions” just before you got your soup[xx]. Basically, you had to pass a misery test to get a bowl of watery vegetables, As one 19th Century writer noted, the typical soup house was rarely cleaned, meaning the “aroma of old meals lingers in corners…when the steam from the freshly cooked vegetables brings them back to life”[xxi].
For the recipient, the act of accepting aid became a profound assault on their humanity. The writer George Orwell, captured this degradation starkly, suggesting that a man enduring prolonged hunger “is not a man any longer, only a belly with a few accessory organs”[xxii]. That is the tragic joke here, you are reduced to a stomach that must beg.
By the late 19th Century, people started criticising soup kitchens arguing that they “were blamed for creating the problem they sought to alleviate”[xxiii]. The core problem remains today: giving someone a temporary food handout is just a “band-aid” solution that treats the symptom but ignores the real disease i.e. not enough money to live on.
This critique was affirmed during the Great Depression in Britain, when mobile soup kitchens and dispersal centres became a feature of the British urban landscape[xxiv]. The historical lesson is clear: private charity simply cannot solve a national economic disaster.
The ultimate failure of the system as the historian A.J.P. Taylor pointed out is that the poor demanded dignity. “Soup kitchens were the prelude to revolution, The revolutionaries might talk about socialism, those who actually revolted wanted ‘the right to work’-more capitalism, not it’s abolition[xxv]” They wanted a stable job, not perpetual charity.
Expensive Soup Feeds The Food Bank
The UK poverty crisis means that 7.5 million people (11% of the population) were in homes that did not have enough food in 2023/24[xxvi]. The Trussell Trust alone gave out 2.9 million emergency food parcels in 2024/2025[xxvii]. Crucially, poverty has crept deeper into the workforce: research indicates that three in every ten people referred to in foodbanks in 2024 were from working households[xxviii]. They have jobs but still can’t afford the supermarket prices.
The charities themselves are struggling, hit by a “triple whammy” of rising running costs (energy, rent) and fewer donations[xxix]. This means that many charities have had to cut back, sometimes only giving out three days food instead of a week[xxx]. The safety net in other words is full of holes.
The necessity of navigating poverty systems just to buy food makes people feel trapped and hopeless which is a terrible way to run a country[xxxi].
Modern food banks are still stuck in the old ways of the ‘deserving poor.’ They usually make you get a formal referral—a special voucher—from a professional like a doctor, a Jobcentre person, or the Citizens Advice bureau[xxxii].It’s like getting permission from three different people to have a can of soup.
Charity leaders know this system is broken. The Chief Executive of the Trussell Trust has openly said that food banks are “not the answer” and are just a “fraying sticking plaster[xxxiii].” The system forces a perpetual debate between temporary relief and systemic reform[xxxiv]. The huge growth of private charity, critics argue, just gives the government an excuse to cut back on welfare, pretending that kind volunteers can fix the problem for them[xxxv].
The final, bitter joke links the expensive soup back to the charity meant to fix the cost. Big food companies use inflation to jack up prices and boost profits. Then, they look good by donating their excess stock—often the highly processed, high-profit stuff—to food banks.
This relationship is called the “hunger industrial complex”[xxxvi]. The high-margin, heavily processed canned soup—the quintessential symbol of modern pricing failure—often becomes a core component of the charitable food parcel. The high price charged for the commodity effectively pays for the charity that manages the damage the high price caused[xxxvii]. You could almost call it “Soup-er cyclical capitalism.”
Conclusion
The journey from the 18th-century charitable pot to the 21st-century £2.30 can of soup shows a deep failure in our society. Soup, the hero of cheap hunger relief, has become too pricey for the people who need it most. This cost is driven by profit, not ingredients.
This pricing failure traps poor people in expensive choices, forcing them toward overwhelmed charities. The modern food bank, like the old soup kitchen, acts as a temporary fix that excuses the government from fixing the root cause: low income. As social justice campaigner Bryan Stevenson suggests, “Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime”[xxxviii]. No amount of £2.30 soup can mask the fact that hunger is fundamentally an issue of “justice,” not merely “charity”.
Fixing this means shifting focus entirely. We must stop just managing hunger with charity[xxxix] and instead eliminate the need for charity by making sure everyone has enough money to live and buy their own food. This requires serious changes: regulating the greedy markups on basic food and building a robust state safety net that guarantees a decent income[xl]. The price of the £2.30 can is not just inflation: it’s a receipt for systemic unfairness.
[i]Various Contributors, ‘Reddit Discussion on High Soup Prices’ (Online Forum, 2023) https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/comments/1eooo3o/why_has_soup_gotten_so_expensive
[ii] Philip J Carstairs, ‘A generous helping? The archaeology of Soup Kitchens and their role in post-medieval philanthropy 1790-1914 (PhD Thesis, University of Leicester 2022) https://figshare.le.ac.uk/articles/thesis/A_generous_helping_The_archaeology_of_soup_kitchens_and_their_role_in_post-medieval_philanthropy_1790-1914/21187117?file=37564186
[iii] Soup – etymology, origin & meaning[iii] https://www.etymonline.com/word/soup
[iv] Philip J Carstairs, ‘A generous helping? The archaeology of soup kitchens and their role in post-medieval philanthropy 1790–1914’ (Summary, University of Leicester 2022)(https://figshare.le.ac.uk/articles/thesis/A_generous_helping_The_archaeology_of_soup_kitchens_and_their_role_in_post-medieval_philanthropy_1790-1914/21187117)
[v] ONS, ‘Food Inflation Data, UK: August 2025’ (Trading Economics Data) https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/food-inflation
[vi] The Trussell Group-End Of Year Foodbank Stats
https://www.trussell.org.uk/news-and-research/latest-stats/end-of-year-stats
[vii] GlobalData, ‘Ambient Soup Market Size, Growth and Forecast Analytics, 2023-2028’ (Market Report, 2023) https://www.globaldata.com/store/report/uk-ambient-soup-market-analysis/
[viii] ONS, ‘Consumer Prices Index, UK: August 2025’ (Summary) https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices
[ix] Food Standards Agency, ‘Food System Strategic Assessment’ (March 2023) https://www.food.gov.uk/research/food-system-strategic-assessment-trends-and-issues-impacted-by-uk-economic-condition
[x] Wholesale Soup Mixes (Brakes Foodservice) https://www.brake.co.uk/dry-store/soup/ambient-soup/bulk-soup-mixes
[xii] A Semuels, ‘Why Food Company Profits Make Groceries Expensive’ (Time Magazine, 2023) https://time.com/6269366/food-company-profits-make-groceries-expensive/
[xiii] Christopher B Barrett and others, ‘Poverty Traps’ (NBER Working Paper No. 13828, 2008) https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c13828/c13828.pdf
[xiv] Philip J Carstairs, ‘A generous helping? The archaeology of soup kitchens and their role in post-medieval philanthropy 1790–1914’ (Summary, University of Leicester 2022)(https://figshare.le.ac.uk/articles/thesis/A_generous_helping_The_archaeology_of_soup_kitchens_and_their_role_in_post-medieval_philanthropy_1790-1914/21187117
[xv] Philip J Carstairs, ‘A generous helping? The archaeology of soup kitchens and their role in post-medieval philanthropy 1790–1914’ (Summary, University of Leicester 2022)(https://figshare.le.ac.uk/articles/thesis/A_generous_helping_The_archaeology_of_soup_kitchens_and_their_role_in_post-medieval_philanthropy_1790-1914/21187117
[xvi] The Soup Kitchens of Spitalfields (Blog, 2019) https://spitalfieldslife.com/2019/05/15/the-soup-kitchens-of-spitalfields/
[xvii] Birmingham History Blog, ‘Soup for the Poor’ (2016) https://birminghamhistoryblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/soup-for-the-poor/
[xviii] [xviii] Philip J Carstairs, ‘A generous helping? The archaeology of soup kitchens and their role in post-medieval philanthropy 1790–1914’ (Summary, University of Leicester 2022)(https://figshare.le.ac.uk/articles/thesis/A_generous_helping_The_archaeology_of_soup_kitchens_and_their_role_in_post-medieval_philanthropy_1790-1914/21187117
[xix] Journal Panorama, ‘Feeding the Conscience: Depicting Food Aid in the Popular Press’ (2019) https://journalpanorama.org/article/feeding-the-conscience/
[xx] Journal Panorama, ‘Feeding the Conscience: Depicting Food Aid in the Popular Press’ (2019) https://journalpanorama.org/article/feeding-the-conscience/
[xxi] Joseph Roth, Hotel Savoy (Quote on Soup Kitchens) https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/soup-kitchens
[xxii] Convoy of Hope, (Quotes on Dignity and Poverty) https://convoyofhope.org/articles/poverty-quotes/
[xxiii] Philip J Carstairs, ‘A generous helping? The archaeology of soup kitchens and their role in post-medieval philanthropy 1790–1914’ (Summary, University of Leicester 2022)(https://figshare.le.ac.uk/articles/thesis/A_generous_helping_The_archaeology_of_soup_kitchens_and_their_role_in_post-medieval_philanthropy_1790-1914/21187117
[xxiv] Science Museum Group, ‘Photographs of Poverty and Welfare in 1930s Britain’ (Blog, 2017) https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/photographs-of-poverty-and-welfare-in-1930s-britain/
[xxv] AJ P Taylor, (Quote on Revolution) https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/soup-kitchens
[xxvi] House of Commons Library, ‘Food poverty: Households, food banks and free school meals’ (CBP-9209, 2024) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9209/
[xxvii] Trussell Trust, ‘Factsheets and Data’ (2024/25) https://www.trussell.org.uk/news-and-research/latest-stats/end-of-year-stats
[xxviii] The Guardian, ‘Failure to tackle child poverty UK driving discontent’ (2025) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/sep/10/failure-tackle-child-poverty-uk-driving-discontent
[xxix] Charity Link, ‘The cost of living crisis and the impact on UK charities’ (Blog) https://www.charitylink.net/blog/cost-of-living-crisis-impact-uk-charities
[xxxi] The Soup Kitchen (Boynton Beach), ‘History’ https://thesoupkitchen.org/home/history/
[xxxii] Transforming Society, ‘4 uncomfortable realities of food charity’ (Blog, 2023) https://www.transformingsociety.co.uk/2023/12/01/4-uncomfortable-realities-of-food-charity-power-religion-race-and-cash
[xxxiii] The Trussell Group-End Of Year Foodbank Stats
https://www.trussell.org.uk/news-and-research/latest-stats/end-of-year-stats
[xxxiv] The Guardian, ‘Food banks are not the answer’ (2023) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/29/food-banks-are-not-the-answer-charities-search-for-new-way-to-help-uk-families
[xxxv] The Guardian, ‘Britain’s hunger and malnutrition crisis demands structural solutions’ (2023) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2023/dec/27/britain-hunger-malnutrition->
[xxxvi] Jacques Diouf, (Quote on Hunger and Justice, 2007) https://www.hungerhike.org/quotes-about-hunger/
[xxxvii] Borgen Magazine, ‘Hunger Awareness Quotes’ (2024) https://www.borgenmagazine.com/hunger-awareness-quotes/
[xxxviii] he Guardian, ‘Failure to tackle child poverty UK driving discontent’ (2025) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/sep/10/failure-tackle-child-poverty-uk-driving-discontent
[xxxix] Charities Aid Foundation, ‘Cost of living: Charity donations can’t keep up with rising costs and demand’ (Press Release, 2023) https://www.cafonline.org/home/about-us/press-office/cost-of-living-charity-donations-can-t-keep-up-with-rising-costs-and-demand
[xl] The “Hunger Industrial Complex” and Public Health Policy (Journal Article, 2022) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9437921/
Share this:
Does compassion have a place in Criminology or is this a forgotten element in Justice?
In recent months, I’ve been thinking about the idea of compassion and its diminishing presence in societies. Let me start by saying this blog wasn’t prompted by any specific event, but rather by observing the increasing prevalence of hate speech in media and public discourse. More and more, we are seeing this troubling pattern manifesting across all levels of society – from world leaders mocking marginalised populations, citizens spreading hate speech online, media outlets amplifying divisive rhetoric in the name of balanced reporting, workplaces failing their employees on many grounds, public institutions are becoming more and more intolerant of the ‘other’ – extending into criminal justice systems where overcrowded prisons, harsh sentencing guidelines, limited rehabilitation programmes, and the stigmatisation of former offenders all continue to reflect this absence of compassion.
Against this backdrop of increasing hostility, the teachings of Pope Francis (1936 – 2025) offer a powerful counterpoint that resonates beyond religious boundaries. He consistently championed respect, dignity, and compassion towards all people. You don’t have to be religious to recognise the universal truth in his words: “A little bit of mercy makes the world less cold and more just.” This intersection of justice and mercy naturally leads us to examine criminology through that very compassionate lens, because the moment we strip compassion from our criminal justice systems, the consequences become counterproductive. By this, I mean rehabilitation becomes secondary to punishment, criminogenic factors become ignored, recidivism rates become affected as former offenders encounter insurmountable barriers to reintegration and so forth.
The question I want you to ponder over this sunny weekend is: What defines us when compassion vanishes from our interactions? When hatred becomes our default response? Personally, I believe compassionate approaches to criminology do not weaken justice – they strengthen it by addressing root causes while maintaining accountability. I won’t elaborate further here, but if you’re interested in exploring these concepts more deeply, consider enrolling in my new module launching this September on global perspectives of crime, where a comparative approach to understanding and responding to crime will also be explored.
Have a lovely sunny weekend!
Share this:
Exploring the National Museum of Justice: A Journey Through History and Justice
As Programme Leader for BA Law with Criminology, I was excited to be offered the opportunity to attend the National Museum of Justice trip with the Criminology Team which took place at the back end of last year. I imagine, that when most of us think about justice, the first thing that springs to mind are courthouses filled with judges, lawyers, and juries deliberating the fates of those before them. However, the fact is that the concept of justice stretches far beyond the courtroom, encompassing a rich tapestry of history, culture, and education. One such embodiment of this multifaceted theme is the National Museum of Justice, a unique and thought-provoking attraction located in Nottingham. This blog takes you on a journey through its historical significance, exhibits, and the essential lessons it imparts and reinforces about justice and society.
A Historical Overview
The National Museum of Justice is housed in the Old Crown Court and the former Nottinghamshire County Gaol, which date back to the 18th century. This venue has witnessed a myriad of legal proceedings, from the trials of infamous criminals to the day-to-day workings of the justice system. For instance, it has seen trials of notable criminals, including the infamous Nottinghamshire smuggler, and it played a role during the turbulent times of the 19th century when debates around prison reform gained momentum. You can read about Richard Thomas Parker, the last man to be publicly executed and who was hanged outside the building here. The building itself is steeped in decade upon decade of history, with its architecture reflecting the evolution of legal practices over the centuries. For example, High Pavement and the spot where the gallows once stood.
By visiting the museum, it is possible to trace the origins of the British legal system, exploring how societal values and norms have shaped the laws we live by today. The National Museum of Justice serves as a reminder that justice is not a static concept; it evolves as society changes, adapting to new challenges and perspectives. For example, one of my favourite exhibits was the bench from Bow Street Magistrates Court. The same bench where defendants like Oscar Wilde, Mick Jagger and the Suffragettes would have sat on during each of their famous trials. This bench has witnessed everything from defendants being accused of hacking into USA Government computers (Gary McKinnon), Gross Indecency (Oscar Wilde), Libel (Jeffrey Archer), Inciting a Riot (Emmeline Pankhurst) as well as Assaulting a Police Officer (Miss Dynamite).
Understanding this rich history invites visitors to contextualize the legal system and appreciate the ongoing struggle for a just society.
Engaging Exhibits
The National Museum of Justice is more than just a museum; it is an interactive experience that invites visitors to engage with the past. The exhibits are thoughtfully curated to provide a comprehensive understanding of the legal system and its historical context. Among the highlights are:
1. The Criminal Courtroom: Step into the courtroom where real trials were once held. Here, visitors can learn about the roles of various courtroom participants, such as the judge, jury, and barristers. This is the same room that the Criminology staff and students gathered in at the end of the day to share our reflections on what we had learned from our trip. Most students admitted that it had reinforced their belief that our system of justice had not really changed over the centuries in that marginalised communities still were not dealt with fairly.
2. The Gaol: We delved into the grim reality of life in prison during the Georgian and Victorian eras. The gaol section of the gallery offers a sobering look at the conditions inmates faced, emphasizing the societal implications of punishment and rehabilitation. For example, every prisoner had to pay for his/ her own food and once their sentence was up, they would not be allowed to leave the prison unless all payments were up to date. The stark conditions depicted in this exhibit encourage reflections on the evolution of prison systems and the ongoing debates surrounding rehabilitation versus punishment. Eventually, in prisons, women were taught skills such as sewing and reading which it was hoped may better their chances of a successful life in society post release. This was an evolution within the prison system and a step towards rehabilitation of offenders rather than punishment.
3. The Crime and Punishment Exhibit: This exhibit examines the relationship between crime and society, showcasing the changing perceptions of criminal behaviour over time. For example, one famous Criminologist of the day Cesare Lombroso, once believed that it was possible to spot a criminal based on their physical appearance such as high cheekbones, small ears, big ears or indeed even unequal ears. Since I was not familiar with Lombroso or his work, I enquired with the Criminology department as to studies that he used to reach the above conclusions. Although I believe he did carry out some ‘chaotic’ studies, it really reminded me that it is possible to make statistics say whatever it is you want them to say. This is the same point in relation to the law generally. As a lawyer I can make the law essentially say whatever I want it to say in the way I construct my arguments and the sources I include. Overall, The Inclusions of such exhibits raises and attempts to tackle difficult questions about personal and societal morality, justice, and the impact of societal norms on individual actions. By examining such leading theories of the time and their societal reactions, the exhibit encourages visitors to consider the broader implications of crime and the necessity of reform within the justice system. Do you think that today, deciding whether someone is a criminal based on their physical appearance would be acceptable? Do we in fact still do this? If we do, then we have not learned the lessons from history or really moved on from Cesare Lombroso.
Lessons on Justice and Society
The National Museum of Justice is not merely a historical site; it also serves as a platform for discussions about contemporary issues related to justice. Through its exhibits and programs, our group was invited to reflect on essentially- The Evolution of Justice: Understanding how laws have changed (or not!) over time helps us appreciate the progress (or not!) made in human rights and justice and with particular reference to women. It also encourages us to consider what changes may still be needed. For example, we were incredibly privileged to be able to access the archives at the museum and handle real primary source materials. We, through official records followed the journey of some women and girls who had been sent to reform schools and prisons. Some were given extremely long sentences for perhaps stealing a loaf of bread or reel of cotton. It seemed to me that just like today, there it was- the huge link between poverty and crime. Yet, what have we done about this in over two or three hundred years? This focus on historical cases illustrates the importance of learning from the past to inform present and future legal practices.
– The Importance of Fair Trials: The gallery emphasizes the significance of due process and the presumption of innocence, reminding us that justice must be impartial and equitable. In a world where public opinion can often sway perceptions of guilt or innocence, this reminder is particularly pertinent. The National Museum of Justice underscores the critical role that fair trials play in maintaining the integrity of the legal system. For example, if you were identified as a potential criminal by Cesare Lombroso (who I referred to above) then you were probably not going to get a fair trial versus an individual who had none of the characteristics referred to by his studies.
– Societal Responsibility: The exhibits prompt discussions about the role of society in shaping laws and the collective responsibility we all share in creating a just environment. The National Museum of Justice encourages visitors to think about their own roles in advocating for justice, equality, and reform. It highlights that justice is not solely the responsibility of legal professionals but also of the community at large.
– Ethics and Morality: The museum offers a platform to explore ethical dilemmas and moral questions surrounding justice. Engaging with historical cases can lead to discussions about right and wrong, prompting visitors to consider their own beliefs and biases regarding justice.
Conclusion
The National Museum of Justice in Nottingham is a remarkable destination that beautifully intertwines history, education, and advocacy for justice. By exploring its rich exhibits and engaging with its thought-provoking themes, visitors gain a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding justice and its vital role in society. Whether you are a history buff, a legal enthusiast, a Criminologist or simply curious about the workings of justice, the National Museum of Justice offers a captivating journey that will leave you enlightened and inspired.
As we navigate the complexities of the modern world, it is essential to remember the lessons of the past and continue striving for a fair and just society for all. The National Museum of Justice stands as a powerful testament to the ongoing quest for justice, inviting us all to be active participants in that journey. In doing so, we honour the legacy of those who have fought for justice throughout history and commit ourselves to ensuring that the principles of fairness and equity remain at the forefront of our society. Sitting on that same bench that Emmeline Pankhurst once sat really reminded me of why I initially studied law.
The main thought that I was left with as I left the museum was that justice is not just a concept; it is a lived experience that we all contribute to shaping.
Share this:
A review of In-Extremis: The Life of War Correspondent Marie Colvin
Recently, I picked up a book on the biography of Marie Colvin, a war correspondent who was assassinated in Syria, 2012. Usually, I refrain from reading biographies, as I consider many to be superficial accounts of people’s experiences that are typically removed from wider social issues serving no purpose besides enabling what Zizek would call a fetishist disavowal. It is the biographies of sports players and singers, found on the top shelves of Waterstones and Asda that spring to mind. In-Extremis, however, was different. I consider this book to be a very poignant and captivating biography of war correspondent Marie Colvin, authored by fellow journalist Lindsey Hilsum. The book narrates Marie’s life before her assassination. Her early years, career ventures, intimate relationships, friendships, and relationships with drugs and alcohol were all discussed. So too were the accounts of Marie’s fearless reporting from some of the world’s most dangerous conflict zones, including Sri-Lanka, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Hilsum wrote on the events both before Marie’s exhilarating career and during the peak of her war correspondence to illustrate the complexities in her life. This reflected on Marie’s insatiability of desire to tell the truth and capture the voices of those who are absent from the ‘script’. So too, reporting on the emotions behind war and conflict in addition to the consistent acts of personal sacrifice made in the name of Justice for the disenfranchised and the voiceless.
Across the first few chapters, Hilsum wrote on the personal life of Marie- particularly her traits of bravery, resilience, persistence, and an undying quest for the truth. Hilsum further delved into the complexities of Marie’s personality and life philosophies. A regular smoker, drinker and partygoer with a captivating personality that drew people in were core to who Marie was according to Hilsum. However, the psychological toils of war reporting became clear, particularly as later in the book, the effects of Marie’s PTSD and trauma began to present itself, particularly after Marie lost eyesight in her left eye after being shot in Sri-Lanka. The eye-patch worn by Marie to me symbolised the way she carried the burdens of her profession and personal vulnerabilities, particularly between maintaining her family life and navigating her occupational hazards.
In writing this biography, Hilsum not only mapped the life of one genuinely awesome and inspiring woman, but also highlighted the importance of reporting and capturing the voices of the casualties of war. Much of her work, I felt resonated with my own. As an academic researcher, it is my job to research on real-life issues and to seek the truth. I resonated with Marie’s quest for the truth and strongly aligned myself to her principles on capturing the lived experiences of those impacted by war, conflict, and social justice issues. These people, I consider are more qualified to discuss these issues than those of us who sit in the ivory towers of institutions (me included!).
Moreover, I considered how I can be more like Marie and how I can embed her philosophies more so into my own research… whether that’s through researching with communities on the cost-of-living crisis or disseminating my research to students, fellow academics, policymakers, and practitioners. I feel inspired and moving forward, I seek to embody the life and spirit of Marie and thousands of other journalists and academics who work tirelessly to research on and understand the truth to bring forward the narratives of those who are left behind and discarded by society in its mainstream.
Share this:
Just semantics?
This summer has seen the opening of the first secure school in England and Wales. The idea of secure schools was first introduced in 2016 in line with reforming the youth secure estate given a wide range of failings across institutions and harms experienced by children placed in there. The original proposed date for opening one of the schools was 2020; but what is a four-year delay? In 2022 the National Audit Office reported the refurbishment of Medway Secure Training Centre (closed down in March 2020 following the harrowing findings by Panorama), where the new secure school would be, was costing approximately £36.5 million (National Audit Office, 2022). But will this new secure school actually change something within the youth secure estate, or this is more of the same but with a new sparkly name?
Oasis Restore (the first secure school in England and Wales) opened this summer and can hold up to 49 children. It is registered jointly as a Secure Children’s Home (SCH) and a secure academy which has raised concerns by Ofsted due to difference in size of Oasis Restore in comparison to other SCHs. Education is central to the secure school (although haven’t we heard this before with Secure Training Centres), with comments from Youth Justice Board (YJB) Chief Executive Steph Roberts-Bibby comparing Oasis Restore with University accommodation (Youth Justice Board, 2024). Apparently, the new secure school is a far cry from the unsafe, violent, prisons which already exist in the youth secure estate (SCT and YOIs). On a tour of the secure school earlier in the year, the Chief Executive was very positive about the physical environment and philosophies underpinning Oasis Restore where ‘strong relationships between staff and children are at the heart of the Oasis model’ and the importance of ‘having a space promoting learning, togetherness and care’ as being essential in line with rehabilitation (Youth Justice Board, 2024). So far, so good. The right words are being uttered, changes appear to have been made, but… we have been here before. The same rhetoric of the child’s best interests being promoted and being seen as ‘children first’: which is good. But is this round of reform just more of the same with different semantics?
End Child Imprisonment (2024) demonstrates how child imprisonment, which Oasis Reform still is, is beyond reform. There are ample examples of how the Youth Secure Estate has historically, and remains, a harmful unsafe environment which does not address the needs of the children they come into contact with. Missing from the positive comments from the Chief Executive of the YJB is the highlighting that the children who come into contact with the YJS are incredibly vulnerable and have often experienced traumas before their incarceration. The language is still all wrong: the myriad of challenges these children have already faced and will face within the YJS remain overlooked. In 2023 the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child urged the UK to introduce legislation directly prohibiting the use of solitary confinement, due the continuing harms/findings of its use: but so far, no comment from the UK Government. Time and time again, we see reforms brought in but with little to no actual change or improvement. Will Oasis Restore be the face of change of just another failure in a long line of failing reforms?
Something which rings true: “A recurrent theme in the history of child imprisonment is that evidence of failure and maltreatment is met with promises of reform which too frequently involve semantic amendment rather than changes of substance” (End Child Imprisonment, 2024, p.28). And as John Rawls argues when thinking about justice, if an institution cannot be reformed then it should be abolished. Is it finally time to abolish the child prisons which exist within society?
References:
End Child Imprisonment (2024) Why child imprisonment is beyond reform: A review of the evidence August 2024. [online] Available at: https://article39.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Why-child-imprisonment-is-beyond-reform.-A-review-of-the-evidence-August-2024.pdf [Accessed 14th October 2024].
Monster Ztudio/Shutterstock (2017) Change. [Online] Available at: https://ziplinelogistics.com/blog/navigating-change/ [Accessed 21.10.24].
National Audit Office (2022) Children in custody: secure training centres and secure schools. [online] London: National Audit Office. Available at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Children-in-custody-secure-training-centres-and-secure-schools.pdf [Accessed 17.10.24].
Rawls, J. (1971/1999) A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Youth Justice Board (2024) Inside the Oasis Restore Secure School. GOV.UK [online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/inside-the-oasis-restore-secure-school [Accessed 17.10.24]
Share this:
Labour’s Winter Fuel Allowance Cut: Austerity 2.0 and the need for De-commodification?
Last week, the Government voted as an overwhelming majority to scrap the winter fuel allowance. This has been met with fierce backlash from critics, particularly Labour MP Zara Sultana who stated her removal of taking part in ‘Austerity 2.0’. Meanwhile, in Prime Minister Questions, Kier Starmer defended the decision by referring to the ’22-billion-pound black hole’ that was left by the former Conservative Government (See Amos, 2024). This policy decision will mean that pensioners and vulnerable social groups across the UK will face a loss of financial support to pay for the ever-rising energy costs, particularly over the coming winter months. The health implications and fears onto those who will be affected were reported widely by critics. For example, Labour MP Rosie Duffield represented her constituents, some of whom were cancer patients who were severely worried about keeping warm this coming winter and relied on the winter fuel allowance as a reliable source of financial support (Lavelle, 2024).
This latest move initiated by Starmer’s Labour Government is primarily justified through the need for temporary acts of austerity, to balance the books and reduce the national debt and deficit which according to Starmer’s speech at the latest Prime Minister’s Questions now sits at over twenty billion.
A fundamental question here is not of the need for action to reduce the national deficit…. rather the question is- who should foot the bill? Latest figures show that within the same time as when the country scraps the winter fuel allowance, According to Race and Jack (2024), major energy companies such as British Gas announced its profits for 2023 has increased ten-fold to £750 million with the profits forecast to soar higher at the end of this year. There are calls by some politicians, including Zara Sultana to introduce a windfall tax that will put a cap on the gross profits gained by energy companies and large-scale businesses, through which these taxes can be put into public infrastructure, services, and spending. A common counterargument here however is how these businesses and corporations will remove themselves from the UK and situate themselves in alternative global markets, that through globalisation and free-market economy principles has become easier.
The scrapping of the winter fuel allowance demonstrates how under economic crisis, it is communities who foot the bill and suffer the consequences of government failure to protect public infrastructure and avoid generating a deficit and national debt. This policy also represents a balancing act between keeping corporations and businesses active players in the free-market economy versus protecting the countries most vulnerable and providing sufficient public infrastructure and utilities. Perhaps there is an alternative way between preserving the markets and re-orienting their purpose back to a public good…
Capitalist markets are led by profiteering… however, through the process of de-commodification, these markets are brought back under state(s) control and are re-oriented to serve a greater public good and social need (Soron & Laxer, 2006; Hilary, 2013). De-commodification turns the modes of production and consumption towards serving a greater public need. Whilst there is profit opportunities for those on the supply side, this is met with serving a greater public need. Essentially, de-commodification removes acts of disempowerment and the dependency of people from the markets and restores the power, much of which is placed back into state control. Perhaps, the model of de-commodification might not work in all contexts, particularly when one considers the intensification of globalisation and geopolitical insecurity, however there should be discussions on de-commodification…. As otherwise, the markets will continue to over-rule the state and communities will continue to pay the price…
References
Amos, O (2024) Starmer and Sunak clash on winter fuel payments at PMQs. BBC News. 11th September. Available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c303gm7qz3pt {Accessed 13th September 2024}.
Hilary, J (2013) The Poverty of Capitalism: Economic Meltdown and the struggle for what comes next. London: Pluto Press.
Lavelle, D (2024) Winter fuel pay decision ‘brutal’ and could lead to deaths, says Labour MP. The Guardian, 7th September. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/winter-fuel-pay-decision-brutal-labour-mp-rosie-duffield {Accessed 13th September 2024}.
Race, M., and Jack, S (2024) British Gas sees profits increase ten-fold. BBC News. 15th February. Available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68303647#:~:text=British%20Gas%20has%20announced%20its,of%20Russia’s%20invasion%20of%20Ukraine {Accessed 13th September 2024}.
Soron, D., and Laxer, G (2006) De-commodifying Public Life. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
Share this:
A response to the Government’s plans to address ‘Mickey-mouse degrees’.
The Government’s latest plans to scrap university courses that are being considered as ‘under-achieving’ through poor graduate outcomes and progression should deeply concern all of us who work in and who have a passion for the Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities across Higher Education. It is no secret that Rishi Sunak and his Government have traditionally favoured apprentices in replacement of graduates. It is a truth that university and higher education is not for everyone, so whilst the value of undertaking an apprentice should be unequivocally un-challenged, this moment of rupture and insecurity for the Higher Education Sector should provoke us to think about how the culture of Higher Education has changed, and why people come to university in the first place. Engaging in these perspectives will put us in a stronger position to contribute to these debates occurring across the chambers of Parliament and at dinner tables across the country. So too should we as academics be actively challenging these attacks on the disciplines that we have passion for.
Before the awakening of neoliberalism, higher education was a vocation and a pursuit for those seeking to climb the ladder of ‘social mobility’. It is without question, that UK universities, particularly in the inter-war and the early post-war period were filled with young people with pre-existing economic fortune and privilege. Universities were not spaces for the working classes, nor for individuals achieving low grades outcomes. However, we can acknowledge that the class-based, gender and racial barriers into Higher Education have improved, yet we still have progress to make moving forward. Since the 2008 Global Financial Crash and the series of events that have followed, the motivations for coming to university have largely changed. Seemingly, it is predicated on a mode of response to economic re-structuring, particularly when the opportunities in the labour markets erode and become increasingly competitive, university seems for some as a suitable option to both buy time and up-skill to ‘stand out’. A sad truth remains however that these gravitations to university have contributed to degree inflation that has changed the way we see and value a degree. These changes have partially allowed the Government to play loose and fast with degrees that they consider ‘worthless’. However, those of us who actively teach and research in the social sciences will know that these degrees are invaluable…. Invaluable through teaching students to critically think about the seemingly ‘normal world’ around them- to question the logic of everyday practices, attitudes, norms and values that are engrained into our social fabric. To work with communities and organisations to identify and respond to issues of criminal and social injustice…. Be that austerity, homelessness, poverty, miscarriages of justice, and inequality. With this in mind, as educators in the social sciences, arts and humanities, we have a duty to show-case the momentous impact of our disciplines. To show-case movements of activism, government lobbying and social change. This emphasises the importance of research, knowledge exchange and adopting pedagogies enabling students to develop these works. Only then, can we put forward cases for impacts that at a government level could challenge these narratives. So too can we utilise these cases to infuse a passion for the discipline that with luck would enable a student to make a choice of coming to university that is right for them.
As a sector, we have numerous challenges facing us…. we need to think like and be activists…. We need to embody what we teach and speak out against those who reduce our work as a ‘worthless’ or ‘Mickey-Mouse’ degree. We may not change the Government’s approach but at least if departments do get shut down…. We went with a fight.
Share this:
Doing the right thing
It seems that very often, the problem with politics in this country is that it gets in the way of doing the right thing. Despite the introduction of the The Seven Principles of Public Life known as the Nolan Principles, politicians (not all of them of course, but you will have seen ample examples) still seem to be hell bent on scoring political advantage, obfuscating on matters of principle and where possible avoiding real leadership when the country is crying out for it. Instead, they look to find someone, anyone, else to blame for failures that can only be described as laying clearly at the door of government and at times the wider institution of parliament.
One example you may recall was the complete farce in parliament where the speaker, Sir Lyndsay Hoyle, was berated for political interference and breaking the rules of the house prior to a debate about a ceasefire in Gaza. It became quite obvious to anyone on the outside that various political parties, Conservatives, Labour and the Scottish National Party were all in it to score points. The upshot, rather than the headlines being about a demand for a ceasefire in Gaza, the headlines were about political nonsense, even suggesting that the very core of our democracy was at stake. Somehow, they all lost sight of what was important, the crises, and it really is still a crisis, in Gaza. Doing the right thing was clearly not on their minds, morals and principles were lost along the way in the thrust for the best political posturing.
And then we come to the latest saga involving political parties, the WASPI women (Women Against State Pension Inequality) campaign. The report from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) “failed to provide accurate, adequate and timely information” about changes to pension ages for women. The report makes interesting reading. In essence, it accuses the DWP of maladministration on several counts.
The Pensions Act 1995 changed the way in which women could draw their pensions in an effort to equalise the age with men. A timetable was drawn up raising the qualifying age for women from 60 to 65, with the change phased in between 2010 and 2020. However, under the Pensions Act 2011, the new qualifying age of 65 for women was brought forward to 2018. The report acknowledges that the DWP carried out campaigns from 1995 onwards but in 2004 received results of research that a considerable number of affected women still believed that their retiring age was 60. Unfortunately, through prevarication and for some quite inexplicable reasoning the women affected were not notified or were notified far too late. There was a calculation carried out that suggested some women were not told until 18 months before their intended retirement date. The matter was taken before the courts but the courts ruling did nothing to resolve the issue other than providing a ruling that the DWP were not required by law to notify the women.
You can read about the debacle anywhere on the Internet and the WASPI women have their own Facebook page. What seems astounding is that both the Government and the opposition have steadfastly avoided being drawn on the matter of compensation for these women. I should add that the maladministration has had serious detrimental impacts on many of them. Not even a sorry, we got it wrong. Instead we see articles written by right wing Conservatives suggesting the women had been provided with ample warning. If you read the report, it makes it clear that provisions under the Civil Service Code were not complied with. It is maladministration and it took place under a number of different governments.
Not getting it right in the first instance was compounded by not getting it right several times over later on. It seems that given the likely cost to the taxpayer, this maladministration is likely, like so many other cock ups by government and its agencies, to be kicked into the long grass. Doing the right thing is a very long, long way away in British politics. And lets not forget the Post Office scandal, the infected blood transfusion scandal and the Windrush scandal to name but a few. So little accountability, such cost to those impacted.
- The quotation in the image is often wrongly misattributed to C. S. Lewis. ↩︎
Thoughts from the criminology team 