Home » policing
Category Archives: policing
A thin veneer of respectability – management culture in uncertain times
I’ve long been interested in management culture in organisations, particularly policing and other organisations that provide a service, rather than a product per se. Although, management jargon might suggest that, in thinking outside the box, the service is a product, produced by a human resource, and therefore productivity is as easy to measure as that of a product coming off a conveyor belt; nothing like a bit of Neo-Taylorism (Pollitt, 1993) to get the party started.
Anyway, enough of that, the other day in a student discussion I was talking about policing and ethics and professionalism and all that stuff. Stuff that, I was trying to convey, was easier said than done because the social world is both complex and complicated. We happened to discuss the Mission and Vision of New York Police, and it reminded me of research carried out regarding how the New York Police recorded, or more to the point failed to record, crimes (Eterno and Silverman, 2012). Some of the crimes were very serious and at least one case led to an offender going on to commit more crime, when had the original crime been recorded, he might well have been caught before inflicting further serious harm.
This all occurred in the nineties at a time when crime in New York was through the roof and when Mayor Guiliani and Commissioner Bratton were at the helm. Under their stewardship, crime came down, detection rates went up, and Bratton was hailed as a hero with a suggestion that he could become the new commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in this country. Those of you that are old enough to remember will know it was more than just mooted by government sources. Zero Tolerance policing (based on the much-criticised Broken Windows Theory) had been forged in New York and Jack Straw our home secretary was talking about it being introduced here. The so-called success also lay in the fact that CompStat had been introduced in New York where borough commanders were publicly hauled over the coals and humiliated if their crime figures were not up to scratch. The fact that they had little or no control over crime (Hough, 1987), and the reduction of crime had more to do with the declining crack market (Bowling, 1999), was neither here nor there. What Bratton and Guiliani had done was to throw a thin veneer of respectability over the crime problem.
Eterno and Silverman (2012) through their research, however, threw a whole new light on what turned out to be corrupt practices and, research in England and Wales began to throw up the same issues in crime recording practices on this side of the ‘pond’ (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, 1999; 2000). In this country the practices emanated from government’s preoccupation with statistics and the measurement of success through what can only be described as bean counting or what was officially known as objectives and Key Performance Indicators. The Audit Commission and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) applied pressure on forces to ‘perform’ and league tables were developed and published, the media love league tables. The ideal place to be; mid table. That way no-one scrutinised what you were doing. Crime figures were massaged to produce the desired results. There was a whole industry in examining and manipulating statistics. If you were at the bottom of the table, then interventions were put in place. An action plan was imposed, the rationale behind the figures was ignored, this was not about quality, although the action plans were dressed up as quality improvement, this was simply about applying sufficient pressure to get forces to produce pleasing statistics. The pressure was applied at the top, but very quickly through managerial manoeuvring, became a problem for those at the bottom. Chief constables were quick to point out the failures of departments and individuals in departments. CompStat but in a different guise came to the fore. What became clear was that those at the bottom were supposedly, both ‘lazy and incompetent’. If they weren’t, they were certainly made to feel that they were.
The corrupt practices that ensued (manipulation of crime statistics, misclassification of crimes, failure to record crimes, detection of crimes that were not really detected) were a direct consequence of overburdened frontline staff being charged with producing results that were not within their control and managers, rather than managing expectations, directing operations through innuendo and veiled threats. Or in some cases such as CompStat, very direct threats. Officers that were ignorant of the issues such practices might cause, obliged and were fêted as being exemplary, others that were not compliant, perhaps because they knew what the consequences were to the public, were shunned and humiliated, until they bowed to the inevitable. The bottom line was simply to cheat and not get caught, forget integrity and ethics, those values were just not worth the stress. Although of course, the cheats if caught, were on their own as managers pointed to current published policy and rules (not the real policy and rules though). Some forces ended up in deep water as whistle-blowers spilled the beans on what was going on and the press had a field day. Institutional reputations took a major blow and to this day the Office for National Statistics carries a rider about the validity of police statistics.
Over a period of time, to some extent, the issues of performance management were addressed at government level, but the culture had become so inculcated that problems continued and manifest themselves in different ways to this day.
What of this tale? My observations are that other organisations are not immune to this phenomenon particularly in times of financial stress and political uncertainty. A management culture that either wittingly or unwittingly pushes staff on the front line, to make unethical decisions may produce a thin veneer of respectability, but they fail society miserably and risk significant reputational damage whilst doing so.
It seems to me that organisations can learn a great deal from the historic mismanagement of policing and the lack of ethical leadership in uncertain times.
References
Bowling, B. (1999) The rise and fall of New York murder: Zero tolerance or crack’s decline? The British Journal of Criminology, 39 (4), p.p. 531–554.
Eterno, J. A. and Silverman E. B. (2012) The Crime Numbers Game: Management by Manipulation. Boca Raton: CRC Press
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (1999) Police Integrity: securing and maintaining public confidence. London: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (2000) On the Record: Thematic Inspection Report on Police Crime Recording, the Police National Computer and Phoenix Intelligence System Data Quality. London: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.
Hough, M. (1987) Thinking About Effectiveness. In Reiner, R. and Shapland, J. (eds.), Why Police? Special Issue on Policing in Britain: British Journal of Criminology, 27, 1, p.p. 70-79
Pollitt, C. (1993) Managerialism and the Public Services: Cuts or Cultural Change in the 1990’s. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Share this:
Technology: one step forward and two steps back
I read my colleague @paulaabowles’s blog last week with amusement. Whilst the blog focussed on AI and notions of human efficiency, it resonated with me on so many different levels. Nightmarish memories of the three E’s (economy, effectiveness and efficiency) under the banner of New Public Management (NPM) from the latter end of the last century came flooding back, juxtaposed with the introduction of so-called time saving technology from around the same time. It seems we are destined to relive the same problems and issues time and time again both in our private and personal lives, although the two seem to increasingly morph into one, as technology companies come up with new ways of integration and seamless working and organisations continuously strive to become more efficient with little regard to the human cost.
Paula’s point though was about being human and what that means in a learning environment and elsewhere when technology encroaches on how we do things and more importantly why we do them. I, like a number of like-minded people are frustrated by the need to rush into using the new shiny technology with little consideration of the consequences. Let me share a few examples, drawn from observation and experience, to illustrate what I mean.
I went into a well-known coffee shop the other day; in fact, I go into the coffee shop quite often. I ordered my usual coffee and my wife’s coffee, a black Americano, three quarters full. Perhaps a little pedantic or odd but the three quarters full makes the Americano a little stronger and has the added advantage of avoiding spillage (usually by me as I carry the tray). Served by one of the staff, I listened in bemusement as she had a conversation with a colleague and spoke to a customer in the drive through on her headset, all whilst taking my order. Three conversations at once. One full, not three quarters full, black Americano later coupled with ‘a what else was it you ordered’, tended to suggest that my order was not given the full concentration it deserved. So, whilst speaking to three people at once might seem efficient, it turns out not to be. It might save on staff, and it might save money, but it makes for poor service. I’m not blaming the young lady that served me, after all, she has no choice in how technology is used. I do feel sorry for her as she must have a very jumbled head at the end of the day.
On the same day, I got on a bus and attempted to pay the fare with my phone. It is supposed to be easy, but no, I held up the queue for some minutes getting increasingly frustrated with a phone that kept freezing. The bus driver said lots of people were having trouble, something to do with the heat. But to be honest, my experience of tap and go, is tap and tap and tap again as various bits of technology fail to work. The phone won’t open, it won’t recognise my fingerprint, it won’t talk to the reader, the reader won’t talk to it. The only talking is me cursing the damn thing. The return journey was a lot easier, the bus driver let everyone on without payment because his machine had stopped working. Wasn’t cash so much easier?
I remember the introduction of computers (PCs) into the office environment. It was supposed to make everything easier, make everyone more efficient. All it seemed to do was tie everyone to the desk and result in redundancies as the professionals, took over the administrative tasks. After all, why have a typing pool when everyone can type their own reports and letters (letters were replaced by endless, meaningless far from efficient, emails). Efficient, well not really when you consider how much money a professional person is being paid to spend a significant part of their time doing administrative tasks. Effective, no, I’m not spending the time I should be on the role I was employed to do. Economic, well on paper, fewer wages and a balance sheet provided by external consultants that show savings. New technology, different era, different organisations but the same experiences are repeated everywhere. In my old job, they set up a bureaucracy task force to solve the problem of too much time spent on administrative tasks, but rather than look at technology, the task force suggested more technology. Technology to solve a technologically induced problem, bonkers.
But most concerning is not how technology fails us quite often, nor how it is less efficient than it was promised to be, but how it is shaping our ability to recall things, to do the mundane but important things and how it stunts our ability to learn, how it impacts on us being human. We should be concerned that technology provides the answers to many questions, not always the right answers mind you, but in doing so it takes away our ability to enquire, critique and reason as we simply take the easy route to a ready-made solution. I can ask AI to provide me with a story, and it will make one up for me, but where is the human element? Where is my imagination, where do I draw on my experiences and my emotions? In fact, why do I exist? I wonder whether in human endeavour, as we allow technology to encroach into our lives more and more, we are not actually progressing at all as humans, but rather going backwards both emotionally and intellectually. Won’t be long now before some android somewhere asks the question, why do humans exist?
Share this:
Cost of Living Crisis: Don’t worry it’s the Sovereign’s Birthday!*
On Saturday 31st May 2025, on Wellington Arch there was an increased presence of police. It was a sunny, albeit windy day in central London, and lots of people (tourists and locals) raised questions around why there appeared to be an increased police presence on this final Saturday of the May half term. At around 1pm approximately, what appeared to be hundreds of uniformed royal officers on horseback paraded through Wellington Arch into Hyde Park. They appeared to have come from Buckingham Palace. It was quite a sight to see! Every Sunday, there is a small parade, known as Changing of the Guard, but this was a substantially bigger ordeal. There is usually 2/3 police bikes that escorts the parade on the Sunday but not the numbers of Police (vans, bikes and officers) out on this sunny Saturday. It is over quickly, but the amount of people power, and I would imagine money, this has used seems quite ridiculous.
It turns out the large parade on May 31st was a ‘practice run’ for the Trooping of the Colour, which will occur on Saturday 15th June 2025. The Trooping of the Colour marks the ‘official’ birthday of the British Soverign and has done so for over 260years (Royal Household, 2025). It involves “Over 1400 parading soldiers, 200 horses and 400 musicians […] in a great display of military precision, horsemanship and fanfare to mark the Sovereign’s official birthday” (Royal Household, 2025). Having seen this every year, it is quite a spectacle and it does generate a buzz and increase in tourism to the area every year. I know the local small businesses in the surrounding areas are grateful for the increase in people, and it draws tourists in globally to view which generates money for the economy. But given the poverty levels visibly evident in London (not to mention those which are hidden), is this a suitable spend of money? Add on the more alarming issues with the monarchy and what it represents steeped in the clutches of empire and fostering hierarchies and inequalities, should this ‘celebration’ still be occurring? It’s the ‘Official’ Birthday of the Sovereign, but how many Birthdays does one need?
According to a Freedom of Information Request, the Ministry of Defence claimed in 2021, the Trooping of the Colour cost taxpayers around £60,000 (not the cost of the event, as there would have been other monies attached to funding this). Imagine what good this money could do: the people it could feed, the people it could provide shelter for, the medical treatment or research it could fund! Given this was 2021, I am going to hazard a guess that in 2025 this is going to cost significantly more. And for what? The Monarchy is the visual embodiment of empire, and according to the National Centre of Social Research, support for and interest in the Monarchy has been steadily declining for the past decade (NCSR, 2025). So even if people choose to ignore the horrific past of the British Sovereigns, it would appear that many are not interested in the Monarchy, regardless of its history (NCSR, 2025). I am aware the Royal family, and these ‘celebrations’, bring in income and generates global interest which translates to the argument that having a Monarchy is ‘economically viable’, but when you look at the disadvantage elsewhere, especially in London, its hard not to question clinging on to such traditions and the expense of meeting people’s basic needs. There is no critical consideration of what maintaining these traditions might suggest, or how they might impact those most effected by the British Empire and Colonialism. So why are these ‘celebrations’ persisting, and why are they having a practice run when steps away from them, in the underpass by Hyde Park Tube station there are people sleeping rough and begging for food? It feels as though there is a serious disconnect between what society needs (affordable homes, food, reasonable living wage, rehabilitation programmes, support and care) and what society will get (a glorified Birthday party for the ‘British Sovereign’).
*Note: the title of the blog should be read dripping in sarcasm.
References:
The National Centre for Social Research (2024) British Social Attitudes: Support for the Monarchy Falls [online]. Available at: https://natcen.ac.uk/news/british-social-attitudes-support-monarchy-falls-new-low [Accessed 4th June 2025].
The Royal Household (2025) What is Trooping the Colour? [Online]. Available at: https://www.royal.uk/what-is-trooping-the-colour#:~:text=The%20Trooping%20of%20the%20Colour,mark%20the%20Sovereign’s%20official%20birthday [Accessed 4th June 2025].
Share this:
#UONCriminologyClub: What should we do with an Offender? with Dr Paula Bowles
You will have seen from recent blog entries (including those from @manosdaskalou and @kayleighwillis21 that as part of Criminology 25th year at UON celebrations, the Criminology Team have been engaging with lots of different audiences. The most surprising of these is the creation of the #UONCriminologyClub for a group of home educated children aged between 10-15. The idea was first mooted by @saffrongarside (who students of CRI1009 Imagining Crime will remember as a guest speaker this year) who is a home educator. From that, #UONCriminologyClub was born.
As you know from last week’s entry @manosdaskalou provided the introductions and started our “crime busters” journey into Criminology. I picked up the next session where we started to explore offender motivations and society’s response to their criminal behaviour. To do so, we needed someone with lived experience of both crime and punishment to help focus our attention. Enter Feathers McGraw!!!
At first the “crime busters” came out with all the myths: “master criminal” and “evil mastermind” were just two of the epithets applied to our offender. Both of which fit well into populist discourse around crime, but neither is particularly helpful for criminological study, But slowly and surely, they began to consider what he had done (or rather attempted to do) and why he might be motivated to do such things (attempted theft of a precious jewel). Discussion was fast flowing, lots of ideas, lots of questions, lots of respectful disagreement, as well as some consensus. If you don’t believe me, have a look at what Atticus and had to say!
We had another excellent criminology session this week, this time with Dr Paula Bowles. I think we all had a lot of fun, I personally could have enjoyed double or triple the session time. Dr Bowles was engaging, fun and unpretentious, making Criminology accessible to us whilst still covering a lot of interesting and complex subjects. We discussed so many different aspects of serious crime and moral and ethical questions about punishment and the treatment of criminals. During the session, we went into some very deep topics and managed to cover many big ideas. It was great that everyone was involved and had a lot to say. You might not necessarily guess from what I’ve said so far, how we got talking about Criminology in this way. It was all through the new Aardman animations film Wallace and Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl and the cheeky little penguin or is it just a chicken? Feathers McGraw. Whether he is a chicken or a penguin, he gave us a lot to discuss such as whether his trial was fair or not since he can’t talk, if the zoo could really be counted as a prison and, if so was he allowed to be sent there without a trial? Deep ethical questions around an animation. Just like last time it was a fun and engaging lesson that made me want to learn more and more and I can’t wait for next time. (Atticus, 14)
What emerged was a nuanced and empathetic understanding of some key criminological debates and questions, albeit without the jargon so beloved of social scientists: nature vs. nurture, coercion and manipulation of the vulnerable, the importance of human rights, the role of the criminal justice system, the part played by the media, the impetus to punish to name but a few. Additionally, a deep philosophical question arose as to whether or not Aardman’s portrayal of Feathers’ confinement in a zoo, meant that as a society we treat animals as though they are criminals, or criminals as though they are animals. We are all still pondering this particular question…. After deciding as group that the most important thing was for Feathers to stop his deviant behaviour, discussions inevitably moved on to deciding how this could be achieved. At this point, I will hand over to our “crime busters”!
What to do with Feathers McGraw?
At first, I thought that maybe we should make prison a better place so that he would feel the need to escape less. It wouldn’t have to be something massive but just maybe some better furniture or more entertainment. Also maybe make the security better so that it would be harder to break out. If we imagine the zoo as the prison, animals usually stay in the zoo for their life so they must have done some very bad stuff to deserve a life sentence! Is it safe to have dangerous animals so close to humans? Feathers McGraw might get influenced by the other prisoners and instead of getting better he might get more criminal ideas. I believe there should be a purpose-built prison for the more dangerous criminals, so they are kept away from the humans and the non-violent criminals. in this case is Feathers considered a violent or non-violent criminal? Even though he hasn’t killed anyone, he has abused them, tried to harm them, hacked into Wallace’s computer, vandalised gardens through the Norbots, and stole the jewel. So, I think we should get a restraining order against Feathers McGraw to stop him from seeing Wallace and Gromit. I also think we should invest in therapy for Feathers to help him realise that he doesn’t need to own the jewel to enjoy it, what would he even do with it?! Maybe socializing could also help to maybe take his mind of doing criminal things. He always seems alone and sad. I’m not sure whether he will be able to change his ways or not but I think we should do the best we can to. (Paisley, 10)
I think in order to stop Feathers McGraw’s criminal behaviour, he should go to prison but while he is there, he should have some lessons on how to be good, how to make friends, how to become a successful businessman (or penguin!), how to travel around on public transport, what the law includes and what the punishments there are for breaking it etc. I also think it’s important to make the prisons hospitable so that he feels like they do care about him because otherwise it might fuel anger and make him want to steal more diamonds. At the same time though, it should not be too nice so that he’ll think that stealing is great, because if you don’t get caught, then you keep whatever you stole and if you do get caught then it doesn’t matter because you will end up staying in a luxury cell with silky soft blankets.
After he is released from prison, I would suggest he would be held under house arrest for 2-3 months. He will live with Wallace and Gromit and he will receive a weekly allowance of £200. With this money, he will spend:
£100 – Feathers will pay Wallace and Gromit rent each week,
£15-he will pay for his own clothes,
£5-phone calls,
£10-public transport,
£35-food,
£5-education,
£15-hygiene,
£15- socialising and misc.
During this time, Feathers could also be home educated in the subjects of Maths, English etc. He should have a schedule so he will learn how to manage his time effectively and eventually should be able to manage his timewithouta schedule. The reason for this is because when Feathers was in prison, he was told what to do every day and at what time he would do it. He now needs to learn how to make those decisions by himself. This would mean when his house arrest is finished, he can go out into the real world and live happy life without breaking the law or stealing. (Linus, 13)
I think that once Feathers McGraw has been captured any money that he has on him will be taken away as well as any disguises that he has and if he still has any belongings left they will be checked to see whether he can have them. After that he should go to a proper prison and not a Zoo, then stay there for 3 months. Once a week, while he is in prison a group of ten penguins will be brought in so that he can be socialised and learn manners and good behaviour from them. However they will be supervised to make sure that they don’t come up with plans to escape. After that he will live with a police officer for 3 years and not leave the house unless a responsible and trustworthy adult accompanies him until he becomes trustworthy himself. He will be taught at the police officers house by a tutor because if he went to school he might run away. Feathers McGraw will have a weekly allowance of £460 that is funded by the government as he won’t have any money. Any money that was taken away from him will be given back in this time. Any money left over will be put into his savings account or used for something else if the money couldn’t quite cover it.
In one week he will give
£60 for fish and food
£10 for travel
£50 for clothing but it will be checked to make sure that it isn’t a disguise.
£80 for the police officer that looking after him
£15 for necessities (tooth brush, tooth paste, face cloth etc…)
£70 for his tutor
£55 for education supplies
£20 will be put in a savings account for when he lives by himself again.
And £100 for some therapy
After 1 year if the police officer looking after him thinks that he’s trustworthy enough then he can get a job and use £40 pounds a week (if he earns manages to earn that much.) as he likes and the rest of it will be put into his savings account. Feathers McGraw will only be allowed to do certain jobs for example, He couldn’t be a police officer in case he steals something that he’s guarding, He also couldn’t be a prison guard in case he helped someone escape etc… If at any point he commits another crime he will lose his freedom and his job and will be confined to the house and garden. When he lives by himself again he will have to do community service for 1 month. (Liv, 11).
Feathers McGraw has committed many crimes, some of which include attempted theft, abuse towards Wallace and Gromit, and prison break.
Here are some ideas of things that we can do to stop him from reoffending:
Immediate action:
A restraining order is to be put in place so he can’t come within 50m of Wallace and Gromit, for their protection both physical and mental. Penguins live for up to 20 years so seeing as he is portrayed as being an adult, my guess is he is around 10 years old. His sentence should be limited to 2 years in prison. Whilst serving his sentence he should be given a laptop (with settings so that he can’t use it to hack) so he can write, watch videos, play games and learn stuff.
Longer term solutions:
When Feathers gets out he will be banned from seeing the gem in museums so there will be less chance of him stelling it. He also will be given some job options to help him get started in his career. His first job won’t be front facing so Wallace and Gromit won’t have to be worried and they will get to say no to any job Feathers tries to get. If he reoffends, he will be taken to court where his sentence will be a minimum of 5 years in prison.
Rehabilitation:
I think Feathers should be given rehabilitation in several different forms, some sneakier than others! One of these forms is probation: penguins which are trained probation officers who will speak to him and try to say that crime is not cool. To him they will look like normal penguins, he won’t know that they have had training. He also should be offered job experience so he can earn a prison currency which he can use to buy upgrades for his cell (for example a better bed, bigger tv, headphones, an mp3 player and songs for said mp3 player) to give him a chance to get a job in the future. (Quinn, 12)
The “crime busters” comments above came after reflecting on our session, their input demonstrates their serious and earnest attempt to resolve an extremely complex issue, which many of the greatest minds in Criminology have battled with for the last two centuries. They may seem very young to deal with a discipline often perceived as dark, but they show us an essential truth about Criminology, it is always hopeful, always focused on what could be, instead of tolerating what we have.
Share this:
Criminology in the neo-liberal milieu
I do not know whether the title is right nor whether it fits what I want to say, but it is sort of catchy, well I think so anyway even if you don’t. I could never have imagined being capable of thinking up such a title let alone using words such as ‘milieu’ before higher education. I entered higher education halfway through a policing career. I say entered; it was more of a stumble into. A career advisor had suggested I might want to do a management diploma to advance my career, but I was offered a different opportunity, a taster module at a ‘new’ university. I was fortunate, I was to renew an acquaintance with Alan Marlow previously a high-ranking officer in the police and now a senior lecturer at the university. Alan, later to become an associate professor and Professor John Pitts became my mentors and I never looked back, managing to obtain a first-class degree and later a PhD. I will be forever grateful to them for their guidance and friendship. I had found my feet in the vast criminology ocean. However, what at first was delight in my achievements was soon to be my Achilles heel.
Whilst policing likes people with knowledge and skills, some of the knowledge and skills butt up against the requirements of the role. Policing is functional, it serves the criminal justice system, such as it, and above all else it serves its political masters. Criminology however serves no master. As criminologists we are allowed to shine our spotlight on what we want, when we want. Being a police officer tends to put a bit of a dampener on that and required some difficult negotiating of choppy waters. It felt like I was free in a vast sea but restrained with a life ring stuck around my arms and torso with a line attached so as to never stray too far from the policing ideology and agenda. But when retirement came, so too came freedom.
By design or good luck, I landed myself a job at another university, the University of Northampton. I was interviewed for the job by Dr @manosdaskalou., along with Dr @paulaabowles (she wasn’t Dr then but still had a lot to say, as criminologists do), became my mentors and good friends. I had gone from one organisation to another. If I thought I knew a lot about criminology when I started, then I was wrong. I was now in the vast sea without a life ring, freedom was great but quite daunting. All the certainties I had were gone, nothing is certain. Theories are just that, theories to be proved, disproved, discarded and resurrected. As my knowledge widened and I began to explore the depths of criminology, I realised there was no discernible bottom to knowledge. There was only one certainty, I would never know enough and discussions with my colleagues in criminology kept reminding me that was the case.
Why the ‘neo-liberal milieu’ you might ask, after all this seems to be a romanticised story about a seemingly successful transition from one career to another. Well, here’s the rub of it, universities are no different to policing, both are driven, at an arm’s length, by neo liberal ideologies. The business is different but subjugation of professional ideals to managerialist ideology is the same. Budgets are the bottom line; the core business is conducted within considerable financial constraints. The front-line staff take the brunt of the work; where cuts are made and processes realigned, it is the front-line staff that soak up the overflow. Neo-Taylorism abounds, as spreadsheets to measure human endeavour spring up to aide managers both in convincing themselves, and their staff, that more work is possible in and even outside, the permitted hours. And to maintain control, there is always, the age-old trick of re-organisation. Keep staff on their toes and in their place, particularly professionals.
The beauty of being an academic, unlike a police officer, is that I can have an opinion and at least for now I’m able to voice it. But such freedoms are under constant threat in a neo-liberal setting that seems to be seeping into every walk of life. And to be frank and not very academic, it sucks!
Share this:
Let’s talk about sex!
Very few topics receive attention as much as sex. A very primal human behaviour that gets people talking. In Criminology any discussion on sex contains those elements that make it less than appealing, abuse, exploitation and violation. Our focus on the criminal dimensions of sexual behaviour can disfigure the way we talk about it and misrepresent the joys of sex. It can be argued however that outlining the negatives gives way to a positive outlook to sex in a similar way to health professional’s focus on avoiding sexually transmitted diseases, leading to a healthy sexual life.
Sex is about affirming social relations, as part of our own intimacy. There is a variety on sex from feelings, practices and expressions that is as wide as humanity itself. It is a language we talk that needs no translation. This is why that abusive behaviours are regarded such a violation of the person. Rape, legally, is as serious as murder. The person victimised is losing something so intimate that it may never be recovered; one of the many reasons why people who suffered abuse are called survivors.
Our perspectives on sex changes and our society tried to accommodate them. Some years ago, Holland decided to include some scenes on “public liberal expressions on sexuality” as part of their material for their immigration test. This is a marked difference from the UK who decriminalised homosexuality but only behind closed doors.
Criminologically speaking there are certain elements that safeguard sexual behaviours. Age, relation, location and consent. The age of consent is recognising the minimum age any person can be legally responsible to engage in sexual relations. Under that age and it is statutory rape. Any relationship between close relatives in the UK can lead to imprisonment. Any sexual acts in public are regarded illegal, including sex in public toilets (cottaging) so sex remains behind closed doors. The final point is the most controversial; consent is paramount to any sexual relations. The important thing in sex is that we choose to engage with others or not.
Part of the criminological process is to ascertain how we understand consent and disseminate it to others. Academically there are several issues to consider and to investigate. This is one of criminology’s strengths to tap into the sociological and philosophical discourses offering some practical perspectives. In recent years the discussion about sex on campus for example has been one that raised awareness on consent. In criminology we discuss it in ways to amplify the importance of consent in sex and in relationships in general.
For a long time now, we have talked about safe spaces as a mechanism of allowing people to talk without judgement. We focus on educational practices that are focused on inclusion and empathy and disseminate work that challenges established notions that mythologise sexual relations and minimise the importance of consent.
Let’s explore some of the key points we disseminate. Sex is an individual right for all regardless of origin or identity, which makes it also a universal right. Law safeguards sexual relations, but the lack of reporting of sexual violence, the low conviction rate of those processed cases and the volume of unknowns underscore that we cannot resolve sexual violence legally. We cannot police sexual relations when our community does not prioritise the importance of safeguarding human rights. What we can do instead is to change that social discourse on sex. In one of my previous posts, I underscored the irony of proliferating legal interventions, whilst culturally we seem happy to receive expressions on misogyny, abuse and exploitation as legitimate expressions on sexuality. Policing sexual behaviours for example comes with a long history of retaining the straight man’s privilege of pleasure over all others. A privilege long retained unchallenged making the work of current and future criminologists even more pressing! At the end of this month, it is International Day of Consent in November 30, so from today until the end of the month, ask yourself what you have done to change the established narrative to make your own space more inclusive.
Share this:
Everyone loves a man in uniform: The Rise and Fall of Nick Adderley
Some of our local readers will be familiar with the case of former Chief Constable Nick Adderley who was recently dismissed from Northamptonshire Police. The full Regulation 43 report can be found here and it provides an interesting, and at times, comical, narrative of the life and times of the now disgraced police officer.
The Regulation 43 report describes Adderley’s creation of a “false legend” of military service, whereby this supposed naval man fought bravely to protect the Falkland Islands (despite only being 15 when the conflict ended), rescued helicopters and ships in the height of battle, commanded men, was a military negotiator during the Anti-Duvalier protest movement in Haiti. In short, an all round real-life Naval action man! It’s pity for Adderley, that the Regulation 43 panel found none of this was true, instead a ‘Walter Mitty‘ like trail of lies were revealed throughout the investigation.
Nevertheless, not content with his brave military career, our intrepid hero decided he would take his considerable (in his estimation at least) skills into policing. First applying to Greater Manchester Police [GMP] (who turned him down on the grounds that there were ‘better candidates’) and then Cheshire Police. From Cheshire Police, he went to GMP and then to Staffordshire Police, finally arriving in Northamptonshire in the summer of 2018. Despite all of these different forces, all of the different application and promotion forms that our brave hero completed, not one person bothered to check that he was telling the truth. To check that this man, responsible for upholding law and order, was a fit candidate for the role. instead, I suspect, like so many it seems, we are so in love with our military and all its trappings, that we lose any sense of criticality when it comes to uniforms. After all who would dare to question a Chief Constable, whether a police officer, civilian worker or member of the public? Easier to keep parroting the mantra of “our brave boys”, than to think critically about institutions and their members, as the cartoon below demonstrates all too well.
At this point Adderley has been dismissed from Northamptonshire Police and banned from policing. In 2024 the Angiolini Inquiry published its report, which in part focused on police vetting and there is no doubt, post-Adderley the police as an institution, will undertake more soul searching. Additionally, some commentators have begun a campaign to have Adderley’s police pension reduced/removed. These matters will continue to rumble along for some time. But, in short, Adderley has been punished and publicly outed as a liar, but that does not begin to undo the immense harm his behaviour has inflicted on the community.
During his time at Chief Constable of Northamptonshire, Adderley called upon his supposed military history and experience to support his arguments and the decisions he made. For instance, the 2019 arming of Northamptonshire’s police with tasers or the 2020 launch of eight interceptors, described by Adderley as “a new fleet of crime-busting cars” or the 2021 purchase of “eight Yamaha WR450F enduro bikes“. To me, all of these developments scream the militarisation of policing. Since the very foundation of the Metropolitan Police in 1829, serving officers and the public have continually been opposed to arming the police, yet Adderley, with his military service, seemingly knew best. But what use is a taser, fast car or motorbike in everyday community policing, how do they help when responding to domestic abuse, sexual violence, or the very many mental health crises to which officers are regularly called? How do these expensive military “toys” ensure that all members of society feel protected and not just some communities? How can we ensure that tasers don’t do lasting harm to those subjected to their violence? Instead all of these developments scream a fantasy of both military and policing, one in which the hero is always on the side of the righteous, devoting his life to taking down the “baddies” by whatever means necessary.
Ultimately for the people of Northamptonshire we have to decide, can we view Adderley’s police leadership as the best use of taxpayers’ money, a response to evidence based policing or just a military fantasy of the man who lied? More importantly, the county and its police force will struggle to untangle Adderley’s web of lies and the harm inflicted on the people of Northamptonshire, making it likely that this entirely unevidenced push to militarise the police will continue unchecked.
Share this:
I’m not Black; my Friends and I are Brown, not Black
I recently began the process of preparing my child for the imminent transition to a new school situated in a diverse community. Despite being born into a similarly diverse environment, his early educational exposure occurred in an ethnically varied setting. Venturing into this new chapter within a racially diverse community has sparked a keen interest in him.
My child soon articulated a perspective that challenged conventional racial labels. He asserted that he and his friend Lucien are not accurately described as ‘black,’ rather he believes they are ‘brown.’ He went further to contest the classification of a lady on TV, who was singing the song “Ocean” by Hillsong, as ‘white.’ According to him, his skin is not black like the trousers he was wearing, and the lady is not white like the paper on my lap. This succinct but profound statement held more critical significance than numerous conversations I’ve encountered in my over five years of post-PhD lecturing.
The task at hand, guiding an under seven-year-old questioning the conventional colour-based categorisation, proved challenging. How do I convince an under seven-year-old that his knowledge of colours should be limited to abstract things and that persons with brown toned skin are ‘black’ while those with fair or light toned skinned are ‘white’? I found myself unprepared to initiate this complex conversation, but his persistent curiosity and incessant ‘why prompts’ compelled me to seek creative ways to address the matter. Even as I attempted to distract myself with a routine evening shower and dinner, my mind continued to grapple with the implications of our conversation.
Post-dinner, my attempt to engage in my usual political news catch-up led me to a YouTube vlog by Adeola titled ‘How I Almost Died!’ where she shared her pregnancy challenges. One statement she made struck a chord: ‘if you are a black woman and you are having a baby in America, please always advocate for yourself, don’t ever keep quiet, whatever you are feeling, keep saying it until they do something about it’ (18:39). This sentiment echoed similar experiences of tennis star Serena Williams, who faced negligence during childbirth in 2017.
The experiences of these popular ‘black’ women not only reminds me that the concept ‘black’ and ‘white’ are not only symbolic, but a tool for domination and oppression, and disadvantaging the one against the other. Drawing inspiration from Jay-Z’s ‘the story of O.J’, the song drew attention to the experiences of race, success, and the complexities of navigating the world as a ‘black’ individual. In the song, two themes stood out for me, the collective vulnerability to prejudice and the apparent bias in the criminal justice system towards ‘black’ people. In the UK, both proportional underrepresentation in staff number and proportional overrepresentation of minoritized groups in the criminal justice system and the consequences therefrom is still topical.
Jay-Z’s nuanced understanding of ‘black’ identity rejects simplistic narratives while emphasising its multifaceted nature. The verse, “O.J. ‘like I’m not black, I’m O.J.’ Okay” underscores the challenges even successful ‘black’ individuals face within racial systems. As criminologists, we recognize the reflection of these issues in daily experiences, prompting continuous self-reflexivity regarding our values, power positions, and how our scholarly practice addresses or perpetuates these concerns. Ultimately, the question persists: Can a post-racially biassed world or systems truly exist?
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:
Is Criminology Up to Speed with AI Yet?
On Tuesday, 20th June 2023, the Black Criminology Network (BCN) together with some Criminology colleagues were awarded the Culture, Heritage, and Environment Changemaker of the Year Award 2023. The University of Northampton Changemaker Awards is an event showcasing, recognising, and celebrating some of the key success and achievements of staff, students, graduates, and community initiatives.
For this award, the BCN, and the team held webinars with a diverse audience from across the UK and beyond to mark the Black History Month. The webinars focused on issues around the ‘criminalisation of young Black males, the adultification of Black girls, and the role of the British Empire in the marking of Queen Elizabeth’s Jubilee.’. BCN was commended for ‘creating a rare and much needed learning community that allows people to engage in conversations, share perspectives, and contextualise experiences.’ I congratulate the team!
The award of the BCN and Criminology colleagues reflects the effort and endeavour of Criminologists to better society. Although Criminology is considered a young discipline, the field and the criminal justice system has always demonstrated the capacity to make sense of criminogenic issues in society and theorise about the future of crime and its administration/management. Radical changes in crime administration and control have not only altered the pattern of some crime, but criminality and human behaviour under different situations and conditions. Little strides such as the installation and use of fingerprints, DNA banks, and CCTV cameras has significantly transformed the discussion about crime and crime control and administration.
Criminologist have never been shy of reviewing, critiquing, recommending changes, and adapting to the ever changing and dynamic nature of crime and society. One of such changes has been the now widely available artificial intelligence (AI) tools. In my last blog, I highlighted the morality of using AI by both academics and students in the education sector. This is no longer a topic of debate, as both academics and students now use AI in more ways than not, be it in reading, writing, and formatting, referencing, research, or data analysis. Advance use of various types of AI has been ongoing, and academics are only waking up to the reality of language models such as Bing AI, Chat GPT, Google Bard. For me, the debate should now be on tailoring artificial intelligence into the curriculum, examining current uses, and advancing knowledge and understanding of usage trends.
For CriminologistS, teaching, research, and scholarship on the current advances and application of AI in criminal justice administration should be prioritised. Key introductory criminological texts including some in press are yet to dedicate a chapter or more to emerging technologies, particularly, AI led policing and justice administration. Nonetheless, the use of AI powered tools, particularly algorithms to aid decision making by the police, parole, and in the courts is rather soaring, even if biased and not fool-proof. Research also seeks to achieve real-world application for AI supported ‘facial analysis for real-time profiling’ and usage such as for interviews at Airport entry points as an advanced polygraph. In 2022, AI led advances in the University of Chicago predicted with 90% accuracy, the occurrence of crime in eight cities in the US. Interestingly, the scholars involved noted a systemic bias in crime enforcement, an issue quite common in the UK.
The use of AI and algorithms in criminal justice is a complex and controversial issue. There are many potential benefits to using AI, such as the ability to better predict crime, identify potential offenders, and make more informed decisions about sentencing. However, there are also concerns about the potential for AI to be biased or unfair, and to perpetuate systemic racism in the criminal justice system. It is important to carefully consider the ethical implications of using AI in criminal justice. Any AI-powered system must be transparent and accountable, and it must be designed to avoid bias. It is also important to ensure that AI is used in a way that does not disproportionately harm marginalized communities. The use of AI in criminal justice is still in its early stages, but it has the potential to revolutionize the way we think about crime and justice. With careful planning and implementation, AI can be used to make the criminal justice system fairer and more effective.
AI has the potential to revolutionize the field of criminology, and criminologists need to be at the forefront of this revolution. Criminologists need to be prepared to use AI to better understand crime, to develop new crime prevention strategies, and to make more informed decisions about criminal justice. Efforts should be made to examine the current uses of AI in the field, address biases and limitations, and advance knowledge and understanding of usage trends. By integrating AI into the curriculum and fostering a critical understanding of its implications, Criminologists can better equip themselves and future generations with the necessary tools to navigate the complex landscape of crime and justice. This, in turn, will enable them to contribute to the development of ethical and effective AI-powered solutions for crime control and administration.
Thoughts from the criminology team 