Home » Posts tagged 'news'
Tag Archives: news
Without solidarity there is no social movement: beyond the rainbow
As this month draws to a close, it is worth remembering that for several years now June has been recognised as Pride Month. It is a significant date in the calendar for the LGBTQ+ community both nationally and internationally. Arguably, it is now a cultural event marked by celebrations and activities in towns and cities across the world. On the surface, it may not appear to be a criminological talking point. However, that changes when we consider the origins of Pride itself.
It is widely acknowledged that Pride has its roots in the Stonewall Riots of June 1969. At the time, a marginalised community, alongside other groups campaigning for equality, raised concerns that were fundamentally about civil and human rights. They made a stand against discrimination and criminalisation. Respect and decriminalisation were among the key issues, accompanied by broader demands for equal rights, including the recognition of same-sex relationships and the right to family life. The birth of Pride, therefore, is firmly rooted in activism, civil rights, and the struggle for visibility.
During the 1970s, Pride was unapologetically political, highlighting the inequalities and prejudices faced by the LGBTQ+ community, many of which stemmed directly from the criminalisation of homosexual acts. In the UK, calls for reform had already begun to gain momentum. Following the Wolfenden Report (1957), homosexual acts between consenting men over the age of 21 were decriminalised in England and Wales in 1967. Scotland followed in 1980 and Northern Ireland in 1982. While decriminalisation ended the prosecution of consenting adults, the struggle for equality was far from over.
In 1988, the UK government introduced Section 28 of the Local Government Act, which prohibited local authorities from “promoting homosexuality” through teaching or published materials. It became clear that Pride remained an essential mechanism for drawing attention to injustice and actively protesting against it. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Pride was as much a political demonstration as it was a celebration of visibility and community. Campaigns focused on issues such as repealing Section 28, equalising the age of consent, and achieving legal recognition for same-sex relationships. Equality in the age of consent was eventually achieved in England, Wales, and Scotland in 2001 and in Northern Ireland in 2008. Section 28 was repealed in 2003 in England and Wales, having already been repealed in Scotland in 2000. Civil partnerships came into effect in 2005, and same-sex marriage was legalised in 2014, with the first marriages taking place in 2014 in England, Wales, and Scotland and in 2020 in Northern Ireland. For many people outside the LGBTQ+ community, these milestones appeared to signal the end of the movement’s activism.
Far from it.
Since the early 2000s, there has been a growing political focus on, and often hostility towards, members of the trans community. Questions surrounding access to public facilities, pronoun use, healthcare, and participation in sport have become central features of what is often described as the “culture wars”. It is interesting to observe the shift in language from civil rights to culture, as this change obscures the most important aspect of these debates. At their core, these are questions about human rights, dignity, and equal treatment.
Regrettably, some members of the LGBTQ+ community have distanced themselves from this struggle, arguing that full equality has already been achieved. To them, and to many others, I would simply point out that the movement born at Stonewall was led in significant part by trans women and gender-nonconforming individuals whose determination to be visible and respected helped ignite a global movement. Their courage challenged discrimination and injustice. They stood at the forefront of a community demanding recognition and dignity; their mascara countered discrimination and their lipstick was their war paint to fight injustice. Now that their rights are increasingly questioned and, in some cases, curtailed, the wider community should stand alongside them. After all, without solidarity there can be no social movement.
Many people today regard Pride as a relic of late twentieth-century activism that has lost its political relevance. In this view, it has become little more than a party or an excuse for performative displays. Such perspectives overlook a fundamental truth: human rights are rarely given freely, particularly to those who experience discrimination. They are fought for, defended, and maintained through constant vigilance because rights can be eroded as easily as they are won.
Even within the UK, some cities and towns continue to struggle to finance Pride events due to local political opposition or dwindling institutional support. Internationally, Pride marches are increasingly met with counter-protests framed around “family values”, while LGBTQ+ communities in a number of countries face direct and indirect attacks on their rights and freedoms. Several countries have restricted or banned Pride events altogether, while others have altered their legal frameworks in ways that make public expressions of LGBTQ+ identity increasingly difficult or risky. Furthermore, homosexuality remains criminalised in dozens of countries worldwide, with penalties ranging from imprisonment to, in some cases, far harsher punishments.
In many ways, the legal changes securing LGBTQ+ rights in the UK represent the fulfilment of decades of activism, mobilisation, and collective struggle. They are significant achievements and should be celebrated. Yet what matters most is what comes next. Progress is never guaranteed.
As the flags are taken down and the celebrations come to an end, as trans rights continue to be contested, and as democratic societies increasingly grapple with intolerance and authoritarian tendencies, perhaps it is time to remember the spirit that gave birth to Pride. Perhaps it is time, once again, to put on our lipstick and continue the struggle for those whose voices have too often been silenced.
And to the colleague who once asked me why the “L” comes first in the community’s acronym: it is there, in part, because during the AIDS crisis of the 1980s and 1990s, many lesbians stepped forward when others would not. They cared for gay men who were dying, held their hands when families and institutions turned away, and demonstrated a profound humanity in the face of fear and stigma. It is that humanity that we recognise, honour, and celebrate.
Images
L-R Sydney Gay and Lesbian Holocaust Memorial and Corby Pride
Share this:
The demise of the punitive state – you can’t have your cake and eat it
The sentences passed down to three teenagers for serious sexual offences and the subsequent furore over the perceived leniency hit the headlines recently. I think I should add right now this blog is not intended to pass judgement, pardon the pun, on the sentencing, lenient or not, nor is it intended to convey my feelings on that particular case. We are after all only provided with information by the press, who quite frankly have a field day when they think there’s a story to be had. My take on the political machinations and other commentary is that it is premature and for the most part self-serving. There is a judicial process and that should have ben allowed to take place before everyone jumped on the bandwagon of indignation and finger pointing.
I think I probably digressed a little. The purpose of the blog is merely to point out that there are a number of issues within the criminal justice system that we as a society, have never managed to resolve. Politicians kick the criminal justice football around dependent on the fickleness of the public whilst at the same time trying to manage an administrative and financial burden. The prison estate costs money, punitive attitudes towards offending is costly when it leads to custodial sentences. Given the public finances, there is a sound argument to utilise non-custodial sentences as much as possible. There is an abundance of academic literature that points to the fact that prison does not work (include in that youth custody). There is an abundance of literature that suggests that criminalising young people severely diminishes their chances in life and leads to reoffending. So many criminologists will point to the futility of prisons and even advocate complete abolition. Given the recent prison over crowding crisis, it is little wonder that the Justice Secretary called for a reduction in custodial sentences. Nothing new there though, they do that these politicians from time to time, dependent on the crisis and the public mood. Whipped up by the media of course. The whole system is in chaos and that chaos impacts real people, defendants, offenders, victims and a myriad of other people, rarely considered. What of family, friends and those people involved in the cases in one way or another.
What is the purpose of the criminal justice system? If the purpose is justice, what is justice and can it really be achieved? Does justice consider the impact of the crime on the victim or on the offender or both? Should what happens to the offender really matter or matter more than the victim’s feelings? I wonder how many decisions are made, not on the basis of what is right, but on what is viewed as administratively convenient and affordable. How does the system satisfy the victim and the public and at the same time give offenders the best opportunity to turn their lives around? Why have prisons? Is the purpose punishment, retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, public protection or something else? To be honest, I don’t think we really know. If you are a victim of crime, then you may have a particular view in the aftermath of the crime. That view may or may not change over time. You might suggest it all depends on the crime, but then what crime is more important, more serious, more deserving of attention? We ask our judiciary, to make judgements about this, often with their hands tied by political motive and public opinion. Go one way, and you’ll have the abolitionists, anti-custodial mob lamenting the rise in the prison population, the punitive society and penal politics. Go the other way and the mob will be baying for your blood, life should mean life, not 12 years, hard labour, throw away the key, bring back capital punishment.
I don’t know the answer, but I don’t suppose that anyone will be opposing a custodial sentence for the teenage boys. No one will be brave enough to put their head above the parapet. There are too many interested parties ready to take a pot shot and public opinion, whatever that is, will be brought to bear. What was it John Stewart Mill said, ‘Beware the tyranny of the majority’. I know one thing; you can’t on the one hand be in the abolitionist camp and then on the other call for a review of the sentences meted out because you find the crime committed so appalling. I really don’t think you can have your cake and eat it.
Just for the record, given the nature of the offence, I really don’t think the key should ever be found.
Images
L-R HMP Wormwood Scrubs and a delightful cake
Share this:
Crime II: Nature and Nurture?
Fifty years after Lombroso’s theory of the “born criminal” an American criminologist explored the origins of criminality from a different perspective. For Edwin Sutherland people weren’t born criminal but more likely influenced by their environment. Differential association became a theory that changed the focus from biology to environment. This change signified the change of focus within criminology from biological attributes to social features.
This change, whilst it appears to have capture a wider social sciences debate at the time is also the outcome of trying to understand a world in motion. Sutherland’s theory comes in the early 20th century after the First World War and a massive economic crash. These placed in doubt the scientific and political economy of the time, putting many of these earlier ideas to the test. Popular movements challenged the authority of the state and the way hegemony suppressed people. Differential association was exploring how people learn crime by observing others; it becomes what Kornhouser called a ‘cultural deviance theory’.
What Sutherland articulated is that crime is learned through group conflict, again attempting to explain all types of crime like the biological theories before. The 20th century with its fast pace, European (World) wars, was the embodiment of modernity, progression and change. The world outside Europe began to rise against colonial rule, whilst civil rights became a rallying objective for many disenfranchised groups. In most countries worldwide women got the vote in the 20th century whilst, many countries recognised unions, and civil rights organisations, a consequence of people’s mobilisation.
It comes as no surprise then that differential association was a theory of crime that tried to account for social change and understand criminality as a process that moves within this change. The foundations of the theory in its simplest form are straightforward, covered in 9 main points:
1. Criminal behavior is learned from other individuals.
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.
3. The principle part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.
4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes simple; (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of the law.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.
9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those needs and values, since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values.
The theory is more than a compilation of points and citing them is informative, but it doesn’t really explain the reach and extent. As a general theory of crime it can account for violent crime, theft and even white collar crimes. This reach of theory coincided with the wider discussion on “normative conflict” that focused on cultures. As discussions on cultural dominance, subcultures and the role of social groups became a sociological and criminological point these ideas introduced by Sutherland seemed to bare relevance.
There were questions already regarding the theory’s basis in terms of clarity as a cultural deviance theory, when culture focused away from poverty and social struggles. The cultural conflict seemed to resonate with certain crime categories, but it could not account for harm, leaving zemiologists to doubt the accuracy of its scope as theory. Furthermore, whilst the focus moved on from an arbitrary biology to the role of the environment some of the fundamental problems expected to be resolved in a general theory of crime remained unanswered.
So what is the answer? We can safely say that crime and most importantly criminality isn’t the product of a singularity nor its binary. How can we account for example for a social phenomenon whose definition of crime (in some instances) relies on law. A mechanism that the establishment uses to safeguard its privileges and position. The definitional factors therefore ought to transcend general conventions of biology or social interaction. Often they don’t, they merely describe the phenomenon but in closed cultural formats. There is a much more interesting and complex explanation that take us away from this binary. If you are more curious and you want to know more, why not join a criminology course and see if you can get the answer you expect or not. Criminology is a fascinating discipline not because we talk blood and bones but because we reflect on the current state of crime and imagine a world of crime (or free of crime) in the future. If you wish to share that imagination you can but join us!
https://www.northampton.ac.uk/courses/criminology-ba-hons/ https://www.northampton.ac.uk/courses/criminology-phd/ https://www.northampton.ac.uk/courses/criminology-with-psychology-ba-hons/ https://www.northampton.ac.uk/blog/why-i-chose-criminology/
Share this:
Crime I: Nature or Nurture?
This is a two-part blog on embracing some of the criminological theory origin stories in the Western hemisphere. Is crime the product of bad genes or bad society? Are we born or made criminal?
In this week we shall be exploring our understanding of biological theories originating back in the 19th century with the “born criminal”. The following week we will look at the role of the environment.
The born criminal.
In 1871 Cesare Lombroso became the director at the Pesaro Mental Health Hospital (asylum) that housed the clinically insane. In that environment he examined the anatomical anomalies of residents in laboratory conditions. The era of the scientific exploration of deviance had begun. These meticulous explorations of bodily features and skulls formed the basis for his later thesis on The Born Criminal. The basis of his criminal population were residents of the asylum. His control group (i.e. those deemed non-criminal) were soldiers. Later, these were combined with the population of inmate prison population Lombroso and his associates visited. As he assumed an academic role in one of the finest Italian universities the world read his seminal publication of L’uomo delinquente {The Born Criminal] .Which in 1876 became one of the publications that influence the work of its contemporaries. In later years studied in exactly the same way. criminality in women using sex workers and prisoners as his research population cumulating into the 1893 publication of La Donna Delinquente: La prostituta e la donna normale [The Criminal Woman: The Prostitute and the Normal Woman.
His theoretical reach transcended borders and became widely read in the English-speaking world. This is an origin story according to numerous textbooks about the biological understanding of criminality. When embellished with some of the original quotes this becomes a theory of crime that explains different criminalities and makes the most significant leap that combines scientific rationale with crime. The methodology of anthropometry is a careful measuring of human features, prominently skulls! The main theoretical “innovation” was the recognition of a state of atavism; a regression onto a prior evolutionary stage for those engaged in crime.
A theory of crime on the born criminal seemed as a logical step at a time hailed as an era of discovery and exploration. A time that social and political movements in Europe asked profound questions about self and society. This narrative of course largely overlooks that whilst West European and US philosophers are posing these questions their elites and establishment are preoccupied with colonialism and dominance. In fact, it is the time European conflict around the world for dominance intensified. By the late 19th century, the European powers will try to manage their dominance in other continents by carving the world according to their own interests. The Berlin conference of 1884-85 is the culmination of such European competition and led to the split of Africa into zones of colonial influence.
In what way is The Born Criminal related with colonialism?
The theory of the “born criminal” breaks down humanity into two; the “normals” and the “atavists” which conveniently separates us from them. The criminal becomes the outcome of a lack of civilisation that can be seen in their physical features. There is history in separating people for the sake of exploitation, subjugation and even genocide. In this context of using civilisation (solely European) as the feature of separation is something previously seen in the colonisation of the Americas. When the European explorers landed in a new (for their map’s) continent the question of whom it belongs to was answered using religious decree. Several popes described the native population of these “discovered lands” as uncivilised and unworthy of human rights. It was the papal “Doctrine of Discovery” that denied the indigenous people rights to their land because uncivilised, faithless people (calling it terra nullus or empty land) do not count. Therefore, this separation for discrimination is not new, but Lombroso brought some scientific veneer to it.
It is important to remind all that “the born criminal” theory was widely discredited already in the early 20th century, when data analysis found no support for atavism and the biological features seemingly associated with criminality. Yet still this approach seems to capture even today some interest in the collective criminological imagination. Can you tell the prospective criminality reflected in someone’s gaze? It is a question that people still wonder, despite any lack of empirical or scientific data. The line of separating criminals from non-criminal provides an arbitrary differentiation that offers some clarity of how criminals should look, in a similar fashion to separating the “civilised” from the “savages”. In this overreaching correlation crime becomes the act of the uncivilised. It can also be flipped over and the uncivilised are the criminals contributing to the continuous fear of those who see the foreigner with suspicion.
A theory about the biological origins on crime that has offered us an explanation of the born criminal that has no scientific evidence but carries populist imagination because we take comfort in differentiating people. Next week we shall be exploring a theory that explores of the environmental factors of crime.
Share this:
25 years is but a drop in time!
If I was a Roman, I would be sitting in my comfortable triclinium eating sweet grapes and dictating my thoughts to a scribe. It was the Roman custom of celebrating a double-faced god that started European celebrations for a new year. It was meant to be a time of reflection, contemplation and future resolutions. It is under these sentiments that I shall be looking back over the year to make my final calculations. Luckily, I am not Roman, but I am mindful that over 2025 years have passed and many people, have tried to look back. Since I am not any of these people, I am going to look into the future instead.
In 25 years from now we shall be heading to the middle of the 21st century. A century that comes with great challenges. Since the start of the century there has been talk of economic bust. The banking crisis slowed down the economy and decreased real income for people. Then the expectation was that crime will rise as it did before; whilst the juries may still be out. the consensus is that this crime spree did not come…at least not as expected. People became angry and their anger was translated in changes on the political map, as many countries moved to the right.
Prediction 1: This political shift to the right in the next 25 years will intensify and increase the polarisation. As politics thrives in opposition, a new left will emerge to challenge the populist right. Their perspective will bring another focus on previous divisions such as class. Only on this occasion class could take a different perspective. The importance of this clash will define the second half of the 21st century when people will try to recalibrate human rights across the planet. Globalisation has brought unspeakable wealth to few people. The globalisation of citizenship will challenge this wealth and make demands on future gains.
As I write these notes my laptop is trying to predict what I will say and put a couple of words ahead of me. Unfortunately, most times I do not go with its suggestions. As I humanise my device, I feel sorry for its inability to offer me the right words and sometimes I use the word as to acknowledge its help but afterwards I delete it. My relationship with technology is arguably limited but I do wonder what will happen in 25 years from now. We have been talking about using AI for medical research, vaccines, space industry and even the environment. However currently the biggest concern is not AI research, but AI generated indecent images!
Prediction 2: Ai is becoming a platform that we hope will expand human knowledge at levels that we could have not previously anticipated. One of its limitations comes from us. Our biology cannot receive the volume of information created and there is no current interface that can sustain it. This ultimately will lead to a divide between people. Those who will be in favour of incorporating more technology into their lives and those who will ultimately reject it. The polarisation of politics could contribute to this divide as well. As AI will become more personal and intrusive the more the calls will be made to regulate. Under the current framework to fully regulate it seems rather impossible so it will lead to an outright rejection or a complete embrace. We have seen similar divides in the past during modernity; so, this is not a novel divide. What will make it more challenging now is the control it can hold into everyday life. It is difficult to predict what will be the long-term effects of this.
During the late 20th and early 21st centuries drug abuse and trafficking seemed to continue to scandalise the public and maintain attention as much as it did back in the 1970s and 80s. Drugs have been demonised and became the topic of media representation of countless moral panics. Its reach in the public is wide and its emotional effect rivals only that of child abuse. Is drugs abuse an issue we shall be considering in 25 years from now?
Prediction 3: People used substances as far back as we can record history. Therefore, there will be drugs in the future to the joy of all these people who like to get high! It is most likely that the focus will be on synthetic drugs that will be more focused on their effects and how they impact people. The production is likely to change with printers being able to develop new substances on a massive scale. These will create a new supply line among those who own technology to develop new synthetic forms and those who own the networks of supply. In previous times a takeover did happen so it is likely to happen again, unless these new drugs emerge under formal monopolies, like drug companies who will legalise their recreative use.
One of the biggest tensions in recent years is the possibility of another war. Several European politicians have already raised it pretending to be making predictions. Their statements however are clear signs of war preparation. The language is reminiscent of previous eras and the way society is responding to these seems that there is some fertile ground. Nationalism is the shelter of every failed politician who promises the world and delivers nothing. Whether a citizen in Europe (EU/UK) the US or elsewhere, they have likely to have been subjected to promises of gaining things, better days coming, making things great…. only to discover all these were empty vacant words. Nothing has been offered and, in most cases, working people have found that their real incomes have shrunk. This is when a charlatan will use nationalism to push people into hating other people as the solution to their problems.
Prediction 4: Unfortunately, wars seem to happen regularly in human history despite their destructive nature. We also forget that war has never stopped and elusive peace happens only in parts of the world when different interests converge. There is a combination of patriotism, national pride and rhetoric that makes people overlook how damaging war is. It is awfully blindsided not to recognise the harm war can do to them and to their own families. War is awful and destroys working people the most. In the 20th century nuclear armament led to peace hanging by a thread. This fear stupidly is being played down by fraudsters pretending to be politicians. Currently the talk about hybrid war or proxy war are used to sanitise current conflicts. The use of drones seems to have altered the methodology of war, and the big question for the next 25 years is, will there be someone who will press THAT button? I am not sure if that will be necessary because irrespective of the method, war leaves deep wounds behind.
In recent years the discussion about the weather have brought a more prevailing question. What about the environment? There is a recognised crisis that globally we seem unable to tackle, and many make already quite bleak predictions about it. Decades ago, Habermas was exploring the idea of “colonization of the lifeworld” purporting that systemic industrial agriculture will lead to environmental degradation. Now it seems that this form of farming, the greenhouse gasses and deforestation are becoming the contributing factors of global warming. The inaction or the lack of international coordination has led calls for immediate action. Groups that have been formed to pressure political indecision have been met with resistance and suspicion, but ultimately the problem remains.
Prediction 5: The world acts when confronted with something eminent. In the future some catastrophic events are likely to shape views and change attitudes. Unfortunately, the planet runs on celestial and not human time. When a prospective major event happens, no one can predict its extent or its impact. The approach by some super-rich to travel to another planet or develop something in space is merely laughable but it is also a clear demonstration why wealth cannot be in the hands of few oligarchs. Life existed before them and hopefully it will continue well beyond them. On the environment I am hopeful that people’s views will change so by the end of this century we will look at the practices of people like me and despair.
These are mere predictions of someone who sits in a chair having read the news of the day. They carry no weight and hold no substantive strength. There is a recognition that things will change at some level and we shall be asked to adapt to whatever new conditions we are faced with. In 25 years from now we will still be asking similar questions people asked 100 years ago. Whatever happens, however it happens, life always finds a way to continue.
Share this:
Same shit, different day
I’ve thought long and hard about whether or not to write this blog, it contains nothing new, it adds nothing to the discussion and it is borne of frustration, not just mine. Nevertheless, if the same thing keeps happening, then why not keep shouting about it, even if no-one appears to be listening.
Recently I attended an event supposedly focused on Violence Against Women & Girls [VAWG], the organisers, the venue, the speakers remain anonymous, because this is not about specific individuals or organisations. Instead, as the title indicates, the issues raised below are repeated again and again, across different times and places, involving different people, with different claims to knowledge. Nevertheless, they have far more in common than they would care to acknowledge.
In September 2024, the government announced a commitment to halving VAWG over the next decade. The announcement itself was rather confused, seemingly conflating the term VAWG with Domestic Abuse [DA] whilst simultaneously promising to ‘take back our streets’. The latter horribly reminiscent of the far right’s racists diatribe around taking back our country. But I digress, in the government statement there is no mention of sexual violence, despite Rape Crisis England and Wales’ assertion that 1 in 4 women and girls over 16 have been subjected to sexual assault or rape. Similarly, Refuge suggest that 1 in 4 women will be subjected to forms of domestic abuse across their lifetimes. The statistical data is shaky, the problems with reporting are well documented, but ask any woman, and they will tell you about their own experiences and those of friends and families. A brief glance at the Everyday Sexism Project or Everyone’s Invited will give you some idea of the scale of the violences facing women and girls.
But to return to the latest VAWG event, there have been very many of these, all following the same pattern. Crowds of women in the audience, all experts, some professional, some academic, some through victimisation, some through vicarious victimisation and of course, some of those women encapsulate more than one of those categories, they are not mutually exclusive. So how do we harness and utilise this great body of knowledge, experience and expertise? The sad answer for events like this, is 99% of the time, we don’t. They’re there to sit quietly and listen to the same old narrative from police leaders and officers, saying that the institution has got it wrong in the past, but has learnt lessons and is now doing much better. Noticeably, there are few men in the audience, only those compelled to attend by their employment, after all VAWG explicitly mentions women and girls so it must be a female problem, despite the fact that the violences are predominately carried out by men.
To really drive the message home, we have speakers who can’t be bothered to prepare an accessible presentation for their audience. Relying instead on their white privilege, their charisma and charm (think a poor parody of a 1990’s Hugh Grant in a Richard Curtis film), with their funny little anecdotes of how they met a woman who changed their view on VAWG. Or how primary school teachers are usually women, and that’s where the problems begin, they just don’t do enough to support our little boys and young men on their journeys. Similarly, mothers who don’t pay enough attention which mean their sons go onto to become these violent men. We have white women too, ones that want the audience to focus on women who have been killed by men, but who cannot actually be bothered to find out how to say their names, stumbling over any name that is not anglicised.
In the audience it is notable that there are few Black and Brown women present. Even when they are invited as speakers, they are cut short, talked over, their names forgotten or mispronounced. They are the add-ons, a pathetic attempt at inclusivity, but don’t worry they’re never the main attraction. That spotlight is always reserved for men. No wonder Black and Brown women can’t face attending, or leave part way through, they’re sick and tired of being patronised while they pick up the broken pieces of men’s violences.
So what do women actually learn from these events? They learn to keep quiet, to pretend they’re learning something, but in the breaks they get together and talk about their frustrations, their ongoing exclusion from discussions. They learn that the problem belongs to them. That not only have they got to mop up women’s blood, sweat and tears, using plenty of their own in the process, to support and rebuild women after trauma, they are also responsible for the boys and men.
It really does not have to be this way! In every community there are women of all colours, all religions, all sexualities, all nations, doing the hard work. Building each other up against a maelstrom of never ending male violence, not to mention the additional violences of racism, microaggressions and exclusion. These are the experts, these are the people with whom the solutions lie. The police have had almost 200 years to get it right, they are nowhere near, time for them to move over and let the real experts do the talking, whilst they listen and start to hear and learn!
Share this:
Is the UK a good place to live?: I
As part of preparing for University, new students were encouraged to engage in a number of different activities. For CRI1009 Imagining Crime, students were invited to contribute a blog on the above topic. These blog entries mark the first piece of degree level writing that students engaged with as they started reading for their BA (Hons) Criminology. With the students’ agreement these thought provoking blogs have been brought together in a series which we will release over the next few weeks.
The UK is widely favoured and known across the world due to its many attractions and key figures that reside in and outside of London, such as: the Harry potter franchise, the London eye, Buckingham palace, Shakespeare, Windsor castle, stone henge, big ben, and many more. But despite all of its magnificent attractions it raises the question “Is the UK actually a good place to live”?
What are the benefits of living in the UK?
- The NHS
- Education is free
- Diversity in culture
- Strong labour laws
In the UK we have something called the NHS (national health service), which allows UK residents to receive free healthcare when it’s needed due to it being primarily funded by general taxing and national insurance contributions. Although it’s important to note that the NHS isn’t subject to only the UK but also Scotland and Wales too.
Education is often looked at as one of the core necessities that a child must have, so it makes sense that it would be free right? Unfortunately, in many countries’ education is seen as a luxury (for certain demographics) rather than a need. Due to this, I would argue that it’s a benefit, no matter how obvious it may seem.
In the UK there are a variety of cultures and races which I personally believe is beautiful because not only are we able to enjoy the gift of multiple different cuisines, but we’re also able to grow up with the ideology that we’re not so different from one another even if we may appear that way (which is a valuable lesson for children to learn and cherish as they grow older).
The benefit of having strong labour laws also ties into my previous point about diversity since it protects citizens from discrimination (Equality act 2010) in the workplace. Not only that but it also ensures that workers are paid at least minimum wage, they don’t face unnecessary/unlawful wage deductions, they receive time off for holidays, workers will be protected if they report an incident at work, workers can’t be dismissed from work without good reason (Employments act 1966), and that they’re not overworked (48 hours a week max).
What are the disadvantages of living in the UK?
- Although most services are free, there are still charges that may apply to medications, prescriptions, dental treatment and eye care. However, it’s still important to note that if you’re in full education or you have other exemptions (such as universal credit or a disability) these may not apply; there are also other circumstances where they also may not apply.
- It’s true that the UK is incredibly diverse but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a constant problem of racism, it just means that there’s more people who can relate to the same issue. It goes without saying that even with labour laws in place, and the never ending resources that someone could use to educate themselves on a specific topic that is unique to a certain race, many people still experience discriminatory behaviours. While its understood that this is an issue everywhere in the world, I don’t think it should be normalised. Rather than dismissing it with a permissive attitude, I think everyone should work towards eradicating such ideologies and behaviours.
- The minimum wage isn’t enough to actually live on, which leaves multiple people homeless or struggling to stay afoot. Thus, leading to more unethical methods to gaining money or other necessities. It should go without saying that the minimum wage should be enough to be somewhat comfortable, or better yet survive on… which evidently isn’t the case for some.
What are the requirements for a good country? :
Those in power would have to love and care for their people. By that I mean- their own money shouldn’t be on the forefront of their mind when it comes to prioritising needs such as having a stable income to live on. Not only that but those in power shouldn’t have a secret racial or gender bias that peeks out whenever they’re trying to make a change. For obvious reason, this would be incredibly damaging to society on a whole, not just for those targeted. Last but not least, I believe that housing should be an option for everyone, even the less fortunate. It shouldn’t be a luxury to have a place to live, everyone deserves comfort, especially in their darkest moments; housing should be provided for those that need it, especially individuals with children.
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:
Reform: The New Opposition, or an Uncomfortable Hiccup in British Politics
British politics is particularly interesting at the moment, as no one is really sure if we are witnesses to a radical change or if Reform will fizzle out and be a distant memory within 10 years or so (here’s hoping). I’m here to bounce some ideas around, think about the current political climate and just put out some comments about what’s going on. I’m hoping to keep at least light, and possibly short.
It’s structured as starting off with some points that are to Reform’s advantage, including the national political climate. It continues to some things working against Reform, including its sustainability. Considering how Reform has managed to gain such support is kind of weaved into the middle and briefly mentioned at the end.
The Political Climate: Inside the UK
Populism is on the rise, restriction of human rights is increasing and people seem to be getting angrier and more frustrated about politics. On a national level, there is a plethora of individuals who are disillusioned with modern day politics and seeking simple answers to big issues quickly and, unfortunately, right wing populism fills this gap perfectly.
Immigration problems? Ban them and deport them.
Crime problems? Give longer and harsher sentences.
Have a problem with the elite? Let Nigel speak up for the British People and let common sense prevail.
They’re easily digestible, easily understandable solutions to big societal issues and that definitely appeals to people.
We can easily dismiss supporters of any right wing populist party as incorrect, immoral and uneducated. But it is really not as simple as that. When an attractive left wing party is not there to foster a society which is genuinely has the interests of the working class at it’s heart, we open the door for right wing populism to scoop up the working class electorate. Indeed, we can’t totally blame the current ‘Labour’ government for the increase in Reform UK voters, as we can see trends of right wing populism globally, but we can definitely think about whether these UK voters would have gone to Reform UK if Labour was offering a better solution. A solution which had working class people front and centre, providing meaningful change such as education reform, anti-poverty initiatives, workers rights focuses, renationalisation policies and council house stock rebuilding. What we are possibly seeing here are voters with no party to call home, frustrated and without answers, so they seek these things in easily digestible populist parties.
Sustainability: Party Identity and Hypocrisy
Perhaps Reform UK’s biggest stumbling block, in my opinion, is its internal contradictions and its lack of preestablished identity as a party.
The internal contradictions are simple and obvious. Reform UK prides itself on being anti- elitist and anti-establishment but the party is lead by a millionaire bankrolled by aristocrats with a private education. Right wing populist parties are simply an extension of the elite and the establishment; an obvious conclusion if you dig even slightly under the surface. Surely this hypocrisy will be called out soon and listened to?
A slightly more long winded pitfall in the Reform Party (among many others) is its lack of party identity. Labour and even the Tories can rely at least slightly on their voters who vote for them because they always have, because of nostalgia for what the party used to be, because they’re a traditional party. Reform don’t have this. And not only this, but they don’t really have any developed policies; the Conservatives have the idea of low taxes, competitive markets, low regulation. Traditional Labour have higher taxes, redistribution of wealth, working class empowerment, nationalisation. and Reform have…? Immigration freezes, law and order and ‘taking the country back’. I’m not sure if their party identity and policies will keep their momentum moving to the next general election.
However, I do think that if they are able to maintain their momentum and get to the election they may go far, and may possibly overtake the Tories. But I think it rests on two things 1) momentum going into the next election and 2) No proper left wing alternatives emerging between now and then. Unfortunately I think number two is already certain.
The title of this blog, is a sort of tongue in cheek title. I do understand how dire this could be should Reform become positioned as the official opposition. For many people around the UK the effects of pandering to right wing populist racist rhetoric has already been experienced, and it will only get worse if Reform continue to gain popularity. Remember to vote, be politically engaged and speak up, we as young people have a huge role to play as our turn out is generally so low.
Images from https://www.reformparty.uk/ and https://tribunemag.co.uk/2024/07/the-anti-elite-elites-reform-far-right
Share this:
A year on… semantics, semantics and semantics?
In October 2024, I wrote a blog on the recently opened Secure School- Oasis Restore. The shiny new edition to the Children and Young People Secure Estate (CYPSE) in England and Wales. In the introduction I pondered on whether this would bring about change within the CYPSE or if this was more of the same. There were lots of positives to consider with the resources, ethos and style of the new Secure School but I, and many others, had concerns that these changes were just words and would amount to little substance. Serious issues within the YJS such as the use of remand, the increasing number of Black and dual heritage children in the CYPSE (despite the overall downwards trend), the continued use of isolation and the high rates of self-harm all appeared to be forgotten with the unveiling of the new Secure School. However, a year on, and the CYPSE failing children appears to be continuing.
Oasis Restore had to ‘temporarily’ close in the summer of 2025 over safety concerns (BBC, 2025). Upon closer reading, and looking at the Ofsted report from April 2025, the main issue is around doors not being able to close properly due to how they were initially made and the damage they have sustained. The Ofsted report (2025) also highlights the use of physical restraint but is positive in how this is only used as a last resort and recorded effectively. The report claims there is a nurturing environment at Oasis Restore, and is overall relatively positive (Ofsted, 2025). The concern is the harm the displacement will have on the children. And why, a CYPSE institution which has cost approximately £40million, was not built fit for purpose?
The children who are placed in CYPSE, for welfare or justice grounds, are incredibly vulnerable. They have often experienced trauma, oppression and isolation at various stages in their childhood from various people and institutions (especially care and CJS). The reality is, these children have been failed multiple times before their arrival in the CYPSE and these failures continue whilst they are there. Oasis Restore was supposed to be different: it was supposed to help, support, nurture and protect. And whilst that appeared to be very much on the agenda, the closing and displacement of these vulnerable children is going to add to being failed by society. I ended my previous blog, reflecting on John Rawls’ when thinking about justice, if an institution cannot be reformed then it should be abolished. I asked, if it was finally time to abolish the CYPSE. I whole heartedly believe it is.
Bibliography:
Askew, J. (2025) Young Offenders School Closes After Safety Concerns, BBC. [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde3g28gxp4o [Accessed 14.10.25]
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
Thoughts from the criminology team 
