The corruption of our banking sector explained (And how we should learn from the Icelanders)

‘Banker’- a word that the majority of us probably stigmatise on a day to day basis, be it with greed, wealth, The Wolf of Wall Street or simply that opening panorama of The City of London at the beginning of The Apprentice. A continuously repeated topic amongst the leading generation is the issue of who and what caused the famous global financial crash of 2008/2009.  When considering our own economy, many blame the then Labour government- specifically its chancellor, Alistair Darling- for not imposing enough regulation on the banking industry and more often, simply the careless act of overspending the tax payers’ money. I can tell you now, that the latter part of this myth simply isn’t true. This myth however, is likely to stay imposed on our generation’s interpretations of the famous crash, with much of the right-wing media repeatedly insisting on its viability. Therefore, I’d first like to set the record straight and give you a basic introduction on what really happened and is still happening today. It’s quite an amazing story:

Let’s take a step back in time to 1987- the time of ‘the great’ Jordon Belfort (The Wolf of Wall Street)- when a little known concept called the Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) was first introduced into the western banking system; in a nutshell a CDO is a collection of mortgages sold to an investment bank, which is the sold on to shareholders such as pensioners and equity investors at various levels of interest, before supplying the mortgages to those who they are really meant for- home owners. So essentially, investment banks were able to manipulate the mortgage market by sharing out their ownership to whoever was willing to invest in them; investment banks were able to manipulate home owners who were largely unaware of the structure of the CDO scheme, leaving them vulnerable to greedy hedge funds and private investors who wanted to make an extra buck off the back of rightful home owners. This was the case as there were little qualifications in place to be able to buy these mortgage shares, leaving the risk of mortgages being poorly funded and insecure. The bankers knew this, but given it would secure them their own profits in the short term, they frankly couldn’t have cared less. Between 2004 and 2008, CDOs were sold in their thousands in the USA and similar ‘sub-prime’ mortgages in the UK, with the majority of shareholders failing to provide efficient funds to keep them stable. Individual investment bankers kept more than their fair share of dividends from them, leaving thousands of households burdened with no funds to secure the ownership of their homes. This corrupt practice would eventually lead to the housing ‘bubble’- a run-up in housing prices fuelled by demand, speculation and the belief that recent history is an infallible forecast of the future. The bubble burst in 2008/09. A shocking, yet rather dull concept isn’t it? And this is exactly why the banks manipulated our disinterest and lack of information, for their own self-interest, eventually leading to the some of the wealthiest in our society profiting from CDOs and the other 98% of us having to move out of our homes or find other means of funding them. Those homeowners effected had little financial security left in their lives and consequently our economies went into melt down, with the average consumer falling victim to the greed and selfishness of the few. This was one of the main causes of the 2008/2009 financial crash. Thankfully, CDOs were banned in industry in 2010. However, just 18 months later in 2011, the CLO (Collateralized Loan Obligation) was established with almost the exact same purpose. So this corrupt practice is still happening today, posing the question, should we be expecting a series of financial crises in just 4 years plus time?

Here’s a good video link explaining CDOs.

Many investment bankers, particularly in the UK and the USA, who profited from this corrupt scheme got away scot free and continue to live prosperous and privileged lives. Many innocent home owners with families or no family at all, continue to live financially disadvantaged lives. Many were simply thrown out of their homes and given little or no state help, as the practices which had resulted in their positions was not seen as an illegal act, merely an immoral one and therefore the majority of banks and their bankers were not prosecuted for this. Instead, the UK and USA kept the majority of their banks afloat by using our money as tax-payers, to bail them out. Now before we jump to any conclusions, there is arguably a large case for having done this; if governments had allowed the majority of banks to have collapsed this could have led to an even greater scale crash and an even greater effect on you and me in terms of inflation and the security of our own savings and wages. Indeed, in a recent interview with the BBC, Barack Obama admitted that he had “a very tough decision to make” in terms of doing what was fundamentally immoral or what was fundamentally the right thing to do in the financial context.  However, there is an example out there of an economy who did let all of their major banks fail and brought all of guilty bankers to justice, many of whom were actually imprisoned. Their economy is now thriving and their people are some of the most financially equal in the western world. This economy is that of Iceland and I believe we must learn a series of simple, but significant lessons from them.

The 2008 global financial crash hit Iceland hard- arguably more so than the UK, given the difference in   GDP to population size. Their currency crashed, unemployment soared and their stock market was almost completely destroyed. But unlike the majority of western economies, the Icelandic government let all three of their major banks collapse and went after reckless bankers. Furthermore, Iceland’s people demonstrated their anger at this through literally taking to the streets; it was estimated that 3% of the population gathered in front of parliament to demand answers. Their government listened to their concerns and immediately set up a ‘Special Investigation Commission’ to reveal the truth behind the collapse. The SPI’s findings were similar to that of what we now know to be our own, but what was revealed that has not been in our own country, was that almost 100% of credit needed for large corporations and individuals to lend money was dependent upon investment banks. Over the next 6 years, the Icelandic parliament would restrict foreign capital investment and require credit supplied to households to have a 100% dependency rating- i.e., no ‘fake money’ was gambled with when insuring the public had the financial means to buy their own homes. I particularly admire this simple but insightful quote on their reaction to this finding, by a member of Iceland’s SPI, Gudrun Johnsen: “If you don’t know exactly what happened, you don’t know what type of behaviour you need to correct, and cultural change is really difficult. There was a benefit in the entire system going down. We know what failed and as a consequence we were able to clean the house pretty quickly”. In European banking there is simply an unwilling culture not to accept losses. Indeed our own government and the US government responded by literally printing money. It is evident that the Icelanders knew what they were dealing with and how it should be dealt with, as a result of a 3 point democratic process: the public spoke out on their concerns; the government reacted with realistic action; those accountable were justly investigated and were either brought to justice or proved otherwise.

Considering these simple, democratic steps to reform, here’s what I believe the next generation of politicians and bankers must learn from the reaction of Iceland to the 2008 global financial crisis: we must make the financial system more accountable to its customers by demonstrating our own understanding of it as the public, through questioning and demanding regulation; all forms of credit should have a 100% dependency rating in times of recession to avoid long-run debt that is likely to affect the poorest in society; most of all, we must maximise the use of independent regulatory bodies and reviewing commissions to ensure no government bias is undertaken in such a publically dependable circumstance. Of course, it is without doubt that overall, as a generation we must learn that it is within the interest of the majority to bring those accused of the manipulation of hard-earned public finances to account and if necessary, to justice. It is only then we will begin to deter greed and instead promote clean methods of recovery in cases of financial unease, benefiting all who have been affected by it. Indeed there would be a good chance of such crises not occurring at all if the next generation of politicians and industry leaders were to properly act for the benefit of its people, by making these immoral practices illegal and instead providing humane and reliable methods of credit with the aim of improving fundamental living standards- an aim that would undoubtedly lead to a more stable, diverse and equal economy.  

@jalbryson98 #Yforchange

A war on drugs is not an effective policy -why global policy towards drug reform needs to change

Our generation is increasingly aware of the scale of the global issue that is illegal drug use. Those of us who are lucky enough to live in developed countries are educated on the matter through school, on the street and on social media. In short, we know that illegal drugs are a bad thing and should be taken seriously. Now it’s the latter point here that I want to talk about; if our generation is to genuinely take illegal drug use seriously, we must begin to think and act a whole lot more effectively, as the present attitude has failed. We currently see a culture that has declared a war on drugs by focusing on criminalising and punishing those involved and vigorously destroying supply chains, without considering the significant and dramatic economic, human and social costs this results in. It’s now time to start focusing on how we can truly help those caught up in the industry by seeking more regulatory and inclusive solutions.

In 1971, US President Richard Nixon famously declared a ‘war on drugs’ with the objective of “stemming the tide of drug abuse” by vigorously fighting the supply of narcotics in the US and beyond. This attitude spread rapidly to the extent that today, world leaders still believe in it. In real terms, it has failed. Drug related criminal law enforcement costs the UK alone £3.3 billion a year with little return in terms of victim reform and safety. In the USA, an astonishing $51 billion is spent on the war on drugs every year, with 1.6 million annual arrests and 47,000 related deaths in 2014. Furthermore, 83% of those charged were merely done so for possession. These figures are worse than those of 1971, which clearly confirms that the war on drugs has worsened the crisis, not improved it. Continuously prioritising punishment over supporting drug victims is not good enough for the 21^st century. As the next generation we must begin to impose regulation, improved health services and social inclusion programmes to tackle what is becoming an ever more human threat to both national and international society.

Furthermore, it’s not just social and health problems that are the resulting factors of the failure of the war on drugs. In third-world areas such as West Africa, it is responsible for a huge proportion of the spread of blood-borne infections such as HIV and Hepatitis C, with a lack of the use of clean needles that are supported in better off countries by charitable schemes; third world countries simply do not have the funds or resources to do this. Why do they not have the relevant funds or resources? Mainly because incompetent governments are spending funds on maintaining criminal centres, using powerful herbicides to eradicate crops (that often cause land and water pollution and health problems), and missions to disrupt black markets. Globally, governments spend an estimated $100 billion a year on this. And still, 75% of the world’s population are without access to any pain-relieving alternatives. The fact that we are simply aware of these figures should be enough to convince leaders to take bold action on enacting more effective and humane policies. By investing $100 million in a war on drugs, law enforcement are effectively acting as a seed for funding an extensive criminal industry, now seeing estimated annual turnovers of $320 billion. So despite this excessive investment, the global drug trade is now almost completely controlled by violent criminal organisations- including terrorists- who have little or no concern for the consequences of their criminal actions. One could compare this to the current migrant smuggling crisis, which governments across the globe are now thankfully attempting to tackle. Well the illegal drug industry is an issue causing even more deaths than the smuggling crisis, with little prospect of improvement; while in many cases, the victims are not as vulnerable and desperate as the refugees and migrants, millions in West Africa and South America use such substances as their only means of pain relief or energy, often unaware of what they contain or their effects.

It is evident that as a global society, we must begin to work towards a more effective and sustainable system of tackling this issue, through taking a more supportive approach to vulnerable victims and by putting the vast criminal organisations that run the industry, out of business. This could be done through investing in government regulation via doctors, pharmacists and in some cases, licensed retailers. Illegal drugs are literally worth more than their weight in gold. World leaders must recognize that using the criminal justice system as an effective deterrent has failed and therefore, access to information and social support should be put in its place. In turn, we must support this cause and demonstrate that it is in generation Y’s interest to publicly tackle this taboo issue, in order to achieve a less manipulative criminal justice system when it comes to the issue of drugs. Obviously, this is one of those imperfect issues that we’re realistically never going to truly solve, but we can at least take gradual steps such as diverting funds used in criminal justice to boosting information services and access to health clinics in deprived communities.

Here’s a link to a really good campaign I’ve discovered, who are tackling the issue of the war on drugs, Support Don’t Punish:

http://supportdontpunish.org/

John McDonell's intriguing speech on 'Building an Entrepreneurial State at a local level'

Very interesting: Jeremy Corbyn's right hand man, John McDonell is currently working on an alternative concept of using co-operatives as a better means of redistributing wealth; it's shocking to read that less than half of our national income goes to workers in the 21st century. I could not agree more with this view of creating a more equal and diverse economic society, through encouraging greater creativity and innovation by such simple methods. 
Follow the link below to read:

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/143115086454/building-an-entrepreneurial-state-at-a-local-level

A socialist case for the British business sector

The concept of business is an everyday subject for all of us. You may not be a dedicated follower of it, but I’m sure most of us realize that it is a key part of the capitalist society in which we live in. As a result, we probably each have a stereotypical view towards business and the kind of people that are involved in it. Day in, day out we are subject to stories of large, multi-national companies such as Google and Starbucks, causing fury amongst the working public for not paying their fair share in tax. We hear about government deals with ‘important clients’ such as China or Saudi Arabia’s oil market. It all seems a little bit distant and precarious to the majority of us who are working in and around our local communities to provide for our families. And rightly so. Since the catalyst of modern business- the industrial revolution- the British public have become ever more so aware of a ‘top 1%’, ‘an elite’, whatever you may like to label it as, who we presume are the front-runners of the capitalist world, exploiting the free market for the benefit of a few and to gain political influence. However, I would argue over the past 5 decades or so, British business has been exposing a secret up its sleeve, a revolutionary element of positive business, through the new found concept of entrepreneurship and social business. What do I mean by ‘social business? I mean exploring ways in which we can use business as a force for good across society, through small step by step solutions to social problems, both nationwide and globally.

In the 21^st century we live at the peaking point of capitalist society; capitalist society enables a free market to exist with the supposed objective of enabling the individual to make their own way in life be it through employment by a company that grants them civil rights and a ‘fair’ wage, or through setting up their own business with limited red tape and government intervention. Now let’s be realistic, it’s probably a far off dream for socialists that their image of a perfect society is going to be politically established any time soon. We live in a very well established society run on enterprise and individuals rights. But that does not mean we cannot use the concept of socialism to influence capitalism for the better. This first occurred to me last summer, when I started to read about a small but influential group of entrepreneurs who are saying no to the normal way of doing things, and are consequentially doing a huge amount for social inclusion and awareness in society. Such examples include:  Reel Gardening founder, Claire Reid who established a water saving solution to growing vegetables in some of the continent’s most water-deprived areas at the age of just 16 (http://www.reelgardening.co.za/), Innocent Drinks founder, Richard Reed who in 2004 set up the Innocent foundation (http://www.innocentfoundation.org/) that has given over £3m worth of profits to sustainable farming projects across 3^rd world countries and Sam Branson and Johnny Webb, founders of Sundog Pictures (http://sundogpictures.co.uk/), who produce documentaries and films by using the accessibility of the digital world to tell important social stories around the globe to those who may otherwise not be educated on the matter. These individuals are perfect examples of how socialism in business can result in an increase in awareness of global problems and the ways in which we can use established business methods to improve them.

Specific to Britain, there are many sectors of society where business could act as a force for good over making profits for their shareholders; with continuously competitive household costs, the housing market should attract the exploration of 21^st century green methods of daily living, such as renewable energy production and water saving; with continuous logistical problems in our health service, entrepreneurs could work a long side relevant professionals to look for small but mighty solutions to over-crowding and data accessibility. These are just a couple of examples of where social awareness combined with innovative thinking could begin to lead to a more socially inclusive society though the positive integration of the business sector and other sectors affecting our daily lives. In 2014, a record-breaking 581,000 businesses were set up in the UK alone; I believe that our generation should take maximum advantage of the ever increasing accessibility to start-up funding and research, to say no to business as usual and instead begin to investigate how we can use this advantage to look for socially sustainable and inclusive solutions to problems that often lead to an unfair disadvantage felt by certain areas in a country or certain individuals who may have, over time, been manipulated for the benefit of the few.

It’s about time countries such as the UK started to recognize business’ primary aim as that of improving the quality of our lives through looking for innovative solutions, instead of manipulating problems for the benefit of the individual. If we are to act as an influential democratic force in the world, I believe it is up to Generation Y to work towards a socialist attitude towards business, by embracing its past mistakes as learning points and putting into action a more diverse range of business methodology that will enable us to look for these solutions. To quote one of the greatest entrepreneurial minds of our time, Virgin Group founder Richard Branson, “Entrepreneurship is not about looking for a problem, it’s about finding a solution and enacting it”…”so let’s work together and screw business as usual”. By embracing this attitude, I believe there is a strong case for a socialist business environment in Britain and that we shouldn’t be afraid of exploiting it.

#sbau    #Yforchange   @jalbryson98

I am now a certified member of the blog network at StudentVoices.co.uk

I am very pleased to announce that I am now a certified member of the Student Voices' blog network (http://www.studentvoices.co.uk/p/blog-network_15.html). Check out the site and fellow bloggers if you haven't done so before. It offers a really good variety of news, comment and debate on current affairs and general social and political issues, relevant to our generation.

Cut corruption top-down? It’s up to the next generation of leaders to do so

How the ruling generation have built an incompatible system of global finance and what we must do to disrupt it.

Over the past few decades, the scale of the abuse of political power has become more and more apparent to us as members of the voting public to the extent that today, we see our current political leaders desperately attempting to reconcile this stigma. Indeed one of the last government’s biggest ‘democratic’ pledges in 2010 was to “seek radical reform to the banking industry”. Furthermore, the current government made a promise to us last October to find an extra £5 billion of savings from tackling tax avoidance. Such pledges are much welcomed and indeed progress is being made: in regards to the banking sector for example, most banks will supposedly have to be bailed out by their bond and shareholders if another financial crisis were to occur, instead of by the public as witnessed in 2008/09, under legislation formed in the coalition government. But if we are to truly make progress on assuring one rule for all and strict rule for those with an economic advantage, we must look to the seeds of corruption not just specific examples, many of which are not currently labelled as ‘corruption’ because of the simple fact that they are legal. It is up to the next generation of leaders to re-sow these seeds.

To help explain the concept of ‘seeds of corruption’, I’ll give you a couple of clear and relevant examples:

Firstly, this week we have become aware of an exposed set of documents called, ‘The Panama Papers’, which put simply are 11.5 million pieces of paper outlining the details of high-profile world leaders and businessmen and businesswomen that have engaged in large scale offshore trade deals or savings, allowing them to avoid paying tax in their country. To many of you, I’m sure most of these findings won’t come as too much of a shock. They certainly didn’t to me. One did however, and for me it demonstrated how we will never solve such corruption without eliminating it and other examples. The case was of how the highly-held law firm, Mossack Fonseca, had been directly involved (and aware that they were so) in a famous robbery- the Brink’s-MAT robbery, that saw 3 tonnes of gold stolen from a warehouse near London in 1983. They are still in operation to this day. This company is not a small amateur law firm operating from a New York basement- this company is one of the largest investment handling firms on our planet. It has ‘assisted’ associates linked directly to: Vladimir Putin; the prime minister of Iceland; the new FIFA president Gianni Infantino; the president of Ukraine and indeed our own prime minister’s father, Ian Cameron. The list continues. Tax avoidance is a perfect example of the abuse of wealth and ‘social standing’. Our government aims to ‘seriously reduce’ tax avoidance by the end of its term. We will not seriously reduce tax avoidance until the global community takes bold steps to bring such companies to justice. I therefore believe that it must fall to our generation, as witnesses of how simple corruption will always end in catastrophe, to crack down on the fundamental elements that make tax avoidance possible for those quite simply abusing the authoritative power of their money. Money should not determine the application of rule. That is a simple part of our democracy, yet it is still, in the 21^st century, being enacted.

Secondly, I’d like to take a step back 8 years to the beginning of the global financial crisis. Simply put, it was caused most significantly by the selling of something called a ‘CDO (collateralized debt obligations) which is basically a collection of miss sold loans sold on to a consumer who wishes to buy a house say. As more and more banks gave out more and more of such loans, actual credit became less and less. It was done on account of personal greed- the more CDOs each banker sold, the more commission they would receive. This occurred to such an extent that in March 2008, Gordon Brown’s government had to use taxpayers’ money to save these banks from folding. Now obviously and rightfully so, public outrage followed; how could our elected representatives have the will to conduct such an act without our consent? This would’ve been an obvious question posed. CDOs were thankfully banned from use shortly after. However, today I watched our prime minister claim that he has done more than either prime minister of Labour’s 13 years in power to tackle bank reformation, to ensure the public will not be manipulated in such a way again. Well, I’m afraid it remains the case that we, the public, have been continually manipulated since 2011 when the exact same format that made up a CDO, was brought back, this time under the name of CLOs (collateralized loan obligations). Upon this clear evidence, I therefore believe it is up to our generation to crack down on such manipulative practices, so to prevent innocent and hard-working members of our society being at an unjust disadvantage by the few who prioritize financial gain over the well-being of others.

Both of these examples signal a pattern; a pattern of an incompatible relationship between global finance and the ability for those ruling our society to truly enact their supposed pledges for the benefit of those whom they are supposed to represent. Our generation must allow each other to enter into public representation without compromising on basic principles of leadership. Together, we must disrupt this corrupt structure by dismantling it piece by piece, in a simple and democratic format, such as allowing wealthy corporations to collapse and banning any practice of selling ‘non-existent’ entities such as loans. Furthermore, we must embrace global finance as a force for solutions to simple humane problems such as natural disasters and improving the quality of living conditions and not be allowed to manipulate specific markets for the benefit of the few. If we are able to make progress on these simple and responsive aims, I genuinely believe such corruption will become less and less concentrated and significantly easier to effectively address.

I've been nominated by fabulous fellow blogger Chloe Hanks, to take part in the Liebster award blog chain. The concept is that you answer 11 questions posed by the blogger and then you write a further 11 questions to a further 11 nominees of your choice. Sounds pretty savvy. ENJOY...

Here are my answers to Chloe's questions:

1. Which writer has had the biggest influence on your written work?
I'm going to have to go for two: Winston Churchill and Malcolm Gladwell.

2. What are the main inspirations behind what you write?
I'm very passionate about the basic principal of younger people being aware of a variety of viewpoints on a range of political and social matters; it's what gets us thinking properly. This inspires me to write what many would view as an alternative viewpoint on often controversial issues, but doing so honestly and with compassion. I also feel that we need fundamental change in our approach to politics in the UK and engaging other sectors such as business and finance to benefit the wider society through innovative thinking. This motivates me to explore ways in which we can do so, from a student perspective.

3. What would you like to achieve in the next five years?
I'm still relatively unsure; my main aspiration at the moment is to establish my writing and knowledge of the issues that I am passionate about, though more experience, which is increasingly becoming available to me. I've got a few entrepreneurial ideas up my sleeve which I would absolutely love to explore. But who knows...that's the joy of being young I guess.

4. What fact can you name that not many people know about you?
I used to dress up in Victorian styled dresses (not for a good 10 years+ I'd like to emphasize).

5. What is your biggest pet hate?
Poor grammar

6. Who is your favourite musician?
Stevie Wonder

7. What is your go to comfort food?
Again, there's two: steak and ale pie and Jaffa cakes (separately).

8. What movie do you watch when you're sad?
'Withnail and I'

9. What was the last song you listened too?
'Little wing' by Jimi Hendrix

10. What is your favourite dessert?
Nutella and cream cheese calzone - only to be found in 'Gusto' Restaurant, Albert Dock in Liverpool.

11. Blogging aside, what is your favourite hobby?
Playing non-monetary poker with my two best mates and...reading. 



I'd like to nominate the following people:

+Richard Branson 

@jackrivlin

gladwell.com

@SophieHAdkins

+chloehanks23

Emily Clarke


Here are my questions for you:

1. Can you name one book or article that inspired your writing?

2. Who in your view, is the worlds greatest creative mind?

3. Do you believe, as bloggers we should seek to provide solutions or instead suggest different ways of interpreting a subject/issue?

4. Do you believe that society is currently doing enough to encourage innovative thinking?

5. In as few words as possible, describe what you wish to achieve through your writing?

6. Do you think the media currently recognises independent voices enough?  

7. What’s the most inspirational film you’ve watched?

8. Is there a specific place/environment where you write best in?

9. Should we do more to tackle extremism through social media and blogging and in what ways?

10. How do you believe blogs should offer in comparison to newspaper articles?

11. Name one fact that not many people know about yourself.

We hail imprisonment in this country, but do we really think enough about it?

A couple of weeks ago I watched a Panorama special on international attitudes towards crime and imprisonment; it was fascinating to see both the extreme and more liberal examples of this. Yet I intriguingly found that I was indeed more fascinated, not by the horrors of the treatment of political prisoners by Daesh or Assad’s government in Syria (though this is of course continually shocking) , but by one specific example at the other end of the spectrum- Norway’s methods and attitudes towards imprisonment. They have created a system whereby reform of all inmates- no matter what the crime- is the critical objective.

Over the past decade or so the country has created several new prison sites…but no ordinary prison sites- these are not viewed as ‘prisons’, instead as secure communities of rehabilitation. This is literally what they are. Each inmate is given a specific task or full time job to carry out during their sentence and are encouraged to work together to do so effectively. Evidently this doesn’t turn out to be as simple as it sounds, as many inmates have mental illnesses or dilemmas and consequently cannot do these jobs instantaneously. However, the organisation will work at this and aim to get these individuals into a realistic pattern of life, as soon as possible. For extreme offenders such as murderers and rapists, they have even converted an island into community. Why on earth should rapists have an island have an island built for them? I shall come onto this later. But given the sheer variety of offences and mental illnesses within criminality surely this system would only see a mild difference in success rates? Wrong- the statistics are there to be made an example of; it has one of the lowest reoffending rates in the world at just 20%. Now I’m sure many members of our own political establishment would argue that reform is indeed the UK’s main critical objective. But many are now fully aware that this simply isn’t being achieved. In 2014, those serving less than 12 months saw a 58% reoffending rate and over two-thirds of under 18 year olds are reconvicted within a year of release. Many officials will argue that ‘huge’ improvements are being seen in these figures; indeed last month our Prime Minister pledged many much needed reform targets including, “a new Corruption Prevention Strategy to deal with the small number of corrupt staff who allow contraband in our prisons”. This is all very well and good and I welcome such pledges- they are no negative thing. But my argument is that to really improve the system we must begin to think about a fundamental aspect of crime.

Last summer during my post-GCSE 10 week summer I read a book called The Tipping Point- a very modernist account of how as humans we are influenced by the smallest of factors, namely based around our environment and our peers. It contained a chapter on criminality, specifically focusing on 1980’s New York City. This example highlighted to me how much this influences the majority of crime. It’s a pretty simple process really- detailed physiological studies suggest that the vast majority of offenders do so as they feel fundamentally intimidated by society. Surely then by putting these people through a process of pure punishment- be it through physical imprisonment and mental intimidation by staff- this is going to further this evidently, subconscious feeling? This would be a typical argument of justice professionals in Norway.

Now let’s realistically consider this ‘radical’ concept. Unfortunately, but understandably, British society generally upholds a strong stigma towards criminals, especially towards crimes such as rape and murder. They are and always will be horrific and utterly unacceptable crimes. How any human being could possess the complete inhumanity to carry out such a repulsive act, is beyond us. Or is it? The ‘average’ amongst us probably don’t think much of it- these are bad people…that’s it. We cannot pinpoint this ‘badness’- there are too many varieties of it. But there is a general pattern: the majority are from low income, often impoverished backgrounds, have a family history of criminality and often of mental illness. Many murderers commit on account of unresolved vengeance between rival gangs, families and so on. None of this information justifies such crimes in any shape or form. But it does draw us back to thinking more about the fundamental aspects of the motives behind them. A lot of these people simply act upon subconscious feelings of neglection and punishment for being the in ‘the bad litter of society’. Now, from this point I could go into a whole philosophical debate about such fundamental problems within capitalist society, but I digress; our true objective of imprisonment is too solve crime. That’s an obvious point that most 5 year olds could state. Why then is the establishment and a significant proportion of British society not addressing this by the appropriate means? Why are we failing to recognise through clear, in our face facts, that a better solution is workable? To achieve a more peaceful and law-abiding society, with low reoffending rates, our primary aim must be rehabilitation. True rehab would be socially beneficial, with more of our citizens learning to live and cooperate in a community; true rehab would be economically beneficial, with imprisonment costing billions of pounds less a year to the tax payer which could then be reinvested into rehabilitation schemes and, if we were to get to get to Norway’s successful standard, see a 38% increase in reformed criminals contributing back to society through employment; finally, true rehab should be beneficial through increased political hapathy amongst more impoverished micro-societies that exist as a result of what I believe to be political under-representation.

I’m certain that many members of society would argue that the above is obvious and is being looked into. If so, then let us act upon it and not ignore such a vital issue on account of abiding to an out of date stigma. If so, then let us continue to look into it through investment in research and innovation in the industry.

Britain is a civilized society; through thinking more about the cause of criminality, we can make it even more so.

#sbau

Next up: ‘Academy schools: fake or fortune?’