Grenfell: a site of global crime, harm and social (in)justice?
This blog is based on recent research conducted: entitled How have ‘crimes’ of the powerful been illustrated in the Grenfell Tragedy?
Introduction
The main findings of this study have been adapted into a summary blog for the purpose of making academic literature accessible to a broad range of people; thus bringing ‘crimes/harms of the powerful’ to the attention of a wider, non-specialised audience. The aim of this summary is to expose the globalised crimes, harms and injustices perpetrated by the powerful through an examination of the social, economic and political conditions which facilitated the Grenfell tragedy. The data can be used to:
- Ensure “We will see justice for all at Grenfell” (Gomes, cited in Mee, 2019)
- Ensure “A tragedy like Grenfell should never happen again” (Grenfell United, 2019a)
- Challenge the assumptions of what constitutes crime and justice
- Point the way forward to future research into crimes/harms of the powerful
- Evidence why investigations into the Grenfell tragedy must continue
At the outset, this inquiry was conducted around five key sub-questions, which have been reframed into the following overviews:
- The examination of the roots of crime and justice
- The contextualisation of the Grenfell Tower fire
- The exploration of ‘crimes of the powerful’ through the examples of the corporate veil and business negligence
- The analysis of crime to shed light on its (in)effectiveness to deliver global justice
- The feasibility of a social harm approach to challenge and hold the powerful to account
In order to address the five sub-questions that supported the central research question, an extensive, diverse range of sources was drawn upon. An overview of the range of sources included:
- Academic criminological journals, books, films, presentations and blogs
- Official government – state-sponsored or endorsed documents
- Unofficial sources independent or non-governmental organisations sources
- Media articles
- Campaigning websites
For the purpose of presenting the findings and analysis of the research, the main body of the blog post has been divided into five sections, as detailed above in the reframed overview. Furthermore, the sections have sub-headings to allow for each particular element to be illustrated in an accessible way. The conclusion will summarise and explain the principle findings and indicate some implications for future investigations, policy and practice.
The roots of crime and justice
Conducting research: Research is not carried out in a vacuum. A consideration of ethical issues made visible how research into the field of study known as ‘crimes of the powerful’ is deemed to be risky research (Whyte and Tombs, cited in Walters, 2003). For Tombs ‘crimes of the powerful’ or corporate crime are deemed to be illegal acts or omissions that result from deliberate decision-making and are committed in pursuit of goals such as cutting costs and profitably. In contrast, to research around ‘conventional’ crime, which focuses the gaze downwards at the ‘usual’ criminal suspects; research into crimes of the powerful ‘looks up’ at the deviant behaviour taking place by the powerful.
Origins of criminology: From the eighteenth century, changing ideology about what constituted crime and justice brought with it new reform (Harcourt, 2013). The eighteenth to mid nineteenth century became referred to as the classicist period. The theory of classicism was framed around a broad set of ideas, the most notable was that crime is indisputable and was accepted as part of everyday social life (ibid). The mid-nineteenth century offered an alternative understanding about crime and justice and this theory is known as positivism. Unlike classicism, positivism was deemed to be grounded in scientific evidence. For this reason positivism was influential in birthing the discipline known as criminology. Despite this, all forms of positivism accepted the legalistic definitions of what constitutes criminality and justice. It assumes that individual behaviour is determined, crime is caused by individual abnormality and that justice should fit the crime.
Critical criminology: During the twentieth century, the discipline known as critical criminology emerged. It challenged previous understandings of crime and justice because it focused its gaze upon the powerful (Box, 2014 and Pearce, 1976). Pioneers such as Edwin Sutherland introduced the idea of ‘white-collar crime’ which he defined as ‘a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation’ (Sutherland, 1983, p. 7). Far from being set in stone, an upward gaze illustrated how crime and justice, could be viewed as ambiguous because it did not include the ‘crimes’ of the powerful (Snider, 2000).
Crimes of the powerful: Pearce expressed concerns about the limitations of emerging theories within critical criminology. Instead of challenging the crimes of the powerful, Pearce determined that they reinforced the position of the powerful elite (1976). Bittle et al, were of the same inclination. They concluded that academics sustain deep-seated ideological beliefs, that what is good for the economy is also positive for all of society (2018). It is these beliefs that maintain the status quo (the vested interests of the powerful) because they continue to ‘look down’ at deviant behaviour. Tombs referred to these deep-seated beliefs as a ‘collective ignorance’ (a term characterised by Box) (ibid). Tombs and Whyte noted that academics studying the discipline of critical criminology, made passing reference to crimes of the powerful, before retreating back to the ‘real’ crimes (of the powerless and disadvantaged) that have preoccupied criminology since its inception (2015, cited in Bittle et al., 2018). ‘Power’ can be understood in terms of constraints of behaviours, actions and events. These constraints are produced from unequal social relations and structures of dominance and subordination which may be exercised coercively or through consensus.
The Grenfell Tower fire
Grenfell Fire: In the early hours of Wednesday 14th June 2017, a fire engulfed Grenfell Tower, a high-rise block of flats in North Kensington, London (Hodkinson, 2019 and Tombs, 2017a). The power of the images selected must not go unacknowledged. Visual images and footage are powerful tools which connect people and places. Images also connect written words and numerical data. “We’re dying in there because we don’t count”, the words of one resident, as he stood outside Grenfell Tower as it continued to burn, (Tombs, 2017b). In the immediate aftermath, out of the 327 Grenfell residents, a total of 255 survived (Hodkinson, 2019 and Sky News, 2019). Yet, the fire claimed the lives of 72 human-beings (ibid). Sheila Smith’s (the oldest victim) bereaved family members included two sons, six grandchildren and three great-grandchildren (Sky News, 2019). Logan Gomes (the youngest victim) was stillborn five weeks before his due date, grieving family members included: his mother, father and two sisters (ibid). Explicit discourse and imagery provide a platform for an empathetic connection.
|
A foreseen event: In the days and weeks that followed the fire, a blogpost published on Sunday 20th November 2016, (eight months before the tragedy occurred) by the Grenfell Action Group (2016), captured media interest. “We have blogged many times on the subject of fire safety at Grenfell Tower” for the purpose of “showing the poor safety record of the KCTMO should a fire affect any other of their properties and cause the loss of life that we are predicting”. The principles of discourse ethics, not only recognises the voices of the Grenfell community but allows for their voices to be heard throughout this summary (Scott, 2019). The Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (henceforth KCTMO) managed the Grenfell Tower on behalf of the Royal Borough of London Kensington and Chelsea Council (henceforth RBLKCC) (Hodkinson, 2019). Damning claims exposed in The Fires that foretold Grenfell documentary, outlined how a Grenfell-type inferno was predictable based on data relating to five fire disasters which preceded Grenfell, (BBC, 2019 and YouTube, 2019).
A preventable crime: According to an article published in November 2017, in The Telegraph, the Grenfell Tower fire pushed fire-related fatalities to the highest level in a decade (Scott, 2017). In June 2018, the Grenfell tragedy was declared to be one of the UK’s worst modern disasters (BBC News, 2018). A year later, in June 2019, the Metropolitan police carried out 13 interviews under caution, some were cross-examined as representatives of their organisations, while others were questioned as individuals in connection to offences ranging from health and safety breaches to corporate manslaughter (Dodd, 2019). The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, was designed ‘to bring large complex organisations to account for deaths resulting from gross breaches of a duty of care’ such as KCTMO and the RBLKCC (Tombs, 2019).
Crimes of the powerful - the corporate veil and business negligence
The corporate veil: Marxist theory unveils how capitalism creates networks of powerful elites such as state bodies and state representatives, together with corporations and corporate elites who are able to use their social advantages to exploit others (Sutherland, 1945, cited in Box, 1983). Marxism employs a method of social and economic analysis to shed light on the struggle between the powerless and the powerful in a capitalist-centred society. This makes visible the corporate veil which is designed to keep the public gaze from looking up at the crimes of the powerful. Unlike the narrow frame within which crime is often defined around the most disadvantaged in society, ‘crimes of the powerful’ encompasses a range of criminal activities by those who hold significant social, economic or political power (Barker and Mander, 1999 and Lukes, 1974). It is within this ‘corporate veil’ which makes accessing and gaining data around the crimes of the state, corporations and large organisations inaccessible due to the continuous negotiation process.
Business negligence: Crimes of business negligence are committed by states and corporations in pursuit of shared goals such as cost cutting and profitability. These crimes are then concealed within legitimate formal organisations, for example “We need good costs for Cllr Feilding-Mellen and the planner tomorrow at 8.45am!" (Forster, 2017). This content formed part of an email from KCTMO to Artelia UK who managed the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower (ibid). Rydon, a construction, management group, agreed to a saving of £293,368 which came at a cost. Cassette fix aluminium cladding was installed on the exterior of the Grenfell Tower, in lieu of the non-combustible zinc cladding which was originally agreed during the renovation process (Booth and Grierson, 2017). Following the fire, Nick Paget-Brown, (the Conservative politician and leader of RBLKCC at the time of the Grenfell Tower fire) confirmed that the Grenfell Tower, a 24-storey housing block of flats, home to 327 people, was not fitted with a sprinkler system “because that would have delayed and made the refurbishment of the block more disruptive” (Hughes, 2017 and Hodkinson, 2019). According to the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association, the decision not to install a sprinkler system resulted in a further saving of £200,000 (Hughes, 2017). During the Grenfell Inquest Inquiry, Dr Glover (President and Principal Engineer Failure Electrical, LLC) concluded that the remaining probable cause of the Grenfell Tower fire was a defective crimp connection which over heated in a relay compartment of a fridge-freezer manufactured by the Whirlpool Corporation (Grenfell Tower Inquiry, 2018). Glover also noted this appliance had been fitted with a cheaper plastic back casing instead of a more expensive metallic steel casing that is non-combustible. Which Conversation testing confirmed Glover’s statement (ibid and Neill, 2017).
Business negligence: Crimes of business negligence are committed by states and corporations in pursuit of shared goals such as cost cutting and profitability. These crimes are then concealed within legitimate formal organisations, for example “We need good costs for Cllr Feilding-Mellen and the planner tomorrow at 8.45am!" (Forster, 2017). This content formed part of an email from KCTMO to Artelia UK who managed the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower (ibid). Rydon, a construction, management group, agreed to a saving of £293,368 which came at a cost. Cassette fix aluminium cladding was installed on the exterior of the Grenfell Tower, in lieu of the non-combustible zinc cladding which was originally agreed during the renovation process (Booth and Grierson, 2017). Following the fire, Nick Paget-Brown, (the Conservative politician and leader of RBLKCC at the time of the Grenfell Tower fire) confirmed that the Grenfell Tower, a 24-storey housing block of flats, home to 327 people, was not fitted with a sprinkler system “because that would have delayed and made the refurbishment of the block more disruptive” (Hughes, 2017 and Hodkinson, 2019). According to the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association, the decision not to install a sprinkler system resulted in a further saving of £200,000 (Hughes, 2017). During the Grenfell Inquest Inquiry, Dr Glover (President and Principal Engineer Failure Electrical, LLC) concluded that the remaining probable cause of the Grenfell Tower fire was a defective crimp connection which over heated in a relay compartment of a fridge-freezer manufactured by the Whirlpool Corporation (Grenfell Tower Inquiry, 2018). Glover also noted this appliance had been fitted with a cheaper plastic back casing instead of a more expensive metallic steel casing that is non-combustible. Which Conversation testing confirmed Glover’s statement (ibid and Neill, 2017).
Globalised crime and justice: "Corporations must be held to account for each and every person who died or was injured; from our son, the youngest person to lose his life, to the grandparents who died protecting the ones they loved” (Gomes, 2019, cited in Mee, 2019). The process of outsourcing, revealed a globalised complex chain of companies which played a part in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment project (Davies, 2017). For this reason the Grenfell tragedy can be viewed as a globalised crime because of the characteristics of the globalised economy which was facilitated by the state. The globalisation of the Grenfell Tower tragedy illuminates why 200 survivors and relatives of the Grenfell 72, who lost their lives, are taking legal action against three American-based firms: Arconic, Celotex and Whirlpool (Mee, 2019). US lawyers representing the American firms have requested a jury trial to be held in Philadelphia, America. This demonstrates how the globalised pursuit for justice occurs within a global capitalist context (ibid).
|
Crime – (in)effectiveness to deliver global justice
Red tape saves lives: Tombs suggests that the law is one tool that might be used in the struggle for justice. Some criminologists oppose this claim suggesting instead that that the utilisation of the law which is constructed by the powerful elite only serves to maintain the status quo. A critical investigation into the repeal of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and replacement by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) in 2005, uncovered how ‘fire prevention officers were accused of having costly ‘fire bias’ by sticking too strictly to the letter of the law, which politicians increasingly regarded as creating too much ‘red tape’ for businesses to operate’ (Ewen, 2018).
|
The Home Office annual report, 1977, confirmed that ‘the number of fatalities and fire rescues had declined as a direct result of the enactment of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 (cited in Ewen, 2018). Yet, in 1980, The Home Office’s Green Paper, Future Fire Policy criticised the escalating costs of enforcing the Fire Precautions legislation (ibid). The application of Snider’s (2000) coined term ‘corporate counter revolution’ divulged how every country that joined The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, through the 1980's and 1990's legitimised every acquisitive, profit-generating venture within the corporate sector (ibid). This subsequent deregulation of policy impeding capitalism, (cost cutting/profitably) led to the decline/removal of legislation resulting in a weakening of the social safety net or justice (Ibid). For Box ‘capitalist law’ reflects the ideological interests of particular powerful groups (1983).
Not fit for purpose: In June 2019, The Metropolitan police confirmed they had carried out a range of investigations under caution which form part of the criminal investigation into the Grenfell fire (Dodd, 2019). The most serious of these offences are the allegations of corporate manslaughter (ibid). An analysis of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (henceforth CMCHAct) illuminated that it is not fit for purpose (Tombs, 2018 and Hartles, 2018). The enactment of this piece of legislation took place (after ten years) following the removal of a clause which allowed for directors to be prosecuted (ibid). During which stage a loophole, that took the form of section 18, which explicitly states ‘no individual liability’ was added (Legislation GOV UK, 2019). The enactment of the CMCHAct reveals how networks of powerful elites implement black letter law around their shared self-serving interests and agenda (Sutherland, 1945, cited in Box, 1983). It exposes how networks of powerful elites such as state actors and corporate representatives enact, evoke, evade the law while constituting it around the specific behaviours, actions and events (of the powerless) which they deem to be undeserving and worthy of the label criminal (Sutherland, 1983). This explains why no large organisations such as corporations or the state have been convicted of deaths resulting from gross breaches of a duty of care, despite the fact the CMCHAct was written into law over twelve years ago (Tombs, 2018 and Hartles, 2018). A critical criminological stance revealed how a global crime and global justice discourse; the formal legal definition is entangled within the complexities of inequalities and power relationships that structure criminal justice systems (Smart, 1990). This illustrates why, 'A conception of crime without a conception of power is meaningless' (Muncie, 2001, quoted in Muncie et al., 2010, p. 31).
Social harm - challenging and holding the powerful to account
Beyond criminology: Moving beyond the discipline of critical criminology into the discipline known as zemiology allowed for the Grenfell Tower tragedy to be examined through a harm lens instead of a crime lens. Zemiology has been defined as ‘the holistic study of the social, psychological, physical and financial harmful consequences of social phenomena’ (Naughton, 2003). Furthermore, social harm analysis encompasses four broad categories of harm, including: financial/economic, denial of cultural safety, physical, emotional and psychological harms. (Hillyard and Tombs, 2007). The application of a social harm approach provided very different findings.
|
It illustrates why some harmful occurrences are categorised as crimes by the powerful elite while other equally significant harms are not. Moreover, why a series of harms (those not branded as crimes) which can be clearly linked to the Grenfell Tower fire, are interwoven into society, through socio-economic inequalities and neutralised by the powerful elite.
Harms: According to an official report prepared for the RBLKCC leadership and government team in 2018, two-thirds of the adults who survived or were affected by the Grenfell fire have shown signs that they require treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (RBLKCC GOV UK, 2018). A study published by the University of Central Lancashire, in March 2019, found that harmful cancer-causing chemicals have contaminated the Grenfell Tower and wider community (Stec et al., 2019). Public Health England, were quick to respond and released a report confirming ‘the risk to public health from air pollution remains low’. Displaced survivors of the 138 Grenfell households were promised they would be rehoused within three weeks and permanently rehomed within a year by the RBLKCC (Heffer, 2017 and BBC News, 2018). Yet, official figures revealed that over the Christmas period (2018), 96 of the households were living in temporary flats, hotels, serviced apartments or staying with friends (Forrest, 2018).
Harms: According to an official report prepared for the RBLKCC leadership and government team in 2018, two-thirds of the adults who survived or were affected by the Grenfell fire have shown signs that they require treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (RBLKCC GOV UK, 2018). A study published by the University of Central Lancashire, in March 2019, found that harmful cancer-causing chemicals have contaminated the Grenfell Tower and wider community (Stec et al., 2019). Public Health England, were quick to respond and released a report confirming ‘the risk to public health from air pollution remains low’. Displaced survivors of the 138 Grenfell households were promised they would be rehoused within three weeks and permanently rehomed within a year by the RBLKCC (Heffer, 2017 and BBC News, 2018). Yet, official figures revealed that over the Christmas period (2018), 96 of the households were living in temporary flats, hotels, serviced apartments or staying with friends (Forrest, 2018).
|
A zemiological stance draws attention to harms which would ordinarily be interwoven into the very fabric of society. Tombs discusses the harms generated as a result of the Grenfell Tower fire, some of which he claims will take years to manifest (FASS, 2018).
|
Social Justice: An alternative approach sheds light on how common sense knowledge claims about what constitutes crime and justice can be contested (Giddens, 1997). Challenging held beliefs about uncritical taken for granted social ‘norms’ and values is a form of counter-hegemony because it destabilises the powerful and triggers theoretical and practical change (ibid). Grenfell United (2019b), an official organisation made up of survivors and bereaved families, started a campaign, in 2018, advocating for safe homes, justice and real change for people across the country illustrates counter-hegemony. Its activism and petitions, one of which entitled: Create a new housing regulator that works for tenants and 2 years after Grenfell: make tower blocks safe have helped to bring about real-word change (Grenfell United 2019a and 2019b). This change has taken the form of an allocation of £600 million from the government towards the removal of Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding systems from public and private buildings (Walker, 2018 and Booth, 2019).
Conclusion
At the outset, the aim of this blog-post was to provide a summary of findings in a way which illustrated how Grenfell could be better understood as a site of global crime, harm and social (in)justice. Taken for granted assumptions about what constitutes ‘crime and justice’ and what does not, were challenged and exposed to be essentially contested concepts (Lacey, 2002 and Scott, 2017). This critical approach continued and put forward the claim that networks of powerful elites such as state bodies and state representatives, together with corporations and corporate elites, implement black letter law around their ‘cost cutting and profit driven’ shared ideologies (Sutherland, 1945, cited in Box, 1983). The unmasking of the corporate veil illuminated the social, political and economic conditions which facilitated the Grenfell Tower globalised crime. The analysis of laws put in place to hold the powerful to account made clear how the powerful enact, evoke and evade criminal justice. Thus demonstrating why some harmful occurrences are categorised as crimes while others are not and why black letter law is ineffective.
A move beyond the legalistic definition of crime, a social harm lens made visible a multitude of ‘harms’ of the powerful’ perpetrated by the state, corporations and large organisations within the scope of the Grenfell Tower tragedy inquiry (FASS, 2018). These harmful acts and occurrences are equally as significant as those labelled as a crime (ibid). However, they are interwoven into the fabric of society, through socio-economic inequalities and passed off as side-effects of business activity (ibid and Tombs and Whyte, 2015, cited in Bittle et al., 2018). Grenfell United, which formed for the pursuit of justice, have through their campaigns/petitions and activism helped to bring about real-world change in practices and at policy level.
This blog summary has illustrated the clear need for future research into the areas of the powerful and Grenfell. The findings made it apparent that research conducted around the ‘crimes’ of the powerful is paradoxically flawed. In unmasking the crimes of the powerful which are omitted from black letter law definitions, research demonstrates how the inconsistent constructs of crime and justice are enacted by the powerful elite (Hartles, 2019). For this reason critical studies need to be conducted which favour researching a ‘harms’ of the powerful approach because it encompasses a wider range of harmful acts including those committed by states, corporations and large organisations. However, research into ‘crimes/harms of the powerful’ is deemed to be risky research (Whyte and Tombs, cited in Walters, 2003). This may place restrictions upon the commissioning /funding into this area of study and therefore on the amount of material being published (ibid). The unfolding dimensions of harms which may take decades to manifest encompassing: physical, emotional/psychological, financial/economic and cultural, detail why future investigations into the Grenfell Tower tragedy and pursuit for justice are pertinent.
References
Barker, D. and Mander, J. (1999) Invisible government, San Francisco, CA, International Forum on Globalization
Box, S. (1983) Power, Crime and Mystification, London, Tavistock
Box, S. (2014) Power, Crime and Mystification, London, Taylor and Francis, pp. 1–15
Hodkinson, S. (2019) ‘Introduction: Grenfell and the return of ‘social murder’ Safe as Houses Private Greed, Political Negligence and Housing Policy after Grenfell, Manchester University Press
Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View, London, Macmillan.
Muncie, J., Talbot, D., and Walters, R. (2010) ‘Interrogating crime' pp. 1 – pp. 36 in Muncie, J., Talbot, D. and Walters, R. (eds) (2010). Crime: Local and Global Cullompton Willan Publishing
Pearce, F. (1976) The Crimes of the Powerful: Marxism, Crime and Deviance. London: Pluto Press (2001) The Radical Durkheim, Second Edition. Toronto, Canadian Scholars’ Press International.
Smart, C. (1990) ‘Feminist approaches to criminology or postmodern woman meets atavistic man’, in Gelsthorpe, L. and Morris, A. (eds) Feminist Perspectives in Criminology, Buckingham, Open University Press, pp. 70–84.
Snider, L. (2000) “The Sociology of Corporate Crime: An Obituary (or: Whose Knowledge Claims Have Legs?).” Theoretical Criminology, 4(2); 196–206
Sutherland, E. (1983) White Collar Crime: The Uncut Version, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
At the outset, the aim of this blog-post was to provide a summary of findings in a way which illustrated how Grenfell could be better understood as a site of global crime, harm and social (in)justice. Taken for granted assumptions about what constitutes ‘crime and justice’ and what does not, were challenged and exposed to be essentially contested concepts (Lacey, 2002 and Scott, 2017). This critical approach continued and put forward the claim that networks of powerful elites such as state bodies and state representatives, together with corporations and corporate elites, implement black letter law around their ‘cost cutting and profit driven’ shared ideologies (Sutherland, 1945, cited in Box, 1983). The unmasking of the corporate veil illuminated the social, political and economic conditions which facilitated the Grenfell Tower globalised crime. The analysis of laws put in place to hold the powerful to account made clear how the powerful enact, evoke and evade criminal justice. Thus demonstrating why some harmful occurrences are categorised as crimes while others are not and why black letter law is ineffective.
A move beyond the legalistic definition of crime, a social harm lens made visible a multitude of ‘harms’ of the powerful’ perpetrated by the state, corporations and large organisations within the scope of the Grenfell Tower tragedy inquiry (FASS, 2018). These harmful acts and occurrences are equally as significant as those labelled as a crime (ibid). However, they are interwoven into the fabric of society, through socio-economic inequalities and passed off as side-effects of business activity (ibid and Tombs and Whyte, 2015, cited in Bittle et al., 2018). Grenfell United, which formed for the pursuit of justice, have through their campaigns/petitions and activism helped to bring about real-world change in practices and at policy level.
This blog summary has illustrated the clear need for future research into the areas of the powerful and Grenfell. The findings made it apparent that research conducted around the ‘crimes’ of the powerful is paradoxically flawed. In unmasking the crimes of the powerful which are omitted from black letter law definitions, research demonstrates how the inconsistent constructs of crime and justice are enacted by the powerful elite (Hartles, 2019). For this reason critical studies need to be conducted which favour researching a ‘harms’ of the powerful approach because it encompasses a wider range of harmful acts including those committed by states, corporations and large organisations. However, research into ‘crimes/harms of the powerful’ is deemed to be risky research (Whyte and Tombs, cited in Walters, 2003). This may place restrictions upon the commissioning /funding into this area of study and therefore on the amount of material being published (ibid). The unfolding dimensions of harms which may take decades to manifest encompassing: physical, emotional/psychological, financial/economic and cultural, detail why future investigations into the Grenfell Tower tragedy and pursuit for justice are pertinent.
References
Barker, D. and Mander, J. (1999) Invisible government, San Francisco, CA, International Forum on Globalization
Box, S. (1983) Power, Crime and Mystification, London, Tavistock
Box, S. (2014) Power, Crime and Mystification, London, Taylor and Francis, pp. 1–15
Hodkinson, S. (2019) ‘Introduction: Grenfell and the return of ‘social murder’ Safe as Houses Private Greed, Political Negligence and Housing Policy after Grenfell, Manchester University Press
Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View, London, Macmillan.
Muncie, J., Talbot, D., and Walters, R. (2010) ‘Interrogating crime' pp. 1 – pp. 36 in Muncie, J., Talbot, D. and Walters, R. (eds) (2010). Crime: Local and Global Cullompton Willan Publishing
Pearce, F. (1976) The Crimes of the Powerful: Marxism, Crime and Deviance. London: Pluto Press (2001) The Radical Durkheim, Second Edition. Toronto, Canadian Scholars’ Press International.
Smart, C. (1990) ‘Feminist approaches to criminology or postmodern woman meets atavistic man’, in Gelsthorpe, L. and Morris, A. (eds) Feminist Perspectives in Criminology, Buckingham, Open University Press, pp. 70–84.
Snider, L. (2000) “The Sociology of Corporate Crime: An Obituary (or: Whose Knowledge Claims Have Legs?).” Theoretical Criminology, 4(2); 196–206
Sutherland, E. (1983) White Collar Crime: The Uncut Version, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please cite this article as:
Hartles, S. (2019) Grenfell: a site of global crime, harm and social (in)justice? [Online] Available at
https://sharonhartles.weebly.com/grenfell-a-site-of-global-crime-harm-and-social-injustice.html (Accessed)
ATTRIBUTION
All works are Open Access articles distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original works are properly cited.
© Sharon Hartles 2022.
All works are Open Access articles distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original works are properly cited.
© Sharon Hartles 2022.