Hate Crime Network

BSC Hate Crime Network

About

Chair
Irene Zempi
Email: irene.zempi@ntu.ac.uk

The BSC Hate Crime Network is intended to provide a forum for those within the criminology community who have an interest in researching hate crime. This may include, although not be limited to, the following issues: perpetration; victimisation; legislation and policy; policing; rehabilitation and punishment of offenders; theoretical approaches; intersections of hate crime victimisation; and technology and hate crime.

Academic interest in hate crime has been growing in recent years; with developments in theoretical understandings of hate crime, a growing body of empirical work, and increasing attention given to vulnerable groups who fall outside of legislative provisions. Hate crime academia has also influenced the criminal justice sphere; engaging with policing policies and practices, and law reform. Beyond this, research by scholars in the UK has a significant role to play within public discourse around hate crime, particularly in relation to the rise in hate crimes following the 2016 Brexit referendum, the use of technology and social media in the perpetration and experiences of hate, and hate crime in football. This network seeks to facilitate the exchange of ideas and work amongst scholars in the hate crime community, to promote and support excellence in this field for those at all stages of their career, and to provide the opportunity for greater engagement with policy makers, criminal justice practitioners and the wider general public.

The Committee

Chair: Dr Irene Zempi (Nottingham Trent
University)

Vice Chair: Rachel Keighley
(University of Leicester)

Steering group: Dr Leah Burch (Liverpool
Hope University), Mikahil Azad (University Worcester), Martha Babbs (University
of Greenwich), Dr Amy Clarke (University of Leicester), Dr Ben Colliver
(Birmingham City University), Professor Jon Garland (University of Surrey),
Professor Nathan Hall (University of Surrey), Dr Jane Healy (Bournemouth
University), Luke Hubbard (University of Surrey), Ashton Kingdon
(University of Southampton), Dr Jo Smith (University of Brighton), Dr
David Wilkin (Open University).

Network Members

Irene Zempi (Chair)

Rachel Keighley (Vice-Chair)

Amy Clarke (Article Prizes)

Jon Garland (Article Prizes)

Nathan Hall (Article Prizes)

Mikahil Azad (Social Media)

Ashton Kingdon (Social Media)

Leah Burch – (Events)

Jane Healy – (Events)

David Wilkin (Events)

Ben Colliver (Events)

Martha Babbs (Network Website)

Jo Smith (without Portfolio)

Luke Hubbard (without Portfolio)


The Aims of the Network

  • Provide a forum for hate crime researchers and other BSC members to share information and experiences about hate crime with a view to developing critical analysis and debate across research, policy, and practice;
  • Advance understanding of hate crime both nationally and internationally;
  • Foster opportunities for collaborative projects amongst hate crime researchers, criminologists more broadly, and other related individuals/groups; and
  • Encourage networking between academics, researchers, practitioners, policy-makers, and students interested in the field of hate crime.

Researching within hate studies: A discussion group for PGRs and ECRs

This discussion group is part of the BSC Hate Crime Network, and has been designed to create a supportive space for PGRs and ECRs who are researching within the broad area of hate studies. PGRs could include students studying at MA and doctoral level, and ECRs includes those researchers who are within five years of receiving their doctorate. The group brings PGRs and ECRs together to share their research projects, discuss methodological issues, and consider best practices when researching sensitive topics. The group will touch upon, but are not limited to, the following topics:

  • Working with and supporting victims
  • Managing the sensitivity of hate studies research
  • Ethical issues
  • Working with policy-makers and practitioners
  • Creative and inclusive research methods
  • Our responsibility as researchers
  • Working with perpetrators of hate crime

In addition to these discussions, the group will also organise occasional training sessions with more experienced researchers. These training sessions could cover some of the above, but please get in touch if there are any particular areas that you would benefit from. These sessions will be led by an experienced researcher within the area of hate studies, but there will continue to be an emphasis on open discussion and Q&A. All sessions will run online (unless otherwise stated) via MS Teams. These will be bi-monthly on a Wednesday afternoon lasting 1 hour (2-3pm). Presenters will speak for approximately 25 minutes, and this will be followed by a discussion. See below for information on our first two meetings.

If you would like to present at one of these discussion groups, please contact Leah Burch (burchl@hope.ac.uk @LeahFBurch)or David Wilkin (drw25leicester.ac.ukwith a short bio and abstract. This does not need to be detailed but should give a broad overview of a potential topic/issue/method that you would like to discuss.   

To stay up to date with these events and access joining details, please ensure that you follow the British Society of Criminology Hate Crime Network on Twitter @BscHcn and are subscribed to our JISCmail account here.

You can read the BSC Hate Crime Network Events Code of Practice here.

Forthcoming Events


15 May 2024, 2-3 pm. Jen Neller, “Critical Hate Studies”. Register here.

Previous Events

Professor Mark Walters – Author of “Criminalising Hate: Law as Social Justice Liberalism” winner of the British Society of Criminology Hate Crime Network Sophie and Sylvia Lancaster Book Prize 2023. 

Mark Walters is a Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology and Deputy Head of Sussex Law School. His research interests are focused primarily on hate crime studies, as well as criminal law and criminal justice reform with a special emphasis on restorative justice practice and theory.

‘sex trafficking’ with guest speaker: Dr. Gopala Sasie Rekha, Lecturer in Criminology, Department of Policing, Criminology and Forensics, University of Winchester.

 You can listen to the podcast here

Speaker’s biography: Dr. Gopala Sasie Rekha, S.H. (LL.B.), LL.M., MBA., Ph.D., FHEA [she/her], holds the position of Criminology Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Crime and Justice at the University of Winchester. She also serves as an External Examiner for the University of Northeastern London and contributes as an editor and reviewer for several Indonesian journals. As a member of the British Society of Criminology and its Learning and Teaching Network, as well as the Standing Group on Organised Crime, Sasie’s involvement in the field is extensive. With 15 years of academic experience across Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia, and England, Sasie has cultivated a deep interest in organised crime, particularly human trafficking. Her work focuses on the reintegration of victims and their families, as well as human rights and gender issues in Southeast Asia. Her latest research explores forensic science in human trafficking cases. Currently, Sasie is involved in revising her newly developed course module titled “Modern Slavery” at the University of Winchester. In addition, she is actively working on several publishing projects. These include a book series detailing the lives and post-trafficking experiences of sex trafficking victims and their families, a book chapter on forensic science in Indonesian human trafficking cases, and another chapter examining the human trafficking crisis in Myanmar. The latter focuses on the impact on indigenous communities, encompassing historical, cultural, economic, political, social, and environmental perspectives. This work underscores the need for a comprehensive and culturally sensitive approach to tackle human trafficking issues.

7 February 2024, 2-3 pm. Vera Kubenz, “It’s just so hostile: exploring disabled people’s everyday encounters in accessible parking spaces”.

You can download Vera’s presentation here.

The experiences of Deaf prisoners, inside prison and after release” with Dr Laura Kelly-Corless, University of Central Lancashire and Dr Daniel Mcculloch, Open University*

Abstract

d/Deaf people experience disproportionate amounts of pain and suffering in prisons in a myriad of ways – for example, through increased isolation, exclusion and loneliness. In addition, after their release from prison, their experiences of resettlement are often marked by a sense of having to navigate a post-prison system designed for hearing people, whilst simultaneously facing exclusion from the Deaf community. In this presentation, we explore some of the issues faced by d/Deaf people inside of prison from our previous research projects, and by Deaf people after release from prison from our current British Academy funded research.

*Laura Kelly-Corless is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Central Lancashire. Her research focuses significantly on the experiences of d/Deaf people in the criminal justice system and beyond. She is also interested in the role of the arts in engendering positive change, creative research methods and abolitionist perspectives.

Daniel McCulloch is a Lecturer in Criminology and Social Policy at The Open University. His research interests relate the to experiences of d/Deaf people in the criminal justice system, the stories of people experiencing homelessness, and critical perspectives on participatory visual methods.

BSC Hate Crime Network online event – Wed 17 January 2024 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM GMT with guest speaker Sophie Geppert (Birmingham City University) on “Transphobia, Trans-Misogyny, TikTok and Twitter”.

You can view the Powerpoint Presentation from the session here.

Research group webinar 

29 November 2023 – “Tackling gender-based violence in the online space” with Dr Susan Watson*, University of York

Abstract

Gendered online abuse, and technology facilitated gendered violence, particularly that communicated via social networking sites, has increased dramatically in recent years. My detailed research, drawing upon evidence gathered from interviews, analysis of Twitter data, and the review of a wide interdisciplinary corpus has investigated the abuse received by women simply doing their jobs. By talking to a wide range of women serving in the occupations of academia, journalism, policing, and politics, it is possible to gain an understanding of a facet of gendered abuse that has up to now been largely ignored. This seminar presentation will share important insights into the nature of, and potential harm caused by the online abuse faced by women working in public facing occupations, in order to increase understanding of the challenges associated with navigating the online space for women working across the public sphere. For unlike the gender-based violence that occurs in the ‘real world’, technology facilitated gendered violence is an offence without borders, which demands a response that is equally nebulous. This presentation will also detail a series of recommendations for tackling online abuse, drawn directly from the women who have been most affected by it. These policy solutions are presented at an individual, organisational, legislative and societal level, making links with other important research into misogyny and discrimination that is currently taking place across many public sector organisations.

*Dr Susan Watson is Lecturer in Criminal Justice and Social Policy in the School for Business and Society at the University of York. Her research is currently focussed on technology facilitated gendered violence, with a particular interest how this behaviour affects women working across public facing organisations. Her PhD, which was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, investigated the impact of online abuse directed at women holding senior positions within policing, journalism, academia and politics. A mixed-method, interdisciplinary study, it included empirical evidence gathered from a series of semi-structured interviews with women in the UK and overseas, including interviews with current and former political party leaders and politicians, police officers, academics and journalists. Her work has been cited worldwide and has led to a range of publications. Before embarking on an academic career, Susan worked in political campaigning, research and policy development. Susan has previously worked as a staffer for a major political party; a Parliamentary Researcher on the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee; and has served as a researcher for numerous elected representatives, including Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament. She has also worked in an informal capacity for the Democratic Party in the USA. Susan can be contacted at Susan.watson@york.ac.uk for further information.

PGR/ECR discussion group events:


15 November 2023 – 
Teresa Hughes, “The role of the CPS in hate crime prosecution”

In this interactive session, Teresa Hughes, who is a Senior Crown Prosecutor, considered the role of the CPS in prosecuting hate crimes in England and Wales, and shared some of the decision-making that takes place in these cases.

PGR/ECR discussion group events:

Sept 2023 – Piotr Godzisz, Birmingham City University: “Stare responses to anti-LGBTI hate crime on Europe’s peripheries”.

The presentation will present early findings from a MSCA-IF study on the policies aimed at addressing anti-LGBTI violence in South-East and Eastern Europe. Some countries in the region have recently enacted hate crime laws, but there are few reports of cases being prosecuted under these laws, leading to questions about their implementation. The spread of hate crime legislation is influenced by the growth of LGBTI advocacy, increased global attention to hate crimes, and the process of EU integration. However, it is uncertain how these factors affect the adoption and enforcement of hate crime policies. Based on data from expert and elite interviews enhanced by graphic elicitation the presentation will discuss hate crime policy adoption in Georgia and North Macedonia, which have both passed anti-LGBTI hate crime laws but have different levels of implementation.

Biography:

Dr Piotr Godzisz (he/him) is an interdisciplinary researcher with a background in political science and criminology. He holds a PhD from the University College London and an MA from the University of Warsaw. He is engaged in research, training and advocacy on human rights issues across Europe and has worked with organisations such as the OSCE, the Council of Europe and Human Dignity Trust. He is currently a senior lecturer at Birmingham City University and a Marie Skłodowska-Curie postdoctoral fellow at Université Libre de Bruxelles. His published work focuses on victims, hate crime and human rights.


Researching within hate studies: A discussion group for PGRs and ECRs

31 May 2023, 14:00 – 15:00  

“The Normalisation of Online Hate: Trolling, Diet Culture and Filtered Lifestyles” – Lauren Doyle, University of Sunderland 

Abstract: The academic study of the vulnerability posed by the digital world remains an evolving interdisciplinary discussion. Social media plays a significant role in the growing incorporation of the digital world in day-to-day living; even more so following the Covid-19 pandemic. Although social media provided a forum for enhanced connectivity in the isolating period of a global lockdown, it has been recognised as a potentially harmful and vulnerable space for its users (see Lavis & Winter, 2020; Bailey et al., 2022; Price et al., 2022). This lecture aims to explore the potential ‘harms’ posed on social media platforms through a zemiological lens by drawing upon the early findings of the presenter’s doctoral research. The findings of this study will be framed through the lens of participant’s lived experience of the ‘normalisation of online hate’ in the form of trolling, weight stigma and the [lack of] regulation of expressions of hate online. This will be thematically positioned into the context of diet culture and filtered lifestyles. 

19 April 2023, 14:00 – 15:00

“Microaggression towards Asian students” – Ammeline Wang, University of Manchester  

Abstract: The role of microaggressions in advancing the concerns of hate crimes is that they constitute ‘low-level’ behaviors that contribute to the escalation of bias-motivated behaviors along the hate crime continuum. Grounded in a framework of structural oppression, the premise of microaggressions is that they are behaviors that are motivated primarily – if not solely – by an individual’s (conscious or unconscious) prejudices. However, microaggressions is a concept that attends to the structural and systemic oppression (both historical and contemporary) that minority groups have had to contend with for generations; a history that international students, as temporary migrants, do not share with their British born and/or bred counterparts. Using ‘knowable community’ (Williams, 1987) as a conceptual frame, this presentation focuses on how Southeast Asian and Mainland Chinese interpret the concept of microaggressions and how they navigate their experiences of microaggressions in the UK. The findings gathered from six focus groups and an online questionnaire administered to Southeast Asian and Mainland Chinese international students reveals that in the absence of a “knowable community”, the visceral impacts of microaggressions and the cumulative effects of dealing with discriminatory or exclusionary behaviors can be lost on international students, particularly for those who may not have had to contend with such behaviors until arriving in the UK. I conclude that the concept of microaggressions cannot simply be bolt on to the hate crime debate on the basis that it captures the ‘low-level’ exclusionary or discriminatory behaviors that are, on the one hand, not serious enough to be considered a ‘crime’ in law but, on the other, are thought to be dangerous enough to establish, reinforce, and validate harmful stereotypes against certain groups. Rather, I suggest that university policies aimed at tackling microaggressions could perhaps focus on mobilizing curiosity in a non-defensive way, particularly when it comes to interacting and dealing with international students who originate from different cultures. 

23 March 2023, 14:00 – 15:00     

“Sexual Harassment in the Night-Time Economy: negotiating the right to space” – Michelle Cunliffe, Nottingham Trent University 

Abstract: Sexual harassment is a global issue that disproportionately affects women (Gouseti, 2020: Stanko, 1990; Vera-Gray, 2016). Sexual harassment in public spaces, in particular in the Night-Time Economy, is relatively sparse. Whilst research has explored safety and women’s perceptions of safety in licenced venues, the focus tends to be on drink spiking and rape. Despite unwanted sexual behaviours such as touching and unwanted attention being documented as pervasive there is a lack of research in a UK context that focuses specifically on sexual harassment in licenced venues. This presentation will present the initial findings of the authors PhD thesis. Using a feminist methodological approach and based on semi-structured interviews, the experiences of women who have been impacted by and witnessed sexual harassment in licenced venues will be discussed. This research will illuminate the ways in which women experience harassment and how space and safety are negotiated in licenced venues. Findings suggest that the appearance of men and women and the appearance of venues influence perceptions of safety. Women also negotiate their rights to space in licenced venues by avoiding certain areas of space or accessing areas collectively. Findings also suggest that sexual harassment is presented as ‘just routine’ and interestingly, in some cases, women position themselves as abject when they do not experience unwanted sexual behaviours. 

Researching within hate studies: A discussion group for PGRs and ECRs

12-2pm on Wednesday 7th December. An interactive workshop with Dr Chris Allen about policy and public engagement. 

In this interactive workshop, Dr Chris Allen reflected upon his own experiences of ensuring research impact and working within public engagement. During the workshop, Dr Allen discussed how we do public engagement, and the strategies that we can employ to enhance our engagement with this. He also outlined some of the common pitfalls when academics engage with public engagement, and help to think about the ways we might overcome and avoid these. Dr Allen helped attendees to consider the importance of research impact and many ways that this can take shape. 

09 November 2022. 

This presentation by Daisy discusses how religious and spiritual sex workers negotiate their identities for safety & stigma management.

Researching within hate studies: A discussion group for PGRs and ECRs

21 September 2022. 

Amrik Singh delivered a presentation entitled “An exploration of the impact of neutral, pro-defendant and pro-victim LGBT & non-LGBT-co-mock-jurors on mock-juror decisions in transphobic hate crime” 

Disability Hate Crime conference: Known harms and future directions

16 June 2022.

University of Leicester Campus

The purpose of this conference was to bring together, for the first time ever, victims, academics, support organisations and elements of the criminal justice system to discuss the impacts of disability hate crime (DHC). This conference was a global first, achieved with the help of the University of Leicester – a world leader in hate studies and being supported by the BSC Hate Crime Network. The conference was not designed to offer a cure for DHC, instead it is a step on the way to justice for the victims of DHC. For that reason, we have the CPS, the police and academics who have contributed to the recent construction of new legislation to address DHC attending.

Watch the video of the morning session here.

Morning Slides (opens as PDF)

Watch the video of the afternoon session here.

Afternoon Slides (opens as PDF)


Friday November 26, 2021

 

Speakers
Professor Neil Chakraborti
Professor Jon Garland
Neil and Jon will reflect upon their own research within hate studies, their successes and challenges. In addition to this, there will be discussion time on the day to ask questions. 
poster image


Researching within hate studies: A discussion group for PGRs and ECRs
October 6, 2021
In this ‘researching hate’ discussion group, we welcomed Lauren and Jeanette Manning, all the way from Canada. Lauren and Jeanette are mother and daughter, and shared their story of how white supremacy ideology had changed both of their lives, and how they had been able to come together to walk away from this. We discussed issues relating to online recruitment, misogyny within the movement itself, and some of the difficulties and risks involved with walking away from extremism.

Jeanette and Lauren have recently published their memoir ‘Walking away from hate: our journey through extremism’ as well as educational resources for both parents and teachers to support other young people who might find themselves being recruited into white supremacy groups.

You can watch the book trailer here https://youtu.be/W5gCYLpsrcE for further insight into their stories. Their resources for parents and teachers are available for free download at Tidewater Press https://www.tidewaterpress.ca/walking-away-from-hate/

Emily Wertans : The forgotten victims of hate crime: How can hate scholars engage with homeless victims?
August 18, 2021 
As a group that stands outside of the formal protected characteristics of hate crime, homeless people are scarcely recognised as victims of prejudice within the UK. However, there are numerous accounts of targeted hostility directed towards people on the basis of their perceived homeless status. Nonetheless, hate scholars, victimisation researchers and politicians have not attempted to meaningfully engage with this group to better understand their experiences and needs. This presentation and the research that underpins it aimed to address what we know about targeted hostility against the homeless, why there is so little attention on it and how can research be conducted to bridge this gap.

The forgotten victims of hate crime: How can hate scholars engage with homeless victims? Emily Wertans

Building upon many of the themes raised by Dr David Wilkin in the first of PGR/ECR Hate Crime Network talks, my presentation addressed questions surrounding why we do research in this field and what we might hope the impact to be. More specifically, I explored the following questions in relation to my PhD research: Why are certain groups omitted from research? Why hasn’t more been done to conceptualise homeless people as victims of targeted hostility? Is it impossible for some populations to engage in research, or should we be reimagining how to approach that process?

My PhD journey began whilst volunteering with a local homelessness organisation, through which I witnessed routine incidents of guests presenting at the breakfast service having been subjected to various degrees of violence over the course of the night. When they explained the context – that these incidents were typically unprovoked, with them targeted seemingly on the basis of their perceived homeless identity – I turned to hate studies for more information and was surprised to find little in response. Whilst there is undeniably little in this area, I’m certainly not the first to conceptualise the homeless as potential victims of targeted hostility, and I hope that I won’t be the last. Research from Crisis revealed that 1/3 rough sleepers have been deliberately subjected to physical violence, 6/10 have been verbally abused and 1/10 have been urinated on. Nonetheless, a comprehensive analysis into such incidents through a hate studies lens remains absent.

Within my research, I am focusing on the areas of location, nature and impact of targeted hostility against the homeless. I hope to gain an understanding of where are safe or unsafe spaces for rough sleepers, what are ranges of isolating and unacceptable behaviours that they might be subjected to and what is the resultant impact. Thus far, some areas that have been identified as relevant to addressing these questions include the frequent display of microaggressions, physical abuse and sexual abuse, the intersectional nature of vulnerability, identity shaping as a result of unpleasant interactions and support provisions commonly not equipped to address the needs of this population.

For me, whilst the content of my topic is incredibly moving and important, some of my most significant learning that has occurred as part of the PhD process has been in relation to methodology and access needs for seldom heard voices. Likely underpinning the lack of research in this area, homeless people are typically dismissed as hard to reach and are therefore scarcely consulted in discussions about their lives, experiences, interpretations and needs. As a result, policy and practice decisions about this group are rarely reliably informed and are often unfit for purpose. Countering this trend, I am using flexible and creative methods, namely a choice between free-post letter writing, photovoice and more traditional spoken interviews to ensure that communication is accessible and comfortable, as determined by the individual participant. In addition to this, I am continually working with local partners and homeless groups to ensure that my project is evolving and being shaped by the needs of this population.

In moving forward, I hope that there is increasing acknowledgement within the hate studies world as to the place of homeless victims within it. I also hope that we see researchers continue to think more flexibly about the needs and rights of our participants, and how we might need to move away from traditional practice at times to facilitate meaningful participation, results and impact. Finally, for early career researchers, PhD students and also those who have been immersed in this space for many years, I hope that we see reflective practice and researcher self-care increasingly normalised for the benefit of ourselves, our participants and our subject.

Hate Crime in Football
June 16, 2021 12.00-16.00
Sport and sporting events can often be the context within which hate crimes happen. Incidents of hate crime connected to 287 football matches in England and Wales were reported in 2019-20, according to Home Office figures. Of those incidents, 75% related to race (214 matches), while 27% related to sexual orientation (78 matches). Compared to the previous season, arrests for racist or indecent chanting more than doubled from 14 to 35, despite hundreds of matches being cancelled or played without fans because of the covid-19 pandemic. The aim of this conference was to discuss the scope of the problem and to identify best strategies to tackle hate crime in football.

Programme
12:00 – 12:10pm Welcome – Chair, BSC Hate Crime Network
12:10 – 13:00pm Keynote Speaker – Di Cunningham, Founder of Proud Canaries
13:00 – 14:00pm Panel Session 1: Racism and Islamophobia in football

Chair: Dr Ben Colliver
Panel members:
Professor Imran Awan, Professor in Criminology BCU and Dr Irene Zempi, Senior Lecturer in Criminology NTU
Tajean Hutton, Grassroots Manager, Kick It Out
Arran Williams, Mananger Diversity and Inclusion, FA

14:00 – 14:30pm Break
14:30 – 15:30pm Panel session 2: Homophobia and transphobia in football

Chair: Dr Irene Zempi
Panel members:
Dr Ben Colliver, Lecturer in Criminology, BCU
Naomi Reid, Communications Lead and Player, Charlton Invicta F.C.
Dr Michael Seeraj, Head of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion for Charlton Athletic FC & Trust/Chair, English Football League (EFL) Regional EDI Forum

15:30 – 15:45pm Close – Chair, BSC Hate Crime Network

 

Wednesday 23rd June, 2021 – Dr David Wilkin: From Town to Gown: Are we purely academics?
Abstract: Why do we want to be researchers? For personal kudos, for money, perhaps to achieve social change? Whatever our motivation, at some point we must settle on a research question to ask. We commit to solving a problem and in doing so, we set a course for the rest of our lives.

For years we dedicate ourselves to be completely taken over by that topic, it becomes our friend, our enemy and our challenge. Eventually, we become subject matter experts. We move from the questioner to the questioned, we provide knowledge and inspire change. We move from learner to teacher. People look to us for leadership, for help and hope. But what duty do we owe? Did we merely visit our topic, collect the prize, and move out – or do we owe a duty to society? Are we more than just research tourists? In this session, David will be discussing our positions of privilege and what we can give back to society.

Misogyny as Hate Crime, Nottingham Trent University, May 15, 2019
In May 2016 Nottinghamshire Police became the first UK police force to record misogyny as a hate crime. The Law Commission is currently conducting a review of the adequacy of protection offered by hate crime legislation in England and Wales. The purpose of this conference was a timely opportunity to scope the current discourse around misogyny and consider the value of recognising misogyny as hate crime nationally

Blogs

Supporting refugees within the hotel environment

Dr Amy Clarke

I have spent the last eight years working with new migrant communities and refugees in England, centring their everyday lived realities that are often over-looked, and understanding their experiences of hostility, exclusion and belonging. This work, and the wider activities I undertake as part of the Centre for Hate Studies at the University of Leicester, has led me to develop meaningful relationships with many community partners that support residents from ethnic minority backgrounds and newly arrived refugees in various ways.

For the last six months I have led an interdisciplinary team of academics including linguists, psychologists, criminologists and academics with expertise in politics and international relations, from the University of Leicester. We are working with Afghan refugees living in a hotel in central Leicester, and the staff and volunteers involved in the Bright Path Futures (BPF) programme. In the summer of 2021, BPF launched a new and novel refugee-led language and wellbeing support programme that is currently being facilitated within hotels in, and around, the city of Leicester. Our ongoing project is exploring the refugees’ general experiences of hotel life and the impacts of the BPF programme on their wellbeing, mental health and feelings of belonging.

In this blog I reflect on why co-produced programmes like BPF are so important and have the potential to make a significant difference to new arrivals’ cultural adjustment. I will also highlight the complex and ongoing challenges that come with facilitating these programmes, especially within hotel environments.

In response to the arrival of new Afghan refugees to Leicester in 2021, BPF began work in recognition that the newly arrived are under-supported, isolated, and typically living with their families in cramped and unfamiliar environments[1]. In particular, BPF work with Afghan women who they observed were especially isolated, rarely left their hotel rooms, and typically lacked the confidence and social capital to access other forms of support. One of the most important aspects of the BPF programme is that it provides training for women from within the communities to run the classes. These spaces provide them with a social outlet that they otherwise would not have. Here, they are able to establish social bonds within the hotel that will hopefully benefit them when they move into the wider community.  

However, despite the overwhelming potential and clear need for programmes like BPF, there are a number of considerable challenges that we have observed so far and I reflect on three of the most pressing here – although there are many more.

Firstly, programmes like BPF are rarely sustainable without long-term funding. The refugee teachers are paid on an ad hoc basis and their positions are highly precarious. Due to the unstable nature of funding for many small charities and community interest groups, these programmes often rely on the goodwill of individuals to run classes voluntarily while the programme remains essentially unfunded. This business model is exhausting for staff but also confusing and distressing for refugees who benefit from the support they receive and worry that it will disappear at a moment’s notice. This approach also requires a significant amount of emotional labour from teachers who often struggle with feelings of duty and powerlessness. Programmes like BPF develop close, and meaningful relationships with refugees and this places them in a unique position to support the newly arrived families, independently and in addition to, more formal support offered by local authorities. A more coherent and joined-up approach to support is much needed, and requires investment at both national and regional levels.

Secondly, social tensions that exist within and outside of the hotel have impacted the refugee residents, hotel staff and the local community. These tensions have sometimes escalated into verbal and physical fights. Many families in the hotel have been staying in the hotel for nearly 18 months, in cramped conditions, with inadequate access to legal and health care services and other basic necessities[2]. Unsurprisingly, therefore, interpersonal relationships between some residents and hotel staff have become fraught. There have also been concerns raised about the growing tensions between the refugees and local residents from the city which has resulted in extra security being placed in and around the hotel for the refugees’ protection. Elsewhere in the wider county, hotels housing refugees in more rural, affluent and predominantly White areas have received considerable backlash from local residents who are against their stay[3]. Such conditions have exacerbated existing issues, and for some, this has limited the progress and ongoing benefits of the BPF programme.    

Thirdly, we have found that any sense of progress that BPF has made in building a sense of community for the refugee families in the hotel, and aiding their adjustment to their new environment, is undermined when the refugees are suddenly relocated out of the city. Recently, the Home Office informed the refugee families whom we work with that they would be moved. They were not given a destination, only told that they would receive 48 hours’ notice, and are unlikely to remain in Leicester. The families have expressed their desire to stay in the area as they have begun to settle in the city with a highly diverse population. Their children, they tell us, are happy and doing well in school. Some have only just begun treatment for ongoing health problems that will discontinue once they move. This latest stage of destabilisation has negatively affected the mental and physical health of many of the women whom we work with, who now find it impossible and somewhat futile to continue with the BPF programme.

There have been multiple pledges by the Government over the past year to discontinue using hotels to accommodate refugees, particularly following the revelation in January 2023 that over 200 unaccompanied children have gone missing from hotels[4]. However, thousands of refugees continue to live in hotels nationwide with very little support or knowledge about their future. With social housing scarce, and job opportunities so limited for many newly arrived refugees, private hotels continue to house refugees, increasingly in rural and predominantly White areas[5]. As such, it is essential to reflect on how well prepared (or not) these hotel management teams are to safely and sensitively support the marginalised and vulnerable groups they are accommodating, often for prolonged periods of time. It is also vital to consider the long-term implications of such instability on refugee families and reduce harm wherever possible.

[1] https://www.brightpathfutures.com/about

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/21/use-of-uk-hotels-for-asylum-seekers-trebles-despite-home-office-promise

[3] https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/updates-protestors-police-gather-outside-8194069

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/21/revealed-scores-of-child-asylum-seekers-kidnapped-from-home-office-hotel

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/16/immigration-minister-fears-rural-areas-will-be-asked-to-house-more-asylum-seekers

Dr Amy Clarke is a Research Fellow in The Centre for Hate Studies based at the University of Leicester. She has both taught and researched in the field of hate crime and harassment for the last nine years. Her research has focused on particularly ‘hidden’ forms of harassment and targeted hostility, in particular the experiences of new migrants and refugees living in the UK. Amy has extensive experience developing different approaches to engage with groups who are typically perceived as ‘hard to reach’. She also works with external partners and agencies to develop evidence-based policy and guidance such as the Crown Prosecution Service Hate Crime Consultative Group and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). In 2022, Amy was also a member of the OfS Expert Group for Evaluating the Student Statement for Expectations. 


Exploring the benefits of LGBT-representative mock-juries in transphobic hate crimes. Amrik Singh, PhD Candidate at Bournemouth University. 

Transphobia is a fear and/or hatred of people that are transgender, i.e. of people that identify as a different gender to the gender assigned to them at birth.  Transphobia can manifest as stigma, discrimination, harassment, victimisation and/or violence in transphobic hate crimes (Bandini & Maggi, 2014). In addition, aside from hate crimes, there are hate incidents which fall just below the threshold of criminality. Such micro-aggressions are defined as common verbal, behavioural or environmental indignities, intentional or un-intentional communicating hostile, derogatory or negative slights and insults toward members of oppressed groups (Nadal & Mendoza, 2014). They constitute the everyday, often normalised, manifestations of hostility experienced by members of minority groups, where their sheer frequency and ubiquity makes them just as harmful as hate crimes if not more so (Perry, 2009). 

UK statistics have shown that while all types of crimes against transgender persons have been increasing, conviction rates have continued to fall (Yeung, 2016). The Law Commission (LC, 2020) recently proposed extending aggravated offences to the characteristics of disability, sexual-orientation and transgender, despite the significantly lower conviction rates compared to their base offence. In 2018, for example, the conviction ratio for racially / religiously aggravated assault was 51% compared to 85% for assault.  

The Law Commission considered the maximum sentences for aggravated offences to be disproportionately high compared to the maximum sentences for the corresponding base offences (e.g. 24-months for aggravated common assault compared to 6-months for common assault). The fact the average custodial sentences in 2018 for base offences were actually very similar to the average sentences for aggravated offences (LC, 2020), shows the disproportionately high sentence maxima for aggravated offences are un-necessary. This is important as previous mock-jury research has shown that sentence severity can result in lower conviction rates (Lundrigan, 2018).

My PhD project and in particular study 1 will initially explore for the first time, how much lower the conviction rate could be for transphobic aggravated common assault compared to common assault, and whether this is due to sentence severity or mock-juror stigma towards the transgender victim. In line with a pragmatic methodology this research will also test possible solutions to the problem of low conviction rates i.e. the impact of (i) more proportionate and shorter sentence maxima and (ii) the impact of an LGBT-representative mock-jury on conviction rates.  We expect that the sentence severity associated with aggravated offences will result in mock-jurors exhibiting acquittal bias and delivering lower conviction rates, but for this to be partially off-set in the LGBT-representative mock-jury groups.  

Racially-representative heterogeneous juries have been shown to deliver fairer judgments (e.g. in cases where the defendant is Black) compared to all-white, homogenous juries (Anwar et al., 2012). Public stigma towards LGBT people is highest towards transgender people (Hyde et al., 2013; Ringger, 2021) and when members of the public are randomly selected for jury service, public stigma can manifest as institutional stigma. Hatzenbuehler (2016) defined institutional stigma as unjust laws, policies and practices that deny, or fail to protect, the equal rights of minorities. Institutional stigma has been posited as both the source of stigma production and one of the leading causes of hate crimes (Perry, 2001). In mock jury studies, transgender stigma has been shown to impact unfairly on verdicts (Noble, 2019). Inter-group contact with gay individuals has been shown to reduce prejudice towards transgender people (Hoffarth & Hodson, 2018) and to be the most effective prejudice reduction intervention (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2013), hence we expect fairer verdicts in our LGBT-representative mock-jury groups. 

Finally, past mock-jury research has also shown that the Jury Foreperson can exert more influence on the jury, than other jurors (Foley & Pigott, 1997).  Furthermore, analysis of archived records show that the Jury Foreperson is most often a heterosexual male, ideally with previous jury experience and of relatively high socio-economic status. The tradition of judges and juries selecting such jury forepersons could also impact on conviction rates as heterosexual, cisgender males tend to be more homophobic and transphobic than their female counterparts (Norton & Herek, 2013) and transgender people are often also considered to be homosexual (van Anders, 2015). This research will uniquely compare the impact of pro-defendant and pro-victim heterosexual and homosexual co-mock jurors and jury forepersons to explore any differences in their impact on other mock-jurors’ decisions. 

This research will employ a mixed methods approach, where the first three studies will be quantitative, traditional mock-jury studies with validated measures, to provide generalisable data, exploring the benefits of LGBT-representative mock-juries.  The final study will involve qualitative, semi-structured interviews with six, LGBT people with actual jury experience; how they and their opinions were treated by other jurors; how the jury foreperson was selected, their characteristics and influence and whether the jury instructions were clear and easy to understand. Interview data will be checked to see how this agrees and/or disagrees with the quantitative data.  

A final aim of this research will be to uniquely and specifically explore another concern raised by the Law Commission (2020), namely that jurors may not accept certain (transphobic) slurs as evidence of (transgender) hostility; as they may deem these common-language; or excusable when said by a defendant that has been provoked or in anger. To reduce such risks, jurors could benefit from clearer guidance, especially when these will be new laws. Again we expect  juror confusion and the lack of clarification of hate crime laws to be another factor that contributes towards lower conviction rates but expect this to be partially off-set in the LGBT-representative mock-juries.  

Together these factors are expected to highlight the need for law and policy changes to address;  

1) the current under-representation of LGBT people serving in UK juries 

2) the current genderist selection of the jury foreperson;  

3) the disproportionate sentence maxima of aggravated common assault; and  

4) the lack of clarity regarding jury instructions concerning aggravated hate crime laws to ensure fair trials and improve the low conviction rates. 

References 

Anwar, S., Bayer, P. and Hjalmarsson, R., 2012. The impact of jury race in criminal trials. The Quarterly Journal of Economics127(2), pp.1017-1055. 

Bandini, E. and Maggi, M., 2014. Transphobia. In Emotional, physical and sexual abuse (pp. 49-59). Springer, Cham. 

Foley, L.A. and Pigott, M.A., 1997. The influence of forepersons and non-forepersons on mock jury decisions. American Journal of Forensic Psychology. 

Hatzenbuehler ML (2016) Structural stigma: research evidence and implications for  

psychological science. Am Psychol 71(8):742–751. 

Hoffarth, M.R. and Hodson, G., 2018. When intergroup contact is uncommon and bias  is strong: The case of anti-transgender bias. Psychology & Sexuality9(3),  pp.237-250.   

Hyde, Z., Doherty, M., Tilley, M., McCaul, K., Rooney, R. and Jancey, J., 2013. The  first Australian national trans mental health study: Summary of results.  

Law Commission Report, (2020), Consultation paper 250, Final Report, September 2020, https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2020/10/Hate-crime-final-report.pdf.   

Lundrigan, S., Dhami, M.K. and Mueller-Johnson, K., 2018. A re-examination of the acquittal biasing effect of offence seriousness. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law25(5), pp.769-778.  

Nadal, K. L., & Mendoza, R. J. (2014). Internalised oppression and the lesbian, gay,  bisexual, and transgender community. In E. J. R. David (Ed.), Internalized oppression: The psychology of marginalised groups (pp. 23). Springer. 

Noble, C.M., 2019. Legal Transgressions: Anti-Transgender Bias in Mock Jurors (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University). 

Norton, A.T. and Herek, G.M., 2013. Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward transgender people: Findings from a national probability sample of US adults. Sex roles68(11-12), pp.738-753.  

Perry, B. (2001). In the name of hate: Understanding hate crimes. New York, NY: Routledge.  

Perry, B. (2009). ‘There’s just places ya’ don’t wanna go’: The segregating impact of hate crime against Native Americans. Contemporary Justice Review, 12(4), 401–402.  

Pettigrew, T.F. and Tropp, L.R., 2013. Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice?  Recent meta-analytic findings. In Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp.103-124). Psychology Press. 

Rigger, C.S., 2021. Attitudinal predictors of juror decisions on gender and sexual minority defendants. Journal of homosexuality68(12), pp.2047-2074. 

van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/ sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1177–1213. 

Yeung, P. 2016.“Transphobic Hate Crimes in’Sickening’170% Rise as Low Prosecution Rates Create ’Lack of Trust ’in Police. ”United Kingdom: Independent. Retrieved September 1, 2019 (https://www.independent.co.uk/ news/uk/home-news/transphobic-hate-crime-statistics-violence-transgender-uk-police-a7159026.html).

About the author:

Amrik Singh graduated in 1990 with a BSc Hons in Medical Biophysics at the UEL and completed his MSc in Biochemistry at KCL. He worked at Moorefields Eye Hospital and UCL hospital researching the aetiology of eye cancers and primary biliary cirrhosis. After working as a Probation Service Officer (and court officer), he worked in Prague and Canada as a TEFL Teacher. He completed his MSc in Psychology at Greenwich and started his PhD in Hate Crime at Bournemouth University in September 2021. 

A Passion for Change, by Dr David Wilkin

I felt honoured to be invited to deliver the inaugural lecture to the online community representing the Hate Crime Network on 23rd June 2021. In the presentation, I extolled the friendliness and passion which I have found to be so prevalent within hate crime researchers – that was a passion which, I argued, should be exploited. Hate crime is a set of offences which, I feel, are particularly unjust. To be targeted because of who you are and how you feel is an egregious act upon the person. For a person with a disability, you might already be encumbered by the obstacles which society place in your way daily. On top of these, someone might just see it as their responsibility to make your day even worse by abusing you, violating your intentions or perhaps physically assaulting you.

Hate crime generally, and disability hate crime specifically, have not been extensively researched or represented in the university system. Arguably, what is discussed within academia eventually finds its way through to general society. Therefore, if academics do not deliberate it, it seems logical that the public will not know about it – or if they do, they do not get a balanced view of it.

In my presentation, I argued that we, as academics, not only have a duty to research the uncomfortable, the inconvenient and those awkward topics, but we have a duty to allow ourselves to be emotionally attached to a subject that we find ourselves being passionate about. It is difficult to remain aloof from something that changes so many lives and that we feel so outraged about. One of the drivers for what we do and how we approach it is passion. I found myself investigating disability hate because it happened to me. No matter how hard one might try to approach research objectively therefore, in my case, I would always be emotionally attached to rectifying the injustices of these offences. So, whilst in our written work we might need to mitigate against emotional affect and realise how we are led by it – we cannot escape from it, and why should we.

Furthermore, in my presentation, I argued that academics should not preserve topics for their sole use. In other words, instead of the insularity of finding data; publishing it; discussing it; teaching it and criticizing it, academics should look over the university walls and consider how much of our specialized, hard won knowledge, could be of use to society in general. If we hold a passion to make the world a better place, to attempt to stop people being victimized for who they are, shouldn’t we be taking our expertise to the people? Why keep it to ourselves? To raise awareness in society of societal wrongs we must surely pop into society now and then and share what we know. Public talks, offering consultancy to public service providers and the police and appearing in the media and try to spread the word about the injustice that we have uncovered and continue so to do. It may be the equivalent of solicitors practicing pro bono work in the public good – to improve the public good. I can criticize my own good intentions by saying that time and resources are tight among the academic community – and this is true. But surely any deviation from being focused purely on academia can not only make you the go to person for that topic, but can also increase your skills set and, ultimately therefore, your employability.

If you have the time, why not do even the smallest thing to relate your expertise to the public, share your understanding of the unjust nature of social wrongs, and increase your notoriety at the same time. Working so hard to be recognized as an expert in your field is hard work. Perhaps now it is time to show off!

BSC Hate Crime Network “Sophie and Sylvia Lancaster Prize” 2023

Guidelines

Aim

To acknowledge the valuable contribution to the field of hate crime and celebrate excellence and innovation in this field by members of the British Society of Criminology. Submissions can be related to academic work, policy, practice or activism in the field of hate crime. 

Eligibility Criteria

Applicants: 

• must be members of the BSC; 

• for article submission nominations: must have published/shared this work between 1st April 2022- 31st March 2023 

• for policy, practice or activism nominations: must have been active in the role they have been nominated for between 1st April 2022- 31st March 2023 

• may nominate themselves, though they may also be nominated by others with the applicant’s permission. All nominators must be a member of the BSC;

• can only submit work which have direct relevance to the field of hate crime.


How to Apply

All nominations should be submitted to Jon Garland (j.garland@surrey.ac.uk), co-ordinator of the BSC Hate Crime Network “Sophie and Sylvia Lancaster Prize” 2023. Nominations should include a 250-word supporting statement explaining how the applicant meets the eligibility criteria. These nominations must be received by 5pm on Friday 28th April 2023.

Further Information

All submissions will be judged by a panel of reviewers and the prize – £100 worth of Palgrave books – will be awarded at the BSC Conference, University of Central Lancashire, 27-30 June 2023. We look forward to receiving your submissions!


Past winners

BSC Hate Crime Network Article Prize 2022 – awarded to Stephen Macdonald, Catherine Donovan, John Clayton for the paper: Stephen J. Macdonald, Catherine Donovan & John Clayton (2021) ‘I may be left with no choice but to end my torment’: disability and intersectionalities of hate crime, Disability & Society, DOI: 10.1080/09687599.2021.1928480

BSC Hate Crime Network Article Prize 2021 – awarded to Monish Bhatia for the paper: Bhatia, M. (2020). The Permission to be Cruel: Street-Level Bureaucrats and Harms Against People Seeking Asylum. Critical Criminology, 28(1), pg 277-292.

BSC Hate Crime Network Article Prize 2019 – awarded to Mike Rowe, Ruth Lewis and Clare Wiper for the paper: Rowe, Michael, Lewis, Ruth & Wiper, Clare (2018) Misogyny Online: Extending the boundaries of Hate Crime. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 2 (3). pp. 519-536. ISSN 2398-6808.

 

BSC Hate Crime Network poster competition 

The Hate Crime Network ran a poster competition on the theme of Transphobic Hate Crime. The deadline for this was Monday 12 June 2023. All nominations were submitted to Irene Zempi (irene.zempi@ntu.ac.uk), co-ordinator of the BSC Hate Crime Network poster competition.  All submissions were judged by a panel of reviewers and the prize – £50 was awarded to the winner.

The winning poster was “An exploration of the impact of LGBT+ representative mock-juries on mock-juror bias and guilty verdicts in transphobic hate crime cases” by Amrik Singh, PhD student, Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University. 

  • BSC Hate Crime Network podcast

The BSC Hate Crime Network podcast series are intended to facilitate the exchange of ideas and work amongst hate crime academics, stakeholders, policy makers, criminal justice practitioners and the wider general public.

Latest Episodes:

 

Dr Neville Lawrence OBE is an advocate for the marginalised and voiceless communities who struggle to access and be heard by law enforcement agencies.

Since the murder of his son Stephen he has been keen to go into schools and places where he can meet and speak with young people to let them know that there has to be a better way of treating people with different identities and backgrounds and that there is no need to be Racist and violent towards people because they are different.

Dr Lawrence has received many awards for his work to combat Hate Crime and support young people. He has given more than 250 talks to schools, universities and prisons.

He has been awarded Honorary Doctorates in law, education and civil law in recognition of his work to receive justice for his son Stephen Lawrence.

 

Today’s guest is Karen Becher – Head of Onsite Education, National Holocaust Centre and Museum

 

Karen joined the National Holocaust Centre and Museum (NHCM) in 2014, where she is the Head of Onsite Education and works in Holocaust education, teaching to primary and secondary students, university students and adult groups. She has played a substantial role in developing NHCM’s ‘Breaking the Cycle’ programme. She completed her BA in Western European Studies and German at Wells College (New York, USA), and did teacher training and practical experience in New York State. She also completed studies in German, international relations and economics at the University of Bonn, Germany, and current completing modules toward an MA in Holocaust Education. She began a career in journalism at the Wall St Journal Europe, where she worked for 6 years in the Bonn bureau. Fluent in German and currently studying Italian at intermediate level, Karen engaged in a career of professional translation and editing for 15+ years, translating articles, books/book chapters and journal papers. Clients have included think-tanks such as the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, International Institute for Strategic Studies, the Austrian Trade Commission, online political journals, and book authors. In addition to living in the United States and United Kingdom, Karen has lived many years in Germany and Austria, where she worked at an international school, and taught German and worked in the high school administration. Passionate about Holocaust education and its relevance to society today, she is dedicated to this field.

 

 

 Today’s guests are Alison Vincent and Mike Ainsworth from the Sophie Lancaster Foundation. 

Alison Vincent is the Chief Executive of the Sophie Lancaster Foundation. Alison was brought into the Foundation by Sylvia, Founder of the Charity and Sophie’s Mum. Alison’s background is in education and the arts, and her specialism is marketing and communications. She was a committed supporter of the Foundation from first hearing Black Roses, Poet Laureate Simon Armitage’s poetic sequence and elegy to Sophie, which jammed Radio 4 switchboards when it was first broadcast in 2010.  

Mike Ainsworth currently chairs the National Police Chiefs Council and Association of Police and Crime Commissioners Independent Advisory Groups on Hate Crime. Mike is a Trustee and Director of the Sophie Lancaster Foundation. After a varied career in the Prison Service from officer in HMP Lincoln to running the lifer unit in Wormwood Scrubs and Deputy Governor in HMP Holloway, Mike worked in Kosovo during and immediately after the conflict organising the evacuation of refugees and coordinating the work of forensic teams investigating war crimes. On returning to the UK, Mike worked in a variety of voluntary sector organisations including Director of Offender Services in The Princes Trust and Director of London Services for Stop Hate UK. Mike is chair of the management board of Arc Theatre. 

Today’s guests are Dr Michael Rowe and Dr Ruth Lewis who won the 2019 Article Prize Award for their paper ‘Misogyny Online: Extending the boundaries of Hate Crime’

Rowe, Michael, Lewis, Ruth and Wiper, Clare (2018) Misogyny Online: Extending the boundaries of Hate Crime. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 2 (3). pp. 519-536. ISSN 2398-6808

Today’s guest is Dr Monish Bhatia who won the 2021 Article Prize Award for their paper: ‘The Permission to be Cruel: Street-Level Bureaucrats and Harms Against People Seeking Asylum’.

Bhatia, M. (2020) The Permission to be Cruel: Street-Level Bureaucrats and Harms Against People Seeking Asylum. Crit Crim 28, 277–292 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-020-09515-3

 Previous Podcasts

Joining and staying in touch

Membership is open to anyone with an interest in the field of hate crime.

You can follow us on twitter @BscHcn

We have a JISCmail list which provides information about forthcoming events, news, and facilitates discussion among network members. You can subscribe to this here.

Contact the Network

Please contact: britishhatecrimenetwork@gmail.com

Websites

The International Network for Hate Studieshttps://www.internationalhatestudies.com/
The Centre for Hate Studieshttps://le.ac.uk/hate-studies
Tell MAMAhttps://tellmamauk.org/
GALOPhttps://www.galop.org.uk/
Stop Hate UKhttps://www.stophateuk.org/
True Visionhttps://www.report-it.org.uk/home
Equality and Human Rights Commissionhttps://www.equalityhumanrights.com/e