No abstract

The United Kingdom has seen the rise and subsequent demise of armed robbery by serious and organized criminals. The emergence of armed robbery must be considered within a context of criminal progression forged by the wider political economy and its developments, which shape the opportunities and characteristics of professional criminals. The shift from a cash-based economy towards a credit-constructed economic milieu witnessed the demise of craft crimes such as safe-cracking and the growth of project-based criminality such as armed robbery. The subsequent decline in professional armed robbers attacking banks, post offices, building societies, and cash-in-transit targets can be regarded as the result of control-of-crime strategies and situational crime prevention tactics. There has been increasing use of security measures, including (but not exclusively) within the banking sector, such as in-house closed-circuit television (CCTV), indelible dyes for tainting stolen money, and wider “risk society” measures including, for example, widespread street CCTV, automated number plate recognition, and an increasing shift to credit or debit card transactions. This approach to situational crime control has been successful, leading “elite” professional criminals to seek alternative illicit opportunities and leaving contemporary armed robbers, generally amateurs, deskilled and often desperate individuals.

No abstract

News reports, they suggest, which are bereft of historical background, both disadvantage the Palestinian position, which as a consequence is rendered motiveless (the assumption being that historical context will always work to the advantage of a Palestinian perspective), and add to general confusion about the conflict. Much more challenging is the task of providing historically informed and 'balanced' news reporting in a context where not only are histories and narratives of the conflict deeply contested, but in which day-to-day accusations of blame for the recent outbreak of violence are themselves subject to multiple and competing truth-claims. Reductionist, chromatic and 'bite-sized' views of 'H'istory (either pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli) used in the service of explanation, would no doubt aid comprehension of the present conflict but compromise the complex and multiple histories involved, as well as the process(es) by which audiences reach their opinions.Drawing upon a quantitatively focused content analysis of news, the authors suggest that Israelis were given twice as much opportunity to present their case as were Palestinians and that when doing so their speech was given added legitimacy by the trappings of institutional power. Israeli government spokespersons were, the authors report, afforded the opportunity to speak from 'calm and relaxed' surroundings, unlike Palestinians, who tended to be interviewed in the street against the noisy backdrop of demonstrations and violence. Clearly, speech derives its authority from the power in which it is invested. Yet the authors appear to underestimate the extent to which such reporting merely reflects the vast power imbalances of each side relative to the other, or to fully account for the media's choice of Palestinian vox populi over official voices within the Palestinian Authority.Somewhat tautologically, the authors' claim that 'news implicitly assumed the status quo' (p. 157) -in which Palestinian militants were typically described as 'gunmen' or 'terrorists' whilst Israeli soldiers were described neutrally as just thatelides the extent to which language is, ab initio, and by its very nature, political; governed by a binary nexus of alterity in which all speech is classification, through which oppression operates. It is indeed difficult to see how reporting could function in these circumstances without recourse to such classificatory terms, other than by a complete reversal of words attributed to each side -an inversion of the present hegemony of language -whereby power relations themselves would need to undergo an equally dramatic shift.

No abstract