Search results

To ensure health, social and criminal justice services are suited to the complex and dynamic needs of people with learning/intellectual disabilities (LD) at risk of offending, it is important to systematically analyse the needs and characteristics of this population. This study aimed to analyse the patterns of referrals to a single community forensic LD service before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A structured audit was conducted on all referrals to the service (n = 37) across a three-year period (May 2019 – end of July 2022).

The majority of the overall sample were male (36, 97%) and Caucasian (24, 65%) with a mean age of 32.9 years and mild LD. The most prevalent current offending type was sexual offending (17, 44%), whereas the most prevalent historical offending type was violence (17, 35%). The most common service/function offered by the service was advice and consultation to other professionals and agencies (10, 19%). The service user and forensic/legal characteristics measured did not differ significantly before and during COVID-19.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the project is the first to systematically analyse and compare community forensic LD service referral patterns before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study also provides an example of how a structured audit tool can be used to benefit individual services and the wider literature on assessing the needs and characteristics of adults with LD who live in the community and are at risk of [re]offending.

There is growing evidence examining mindfulness-based interventions (MI) for people with intellectual disabilities (IDs). As discussed in this paper, MI may be particularly suited for people with ID given high rates of difficulties in identifying and regulating emotions and as this approach may rely less on cognitive ability compared to other therapies. This study aims to assess the acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a six-session MI group [the Coping Well Group (CWG)] delivered within routine clinical practice.

Six separate cohorts (n = 25) of adults with ID attended CWG. Quantitative data were collected from service users, including a pre- and post-quality of life (QoL) measure and qualitative data from group facilitators.

Roughly one-half (53%) of service users invited to the group attended at least one session, with low levels of dropout observed among group attendees. A significant improvement in QoL was reported demonstrating a small effect (d = 0.46, p = 0.022) after attending the group. Most service users (72%) were referred to the CWG for help managing difficult emotions. One-half (44%) of attendees required individual therapy after attending the group. Limitations of the evaluation and potential future research are discussed.

The current evaluation contributes a practice-based service evaluation of an MI group for people with ID and mental health difficulties to the currently limited evidence base. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the first studies to investigate the impact of group psychological interventions collecting data across cohorts and assessing QoL, a more general measure of well-being than has been used previously.

The paper examines recent debates on “Empire” and offers a feminist perspective. It asks: what are the gender dynamics of the new imperialism and its rival, Islamism? Drawing on world-system theory and feminist studies of international relations, this paper examines hegemonic masculinities in empire, war, and resistance; the cooptation of women's rights for neoliberal and expansionist purposes; the world-system's transition from U.S. hegemonic power to an alternative yet to be determined; and the role of global feminism in challenging Empire and shaping an alternative world.

For their part, GSE went into 2002 with a vision of how they saw the year unfolding. 2002 would see the holding of a general election, and the momentum of GSE's petition gathering and public meetings could be utilised in an attempt to politicise the incineration issue as part of the overall election campaign. The shifting dynamic of the political opportunity structure surrounding the incineration issue had seen GSE and their local political allies losing momentum, due to the removal of the councillors’ powers on the waste issue. However, the response of a public now concerned at this perceived undermining of democracy allowed GSE to extend their democratic deficit frame.

The UK is a leader in the implementation of surface mount technology, and SMARTEX '91 sponsored by the SMART Group is one of only a few shows organised worldwide which is dedicated solely to this field. Perhaps it was not surprising then that this year's three‐day event proved a great success.

This paper aims to uncover the assumptions and concerns driving public debates about Google Glass and police body cameras. In doing so, it shows how debates about wearable cameras reflect broader cultural tensions surrounding race and privilege.

The paper employs a form of critical discourse analysis to discover patterns in journalistic coverage of these two technologies.

Public response to Glass has been overwhelmingly negative, while response to body cameras has been positive. Analysis indicates that this contrasting response reflects a consistent public concern about the dynamics of power and privilege in the digital economy. While this concern is well-founded, news coverage indicates that technologists, policy makers and citizens each hold assumptions about the inevitability and unvarnished beneficence of technology.

Since this qualitative approach seeks to discern broad emergent patterns, it does not employ a quantifiable and reproducible coding schema.

The article concludes by arguing that grassroots action, appropriate regulatory policy and revitalized systems of professional journalism are indispensable as the struggle for social justice unfolds in the emerging digital economy.

These debates represent a struggle over what and how people see. Yet public discourse often glosses over the disadvantages of technological change, which impacts who is able to amass social power.

This comparative approach yields unique conceptual insight into debates about technologies that augment ways of seeing.

The spread of COVID-19 is not just a health crisis. The pandemic has taken a geopolitical dimension. The health crisis amplified the competitive dynamics between the USA and China, affected the provision of global public goods and injected instability into the global order. In line with the geopolitical zero-sum thinking, both the USA and China have sought to capitalize on the crisis to boost their international profile. Instead of working together to mitigate the health and economic impacts of COVID-19, the two powers fear that the other will exploit the current situation to accrue political, economic or military gains that will give it an edge after the pandemic subsides. The spread of COVID-19 has set off a “battle of narratives,” in which China and the USA are accusing each other of failing to rise to the challenge. The world seems to be falling into a “Kindleberger Trap,” in which the established power is unable to lead while the rising power is unwilling to assume responsibility. The COVID-19 crisis is occurring amid the collapse of global cooperation. The USA, the traditional leader of international collective efforts in times of crisis, has abandoned its role entirely. The lack of leadership at the global level during an international crisis may cause the breakdown of the international order.

This paper examines the US-China competitive dynamics through the lens of the work of Charles Kindleberger, which both liberals and realists regard as foundational when examining the dynamics of global crisis management. This paper also uses the meta-geopolitics framework to determine the ability of both China and the USA to respond to the current COVID-19 crisis and its implications for their power and standing in the international system.

This paper concludes that the only way to escape the Kindleberger trap is “to embed Sino-American relations in multilateralism.”

As rivals, both the USA and China are seeking to capitalize on the crisis to boost their international profile. This paper probes how China and the USA navigated the ongoing COVID-19 crisis to determine whether or not they are currently in a “Kindleberger Trap,” using elements of the meta-geopolitics framework of analysis, namely, health issues, domestic politics, economics, science and international diplomacy. Using the meta-geopolitics framework will help us determine the ability of both China and the USA to respond to the current COVID-19 crisis and the implications of that on their power and standing in the international system.

In our overview of the issues involved in inflation accounting we concentrated on two major problems, fixed assets and stock (which were analysed in depth in chapter two). We explicitly omitted any analysis of the other significant group of items in most balance sheets, monetary items; they are the liquid or near liquid assets and liabilities which a firm possesses such as cash, debtors, creditors, loan capital and so on. Agreement amongst accountants on how inflation affects monetary items is even more remote than agreement on fixed assets and stock. We have seen that the reformers of historical cost support one or other of two rival methods, current purchasing power or current cost accounting. Although the issues surrounding the treatment of monetary units are affected by whichever method is selected for the conversion of the main accounts (CPP or CCA), one cannot really polarise the discussion on monetary items so easily because, of the methods proposed so far for dealing with them, there has been a considerable element of overlap between the various treatments. This essay attempts to set down the main strands of the argument—it avoids deliberately the more esoteric topics of the debate which are explored by a few of the later contributors.

It has been at least twenty years since I was first alerted to the notion that my interest in a research topic arises from my unconscious. More recently, feminist theorists have developed the insight by arguing that integration of experience is helpful in defining research questions, as a source of data, to test findings and, in the words of Jean Bethke Elshtain, in assisting them to be less removed from the ‘wellsprings’ of their own ‘thought and action’. My aim in this article is to reconnect my experience with constructions of teachers in Australian children’s literature and to explore ways in which they are imagined in the literature. In my initial foray into this topic, I used Maurice Saxby’s historical review of Australian children’s literature as a guide for data gathering. This linear, chronological approach, while probably a helpful place to start, is not one I can sustain with any passion. In this article, I am returning to my experience to find a starting point, acknowledging that history is a ‘process of intellectual production as well as discovery’