I was tricked. I was fooled. I was gagged.  I don't ever feel that attached to characters. I would die for them. Morning. Welcome. It is Sunday and it is the start of the Thousand Doors read-a-thon. The read-a-thon started at midnight last night and I stayed up till one reading where everyone was going to be reading and just seeing everyone like funny find out kind of what the read-a-thon entails. Oh, it's just amazing seeing everyone's reaction to it. Hi. For my first prompt, I'm going with my own prompt. My own first prompt because it meant I could plan what I was going to read and it's Ah, That's History by Queen Whitney. So I'm reading European Travel for the Monstrous Gentleman. Now. See, when you do clownery, the clown comes back to bite. This book is 700 pages. Why am I doing this to myself for an eight day read-a-thon? Anyway, the pages are quite short though and I flew through this book last time. So I'm hoping for good things. I also have the audiobook, which I'm going to go listen to like whilst I make food and whilst I get ready for the day. So like, hopefully I'll listen to quite a lot of it in that time. The audiobook is 24 hours long. I think it's the longest audiobook I've ever listened to. This is the second book in a series to a series I loved and Buddy reading it with Riley Marie. And yeah, she's already like 130 pages in so I've got to catch up. But I'm hoping I'm going to love it. I want to finish this in like maybe the first two to three days, maximum four. I think that gives me enough time to get through the remaining four prompts. So I'm going to try and like daily vlog this as I go. Usually when I do a reading vlog, like I don't check it every day. I'm going to try to. And today I would like to get at least 200 pages into this book. I think I can do it. I'm so excited to go back into this series. I've been getting ready and I made my lunch. I've listened to the first 80 pages of European travel for the monstrous gentleman. So I just realized once again, this is becoming a habit. I didn't give you a very good synopsis of this book. This bitch, here she goes again. So the first book, The Strange Case of the Alchemist's Daughter, we follow Mary Jekyll as her mother dies. She finds out that her mother was paying for the kind of living costs of a girl called Diana Hyde for many years. And that leads her on to discovering her sister Diana and eventually discovering all of these girls who have some connections to like well-known men in Victorian literature. So we have Catherine Moreau, Beatrice Rappuccini and Justine Frankenstein. And it is them, with the help of Sherlock on Watson, discovering what the Société d'Aganisse is. What dark goings on they are performing. But we are following the girls again in this book and they are still trying to uncover the truth about the society. The key element which I will speak a lot about in this vlog is that they cut in. So Catherine is writing the book. So the whole thing is kind of like in her voice. And the other girls will cut in with their kind of beliefs on what is being said. So Beatrice goes, you make me sound so dramatic Catherine.  That is the best part of this book, seeing them complain and cut in with what Catherine is writing. Okay, I think that's a pretty good synopsis explanation. Back to me. I love it. These characters are amazing. The writing style is so funny. Like the way they cut in to each other is so funny and brilliant. Even just little touches, like the book will go, you can read about this in the last book, Strange Cases of the Atmos Daughter, available for two shillings. And then one of them will cut in going, maybe we shouldn't advertise this much.  It is brilliant American literature. And I don't care what anybody, it is. It should be taught in schools. We're back with the gals, back with Sherlock and Watson and they're trying to find out more about the society of scientists that they were trying to uncover secrets about in the first book. Also, we are hoping for a Mary and Sherlock romance. Like I feel like we're gonna get it. I believe we're gonna get a Mary and Sherlock romance and it's gonna be so good. The audiobook for this is incredible, but I'm really happy that I have the physical book so I can read a bit physically later. I mean, I just love this series, so it would feel wrong not to have the physical book. It's just some of the funniest, wittiest, clever writing because it's not like it's trying to get laughs out of you all the time. Like it's very occasional. It's just the right amount. It's a little dusting on it. So I'm gonna go edit tonight's vlog a bit because I haven't finished editing it yet. And then have the live show and then upload the video tonight. So I probably won't see you again till this evening. Riley was saying it's one of her favorite characters ever, like as a group of characters. And it's so true. Like they're all just so unique and clever and funny and brilliant. I just love it. Booktube is really sleeping on this series. It's so good. Okay, I'm just about to go sleep. It's been a long day. It's been a really amazing start to the read-a-thon. Like I can't believe how many of you are participating. All the stuff I'm being tagged in on like Twitter and Instagram. It's like I can't actually keep up. Like it's just crazy. I today have gotten 191 pages into European travel for the monstrous gentleman. Riley's like already on page 400 or something. Like I'm just not gonna catch up to her. I can accept that. I love it so much, you guys. I love it so much. I love it so much. Sorry, this is incredible. If you want a Victorian with murder mystery tendencies or detective girl gang found family, like they're just amazing. I will say this forever. This is what stalking Jack the Ripper wishes she could be. Stalking Jack the Ripper looks in the mirror and says, why am I not this series? These characters are amazing. They make me want to be a character person. Usually I'm a plot person. But these are literally the best character I've ever read. They all bring something so different and unique to the table. I love reading about these funny, clever, witty, imaginative, creative, fearless girls. The woman that you are today is just beautiful. Your love is amazing. The way you love people is inspirational. You are the definition of unconditional love. At the moment, we're kind of in two different storylines. And whenever I skip between them, I'm like, you're my favorite character. No, you're my favorite character. Every time I go back to them, I'm like, I love you. I love you so much. A couple of our girls have gone to Vienna. They traveled on the Orient Express and they've gone to Vienna to uncover a mystery that's going on there. And then a couple of them have stayed in London. I'm really enjoying seeing Victorian Europe. I think that's a really cool thing. Usually all Victorian things are set in London. So it's nice that we're venturing out a bit and exploring. The girls cutting in will never get old. The structure of this, I think it's even better than in the first book because in the first book, you don't meet Catherine until I would say maybe two thirds of the way through the book, at least halfway through the book, you don't meet her. So for a big chunk of it, you kind of don't know who she is, this kind of narrator. But in this one, you finally know who she is. And she's amazing. And I think even more so, you can tell that the book was written by her as a character. It's a really interesting character choice. The whole of the book is in some ways a characterization of her because she is the one writing it. It's done so well. I can't wait to read more of this. I want to read a really big chunk of it tomorrow, hopefully. I'm going to be running some Twitter sprints and hopefully I'm going to do an Instagram live tomorrow night as well. I would really like to do a read-in with everyone. It's just pure genius. I don't want to speak too soon because I'm only 190 pages in, but oh my God, I love this series. Oh my God. Why has no one else read this? It's so good. This is really sad, but there was a point. I just read a line, I think it was from Catherine, and I was like, I love you. And I almost cried. I just almost cried over how good it was.  Is that weird? Morning. I am about to go leave for a doctor's appointment and I'm going to listen to your new book as I go. I am 27% of the way through evening. It is currently about half seven. I've just had my dinner and I spend most of the day doing stuff for uni, like lectures and stuff. I'm so tired. So I'm just going to spend the rest of the evening reading. I have got a Instagram live reading with everyone in about half an hour. I am currently on page 265. All the progress I've made today has just been through the audiobook, like On My Way To My Run, where I had to go out to run errands. I don't have much more to say other than I'm still loving it. Like, I cannot see a world where this isn't five stars again. I adore this series. Something that it's doing really well, actually, is that it's like spoiling stuff for us. It's going to happen in the rest of the book. You naughty, naughty. You teasing me. You naughty, naughty. Like when the girls cut in, so Catherine's writing the majority of the story and then they will interject, here, can you see it's got their names and then like little things that they're saying. And they're spoiling stuff for us. It's going to happen in the book. They're like, I can't believe I ended up getting trapped in a tower or something. And then Catherine will be like, can you try not to spoil the story? So there's so much we know, kind of. There's going to happen to the characters. And I think that's just so fun. The book kind of spoiling itself for us is something I've never read before. And it's just really funny. And I would really recommend the audiobook for this. Is this kind of past section that I've read has just emphasised how good it is to me because there's so many different accents in this and they're managing to show off like so much nuance in the accent. And there's a character who's kind of from America. So like America is at the base of their accent. But it's kind of been covered up with time, like through living in lots of different places, living in Europe a lot. And like the way that the Americanisms come through in certain aspects, just the crafting of that and all these different accents is just so good. Like then the range is amazing. It really brings the story to life even more for me. Diana, like when she narrates Diana, it's so good. Hello. It looks so dark. It's only like three o'clock. It's not like that late in the day. I don't know where the day's gone. I woke up today with like such a bad cold.  So you're gonna have your pill. What is the most hideous experience for me to go through how I want to? I was like, I really don't want to do this. And look what happens. I get ill. I spent the morning editing the video up till now which should not have taken me that long, but it just hurts because I was just so ill. You know when like you're ill? So like basic tasks take you so long. So I've decided to like sack the rest of the day off. Like I was supposed to be doing other things. I can either do them for my bed or not do them at all. That's the decision I've made. So I am going to go try and finish the European Travels for the Monsters gentlemen. I mean, I don't know if I will. I have got like half of it left to read. That's never gonna happen. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. I'm like wearing Tom's clothes. That's when you know I'm ill. I just feel like I just want to like wrap myself up in a ball and no one to see me, but the show must go on. I'm feeling a bit better today. It is now Wednesday. So we're on day four of the read-a-thon. But I'm gonna finish this today. I am on page 400 and 65. I'm still loving it, but I want to finish it today. So I'm gonna try and not speak to you again till I've finished it. So I'm gonna try and finish this before the live show at six. I don't know how realistic that is, but I want to try. Just gotta keep positive and keep busy. One thing I don't want to say is I didn't realize how many characters there were from Dracula in the first book. There's loads of Dracula characters and I didn't realize. And also Mrs. Paul is from Jane Eyre. There's so many famous fictional characters and there's the I didn't even realize because they haven't read all of these classics. I'm so excited to finish it because I am loving it, but I am also panicking about finishing the read-a-thon. So it's brilliant. It's wonderful.  I finished European travel for the monstrous gentleman last night at like 11 o'clock and I'm giving it five stars. I just love it so much. It's so good. It's so good. Thank you universe. Like I can't get over how much I love these characters. I've never been a character person.  Like whenever anyone says then my child, I love them. I don't get it. Like I don't ever feel that attached to characters. I would die for them. I would like give my life protecting them. Not that they need me because like they're a lot more skilled than me. I would say the last 200 to 150 pages there were some scenes that could have been cut. It did get a little bit slow but it does not impede how much I love it at all. I think the audiobook is like essential. Essential to reading this.  Diana writes. Like Diana is an icon. She's a business woman. A TV star. A host. A producer. An actress. A philanthropist. She's one of the most influential, popular, wealthy women in the world. She's this like 14-year-old girl who just gives no shits.  We've got vampires. Vampires are like the big addition to this book that we're dealing with. We're dealing with the vamps and I loved it. I loved how it kind of framed vampirism. I don't want to give too much away but like the way it talked about why someone would be a vampire and kind of explained it in the context. It really added this like spooky or tumble feel to it. Catherine is one of my favorite characters. The one who's writing this. I think she's brilliant. I think she's so funny. I think she's so witty. I love that these girls are also funny in their own way. Clever, skillful and they've just got this wonderful friendship. It is like such a wonderful found family. They care for each other so much. They rely on each other when they're in times of need. I just love it. Like there's literally nothing bad about this. If you like classics, if you like Dr. Jack on the Mr. Hyde, Dracula, there's some characters from Jane Eyre and there's Frankenstein. If you like books like that, read this. Read this. I think it really takes those characters from classics with respect and twists them and reimagines them in really, really fun ways. I really liked how the group kind of split in half for the first part. They started together. They split in half for the first half of the novel to two thirds and then they came back together at the end. It was just really fun to see the characters in isolation from each other and then back together again. And the way that it ended, I am just so excited to read the last book in this series. I need to get my hands on it so bad, but I'm on a book buying van until my birthday next year. So I've just got to hope someone from my family gets it for me for Christmas. Like I'm just gonna like cross my fingers. So now I have to find out what my next prompt is. Right? So I need to click on four to five stars. That sounds like me. Is it me? Oh, hi, it's me. Okay. It is a meme of Queen Charity Shopsu going, I'm back. So the idea of this is that you read an author you read before, you read another part of a series, you read characters you read before. I literally say in the video that I want to read this for this prompt if I get it. I'm gonna read Nick and Charlie by Alice Oseman, which is a really short novella about the characters Nick and Charlie from Heartstopper, which you know is one of my favorite graphic novel series ever. I just finished Nick and Charlie by Alice Oseman and I love them so much. So if you don't know, this follows Nick and Charlie, who are the characters of the Heartstopper graphic novel series, which is my favorite graphic novel series of all time. They are the most perfect, cinnamon roll, cute, wonderful, lovely humans ever. And this is basically a novella about Nick going away to university. So it's set like, I think, a year after the most recent Heartstopper graphic novel. It's about Charlie being really worried about Nick going to university and that kind of pressure to like break up when one of you goes to university. And like, first I've got to say Nick Nelson goes to university of Leeds. A.K. where I go to university. A.K. why haven't I met him yet? Why are you laughing? I mean, here's the thing, it's predictable. It's easy to read. Like it took me about 45 minutes to read it. You know where it's going to go.  I don't want to say it in case anyone's like, you spoiled the book. But like, we all know where it's going. What I love about this is how like soft their relationship is. And they basically just love spending time together. They spend all their time together. They have what they call a boring relationship. And I think it's really nice to read about a relationship that like the I myself can relate to and like the idea of. If that makes sense, like I think relationships and romances are often like really dramatic.   Or it's you know, it's so eventful. They're always going out together. It's just nice to read about something that reminds me a lot of my relationship. I am going to give it four stars. It just kind of felt like a nice companion to the Heart Stopper graphic novel series. It didn't necessarily feel like something in its own thing.  I still really enjoyed it. It was lovely to be back with Nick and Charlie. They are like some of my favourite characters in the world. But yeah, I think what I enjoyed most about it was that appreciation of like a boring relationship. Cause I don't see it enough. All of you, if you actually saw what my day to day life is like and how I never leave the house, lmao.  It was just cute. They're just so cute. And it was a lovely read. And look at me. I'm two out of five. I'm doing well. I'm doing well. Listen, I told you I could pick a 700 page book. I told you. So I need to go now and find out what my next prompt is going to be. Did you guess where it was going? No. Yes, but I didn't mind. Yes. DNF. Okay. I did guess where it was going. The question is, did I mind? I'm going to say yes, but I didn't mind. I'm going to say yes, I didn't mind. Because A, it was just cute and fun and quick.  So who have I got now? Oh, I've got Tasman. My third prompt for you is a book that feels like Marvel. Now you could interpret this as the MCU. You could interpret it as the comics. You could take a character that you really like or a character that you dislike, a certain character trait. For example, I big time relate to Gwen Paul. Yes, I'm writing a fanfiction about her.  I don't have any more in the series. And it would be too long anyway. Okay, I'm going to go look and I'll be back. Last night, I decided to sleep on it because basically my reaction to that prompt was what do I pick? Because I don't tend to read a lot of superhero stuff. I've seen some Marvel films. My family love Marvel. So my family and my parents and my brother have seen every Marvel film known to man. But I've only really seen The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy. I asked on Twitter basically if I could fit the book I felt like reading into the prompt somehow, which is The Empress of Sort Unfortunate by Niveau. I actually just got sent this by a lovely subscriber, Madeline. I haven't had a chance to show it on my channel yet, but the note in this was so touching and lovely and kind and like made me tear up with it. It was so kind of you to send me this. And I just felt like reading it last night. Let me get Twitter up because people inform me I could get away with it. Tammy said it was a bit of a stretch but I think it could work. Elena said it features a Civil War. So Captain America Civil War. Some said badass royals. So I just took it to fit. You're that girl I knew you were. I just really wanted to read this. It is another really short book. It's only a hundred pages, so it's a novella. It basically has this like cleric chi whose pronouns are they them and they have this bird on their shoulder who they can communicate with and they've come to this town to kind of like document stuff and they meet Rabbit, who is this old servant of an old monarch of the old Empress of Sort Unfortunate and it's the story of resilience and resistance and living whilst forgotten because the Empress was exiled by the Emperor and it's about these women having sacrificed a lot and having lived through a lot together. It's only very short obviously but it's a very touching story. It was so intimate, like it was so contained and just this magical whimsical story told by this old woman full of old folklore and mythology and belief in the stars and fortune tellers but really at its heart it was a story of like women, women coming together and being each other's family and making mistakes and loving each other regardless and it was lovely. I can't wait to read more of Nevo's writing. I thought the writing was exquisite and beautiful but also so simple and the writing was very efficient like it only used the words that needed to be said if that makes sense, which makes sense in the story because like Rabbit kind of like is no bullshit like Rabbit is going to tell you it to the point what happened. So I loved it. I can't wait to read more from this author. I love what Tor do with these short stories and I need to look into more of them. So let's go through the next story. The question of this one is did you like the main character? I would say like the characters weren't necessarily there to be liked or to be attached to but I really enjoyed reading about them and I liked their story and who they were. So I'm gonna say yes. When does this lead me? Oh it's back to me. This is like quite bad. I'm getting all me. Prompt is I'm an acquired taste. You don't like me? Acquires of taste. I love that. I do love that meme. What a great meme. So the idea of this one is to read a book you've heard mixed things about. I've heard a lot of really mixed things about burn our bodies down. I just thought of I could read The Wife Between Us by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Peckinen. This is one I've owned forever. What I might do is post a poll on Instagram. Also wait I just realized I forgot to say I'm giving, where is it? I'm giving The Empress of Sword and Fortune 4 stars. I really enjoyed it. Hey everyone. Welcome to Yoga with Adrienne. I'm Adrienne. And this is Benji. And this is yoga for when you feel dead inside. Morning. I've had a really productive morning actually. I cleaned the bathroom. I did some yoga. I know I put the poll up last night. Burn our bodies down. You inevitably won it. But then I realized I can't actually get the audiobook for it. It was available for pre-order not to actually buy on Audible. I just didn't see that when I looked it up on camera. And so I was like nah. I don't see it for me but okay. I need an audiobook because I knew that this morning I would only have time to like listen to an audiobook. I wouldn't have a lot of time to physically read until like more of the afternoon. And then I thought of something that I'd forgotten about because it wasn't on my book cart. I completely forgotten about it. And I was like that totally works and I'm so in the mood for it. And it is The Murder of Roger Atcroid by Agatha Christie. So I've heard some people say this is one of her best. Like this is one of her best pro novels. I'm working my way through them in order of publication because although you don't have to read them all in order of publication, there's a few that spoil each other. And so just for the sake of it, I'm reading them in order. I've heard other people say it's a bit basic, a bit boring, a bit average. It hasn't really got anything like super exciting to it. I'm really enjoying it so far. I've managed to listen to the first 126 pages whilst I've been cleaning this morning and like making my lunch. So a woman named Mrs. Ferris has died. The doctor in the village goes to kind of do an autopsy or whatever. Then he goes to his friend Roger Atcroid's house who had kind of been romantically linked with this woman. Roger Atcroid admits that she confided in him that she murdered her late husband a year ago. And someone has been blackmailing her for the past year and it's someone in Roger Atcroid's kind of wider circle. He tells Dr. Shepard that she committed suicide and then it turns out she's written a letter to him telling him who the person who was blackmailing her was. And Roger Atcroid wants to read the letter on his own so he sends Dr. Shepard away and then Roger Atcroid is murdered and the letter has gone missing. Too much drama for me. So obviously it's someone linked to the blackmailing who has committed the murder. And it's just a fun, simple mystery.  Okay, here's the thing. Here's the thing. This actually gets me a bit upset. Everyone seems to hate simple mysteries. I love simple mysteries. And the thing is I don't feel like enough modern authors do it. Like, if Agatha Christie wasn't one of the only people out here doing the simple mystery well, I wouldn't be reading her as much as I was. I'd be reading modern ones. But for me, like, the guest list is one of them. One by One by Ruth Ware, which has just come out is definitely a very simple mystery. And it's getting really bad reviews. Everyone says it's boring. There's not enough twists. And, like, sometimes you don't need that many twists. You just need a group of characters. All under suspicion. One of them have got secrets to hide. One of them commit the murder and you find the clues out and it's wonderful. I love simple mysteries. It's so much fun to be back with Proro. He has been living in the village like undercover and he's like, okay, I'm coming at retirement to solve this. Like, when there's all of these mysteries from them afterwards. I'm just really enjoying it. I'm just having a lot of fun reading it. I'm now 200 pages in and I still don't have a clue who did it. Like, I have no idea. I'm getting older. I don't know if I can, if I want all this drama all the time, if I'm being honest. I'm enjoying it, but I don't think I'm going to have any idea of what my rating is until the end. Because it's in this more like domestic environment. It's not like an exciting environment, like on The Orient Express. It's slower. I don't, yeah, I'm not going to know my rating until I find out who the killer is and it all comes together at the end. Okay, can you all say hello? Oh my God. Hello.  Oh my God, I just realized my mic, my camera mic wasn't on when I was filming you. I pressed the wrong button. We may have to reenact it, everyone. My mic. Okay, we may have to act like that didn't happen. We may have to do it again because I need the shot. Oh my God. Oh my God. I was tricked. I was fooled. I was gagged.  Miss Agatha Christie. Girl, you have done it again. Constantly raising the bar for us all and doing it flawlessly. I didn't know, I didn't, I could never have guessed this. Oh my God. Almost happened to the end. I was like, maybe it's a 3.5, a 3.75, maybe a 4. But the ending without a doubt has made it like a 4.5. Like it's the ending. This was like peak trickery, leaving everything in plain sight for the reader in terms of the murder.  Oh my God, it was so good. It was like peak, simple, mystery, well done. Revealing it slowly. It was so good.  Something I will say, I was really happy when I realized that the narrator of this wasn't Hastings. Hastings is the narrator of like the first three pro-roy books. I don't know if he's the narrator of like the further ones or if he stops now. But like I didn't vibe with Hastings. Like me and Hastings, we just didn't really get along. Me and the narrator of this one got along. I liked him a lot more. I just thought he was a more interesting character than Hastings. I thought he brought someone into the table but also blended into the background when he needed to. The murder was so clever. The way it all played out was so clever. There were a few things I called. There were a few twists that I called earlier on. But nothing in terms of like who the murderer was. This just makes me so excited to read all of Agatha Christie's stuff. Like one day I want to have read all of Agatha Christie's stuff. Like I just think she's a genius at setting up these characters and introducing something new to the like simple classic mystery. Proro just being so funny. Like he's just so weird, the stuff he says. Like calling himself Papa Proro. Like what the hell is this guy on?  I like it though. I'm giving this 4.5 stars. It was really good. Now we must find out my final prompt. Wherever I put my earphones. Then come back here and I'll be asking you whether you enjoyed the setting. Did I enjoy the setting? Yes I did. Hi there, I'm Monica. And I'm so happy to hear that you loved the setting of your last read. My prompt is language. And you can take this in a couple of different directions. Maybe you want to read a book that has a completely made up language and alphabet like The Lord of the Rings or the Artemis Fowl series. Or maybe you want to pick up a book that plays with language in a fun way like Carry On by Rainbow Rowell where different phrases are used as magic spells throughout the novel. Or maybe you want to read a book that's been translated from another language into your own. So for example I have Grass or Kim Ji Young born 1982 another Korean novel. Language. You good? No you're not. You're not baby and it's okay. You're not good and it's okay. You don't need to be good all the time. Okay I was stumped by this for a hot second because I knew I wanted to read a translated book for this. And then I just decided to look up the books that Monica recommends in the video because like what's the point of her recommending me these books if I don't pay attention to it. And the last one that she mentions Kim Ji Young born 1982 I found on Audible so I'm gonna listen to the audiobook of that tomorrow it's only three and a half hours so it won't take me that long. Yeah I don't know much about it but I'm trusting Monica. So I finished Kim Ji Young born 1982 and I enjoyed it but I think I'm gonna give it like a 3.5 stars. We follow Kim Ji Young and we meet her as an adult and she's married, she has a child and she starts to take on the personalities of other women in her life without realizing it.  The premise of it I love the execution of it I love it's a book I would recommend and recommend and recommend I think it does such a great job of looking at the systematic oppression and sexism that women face and how the world is not constructed for women's success but I just think that the style of writing wasn't for me and prevented me from enjoying it I think for me writing is like the first barrier into whether I enjoy a book then it's plot then it's characters and it reminded me a lot of I think it's called lullaby or the nanny depending on where you live it's got different names in different places reminded me a lot of that in this short character study of a woman very different subject matters but kind of literary fiction and I just think I don't enjoy that that kind of like cold Kim Ji-young and I just think that that kind of style of like more literary fiction I just don't vibe with so it wasn't that it wasn't I would recommend this book loads I could see how if this is a style of writing you like or style of writing isn't something that like necessarily affects your enjoyment of a book you could easily give five stars like I can I can completely see that but I just didn't feel immersed in the story at any point it's sad you know it's it's a shame thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you so much if you joined us for the Thousand Doors read-a-thon I have had the most fan like the most fun ever I feel so lucky that so many people participated me Tasman and Emma have all enjoyed it so much like I did not think as many people would participate and the amount that you guys have been engaging with it and just enjoying it has been absolutely incredible like I really can't believe it I feel so lucky I'm so glad that so many of you have enjoyed the read-a-thon one of my favorite experiences on booktube in the kind of year and a bit that I've been on here like it's literally been my highlight of booktube so far I can't tell you how amazing it has been just seeing all the books you read and how how much fun it's been I just feel so lucky so thank you so much if you've joined us make sure you subscribe to Tasman and Emma if you haven't already I don't know why you wouldn't have done but if you haven't already make sure you subscribe to Tasman and Emma that's it from me I hope you enjoyed this vlog I know that I read one book for a very very long time but I had a lot of fun I had a lot of fun so thank you all so much for joining and yeah I will see you very very soon in another video bye


define common knowledge through this equation. An event A is said to be common knowledge in the state of the world omega star for all i1 dot dot dot i r say we have omega belongs to k i1 of k i2 dot dot dot k i r sorry omega star belongs to. So, what does this mean that it means that i1 knows that i2 knows that dot dot dot i r knows a in state of. So, in omega star they i1 knows that i2 knows that dot dot dot i r knows a and this is true for for all for all such sequences that you can create. So, this is the definition it will turn out that it reduces to something much simpler in certain cases. So, we will discuss that in subsequent. Let us take another extreme example. Let us take the example that let us take the event B. The event B is that the Paul is not colorblind and the purple car has one or let us say let us take a different color. Let us take Paul is not colorblind and the red car has one. So, now what when what does what does the knowledge operator say about Paul. So, when does Paul know this event? When does Paul know that he that he is not colorblind and the red car has one it is it is B itself right Paul will know. So, Kp of B is actually equal to B itself because when he is not colorblind and the red car has one he does know that he is not colorblind and the red car has one. What about John? So, when does John know that Paul is not colorblind and the red car has one empty set he will never know this right you can check this there is no element of the partition which which which contains which is completely contained in set B right. So, this is in fact empty. So, what this also means is therefore that this is also empty therefore that means there will never be a state of the world in which John will know that Paul knows that he is colorblind and the red car has one. So, there is no state of the world in which John will know that Paul knows that he Paul is not colorblind and the red car has one yes not necessarily yeah. So, this is just again an example yeah. So, this is this is an example this is a very simple case because the states are and the partitions are also kind of trivial in this case, but it does not this is not the only way in which it will happen it could very well happen for instance that this is that you know this here this here is not empty this one is also not empty, but this is empty. So, John will know something about about the event there will be some states of the world in which John will know the event there will be some states of the world in which Paul will know the event, but there will be no states of the world in which John will know that Paul knows the event is this clear that that could very well happen. Now, let us look at a few properties of the of the knowledge operator because this is such a important and useful tool. So, here is the first property you for any for any event and any player you always have k i of a is a subset of a for any event a and any player i k i of a is always a subset of a this means that. So, the left hand side here is the states of the world in which player i knows a. So, whenever player i knows a that state of the world is always a subset of a which means for player i to know a a should have obtained. So, a should have occurred or obtained. So, player i knows a implies a as a has actually occurred. So, what this effectively means is that the knowledge of we the players get knowledge of things when in out as a consequence of some physical reality. It is not what is knowable in principle, but what has actually happened and therefore they have come to know. So, they they then their knowledge the players player i knowledge of a is as has to be has to have is as a result of a occurring. So, therefore, so whenever player i knows a has actually occurred. So, this is this is therefore a different this framework as I had mentioned at the start that this is way more of a control theory type of model because you know of an event after it occurs. It is not about what could have been known or what could be knowable. So, that so control theory is always causal and that is how it this that is the way this model is also built. So, this is quick proof of this this this. So, omega is omega belongs to Ki of a which means basically that Fi of omega is a subset of a, but Fi of omega is this is a is the element of the partition that contains omega. So, which but but omega is always a is always in Fi of omega which means omega is in a. So, we start off from any omega in Ki of a, we get that omega must be in a. So, now let us suppose I gave you two events a comma b these are both sub events and a is a subset of b. So, a is a subset of b vertices mean whenever a occurs b also occurs. So, a is more specific than b, b is more general. So, whenever a has occurred b also occurs what this what would this what does the knowledge operator then say about knowing a and knowing b. So, whenever you know a you would also know b and this is. So, for any player Ki of a would always be a subset of Ki of b necessarily. Now, suppose so let us take any event. This is the event that player i knows a and this is the event that player i knows that player i knows a how are these related. So, player i knows a and player i knows that player i knows a what do these are superset. So, what is I mean it is really incredible you get this for free you get that this these two are equal these this is actually these are actually equal. So, our way of modeling I told you again that this is a kind of a physical way of modeling things because as a result of this self-awareness comes for free. Whenever player i knows an event he also knows that he knows that event. This is a consequence of the way we have modeled. This could have limitations but on the face of it for example loss of memory absent mindedness and so on cannot be will not satisfy something like this. So, if you have a device that has finite memory it may it may know something but may not know that it knows something and so on. But you will see later that this is general enough to model a whole lot of other things also. So, this is the self-awareness of a player you get for free from here. So, some more properties let us what is what is Ki of y it is y. So, every state of the what does this basically say in every state of the world player know every player knows that something has happened. So, what one consequence you get for free here is that y is common knowledge because Ki of y is y and this is true for every player. So, therefore every player knows that every player knows that every player knows that something has happened in every state of the world. Suppose a and b are two events then what is this player i knows that a has occurred player i also knows that b has occurred. So, when player i knows that a has occurred player i knows that b has occurred we can put two and two together and knows therefore that a and b have both occurred. So, we can therefore we are not proving this this is very easy to prove I am skipping the proof. So, this is all. So, the knowledge operator also satisfies this. First tell me I will just write this out you tell me if there is any what is the difference between these two what is the difference between Ki of a the whole complement and Ki of a complement. So, this is just again for clarity the left hand side is the set of states of the world in which player i does not know a. So, now the right hand side is the state is the states of the world in which player i knows that a has not occurred these are two very different things. So, therefore, there is no obvious relation between the two you can of course say one thing which is erase this this is in fact equal to is actually equal to this.  So, again as I said self-awareness sort of thing comes up the Ki of a is a Ki of a the whole complement is equal to Ki of Ki of a the whole complement. So, does not know is a slightly again. So, when we start discussing these subjects you know the English language is a little bit insufficient because what does it mean to not do when I say I do not know I do not know means I can for sure say that I cannot confirm that a has occurred this that is what this statement is saying. But the question he is asking is does the does Ki of a complement means that I does not know a is the states of the world in which I does not know a or is it the states of the world in which he may or may not have may may have not known a. So, the does not know so any partial knowledge in this model in this model there is no partial knowledge. If you know and if you do not if you if it is not true that you know then you do not know. Yes, but in that case he does not know that is what the that is our that is our definition. So, there is a more subtle model which will which we will do after this in which there is a probability that he assigns to each event that is what is called a belief. So, from knowledge you can move to beliefs when and which is in which a player basically assigns a probability distribution on the probability distribution on the states of the world and therefore on an event and so on. And there you can have these kind of graded sort of levels of knowledge. So, there knowledge becomes belief with probability one. Okay, but we will come to that after we have done with done with this. Yes, why is the last property true? We can we can show this. So, I will just clear out the proof here. So, if omega belongs to Ki of a no it does it is not sufficient the compliment is outside. So, of course, you would have this the claim is not about this. So, this let us just do this one second. So, so you have you have your a and then you have your fi of omega fi of omega is not a subset of a that means it it has something with some elements which are outside. Now, these are these elements which are outside are therefore elements of a compliment. So, Ki of a is a subset of a so Ki of a compliment is a superset of. So, I think it should follow from the first one I will just have to write it out properly.  And so, one of this Ki of a is a union of yes, yes Ki of a is all of these. So, in this case is a union of elements of a partition, correct, some other partitions that is right, correct, correct. So, I mean this I am I am just trying to see if it can be derived as a corollary of this. So, there is I am I am sure the result is true and in the reason for that is this only that you see whenever. So, this the knowledge the these the events when the should have picked a different color the states of the world in which player I knows a that means is that means Ki of a will necessarily be either all of fi of omega or none of that is how it will be you will never have this sort of space part in Ki of omega Ki of a for any for any event a because. So, all of see because the if this is included then this would also have to be included, but then this is not in a got it the nearby point which is in the same a partition same element of the partition but is not in a would also have to be included. So, only this part gets included and then, but I am trying to think is see if I can just apply one of these inclusion relations and derive this, but it seems like that is not possible. Anyway, we will come to we will do a much more complicated version of this subsequently in which this will come out for free actually we will write out the entire structure of this. So, I will do I will just remind me I will do this proof in class. So, actually let us do a quick property or another property of common knowledge. Let us come back to common knowledge and let us do one theorem related to it.


Mae'r cymhiliad i ddweud yn ymdweud ar gyfer 2019. Felly, rydyn ni'n ffordd yw'r cyfrannu'r ysgol. Anhygoel, oedd y cyfrannu'r cyfrannu ar y gyrdd, felly mae'n ddweud yw'r cyfrannu'r cyfrannu cyfrannu, a'r cyfrannu'r cyfrannu, a'r cyfrannu'r cyfrannu'r cyfrannu, cyfnod, o gael'r cyd-fodol gyda Llywodraeth Fydd wedi fydd ymddangosol, o gyfnod ymddangosol. Fy modd,NEw gollwni'n cyfnod i ddylo, sydd wedi'i ffodol cyfnod cyfnod cyfnod, ac mae gennymeth 5 gyfnodion gwch chi o'ch mynd ddau i'ch gael. Ac mae'n fydda i'r cyfnod yn allan o'r cyfnod, a wnaeth hynny'n wybod ein bod yn 20 oed, 4. OK. So, I think I'd just like to introduce Stephen Farrell, our speaker, our keynote speaker. So we're very pleased to have you here today Stephen. So Stephen Farrell is a professor of criminology at the School of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Nottingham. A post he took up in August 2022. He has held chairs in criminology at the universities of Derby and Chaffield prior to that, ac mae'n gweithio'r pwysig ar y ddiwedd yng Nghymru'r Seffield, Oxford a'r Keel. Roedd, cymdeithasol, oherwydd y byddwch yn cydwyd i gael y cyfnodau sydd gynhyrchu'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r cyfnodau cyfnodau cyfnodau, mae'n gweithio'r cwestiynau gwahanol yng Nghymru i'r cymdeithasol – ganddiwch gyda'r cydwydau i gwellion yng Nghymru, ac oedd yn rechydig a'r cymdeithasol gyda'r cyfnodau. Cyn rhaid? Gweithio. Rhaid i chi ddweud. Rhaid i chi ddweud yr hwn. Dyma yw'r cyfnodau sydd wedi gael y gweithio. Fel chi yma amdylch chi rydyn ni cemethau a ydi i chi rydyn ni'n gweithio'r cyfnodau arall, rydyn ni'n gweithio arall a edrych i chi'ch gweithio a yna, I'm going to have to remember to try and stay as close to the mark as I can because I have a bit of a wanderer. But what I'm going to talk to you about today is a project which is based on several different ESRC grants. The data that we used isn't traditionally crime survey data as you may conceive it. It's not necessarily all from Crime Survey for England and Wales or Scottish Crime and Justice Survey. It's based on longitudinal studies. So a lot of what I'm going to say then, but not all of it, will have some implications for criminal careers research, which I know is possibly not necessarily entirely your bag, but nevertheless there will be some links to what you're interested in. So alongside crime surveys, criminal careers research is one of the biggest areas of contemporary criminology. In fact, it's one of the biggest areas of criminology full stop. If we trace criminology right back to people measuring each other's head skulls, you are finding an attempt to work out why it is that some people commit crime and others don't. Now all of that over time has resulted in the body of knowledge that really focuses on individual level or in some cases familial or in some cases but very rarely community level processes and structures. What I'm going to do, in some respects, is to kind of critique that by way of evidence based from a different way of thinking about the way in which the world works. I'm just going to move this so I can see the screen more clearly. So that body of work hasn't really grappled with wider institutional processes. It's not particularly interested in political science, for example. And as I said a moment ago, the projects which I've been involved in over the last 10 years or so have attempted to not just explain crime trends, but also to explain engagement in crime at the individual level through a kind of a political science lens. And in so doing, this takes us away from individual or family level factors, but it can be increasingly behaviouralist and in some respects pathologising of the individuals who are involved in crime towards a consideration of macro level processes including policy and political debate. Now for those of you who are probably under the age of 40 and I would say that we were vastly outnumbered, people age 40 and above, this is who Margaret Thatcher was. Now she is either the country's saviour or she's the devil incarnate. Normally there are more people that go for the latter these days than the former. She was the first UK, she was the first female leader of the Conservative Party, she was the first female Prime Minister and still the longest despite all of his trust's efforts. And she was Prime Minister for just over 11 years. Her successor, who was a guy called John Major, who was for a while as well her finance minister, was then Prime Minister until 1997 and there came in on the landslide. Now, Thatcherism is just one of a number of new right political movements. In Australia we have Fraser and then Bob Hawke. In Canada, but much much more small sea conservative, we have Mulrooney. They didn't really do terribly much at all. Reaganomics of course, well known. My personal favourites though are from New Zealand. We have Roger Nomics, named after the finance minister. Both Fraser and in New Zealand, Roger Nomics and Ruth Richardson came after were Labour administrations. This isn't simply sort of, if you like, Tory bashing. Ruth Richardson was the Prime Minister after that. Her policies were so unpopular in New Zealand that they were known as Ruth Denizia, which I think is one of the best names for this kind of stuff that I've come across so far. What was all this about? Well, it was largely about cuts to government expenditure and quite severe cuts in some respects. Expenditure actually went up oddly because the benefit system has a lag to it, so it takes time to change the benefit system, which means primary legislation, and it took the Conservative Party a long time to get on top of the social security spend as a whole. So whilst as a whole it went up for individual claimants, it actually went down. There was a bigger pie, but there were more people eating at it if you want to follow that kind of analogy. We see reductions in taxation and the increasing acceptance of unemployment and the kind of almost dismissal of it. As I said a moment ago, cuts in social security and changes to social housing provision. So lots of houses, around about a quarter of families in the 1970s were living in what was referred to as a council house or local authority housing. They were quite popular. I grew up in one. My parents were professionals, the people next door were teachers and employed individuals. That's very different now if you go to many socially rented sectors, housing associations, et cetera, et cetera. The social nature of our social housing has changed quite dramatically in those 40 years. So that's a bit of background about Thatcherism SL. What were we interested in doing? Now there were not many countries in the world where you could actually do this and Britain is probably the only one where you could do what I'm about to show you that we did. We are going to look at two longitudinal studies that ran 12 years apart from one another and we are going to compare the impact of those policies unleashed by Thatcherism on their lives and their life courses. So if you don't know the two studies involved, I'll give you something of a little introduction to them. We have the earlier of the two, a cohort born in 1958 that is also known as the National Child Development Study. So you will see NCDS written up there at various points. The second group, which is known as the 1970 cohort, they were born in 1970. So that's a really easy one to remember. There was an earlier cohort, 1946 cohort, which was the evidential basis for the creation of the National Health Service in 1948. We're not touching that at all. So it's every child born in the UK in one week of April and one week of March. Unfortunately, none of the kids born in Northern Ireland are ever followed up unless they happen to have moved to one of the other countries in the UK. The Northern Ireland, I'm afraid, gets dropped almost immediately. Now, they're not technically nationally representative samples, but we can treat them as such because there's no evidence to suggest that they're not. It's assumed by the data collectors that they reached in excess of 98.5% of all live births in those two weeks. Now, unusually, where you get sample attrition, these samples actually grow. The reason that they grow is not because kids are cell dividing, but rather because the way in which people were relocated was using the school register. So children who had migrated in after the study was started are then picked up as part of that process. Oddly, you have whatever the opposite attrition is. You do, of course, have attrition as well. So there are the two cohorts. We are going to use the 58 cohort as the pre-thatcher generation. They are not strictly pre-thatcher because they were 21 when she came in, but 21 at that era is very different from 21. Now, these people, very many of them would have been through the compulsory education system, or all of them would have been through the compulsory education. Very few would have stayed on to tertiary education in that era. So they grew up in the 60s and 70s. Their lives would, of course, not have been unaffected by the changes in the 1980s because they would have been producing children at that age. The 1970 cohort, we are going to use as thatcher's children. And this cohort is particularly dear to me because I'm the same school year as they are. I was born late 69. They were born in April 1970.  So this is the model that we're going to use, which I appreciate you can't see for toffly. Up here we have the first cohort. So think of this as being the 58 cohort. They were born here. These are their ages. And here is the second cohort, which you can think of as being the 1970 cohort. This is the legislative and policy programme. This just says political ideas because this is about ideology as much as it is about policy. And our basic argument is that political ideas inform policy. Policy lands, but it lands at different points in different people's life courses because we're all members of different cohorts. And so what we're studying in effect is, do policy X affect these people? Did it come, if you like, too early in their lives to affect them or too late in their lives to affect them? This isn't particularly meant to be anything other than black lumps on the screen but if you like, you could think of it as the age crime curve. So are more people involved in crime in the second cohort as opposed to the first in this example. So one of the first things which we did was to look at the national level picture of shifts in housing policy and their impact on property crime in the socially rented and privately owned housing sectors. And here we did use crime survey and British social attitudes and actually also general household survey data. The general household survey asked questions about people breaking into your house sometime in the 1970s. And essentially what we're interested in is the impact of the 1980 right to buy legislation on the victimisation experiences of people living in the socially rented sector. So that was published in the BJC in about 2016. The second paper which was published in GeoForum in 2019 starts to use the two different cohorts that I've outlined for you. And what we're interested in is a thing that we're going to refer to as parental tenure trajectory. So this is in effect whether the parents of the kids we're interested in the parents of the cohort members either lived in houses that they owned or more accurately that the bank owned or they lived in socially rented sector housing which they bought or they lived in socially rented housing which they didn't buy. So that's parental tenure trajectory. There are of course other trajectories but we're just not interested in them. So we're looking at the extent to which those different trajectories at the parental level affected the life courses or the experiences of their children. So this is what we find for the National Child Development Study. Parental tenure trajectory has no impact on whether their children later experienced homelessness. None whatsoever. The groups were kind of equal in terms of their experiences of homelessness. Slightly more amongst those people who didn't buy their council houses but not to a level that was statistically significant. If you did experience homelessness though, you had other negative life outcomes.  But none of this was triggered if you like by the choices which their parents made in the housing market. That's the 58 National Child Development Study. And that just summarises really what I've just said to you. And this is the story for the 1970 cohort. So these guys were born in 1970. The 1980 Housing Act is the first bit of legislation that introduces formally the right to buy existed previously in other ways which I can tell you about if you're really that interested. But the key thing here is that that parental tenure trajectory opens the door to experiences of homelessness particularly for those people whose parents didn't buy their council houses.  Tended to be in areas with high levels of unemployment and unemployed themselves and tended to be living in large northern housing estates near or in urban or industrial innovations. That kind of changed the industrial economy is one of the things that will keep coming up again and again. So not only did the 1980 Housing Act, as we outlined in the first paper of the British Journal of Criminology, increase property crime in the socially rented sector in those housing estates at the time when those acts were being passed, because the 1980 Act was the first of something in the region of 8, 9, 10 or 11 of these housing acts. But also it seems to have had a legacy effect for the children of the people who were deciding whether they could buy their houses or not, their council houses are not, or realising that they couldn't do that. So we have a legacy effect in terms of policy impact that starts in the 1980s that is affecting these children well into their adulthood. Now one of the other things that we were interested in, which I've just alluded to, was the level of economic restructuring and the way in which that fell across the country, because that falls in a very uneven way. I want to show you a map. I'm going to do a bit of unpicking of this map. So this is a map of Britain. I hope you'll recognise that. And you'll see that there are four different shades of colour coding and there are these four bands. I'll tell you about those in a minute. What I want to do is explain what the colour coding is. So we did this twice. We did this for the 1958 cohort and this example is for the 1970 cohort. What we did for the county in which they were living, which is the lowest level of spatial unit we had available to us, for the county in which the child was living when they were very young, we took the nearest census data for the number of people employed in mining in that county. So for the 58 cohort, this is 1961 data. For the 70 cohort, it becomes 1971 data. And then we added to that percentage from the following cohort, so the 71 or the 81, the percentage of men of working age who were unemployed in the same county. So that is an attempt, if you like, probably very crude, but if anyone can think of a better way of doing it using census data, please tell me because we couldn't figure one out. A very crude way of trying to measure economic restructuring in a 10-year period when these kids were aged somewhere between 3 and 13 or 1 and 11 for the 70 cohort. And that was just depended as a raw figure to their records for the county they were living in. That's those four things there. So we grouped them into four bands on the interquartile range. So the lowest yellow, the kind of custody yellow, is down here in the southeast, predominantly. And that is the lowest level of economic restructuring. And the highest level is kind of, I think, quite nice, rusty, ready, I want to repeat this just a bit more near where I live, some of the colours in the autumn. That kind of colour is the greatest level of economic restructuring. You can see that there are four areas where you have a huge level of economic restructuring. South Wales, that's mainly coal and steel production and allied trades like locomotives, trains, marching yards, that sort of stuff. You've got what we refer to as Central Bell England, which is, of course, the industrial heartland north of Birmingham, and then up into... Well, that's the Humber and the Merseys somewhere around there. So that's that part of England. There you've got this northeast shoulder. Again, that's coal production, ships, all that sort of stuff. And steel, I guess, if you're talking about Middlesbrough. And then you've got Central Bell Scotland, where you've got shipbuilding, coal production, what else, steel, and lots and lots of trains moving all this heavy kit around. So that's how we measured economic restructuring, and that's what it looks like when you plot it on a map of the UK. Then what we tried to do, and again, you're not going to read this, so I will read it out. Sorry, I'm going to see it, so I'll read it out to you. This is our measure of economic restructuring. This is school alienation. This is whether the child was truanting when they were aged 16. This is whether they were offending at any point between 16 and 40. This is whether they were employed. And this is whether they were living with a partner, those two, both when they are 23. The black lines are statistically significant. The shaded or the less dominant lines are not statistically significant. This is the 58 cohort. And what that is essentially saying is that if you were living in a disadvantaged area, you were more likely to report school alienation. It was a series of questions that were asked. I think they were about six. You were also much more likely to report truancy if you were alienated from school. It's hardly surprising. If you don't like something, you don't turn up. And then if you were truanting when you were 16, you were much more likely to be truanting as an adult. Again, that kind of makes sense in criminal careers research. If you're living in a disadvantaged area, you were much less likely to be employed at 23. It kind of makes sense as well. If you were employed at 23, you were much less likely to be offending or put the other way around. If you're unemployed, you're much more likely to commit crime. Again, that kind of makes sense too. Living with a partner doesn't really seem to have any effects whatsoever, except that if you're employed, you're more likely to live with a partner. There we go. Great, lovely, fantastic. Only problem, model doesn't fit. At that point, most people don't get that stuff published because that's a null result. It's not data that's sufficiently reliable for you to publish. We published that because in some respects, we don't really care. What we care about is what happens next. This is the 1970 cohort. The thing in some respects to keep an eye on is this thing here. This is the SMC squared. That's your structural equation model equivalent of an R squared. For the previous 58 cohort, it's .03. 3%. For this lot, it's 11%. The paths are bigger. They're more statistically significant. Most crucially, this is the thing that does get it published. The model fits. Again, where kids were living, and the economic processes that were going on behind their backs, over the tops of their heads, was associated with feeling alienated from school, offending at 16, and then offending as an R. Interestingly, there's a slightly odd relationship between levels of economic restructuring and alienation from school. If you have a lot of economic restructuring, you have a lot of alienation. If you have no economic restructuring, you have less alienation. If you have just a little bit of economic restructuring, you have even less alienation. It's a slightly odd. The explanation that's being put forward by a sociologist called David Rafe, is that for kids that are living in areas where there's a bit of economic restructuring, but not very much, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't affect their level of truancy. As soon as it starts to tick up a bit, guess what?  I know they don't tidy their... My kids don't tidy their bedrooms and are always doing the wrong thing.  At some point, they might look around and think, out of Motherwell or Middlesbrough or Sheffield or wherever it is, I've actually got to engage in the school process. School is a way out. So some of these things that seem a bit anomalous at first, I think we can explain. But anyway, economic restructuring seems to be associated with alienation, truancy and offending again into their adulthood. This is data that's collected, circuit board data that's collected between 1986 and 2000. This is a long time after these processes start. What we then also did was to look at this in a more systematic way, but unfortunately at this point, we can't use the 58 cohort because they don't have the right questions. All of the data that we've looked at there, the questions we used that were asked of the kids were asked in an identical manner, exactly the same question, just asked of different people 12 years later, and asked of them at approximately the same age point, maybe one or two years slippage one way or the other. But effectively, they are substantively the same questions asked at pretty much substantively the same point in individuals' lives. In a paper we published in a journal called Politics and Society, we explored the extent to which economic restructuring affected people's offending generally using a much more expanded model. Now again, you're not going to say, this is the kind of discipline regime that the school was using. It's not whether the kids were disciplined themselves, but it was just whether their school was hitting them with rulers or a slipper as it was in my case, not really personally, but my school or a cane, those sorts of things, as opposed to warnings, letters homes to parents, detention, those sorts of things. So if you went to a school that was much more into physical punishment, you were much more likely to be alienated from school. Which isn't really our surprise, is it?  I wouldn't. Alienation from school is again massively associated with being employed at the age of 26. This is a measure from the health visitor. Was the child on an at risk register? Okay. Yes or no. That's associated with offending at age 16. This is the child's report of the quality of their relationship with their parents. Again, it's a sort of one to five scale type thing. Then we have a quality of relationship with their partner if they have one or 23, I think that was. Then this is offending at the age of 30 in the year 2000. Again, the bold lines are statistically significant, the ones that aren't bold art. You can see that we have a path through here from school to work to crime and a path here from school to crime to more crime. Families don't really seem to play a big part in this story. Then what we did, having done all that, that's the kind of model that many people working in criminal careers research will expect, produce, be quite familiar to criminal careers researchers. What we then did over here was to add our old friend economic restructuring. So this is again that same measure that I was telling you about earlier from two census points or data from two census points. This again you can see produces statistically significant paths. There are five paths that we regressed area level economic change or economic restructuring on to school discipline processes, school alienation, offending itself at 16. Quality of relationship with parents and whether the toll is on the at risk register. The other statistically significant one. So whereas here we were talking about causes, and in some respects I guess the causes of the causes, here we are talking about the causes of the causes of the causes. So we are going back in terms of not just the explanatory variables but also in terms of time to look at the ways in which things deep in the past as it were are still shaping individuals' lives. So that says economic change 71 to 81 and that's data, self-report data from the year 2000. If you interviewed those guys they would not say the reason I'm injecting drugs or the reason I'm nicking stuff out of cars is because of a shift in macroeconomic policies undertaken in the 70s and 80s. They wouldn't. I have interviewed people that are kind of in that cohort and some of them do slack thature off but not all of them. A lot of this stuff is just processes that are happening way above their heads that they really, they may understand in a kind of intuitive sense, but they can't necessarily name or articulate them particularly clearly. So what we then did was to repeat that structural equation model four times by those four different areas. So although this is the interquartile range for each of these different counters we've got different values. So we broke those areas into four and we reran the model just for those areas. So okay it's a bit funny we are lumping this bit of Scotland in with this bit of Kent or Kent but we are taking them as a piece. Now that produces some quite interesting differences in structural equation models okay. There's one particularly interesting one which I'll just explain in a moment but this is essentially what we had. The SMC the equivalent of the R2 overall for the whole of the model, the whole country taking together is 0.27. When you look at places with the lowest level of economic restructuring so Hampshire where I grew up and sorry where I went to university almost nothing. The next levels if you like Kent and London a little bit higher and then similar again when you look at other places like Lancashire and Derbyshire which did have mines but also have quite rural areas but then when you look at the big kind of conurbations and those that were particularly affected by changes in the the degree to which we were lied on coal and were prepared to pay people to go and dig it out on the ground like South Yorkshire, like Nottinghamshire you see a very different picture okay. It's 0.7. Now what's really interesting about this I think is not simply that you get this variations by space in terms of the extent to which the model fits. You actually get slightly different models I'm not going to show you them because I don't have time but for this area Hampshire and Surrey you get a model whereby the only parts that are significant are these ones okay. This one here between offending at 16 and offending at 30 whatever it was which I think is interesting because it speaks to almost a cognitive behaviouralist explanation. So I'm a sociologist I'm becoming increasingly structuralist in my explanations and essentially what I'm showing you there is the time and space that's structural processes but for this place down here in the south all these places down here in the south the lowest level of economic restructuring it seems to be the individual level factors that are driving whether people are involved in crime. Now one of the great things that has never really been publicly outed is why cognitive behavioural therapies were so successful in places like Canada but less much less successful in places like England and Wales where they were tried. I would put forward the explanation that not only did Canada do CVT they also did social interventions and it's a country generally speaking a lower level of inequality as mentioned by the genicoe efficient. So it could be that in countries where you have a low level of economic inequality people who repeatedly offend are possibly doing that because there is a problem with the way in which they approach the world the way in which they approach relationships the way in which they deal with problems but in other places where you have a higher level of economic inequality the reasons that people commit crime may be because of associated degradations to institutions social norms and objective financial need okay So where does that leave us? This is my last slide except for one which has the references on it. So I think criminal careers researchers need to move away from individual level explanations and processes that means a different research design we have got very good at studying criminal careers in particular places so the Cambridge study of deviancy delinquency collected all of its data in south London. PADS plus collects all of its data in Puterborough. Edinburgh youth style well that's Edinburgh okay and there are numerous studies around the world Dunedin, Rochester lots in the US that collect them in particular places that means if that particular community hits skid row through economic change all of the kids in that area have the same if you like macroeconomic experience you don't have the level of spatial variation that we had in terms of comparing bits of Scotland and bits of Kent or places like that okay so national level data is what we need to unpack these processes more most of those studies are also single cohort so there is one Cambridge study. The boys were born in something like 1963 okay there's no follow up other than those of those individual boys since in terms of a repeated cohort Ditto PADS, Ditto Edinburgh Ditto pretty much any of the individual level longitudinal studies that there are of criminal careers they are pretty much all single cohorts although they do collect multiple cohorts it's a panel design which ratchets things up quickly so you don't really get the temporal variation in the same way but it's all still spatially concentrated so not only do we need to think differently we also need to think about the research designs much differently too but one question which in some respects haunts all of this is the extent to which I can say any of this globally outside the context of the study given how radical facturism was it was such a massive hit. The only country that got close to that I think would have been New Zealand and that's partly because they have a unique marvel system so we have a lower house and an upper house most democracies have something like that in New Zealand is one chamber so as soon as you have at least 50% of the MPs in that chamber you can kind of do what you like assuming you can get them to vote it through so New Zealand moved very fast hence Wajonomics, hence Ruthanasia so that begs another question who cares in some respects if this is something that happened at one point in time in one country on that I will leave you except to leave you there with all the references to the work I said ok thank you very much