Spaces of exception: governing fuel poverty in England’s multiple occupancy housing sector

Homes in multiple occupancy (HMOs) – residential properties containing common areas shared by several households – are a growing feature of the housing landscape across the UK. They have often been subject to political stigmatization as a result, in part, of comprising poor quality dwellings. This paper uses a “spaces of exception” framework to explore the juridical and material mechanisms involved in the rise of fuel poverty among people living in HMOs. Having analysed evidence from interviews, census data and the secondary literature pertaining to the English context, we highlight the processes that have led to the biopolitical othering of this housing stock in institutional and infrastructural terms. We argue that the expansion and persistence of fuel poverty in HMOs are promoted not only by the disproportionate concentration of low-income residents in relation to the rest of the private rented sector, but also by the socio-technical configurations that underpin this type of housing. Fuel poverty can thus be seen as the joint outcome of broader practices of legal, political and material delegitimization.     

This time is different?—on the use of emergency measures during the corona pandemic

European Journal of Law and Economics - In many areas such as consumer law or competition law, legislators can opt between two alternative forms of sanctions to remedy wrongdoing: they can impose...     

The Contentious American Debate: The First Amendment and Internet-based Hate Speech

This essay reviews the debate over what constitutes hate speech and whether or not such speech is protected by the American First Amendment. First, the concept of white racialism and white supremacy is defined and illustrated. Then after a brief discussion of the legal debate, the nature and problematic definition(s) of hate speech is presented. The unique speech environment of the internet is reviewed alongside attempts to limit and censor topics available on the internet. The arguments for and against restricting first amendment protection are discussed, with a focus on Michael Israel's five criteria for withdrawing first amendment protections. The work concludes with a discussion of the difficulty in constraining discourse on the internet.     

Upholding justice in an unjust world: a practitioner's view of public administration ethics

This article presents the author's approach to profes sional ethics as a practitioner of public adrninistra tion. Public administrators are held to be personally responsible for their actions. Therefore, professional ethical standards are both possible and necessary, not only to prevent: wrongdoing but also to guide and promote right behavior. An ideally just regime is first hypothesized, based on the principles of justice developed in John Rawls's A Theory of Justice. A normative ethical standard of neutral competence is then postulated for agents of such a hypothetical regime- The author then addresses the implications of real-world injustice, and discusses the exceptions to neutral competence which are justifiable when confronted by injustice. The suggested approach establishes a high ethical st-andard, providing justification for not only avoiding wrongdoing, but also for doing right. This approach also provides practical and realistic guidance for et.hica1 decision-making. Both justifiability and applicability are held to be necessary if such an ethical. system is to be followed by public administrators.