World

Wall Street, American Psycho, The Wolf of Wall Street… for decades, the image of the banker has loomed large in popular culture.

And after the 2008 financial crisis, the reputation of finance workers took a big hit, according to one of the creators of banking drama Industry.

Konrad Kay, who co-writes the series, says bankers faced a “lazy” and “villainous stereotype” at the time – with a perception that they needed “bringing down a peg or two”.

Industry is a critically-acclaimed drama set inside the fictional London office of Pierpoint & Co, a prestigious, high-pressure, sex-and-drug-fuelled international investment bank. It is now airing its third series.

Critics have called the series – that introduces new character Sir Henry Muck, a hyper-privileged eco-entrepreneur played by Game of Thrones star Kit Harington – an “excitingly ornate rollercoaster” and “more thrilling than ever”.

For Kay and co-creator Mickey Down, who both previously worked in finance, their show is not a simple question of whether bankers are good or bad.

“I guess what the show is saying, and we’re never didactic about this stuff, is that Pierpoint and the wider capitalist enterprise turbocharge some of their worst instincts,” says Kay.

Ultimately, bankers are “neither villains nor rock stars”, he adds.

Industry looks at some of the nuances of the financial world, the writers say, and especially the people at the beginning of their careers.

According to Down, the show is driven by the characters who have the least amount of power.

Industry follows three Gen-Z finance workers: Harper Stern (played by Myha’la), Robert Spearing (Harry Lawtey) and Yasmin Kara-Hanani (Marisa Abela).

Down adds that Industry is about realising there are “different ceilings for everyone” – and that your background, race and gender can “have a huge bearing on how successful you can be”.

This is partly why the co-writers say they portray the character of Harper, arguably the most ruthless of the three main characters, “with love”.

“People obviously throw a lot of words at these characters, insults sometimes, especially at Harper, saying she’s awful, she’s heinous, she’s selfish, all that stuff,” says Down, adding: “We write her from a place of understanding.

“We write her as a young black woman who has come from a disadvantaged background, who is ridiculously ambitious and will do everything to achieve her goals – and that is thrilling.”

Two victims of spiking have criticised how medical staff handled their cases, saying they felt “blamed” for what happened and were refused tests.

Imogen Turnbow and Saraya Haddad, both former students in Brighton, said they were denied drug tests at A&E, discouraged from contacting the police by staff there, and Ms Turnbow said a 111 operator implied it was her fault.

South East Coast Ambulance Service, which runs the 111 service in Sussex and Kent, said it was “sorry to hear of these concerns” and it took them “seriously”.

In 2022, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine said an A&E’s primary responsibility was to address victim’s medical needs, rather than collect forensic samples.

While in a busy Brighton bar in 2021, Ms Turnbow said she went “incredibly quickly” from being fully aware of her surroundings to waking up in a cupboard.

The 24-year-old said she had “no idea” where she was and had “no feeling” in her leg.

“I am constantly questioning what happened, who was I with, where was I? I don’t have the answers.”

The following morning Ms Turnbow said she visited the Royal Sussex County Hospital A&E department but said she was told by staff there was nothing they could do and that she should call 111.

The non-emergency line then told her they would call back within the next few hours, but did not respond until the next day, according to Ms Turnbow.

Ms Turnbow said she got “quite upset” explaining the incident over the phone to the 111 service, and said the nurse told her she “needed to be more vigilant when going out.”

It was “complete victim blaming,” Ms Turnbow alleged. “I felt very let down by two services which in my head are meant to support you in unsafe situations.

“I didn’t actually know what to do at that point. I was terrified.”

She decided not to report the incident to police.

A South East Coast Ambulance Service spokesperson said: “We take any concerns raised seriously and would invite Ms Turnbow to contact us with the details of her call so that we can look into the circumstances for her.”

Despite her experience, Ms Turnbow is urging victims of spiking to come forward.

“If we’re not reporting it, it’s just gonna get swept under the rug,” she said.

Stamp Out Spiking, an anti-spiking charity, estimates nearly 98% of victims do not report the crime.

Ms Turnbow said one of the biggest problems is that there is so much stigma around spiking itself.

“Either people don’t believe you” or it is considered “something that just happens”, she explained.

Spiking is not a specific offence, but it is illegal under separate laws.

The government says the main legislation relevant to spiking is Section 24 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which includes maliciously administering poison with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy that person.

It carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

Saraya Haddad told the BBC she was spiked while having three drinks and a meal over three hours at a bar in 2019, shortly before she had been due to perform in a street play in central Brighton.

The 27-year-old said she woke up 13 hours later, not remembering anything, only to learn friends had taken her home.

“I was… very discombobulated.”

Wanting to prove what had happened, she visited A&E at the Royal Sussex Hospital the next morning, but was “shocked” when she said they refused to test her for drugs which could have been used to spike her.

The Metropolitan Police says it may be possible to detect if someone has been spiked in the last seven days through a urine or blood sample. But some drugs leave the body within 12 hours or much sooner.

They said only police can conduct a forensic test, unless a victim has been sexually assaulted, in which case they can be tested at a sexual assault referral centre where they will also get specialist support.

The now-PhD student also claimed hospital staff discouraged her from going to the police saying it was a “waste of time” due to the time that had elapsed since the incident.

The Royal College of Emergency Medicine says emergency department’s should encourage victims of spiking to contact the police and, where the victim gives consent, they should help facilitate this.

Ms Haddad said she decided not to take further action after her experience.

However, she decided to channel the incident into a solo play that aims to raise awareness of spiking, which she performed at Edinburgh Fringe.

There needs to be “much more education” for young people, Ms Haddad said.

She is urging emergency departments to also test for spiking substances.

According to the Metropolitan Police, symptoms of spiking include:

• Confusion
• Nausea or vomiting
• Hallucinations and paranoia
• Disorientation or poor coordination
• Loss of ability to communicate properly
• Memory loss
• Feeling sick or throwing up
• Lowered inhibitions
• Loss of balance
• Unconsciousness
• Problems with vision

More advice about how spiking can make you feel and what to do if you get spiked is available here.

Det Supt Andrew Harbour from Sussex Police said the force took the issue “incredibly seriously” and would “bring offenders to justice”.

Although he said the county had seen a “downward trend” of spiking offences, Mr Harbour said some incidents were not being reported.

Vapes containing the drug spice or other illicit substances, food and even chewing gum could be used for spiking, according to the force.

A spokesperson for the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust said patients are treated based on presenting symptoms. A&E can only treat a person if they are ill, there are no screening tests routinely used.

They said that since neither women received treatment at A&E they would not comment further.

Nearly three months after an assassin’s bullet nearly took his life, former President Donald Trump came to Butler, Pennsylvania, returning to a place of “tragedy” to promise his supporters victory in the 5 November presidential election.

One person – a volunteer fire chief – was killed in the 13 July shooting, which also left two bystanders seriously wounded and Trump shot in the ear.

“For 15 seconds, time stood still,” Trump told the crowd. “This vicious monster unleashed evil… the villain did not succeed in his goal.”

For Saturday’s rally, though, security was tight – a result of increased scrutiny of the Secret Service in the wake of two attempts on Trump’s life the second last month.

Also in attendance were Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, as well as son Eric Trump, daughter-in-law Lara Trump and tech billionaire Elon Musk, who endorsed Trump after the earlier shooting.

Trump largely stuck to familiar talking points during his speech, railing against the “corrupt system”, promising to bring “respect” back to US foreign policy and vowing to shut the “open border” which he claims is a source of crime.

“You deserve a government that protects and respects its own citizens, and defends your sovereignty, your security, your dignity and your freedom,” he told the crowd to large applause.

He also struck out at his political opponents, accusing them of “slandering” him and attempting to interfere in the election, and “who knows – maybe even tried to kill me.”

“But I’ve never stopped fighting for you,” he added. “Never will.”

Trump repeatedly referenced the previous shooting, and the event included a moment of silence for Corey Competore, the firefighter who was killed in the July shooting.

“He’s become somewhat of a folk hero,” Trump added. “Our beautiful Corey.”

The former president had fulsome praise for Elon Musk and went out of his way to invite him to the stage.

The tech billionnaire told the crowd he thought this was “the most important election of our lifetime” and exhorted voters to register and elect Trump.

Between 25,000 and 30,000 people were expected at the rally, which snarled traffic to a standstill in the rural town of Butler for the entirety of Saturday. Many waited for as many as 10 hours in harsh sun to be let in past a long string of vendors selling Trump/Vance campaign flags, hats, signs and orange wigs meant to emulate the former president.

“I certainly admire his willingness to come back here and give the speech he was denied last time,” said Teresa Wilson, a former US Marine who also attended the previous rally on 13 July.

“I’d understand if he avoided coming back – I know some spectators who didn’t want to return, and some who were very apprehensive,” she added. “If he can stand in the place of the previous attempt, then we as his constituency can certainly show up to offer our support.”

With just 31 days to go until Americans vote, polls show Trump and Kamala Harris in a tight race in Pennsylvania – a hotly contested battleground state.

Data from the New York Times and Siena, for example, shows the two nearly deadlocked in a tie, 49% to 48% in Harris’s favour.

In dozens of interviews with Trump supporters at the rally, most identified the economy – particularly inflation – as their primary concerns ahead of the election.

“We’re not being taken care of. People can’t afford food. They can barely afford gas [petrol],” said Jessenia Anderson, a Pennsylvania voter who was at the rally wearing a red “‘Latinas for Trump’ T-shirt. “I have a family, but I find myself making cheaper [meals], buying cheaper things.”

Others – such as rapper Sean Moon, a Tennessee voter – pointed to the US-Mexico border and immigration as the main reasons they support the former president.

“That’s an existential threat for this country,” said Mr Moon, the son of a North Korean refugee who said the event in Butler was his 15th consecutive Trump rally.

“There are people coming in without being vetted. They tell untruths and get rewarded for it. That’s not doing anything for North Carolina, or for Maui,” he added, a reference to Hurricane Helene and last year’s wildfires in Hawaii.

There are more than 3,600 woman prisoners in England and Wales – a number the Ministry of Justice projects will rise to 4,200 by November 2027.

But Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood believes “prison isn’t working” for women. She told the Labour Party conference that after serving a short custodial sentence, a woman is “significantly more likely” to reoffend than one given a non-custodial sentence.

Meanwhile prisons minister James Timpson has said he sees “lots of very ill women” on visits. This echoes research which found 82% of women prisoners reported they had some form of mental health problem, and data pointing to a rising number of self-harm incidents in women’s prisons.

The majority of imprisoned women have experienced domestic violence.

So what can be done? Two government-commissioned publications, the Corston Report (2007) and the Ministry of Justice’s Female Offender Strategy (2018) recommended that in some cases, instead of prison sentences, the use of women’s residential centres, which focus on trauma support and where children can sometimes stay, or community sentencing, would be more appropriate.

The new Labour government has announced measures including a Women’s Justice Board to reduce imprisonment numbers. Under the Conservatives, a 2021 white paper outlined plans for mandatory staff training in women’s prisons to reduce self-harm and better support for pregnant women.

InDepth has spoken to people with experience of the criminal justice system to hear how they think it can be reformed for female offenders.

Most women are imprisoned for nonviolent, non-serious offences, and so they are not really a threat to public safety. They would benefit more from community alternatives.

Women with short-term sentences, six months or less, shouldn’t be in prison. In that time you’re not going to achieve any meaningful change or real engagement with rehabilitation. So it doesn’t serve a purposeful function for society or for women.

Over half of women prisoners go on to reoffend. Women are going straight back into the same environment, same circumstances, that they were in before going into prison – such as homelessness, or substance abuse.

It is true that prison can offer structure when a lot of these women live very chaotic lives. There are also some good examples of prisons with programs that specifically deal with trauma. However, women’s centres are a better approach as they are more focused on addressing the causes of offending – for instance, underlying issues such as trauma.

There’s always a risk that the government might lean towards populist measures that lock more people up, but I think there is increasing public awareness about the need to do things differently because of the reoffending rates.

Unsurprisingly, the key challenge is funding and investment. There is a growing number of women’s centres but a lack of funding means that there aren’t enough of them.

I was in Eastwood Park Prison from March to July 2022 for perverting the course of justice. I was under the impression that prisons were supposed to be rehabilitative facilities that help nurture people back into society. But that’s simply not the case.

During my time in prison, we were locked in our cells for 23 hours a day, with little to no access to education. Prisoners were supposed to have maths and English lessons, but the prison was so under-resourced that prison officers would never open the door.

We’d only have an hour outside our cells, and we would have to choose between having a shower, exercising, meeting other people, or being outdoors. One hour was simply not enough time to get anything meaningful done.

After leaving prison, I realised how broken the system is. A lot of the people going into prison were very young and many had grown up in care. They’ve been dispatched straight from the care system to the criminal justice system. While personal accountability for their choices is essential, I think it’s really important to start discussions on how we can better serve people before they end up in prison.

Preventative measures are important but I want to be clear – I don’t agree with abolishing prisons. Violent and dangerous offenders should be removed for the safety of wider society, for the sake of the victims and potentially for their own safety. But what we do to those people in prison needs to change.

Some women are violent, sexual or prolific offenders and should be in prison. The purpose of prison is fourfold – to punish, protect the public, deter crime and give the opportunity for rehabilitation.

Just 4% of people in prison are women and they are a very different population to the other 96% – they are less likely to be violent or prolific offenders. We do need more prison spaces, but those places should be filled with violent or prolific men, rather than women who are not.

We should also consider issues which apply to women. For example, pregnancy.

The criminal justice system is in an utterly shambolic state. A proposal for a series of residential women’s centres, which came from the Female Offender Strategy in 2018, has – with a couple of exceptions – barely got off the ground. We have the biggest Crown Court backlog on record. We know what helps reduce reoffending but we systematically fail to do it.

Partly this is funding, but also there is the ineffectiveness of community sentencing, and as part of that, drug rehabilitation, education and employment programs.

Locking up non-violent and non-prolific women is not the only solution. Key to deterring people from committing crime is catching more of them, doing it quicker, and potentially sentencing them to something other than prison if they’re not violent or prolific offenders.

There must be a gender-specific approach to criminal justice, as women end up in prison because of things that are gender-specific in society.

If you’re only thinking about working with women at the point at which they’re sent to prison, you’re starting too late. The real solutions are earlier upstream, where change needs to happen.

Women are being sent to prison essentially as a punishment for being poor and falling into debt – they are the shock absorbers of poverty. Survivors of domestic abuse are criminalised.

They often experience horrendous mental health problems. The list just goes on. The system is completely broken.

Labour‘s Women’s Justice Board is welcome if it can really do something. In the long term, we want to stop women being criminalised for the discriminatory experiences they have.

Any assumption that you can do rehabilitation or quality therapeutic work in prison is not true – they’re not safe or healing environments.

Prisons are terrifying. They completely remove your identity. Several women just in the last two weeks have told us entering prison was like entering a mental asylum from the 1800s – people screaming through the night, people banging their heads on the walls. It really is hellish.

Just because you have a gender lens, it doesn’t mean you don’t look at men. Having a gender lens means that you understand how disproportionately many women offenders are themselves victims.

Prisons are meant to be about rehabilitation, but now they’ve become purely about punishment. I understand that people want to see those who commit crimes pay the price, but a lot of women that are in prison are most likely victims of serious offences themselves.

There also needs to be special consideration for women that have children and better mental health support for them. You have a lot of women self-harming because of the conditions in prisons.

There are a lot of societal issues that cause people to end up being in prison. People find themselves in poverty and do things that are questionable.

But it’s just not the case that everybody who does something awful ends up in prison. Black people are twice as likely to be arrested, remanded and sentenced than their white counterparts. If you’re more likely to first face criminal charges and custodial sentences, then you are most likely going to have to deal with the impact of prisons.

When I talk about issues that are happening with women when they’re in prison, I’m talking about women overall. But we can’t ignore the disparities that black women face when they face criminal charges.

The way we operate the probation system and the wider offender management system is frankly sloppy. We are not disciplined or rigorous enough in our expectations of offenders. These women have committed a crime. There are victims to whom we have a duty of care, and punishment as well as rehabilitation is important.

If we want to be a functioning liberal society, we have to be one that operates with a high level of trust. No matter how petty the crime, we must be strict. Otherwise we risk undermining the wider sense of trust.

However, we need to think carefully about our approach to penal policy because we still have a early 20th Century, semi-Victorian attitude, whereas behavioural science and research on offending and rehabilitation has moved on quite significantly.

It’s also important to acknowledge the differences between male and female offenders. Men are generally more prone to violence and differences in general behavioural traits should be reflected in our approach.

While I believe there needs to be a penal element to the justice system, there are smarter ways of dealing with somebody than just shoving them in prison.

For example, there are a proportion of women who are in prison because they are perpetrating acquisitive crime to feed alcohol addiction. We can use sobriety tagging, which has been remarkably successful, to keep people sober and so not offending and out of prison, combined with unpaid work in the community as a better outcome for victims and perpetrators alike.

If the public knew who’s in prison, what it costs, what that’s doing in the long run, they would want change. Prison is not succeeding in bringing around transformational change through rehabilitative work.

Most women in prison are victims as well as offenders and in prison because of what they’ve experienced in their relationships.

Some need to be dealt with securely, but we need to address issues in the community in order to stop reoffending, as most are there for short sentences, and go back through the revolving door.

I never want to say “let’s just let women off”, but prison only sets up more layers of trauma. That there are still pregnant women in prison is unacceptable.

There are alternatives, such as women’s centres and community sentences. Problem-solving courts are being trialled, looking at how to reduce reoffending – we need more of that approach.

So many reports just end up on ministers’ shelves. Even if you don’t care about the women, you probably do care about taxpayer money. What we’re doing makes no financial sense.

If we could get this right for women, we could bring in some of the same principles to the men’s estate.

Top photo credit: Getty

BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we’ll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we’ll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We’re starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think – you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.