Unpacking The Crisis — Part 4: From Panic to Policy – How Fear Shapes Governance

In Part 3, we explored how media and political narratives construct meaning around crisis. But what happens next — when panic translates into practice, and fear becomes law?

This instalment examines how moments of moral and political anxiety have repeatedly shaped British governance.  From Victorian fears of garrotters to modern concerns about knife crime and online harms, panic has long served as a catalyst for state expansion. Crises are rarely confined to events themselves — becoming moments through which power reorganises and re-legitimises itself.

Historical Echo: Legislation Born of Fear

The pattern isn’t new.  In the 1860s, Victorian London’s so-called “garrotting epidemic” — sensationalised accounts of street attacks — prompted sweeping legislative reform. Newspapers such as The Times declared that ‘no man can walk the streets unmolested,’ portraying the city as overrun by violent criminals.  Parliament responded with the Garrotters Act (1863), reinstating flogging for violent robbery and extending prison terms — even though statistical evidence of an epidemic was thin (Taylor, 2010).

A century later, the 1970s “mugging” panic followed a strikingly similar trajectory.  As discussed in Part 1, media coverage portrayed ordinary robberies as emblematic of social collapse.  Political leaders called for stronger policing, resulting in expanded discretionary powers — precursors to today’s stop-and-search laws (Hall et al., 1978; Garland, 2001).

In both cases, policy was reactive, born of public fear rather than empirical necessity. Temporary measures introduced “for safety” hardened into permanent features of governance. Crises rarely end where they begin.

Modern Parallels: Knife Crime, Social Media, and Policy Reaction

Fast forward to the present, and the script feels familiar.  Over the past decade, public discourse around knife crime has reached fever pitch. Headlines speak of “epidemics” and “war zones,” while images of knives and grieving families dominate news cycles.

The Serious Violence Strategy (Home Office, 2018) framed the issue as “an urgent national priority,” linking it to gang culture, social media, and youth identity. Yet, as researchers such as Williams and Clarke (2020) note, knife-related violence — though serious — has fluctuated within historical ranges, and is often geographically concentrated rather than nationwide.

Political rhetoric nonetheless fuels a sense of pervasive danger. The result has been a steady tightening of enforcement powers, including Section 60 stop-and-search, knife crime prevention orders, and targeted youth interventions — policies that critics argue risk stigmatising young people in already over-policed areas.

Similarly, digital platforms have become a new frontier of fear. After the 2011 London riots, politicians and newspapers blamed “social media-fuelled violence,” calling for greater monitoring of online spaces (Briggs, 2012). The pattern resurfaced in 2023, when isolated “TikTok flash mob” incidents were framed as evidence of online radicalisation of youth. Government statements warned of “digital contagion,” culminating in the Online Safety Act 2023 — legislation granting regulators and tech firms expanded powers over online content and behaviour.

While these measures are often well-intentioned, they follow a familiar sequence: anxiety → amplification → action. The urgency of crisis legitimises rapid intervention, even when data or consultation are limited.

Entrenchment: How Panic Becomes Policy

Foucault (1977) described modern governance as the management of populations through surveillance, discipline, and control — not only over what people do, but how they think and behave. In this sense, moral panics do not simply produce laws; they reconfigure systems of power.

Once enacted, “emergency” policies often persist long after the original fear fades. The Sus laws of the 1970s evolved into the broader stop-and-search powers of today; the Prevent Duty (2015), originally a counter-terrorism measure, now shapes how schools, universities, and youth workers assess “risk.” These frameworks embed fear into institutional routines — what Garland (2001) calls the culture of control.

The effect is cumulative: each wave of panic layers new powers atop the old. Reactive policymaking can “entrench disproportionate interventions,” particularly in communities facing economic deprivation or racial inequality. What begins as exceptional soon becomes ordinary — an architecture of precaution.

For Practitioners: Navigating the Politics of Fear

For professionals working in areas including education, policing, or community development, these cycles of crisis and control present daily challenges. Responding to public concern is essential, yet uncritical acceptance of crisis narratives can undermine trust and justice.
The following principles may support a more reflective approach:

Ultimately, to move from panic to policy responsibly is to resist the politics of fear. As this series has shown, fear can be a powerful organising force — but it need not dictate the shape of governance.

In Part 5: The Governance of Anxiety, we will examine how these crisis logics persist within bureaucratic systems, influencing everyday decision-making long after headlines have faded.

Suggested Reading

About the Author / Series Purpose

Written by Daniel Davis, researcher and commentator on social justice and policing.

Unpacking the Crisis: Crime, Power, and the Politics of Fear is a multi-part series examining how perceptions of crime, disorder, moral decline and media narratives shape public policy, policing practices, community relations and public trust.

Drawing on the work of Stuart Hall, Stanley Cohen, and contemporary sociological research, the series explores how institutions — from government to media to local authorities — manage public anxiety and frame “crises” around crime and disorder.

Each chapter is accompanied by a short Practitioner Brief offering applied insight, discussion prompts, and reflective tools which invite professionals across policing, education, and local governance to critically assess contemporary crises, and respond effectively in their practice.

Next: Read Practitioner Brief #4 — Policy Response And Proportionality
Then Part #5 — The Governance Of Anxiety — Managing Risk In An Age Of Fear