Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Liminal Leisure of Disadvantaged Young People in the UK Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The Liminal Leisure of Disadvantaged Young People in the UK Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic The global COVID-19 pandemic has created, exposed and exacerbated inequali- ties and differences around access to—and experiences and representations of—the physical and virtual spaces of young people’s leisure cultures and practices. Draw- ing on longstanding themes of continuity and change in youth leisure scholarship, this paper contributes to our understandings of ‘liminal leisure’ as experienced by some young people in the UK before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. To do this, we place primary pre-pandemic research on disadvantaged young people’s lei- sure spaces and practices in dialogue with secondary data on lockdown and post- lockdown leisure. Subsequently, we argue that existing and emergent forms of youth ‘leisure liminality’ are best understood through the lens of intersectional disadvan- tages. Specifically, pre-existing intersectional disadvantages are being compounded by disruptions to youth leisure, as the upheaval of the pandemic continues to be differentially experienced. To understand this process, we deploy the concept of liminal leisure spaces used by Swaine et  al Leisure Studies 37:4,440-451, (2018) in their ethnography of Khat-chewing among young British Somali urban youth ‘on the margins’. Similarly, our focus is on young people’s management and nego- tiation of substance use ‘risks’, harms and pleasures when in ‘private-in-public’ lei- sure spaces. We note that the UK government responses to the pandemic, such as national and regional lockdowns, meant that the leisure liminality of disadvantaged young people pre-pandemic became the experience of young people more generally, with for example the closure of night-time economies (NTEs). Yet despite some temporary convergence, intersectionally disadvantaged young people ‘at leisure’ have been subject to a particularly problematic confluence of criminalisation, exclu - sion and stigmatisation in COVID-19 times, which will most likely continue into the post-pandemic future. Keywords Young people · Liminal leisure · Lockdown · COVID-19 * Karenza Moore Karenza.moore@newcastle.ac.uk Extended author information available on the last page of the article Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 476 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 Introduction Despite the COVID-19 pandemic being described as a ‘great leveller’ (Jones 2020), there is emerging evidence that its differentiated negative impacts reflect and exacerbate underlying inequalities (Marmot and Allen 2020) and re-estab- lish exclusionary social hierarchies (Pfaller 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the disadvantaged positions from which many young people must negoti- ate not only their education and employment transitions, but also their participa- tion in leisure (The Audience Agency 2021). Leisure participation exclusion is being exacerbated by the intersecting crises of the COVID-19 pandemic, chronic underinvestment in state provision and related services and access to safe play and leisure facilities (Children’s Commissioner 2020a, b). The response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK and beyond (Han et  al. 2020) has seen national and regional lockdowns restricting people’s activities and movements through stay-at-home instructions enforced through emergency legal powers (Greene 2020). In spring 2020, nearly all UK leisure spaces outside the home closed, with opportunities for leisure, or rather leisure involving physical proximity, essen- tially stopped. Paradoxically, despite leisure spaces closing, available leisure time increased for some (Bond et al. 2020). Leisure plays an ‘essential’ role in young people’s lives and wellbeing (Lashua et al. 2020; Roberts 2011). Evidence is now emerging of the largely negative impact of restrictions and lockdown leisure upon young people’s wellbeing (Roberts 2020; NHS Digital 2020). Those with existing mental health conditions have been particularly affected (YoungMinds 2020a). Worryingly this is set against the backdrop of a perpetual crisis in the NHS’s Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) capacity and provision (Children’s Commissioner 2020b), suggesting increased challenges for those working with young people in already stretched services. Lockdown restrictions, socioeconomic conditions and future uncertainties have contributed to feelings of anxiety, loneliness and isolation in the context of a loss of coping mechanisms, most notably social support outside the family ‘unit’ (YoungMinds 2020b; Lisitsa et  al. 2020). Such conditions may have detrimental long-term impacts for young people’s health and wellbeing (Orben et al. 2020). During the pandemic, young people have been ordered to ‘stay at home’ to stay safe (Cabinet Office 2020). However, this ignores how access to safe and secure home spaces is profoundly shaped by socioeconomic disadvantage and inequality (Rosenthal et  al. 2020). Indeed, some young people are expected to navigate living, working and/or studying from home in cramped, unsuitable, and unsafe housing (Leavey et al. 2020; Rosenthal et al. 2020). Similarly, the removal of physical ‘safe spaces’ of leisure and social interaction such as youth clubs, school/college/university or simply the streets, alongside inequitable access to virtual technologies and spaces (Honeyman et  al. 2020), has proved particularly problematic for some young people (LGBT Foundation 2020), although invalua- ble for others (Hanckel and Chandra 2021). Through differentiated experiences of lockdown, including inequitable efforts to monitor and control youth ‘at leisure’ (Gabriel et al. 2021), the COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted uncomfortable and 1 3 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 477 neglected truths about inequalities, namely, that not all young people have unlim- ited access to technologies and digital forms of social interaction and that not all young people have safe spaces at home or even safe homes. When the UK entered lockdown enforced by legislation on 23rd March 2020, any social gathering indoors and outdoors became ambiguous and ‘suspect’. COVID- 19 measures have been in place in some form across the UK between March 2020 to November 2021, with oscillations between strict lockdown measures and partial reopening of licensed leisure spaces, dependent ostensibly on COVID-19 rates in geographical locations. The police were granted a variety of powers to punish lock- down infringements such as protests, demonstrations, vigils, socialising in streets, parks, house parties, free parties, illegal raves and illegal pay parties. During lock- down in England and Wales, police could dispense a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) to those deemed to be breaching ‘the rules’, starting at £200, rising to £6,400, with fines up to £10,000 for large gatherings or parties (Cabinet Office 2020). In Janu- ary 2021, the UK government announced new fines for COVID-19 house parties (of more than 15 people) starting at £800 (BBC News 2021). As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, albeit in a changed form given the UK vaccine programme (November 2021), we have seen continued disruption to licit and illicit youth leisure spaces and practices, including licensed venue closures, vaccine passport legislation and further anti-rave legislation. Some leisure venues such as nightclubs in North- ern Ireland have been shut for a 20-month period (Ross 2021). However, exclusion does not eradicate the desire for leisure, nor does the regulation of space prevent lei- sure practices, including substance use. Despite associated health and enforcement risks, young people continued to socialise in lockdown (Lashua et al. 2020; Roberts 2020). Young people’s differentiated responses to lockdown measures which were framed by the UK press as irresponsible and reckless (BBC News 2020) may be less ‘rebellion’ and more ‘reaction’ to continued conditions of exclusion, social isolation and loneliness (YoungMinds 2020a, 2020b). For some young people, ‘safe’ leisure remains unavailable, and available leisure possesses new ‘risks’ to be managed. Understanding what the COVID-19 pandemic means for disadvantaged young people’s leisure presents a considerable challenge. However, youth studies scholar- ship has long been concerned with what it means to be young and disadvantaged (MacDonald and Marsh 2005; MacDonald et al. 2020). Young people’s experiences in the pre-pandemic era therefore help us understand manifestations of disadvantage in COVID-19 times and beyond. This is how we might avoid the ‘covidisation’ (a single lens) of research, without ignoring the intersections of the COVID-19 pan- demic with other crises in youth transitions and cultures. To foreground continuity and change, we combine findings from a pre-pandemic study exploring disadvan- taged young people’s risk perceptions and practices (Woodrow 2017), with more recent ethnographic observations of youth leisure practices as well as media repre- sentations of youth ‘at leisure’ during the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). The latter are part of an ongoing longitudinal mixed methods study of young people’s illicit drug use practices in a range of public and private/domestic spaces by Moore. In so doing, we place primary pre-pandemic research around disadvantaged young people’s leisure spaces and practices in dialogue with secondary data on lockdown leisure. On these combined foundations, we offer our thoughts on enduring and 1 3 478 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 emergent ‘risks’, harms and pleasures of leisure spaces and related practices. At this juncture, we note that psychoactive substance use is a particularly important focus especially when illicit—as with street drinking or cannabis use—as young people may retreat to liminal leisure spaces to ‘stay safe’ from ‘risks’ such as police atten- tion. We discuss how some young people have been portrayed and treated as ‘risky’, how they have been policed and how they manage and negotiate their leisure and substance use practices before and during COVID-19 times. Intersectional Perspectives on Youth Leisure The past few decades have seen a shift in how inequalities are theorised, with an appreciation of the interplay or intersections between the privileges and disadvan- tages, and opportunities and constraints, apparent in non-essentialist inclusionary models of ‘identity’ (Collins and Bilge 2020; Hill 2015). Intersectionality was first deployed as a metaphor and developed into a powerful analytical concept by the Black legal feminist scholar Kimberle Williams Crenshaw (1989, 1991). Intersec- tionality seeks to explore and understand the effects of systems of inequality upon the most marginalised (Collins and Bilge 2020) and to look beyond notions of the individual as being subject to (dis)advantage in an ‘additive’ way. Intersectionality may be used then to appreciate interactions between (dis)advantages, whilst avoid- ing deploying it ‘as a theory of double or multiple oppression based on a positivist approach to categories (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexuality, dis- ability, age, citizenship)’ (Carastathis 2016:4). Instead of an additive or multiplicity approach to disadvantage, we use intersectionality as a provisional concept (Cren- shaw 1991; Carastathis 2014) to ‘think about how we think’ (Carastathis 2016:4) about how some young people ‘at leisure’ are produced as problematic social cat- egories by those with the power to define, dominate and control (Blackman and Rogers 2017; Gabriel et al. 2021). This enables an exploration of how young peo- ple’s leisure and related practices such as substance use are shaped by intersectional disadvantages and how in turn intersecting crises may (re)produce further ‘risks’ and harms to those already experiencing these disadvantages, ‘risks’ which must be negotiated and managed by the young people in  situ. An example of how the COVID-19 pandemic has intensified existing disadvantages is the exacerbated risk of involvement in the criminal justice system resulting from the differential polic- ing of poor black urban communities around both illegal drugs and COVID-19 laws (House of Commons/House of Lords 2021). Intersectionality as a provisional con- cept can help explore the complexity and diversity of young people’s leisure experi- ences, especially in COVID-19 times, and help explain how these experiences are shaped by relational positions of intersectional (dis)advantage and marginalisation. Echoing wider debates around the cultural and structural influences upon the lives of young people (MacDonald et  al. 2020), disadvantaged young people have long been excluded from various leisure spaces, for example, the commercialised licensed venues of night-time economies (NTE). Intersectional disadvantages pro- duce systematic patterns of inclusion and exclusion, shaping young people’s leisure participation (Wilkinson 2015). At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, youth 1 3 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 479 leisure exclusion was experienced more broadly by young people. Indeed, control measures and restrictions on legal licensed NTE leisure spaces in the UK such as night-time curfews and the closure of all pubs, bars, restaurants and nightclubs (Coronavirus Act 2020), as well as on unsupervised leisure spaces used by young people—such as private domestic spaces, flat and house parties (Ravn and Duff 2015), and public spaces, streets and parks (Robinson 2009)—resulted in ever more intense public, media and police scrutiny. In this, those experiencing leisure exclu- sion based on intersectional disadvantages have been particularly vulnerable to the criminalisation of social interaction in public and semi-public spaces (Brown 2013) and the proactive policing of drugs before and during the UK lockdown (Measham and Moore 2008; Metropolitan Police 2020). This is supported by a House of Com- mons/House of Lords (2021) report which concludes the way in which Fixed Pen- alty Notices (FPNs) have been used during the pandemic disproportionately penal- ises certain groups according to age, gender, race/ethnicity and social deprivation (see below for further discussion). A key continuity here is the historical positioning of some young people as simultaneously ‘at risk’ and ‘risky’, particularly those from racialised minority groups. A key change has been the UK government attempts to limit—and criminalise—much social interaction for a public health good and the negative implications of this criminalisation for young people. In COVID-19 times, whilst everyone is ‘at risk’ and ‘risky’, young people are represented as riskier than others, especially when ‘at leisure’, with this negative positionality commonly attrib- uted to our most intersectionally disadvantaged young people. Continuity and Change: the Pre‑pandemic North of England Town Study of Disadvantaged Young People ‘at Leisure’ The pre-pandemic study this paper draws upon explored the leisure practices and substance use, as well wider negotiation of employment transitions, of a sample of socioeconomically disadvantaged young people in a Northern Town in England (Woodrow 2017). Falling in the lowest quintile of the 2019 English indices of mul- tiple deprivation, and similar to post-industrial areas nationally and internation- ally (O’Gorman 2016), the data collection site had a range of interconnected dep- rivations including: poverty; high levels of youth unemployment; poor educational attainment; high crime rates; and poor health profiles. Data collection took place between April 2015 and January 2016 and included observations in participants’ public leisure spaces, in-depth interviews and short anonymous surveys with young people aged between 14 and 24. The pre-pandemic study produced 24 in depth inter- views with 27 young people lasting between 20 and 80 min. Data was transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Ninety-two percent of the sample was White British male, with many completing education or beginning to seek employment. Over 90% were living at their parental/family homes (Woodrow 2017). Young people were recruited for participation in the pre-pandemic study dur- ing youth service outreach work sessions in public leisure spaces, with face-to-face interviews conducted in local public spaces such as cafes. Despite initial enthusiasm for participation, it proved challenging to secure interviews with young people, with 1 3 480 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 many not attending arranged meetings, as due to the level of disadvantage, many participants did not have mobile phones or credit to allow meetings to be confirmed or altered. The challenges of engaging and accessing young people have been fur- ther exacerbated through COVID-19 restrictions, as some young people became close to ‘unreachable’ to youth researchers and youth workers (see below for fur- ther discussion). In the pre-pandemic study, to ensure that the perspectives and experiences of such young people were not missed, data was also collected through observations and recorded informal conversations in public leisure spaces. Surveys were also undertaken as in situ structured interviews, enabling conversation between the researcher and participant(s) during completion. This provided rich data, and the opportunity to observe interactions between young people in their own leisure spaces, again much missed by youth researchers and outreach workers during the pandemic. Risk Perceptions of the ‘Risky’ and ‘at Risk’: Then and Now The North of England town study explored disadvantaged young people’s risk perceptions around substance use in mainly street-based leisure spaces and times (Woodrow 2017). The concept of ‘risk’ has become a central feature of contempo- rary society and has been used to frame all aspects of young people’s lives, includ- ing leisure spaces and practices (Bengtsson and Ravn 2018). It is crucial to reflect on the concept of ‘risk’ to engage critically with this framing. ‘Risk’ has typically been understood through a rational actor model, where ‘risky practices’ are seen to be undertaken by young people due to naive lack of awareness or misunderstandings of associated issues (Mason et  al. 2013). This rationalist framework has informed dominant understandings of young people’s leisure practices including substance use but has been widely critiqued (Tulloch and Lupton 2003). In contrast, a socio- cultural risk framework sees ‘risk’ as being embedded in social and cultural contexts (Pilkington 2007). This perspective foregrounds social and cultural contexts and meanings to better understand young people’s engagement with risks, harms and pleasures and ‘risky practices’ (Graham et al. 2018). Further, recent developments in intersectional risk theory (Nygren et al. 2020) drawing on feminist and Foucauldian understandings of gendered risks (Hannah-Moffat and O’Malley 2007) helps youth scholars identify ways in which ‘risk’ governance and regulation regimes such as drug prohibition (re)produce inequalities among young people. The North of England town study participants conceptualised risks, harms and pleasures of their leisure and substance use practices—as well as their engagement with authority—primarily as being personal, immediate, acute and tangible, rather than abstract, potential, future-situated, chronic and long-term. Practices that were not perceived to be associated with such ‘immediate’ issues were differentiated as less risky, irrespective of their potential for long-term harm, tobacco consump- tion being one clear example. The participants held potentially erroneous beliefs around their abilities to avoid negative and long-term harms such as criminalisation (discussed below), with such beliefs shaping their current and future leisure prac- tices. How and where our participants located ‘risk’ for example within a specific 1 3 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 481 substance, practice and/or place, how they perceived associated pleasures and how they accessed and engaged with ‘risk media’ (lay and expert knowledge) were cru- cial to its negotiation. We suggest that applying this conceptualisation to young peo- ple’s leisure practices more generally in COVID-19 times can help us understand young people’s heterogeneous responses to lockdown and later post-pandemic leisure landscapes as nuanced, relational and shaped by intersectional disadvan- tages. Emerging research for example suggests that young males took more health ‘risks’ during lockdowns and were more likely to break lockdown rules than young women (Smith et al. 2020), with ‘risk’ beliefs around lower susceptibility to catch- ing COVID-19 and spreading the virus shaping this (Levita 2020). Appreciating young people’s conceptualisations of ‘risks’ as being largely focused on the immedi- ate (now) rather than potential (in ‘the future’) helps explain some young people’s adherence or otherwise to social distancing and lockdown measures and continued engagement with lockdown leisure spaces and practices (see also Clark et al. 2020). Young people have historically been constructed as simultaneously possess- ing and posing ‘risk’, with their leisure practices posing a long-standing concern (Blackman and Rogers 2017). Public, semi-public and private/domestic youth lei- sure spaces such as street corners, nightclubs and bedrooms are key sociospatial sites where young people produce subjectivities (Roberts 2011), make connec- tions (Abbott-Chapman and Robertson 2015) and experience intoxication (Ander and Wilińska 2020; Robinson 2009). The use of unsupervised and informal public spaces by young people—especially what Auge (1995) called non-places or tempo- rary border zones such as doorways and staircases—has historically produced anxi- eties and been framed as undesirable, contentious and antisocial. They are often the focus of regulation, notably when associated with ‘risky practices’ such as substance use (Blackman 2011; Blackman and Rogers 2017; Brown 2013; Pearson 1983). It is worth remembering that (drug) policy enactment is used to practice social control on young adults in the spaces they inhabit (Gabriel et  al. 2021). The liminal lei- sure spaces of young British-Somali men in which illicit Khat-chewing takes place are the focus of Swaine et  al.’s (2018) ethnographic study . Drawing on theories of social spatialisation which position spaces as sites or zones with values, repre- sentations and meanings (Shields 1991), Swaine et  al. (2018) note how the young men occupied leisure spaces/times (a public stairwell is mentioned) which—being ‘betwixt and between’ (Turner 1995:95, Turner 1974) or hidden/visible—enmeshed both backstage and frontstage leisure practices, amounting to ‘the expression of secret activities in communal settings’ (Swaine et  al. 2018:444) or what we might characterise as ‘private-in-public’. This draws on Erving Goffman’s concept of ‘the outside’, a third residual region or liminal space which acts both as semi-public front and semi-public backstage (Goffman 1959). As COVID-19 rules proliferated Khat (Catha edulis) is a shrub-like narcotic consumed for recreational purposes as a mild stimulant by cultures primarily located in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. In the UK, it is predom- inately consumed by British Somali men, although its use among young men is culturally prohibited (Swaine et al. 2018). In 2014 Khat was classified as a Class C substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, prompting concerns among drug policy change campaigners about the criminalisation of a specific population. 1 3 482 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 through the UK’s Coronavirus Act (2020), related statutory instruments (Hansard Society 2020) and emergency powers (Greene 2020), young people’s leisure prac- tices, in particular the use of public, private-in-public and domestic/private spaces, drew pejorative discourse, moving beyond the illicit and undesirable towards the illegal and ‘Covidiotic’. Indeed, young people have been vilified and stigmatised as reckless pleasure seekers and rule breaking disease spreaders, who are irrational and negligent of their potential threat to wider public health (BBC News 2020; Reicher 2020). We now turn to data which suggests that this vilification and criminalisation has fallen most heavily on the shoulders of our most intersectionally disadvantaged young people experiencing enduring leisure exclusions in COVID-19 times, mirror- ing pre-pandemic trends. ‘COVID Secure’? Enduring Differentiated Youth Leisure Exclusions The UK’s national and regional lockdowns and their proactive policing proliferated experiences of being ‘stuck at home’ with few legitimate accessible social spaces and activities (Adey et  al. 2021). The liminal leisure status which intersectionally disadvantaged young people such as those in Woodrow’s study experienced pre- COVID-19 through social, cultural and geographical exclusions was experienced by young people more generally. However, more affluent young people were better placed to navigate lockdown rules and ‘safely’ socialise through technologies or in private houses/gardens, whilst digital inequalities and housing precarity resulted in disadvantaged young people being largely unable to socialise in this way (Rosenthal et al. 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the extent of inequalities around access to inside, outside and virtual spaces of youth leisure. Inequalities in both access to and use of technology contribute to the digital exclusion of disadvantaged young people which inhibits the social benefits of online participation (Honeyman et  al. 2020). Disadvantages intersect with wider crises, perpetuating inequalities through inhibited sociotechnical participation. Digital technologies have long been mooted as an inclusion panacea for young people seen as being part of a ‘digital generation’ (Buckingham and Willett 2013). However, this position fails to rec- ognise that digital-leisure engagement can exclude as effectively as it includes. In COVID-19 times, young people experiencing intersectional disadvantages are vul- nerable to digital-leisure exclusions, with virtual alternatives such as online party spaces and meetings only available to those on the ‘right’ side of the digital divide. Indeed, whilst digital spaces and virtual play saw increased participation during lockdowns (Lashua et al. 2020), the most disadvantaged young people are still not afforded the unrestricted ability to access digital spaces for socialisation. The stop-start partial-reopening of the UK hospitality industry saw restrictions implemented to make leisure participation ‘COVID-secure’ (Cabinet Office 2020). This spawned a number of licensed socially distanced parties, such as Social Ave- nue in Manchester, where attendees were invited to ‘Come and dance at a distance, TOGETHER’. Such events provided leisure opportunities for young people who had the capital required to purchase event tickets, whilst limiting and excluding many disadvantaged young people. This highlights a prominent dimension of inclusion 1 3 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 483 and exclusion from leisure activities and space being orientated around socioeco- nomic characteristics, evident in Woodrow’s pre-COVID-19 study (see also Batche- lor et al. 2017), with financial resources allowing participation in ‘good’ legal, com- mercial recreational activities and spaces that more disadvantaged young people are excluded from. For Woodrow’s young people living in pre-COVID-19 times, there were a variety of inexpensive and often free activities available and engaged with such as hanging out in the park/on the streets. However, youth participation in these liminal leisure spaces during COVID-19 lockdowns was prohibited and vigorously policed. As the primary means of young people’s participation in partying moved to virtual and/or expensive COVID-secure physical spaces, the exclusion of the most disadvantaged was perpetuated, with leisure liminality emergent through intersect- ing disadvantages and the differential impacts of lockdown restrictions. Substance Use, Liminal Leisure Spaces and Policing On reflection, the COVID-19 pandemic and intersecting crises are highlighting precisely what intersectional disadvantage entails in terms of leisure engagement: differentiated youth leisure exclusions. The following quotes from Woodrow’s pre- pandemic study highlight how the socioeconomic positions of intersectionally dis- advantaged young people enable and constrain leisure practices in complex ways: You’re at that certain age aren’t you where you want to do stuff but you can’t, either you’re too young or too skint. (Frank aged 21) Like we sit outside bus station, which looks sad, but that’s like our park, do you know what I mean? Where else is there to go? (Ben aged 19) In the pre-pandemic study, ‘free time’ did not necessarily equate to freedom to engage in unrestricted leisure. Here, leisure practices were bound by intersectional disadvantages of age and economic inequality, resulting in the adoption of ‘alterna- tive’ leisure practices in liminal spaces. Similarly, throughout the pandemic, we have seen an increase in leisure time for many young people, but a reduction in leisure opportunities more generally (Roberts 2020). The young people in Woodrow’s study engaged with their liminal spaces, ascribing them with meaning, and claiming even- ing/night-time ownership of (ostensibly) public space through their participation and ‘place making’ practices such as collective music consumption and playing sports. There was an acute understanding of how the use of such spaces and practices had associated negative perceptions and implications. Despite this, young people still engaged in such leisure spaces, often actively defending their leisure practices: We’re just normal, we don’t do anything daft, but because we’re on the streets they make out we’re all criminals and druggies trying to cause trouble. (Cam- eron aged 19) For Woodrow’s sample, the leisure practices emergent in such spaces engaged friendship groups and provided valued informal social support, helping to ameliorate 1 3 484 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 the pressures, stresses and anxieties of their lives (see also MacDonald and Shildrick 2007; Robinson 2009): It’s just same shit, different day, so you just have some weed with your mates, and it’s just nice to forget about it for a while. (Barry aged 18) We just hang about around park, that’s all we do, chilling and that. If you’re with your mates having a laugh you’re not thinking about stuff. (Oliver aged 18) Public space for intersectionally disadvantaged young people is a key—and some- times even the only—source of ‘private’ leisure space. Indeed, the loss of this space due to lockdown rules meant the loss of private-in-public leisure spaces for many, alongside the benefits they provide. For the young people in Woodrow’s study, leisure time was focused on street-based socialising, with substance use being an accepted and pleasurable part of their leisure activities (see also O’Gorman 2016): We just hang about, there’s nothing to do, let’s get stoned and have a laugh, all your mates are there, let’s have a laugh. (Anthony aged 18) Substance use in public spaces such as the streets was discussed by pre-pandemic study participants as a pleasurable activity, but one associated with specific ‘risks’ (see also Batchelor et  al. 2017). Such risks included social embarrassment from erroneous use, and police surveillance and ‘hassle’ such as having substances con- fiscated, being ‘moved-on’ or sent home. They were not framed in terms of potential health harms or long-term implications from convictions: It doesn’t look good does it, like when you see people drinking in the park now you just think “what are you doing with yourself”, and bobbies come and you get it took off you so there’s no point. (Todd aged 19) All they [police] do it take if off you, if you’re acting like an idiot, but they don’t bother with us because they know we’re not going to do anything stupid. (Anthony aged 18) Further, potential risk and harms ‘in the future’ such as criminal records were not a prominent feature of their appraisals. Instead, previous and potential ‘hassle’ from the police shaped leisure practices, resulting in the use of more ‘hidden’ pub- lic space—or private-in-public spaces—for their leisure practices, away from poten- tial surveillance. This is understandable given that substance use in public spaces is widely subjected to formal and informal control mechanisms (Selfridge et al. 2020). Indeed, due to various intersecting disadvantages, the young people in the pre-pan- demic study were not able to retreat into private houses and virtual spaces for leisure when faced with surveillance, regulation and social control measures. Instead, they sought out and managed their use of available leisure spaces with private-in-public potential, negotiating the ‘risks’ that accompanied these: You don’t want to be buzzing off your tits in the bus station do you…better off at a house party, but if there’s nothing on, nothing for us to go to, you’re just like fuck it. (Oliver aged 18) 1 3 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 485 Enduring risks and harms from proactive policing and drug law enforcement, newly combined with coronavirus laws and rules, must be managed and negoti- ated by young people, notably by those already intersectionally disadvantaged. In COVID-19 times, Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) against people breaking lock- down rules in Scotland have been issued disproportionately in the most deprived communities, with people in the ten most deprived communities being up to 12 times more likely to be issued an FPN (McVie 2020). Clear gender intersections were also evident, with men being three times more likely than women to be issued a FPN for breaking lockdown rules (McVie 2020). Indeed, data obtained from a Freedom of Information Request to the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) on FPN across England and Wales from 26th March 2020 to 1st Janu- ary 2021 (NPCC 2021: FOI request) showed the majority of FPN (72%) being issued to men. Further, data for England and Wales between March 2020 and Jan- uary 2021 showing 43% of FPN were issued to people aged 18–24 (NPCC 2021: FOI request). This shows an increase in the proportion of FPN issued to young people from earlier data between March 2020 and April 2020 when 36% of FPN were issued to people aged 18–24 (NPCC 2020). Mirroring drug law enforce- ment inequities (Shiner et al. 2018), data for FPN for England and Wales between March and May 2020 show Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups being disproportionately affected, with FPN rates for BAME groups being 1.6 times higher than for White groups (Currenti and Flatley 2020). Further, BAME young men (aged 18–34) were twice as likely than White young men to be issued a FPN (ibid). Highly ‘visible’ groups of disadvantaged young people ‘hanging out’ in non-NTE spaces, as those in the pre-pandemic study did, are typically subject to police scrutiny disproportionate to their criminal or anti-social activ- ity. Subject to increased attention from authorities and laws prohibiting assem- bly, intersectionally disadvantaged young people remain especially vulnerable to the criminalisation and stigmatisation of social interaction emergent during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 has heralded continuity through the familiar presentation of disadvan- taged youth as ‘problem population’ alongside changes in the ‘risk’ environments of some young people. Socialisation in public and private spaces is subject to intense public and police scrutiny and increased police targeting and harassment of youth (Selfridge et al. 2020). State intervention in the lives of young people to ‘control’ their practices within the leisure spaces they create and attend is nothing new. Classic UK studies have demonstrated that policing serves as a means of exercising social con- trol over undesirable youth (Pearson 1983; Morris 2002). Recent attempts to regulate UK young people’s leisure practices through hefty fines (BBC News 2020, 2021), and increases in the proportion of FPN being issued to young people as outlined above, highlight continued attempts at social control of youth ‘at leisure’. Criminological scholars have critiqued the un-reflexive use of FPN based on new coronavirus legisla- tion (Grace 2020). Disproportionate use of FPN upon young people highlights the viru- lent targeting of police practices. Intersectional disadvantages are being compounded by profound disruptions to already precarious youth cultures and associated leisure spaces. The COVID-19 crisis is accelerating the narrowing of young people’s ‘safe’ 1 3 486 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 leisure opportunities through the exacerbation of existing differentiated leisure exclu- sions and the enduring proactive policing of youth sociability and intoxication practices (Measham and Moore 2008). Challenges and Implications of Research and Youth Work in Young People’s Leisure Spaces Research with young people in their leisure spaces is crucial, as it allows rich, nuanced experiences and localised variations in practices to be captured. Young people in Woodrow’s pre-COVID-19 study were accessed through attending established in-per- son outreach youth work, which sought to engage young people not typically in contact with services in their public and public-in-private leisure spaces and times. Access was enabled through Woodrow’s partial insider status as an outreach worker in the data col- lection site, and experience growing up in the local area. Whilst the research would not have been impossible to complete without this access, it would have been diffi- cult and time-consuming to establish presence and trust without these structures and experiences being in place. The young people in the pre-COVID-19 study were forced into more ‘hidden’ public spaces and, when possible, into private/domestic spaces due to their illicit leisure practices, making research and access challenging. From our experiences of working in youth and drug outreach, this raises concerns around youth substance use practices and the negotiation of ‘risks’ in the rapidly changing leisure landscape of COVID-19 times and beyond. The impacts of COVID-19 upon inter- sectionally disadvantaged young people’s leisure through lockdown rules and police scrutiny alongside young people moving into more hidden and ‘hard to reach’ physi- cal and virtual spaces mean that access to young people to understand their experi- ences becomes more challenging. Having leisure spaces limited, removed, stigmatised and criminalised has a profound effect on young people’s mental health and wellbeing (Roberts 2020; NHS Digital 2020). This impact upon young people’s long-term well- being is a pressing concern for youth studies and youth work. However, youth research and youth work on the impact of the pandemic on young people has been curtailed by measures meant to manage the risk of COVID-19 to the UK wider population, such as minimising in-person interactions, as experienced during Woodrow’s recent research with young people in the Public Health field. This may be described as the ‘covidisa- tion’ of youth research, where the ‘risks’ young people are thought to present to others are assumed to be in greater need of mitigation than the risks of not doing research and youth work with them. Intersectionally disadvantaged young people ‘at leisure’ are then subject to a particularly problematic confluence of criminalisation, exclusion and stigmatisation in COVID-19 times, a pernicious trend to be countered by youth researchers, youth workers and young people themselves. 1 3 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 487 Conclusion The position and positioning of young people in COVID-19 times combines strains of continuity and change. Foregrounding continuity and change means not exploring everything solely through the lens of COVID-19, however tempting that may be in ‘unprecedented times’. In exploring the continuities as well as changes in youth lei- sure experiences, differentiated according to intersectional disadvantages apparent prior to and during the pandemic, we hope to have highlighted opportunities to use insights from pre-pandemic studies to understand the contemporary context. This includes the interdisciplinary intersections of youth studies and criminology which pay attention to the policing of those young people inhabiting liminal leisure spaces who are largely excluded from legal commercialised leisure spaces. Leisure limi- nality is exacerbated by intersectional disadvantages, compounded by disruptions to youth leisure spaces and practices given the COVID-19 pandemic and the UK government responses to it. The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened intersectional disadvantages in youth leisure, notably the differential availability or otherwise of public, private-in-public, private/domestic and virtual spaces. Lockdown restrictions have meant that the leisure liminality of disadvantaged young people pre-pandemic through economic, sociocultural and geographical exclusions temporarily emerged as the experience of young people more generally. However, whilst all young people must manage their desire for pleasure and leisure in a context of social distancing, digital divides, rising NTE participation costs and proactive policing, some remain better placed than others to negotiate ‘risks’ and potential harms from criminalisa- tion for example. Indeed, young people experiencing intersectional disadvantages are especially susceptible to differentiated leisure exclusions and the criminalisation of social interaction in COVID-19 times and beyond. Drawing on pre-COVID-19 work with intersectionally disadvantaged young people, we note how when subject to increased policing and social control measures illicit leisure practices were not abandoned but moved to more liminal leisure spaces, with implications for con- necting with such young people. The continuation of existing leisure exclusions and the emergence of novel forms in youth leisure landscapes post-pandemic presents a unique challenge to those researching and working with intersectionally disadvan- taged young people for whom leisure—‘chilling and that’—remains essential. Funding NW’s PhD study was funded by an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) studentship. KM’s longitudinal study was partially funded by the University of Salford’s small grant scheme. Availability of Data and Material Data are available upon reasonable request. Code Availability Not applicable. Declarations Ethics Approval NW’s PhD study was approved by the Lancaster University Ethics Committee. KM’s longitudinal study was approved by the University of Salford Ethics Committee. Consent to Participate Written informed consent was obtained from all participants in NW’s PhD study. 1 3 488 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 Consent for Publication Written consent included consent for publication of the findings and the use of anonymised quotations in publications. Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Abbott-Chapman J, Robertson M (2015) Youth leisure, places, spaces and identity. In: Gammon S, Elk- ington S (eds) Landscapes of leisure: Space, place and identities. Springer, Hampshire, pp 123–134 Adey P, Hannam K, Sheller M, Tyfield D (2021) Pandemic (im)mobilities. Mobilities 16(1):1–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17450 101. 2021. 18728 71 Ander B, Wilińska M (2020) “We are not like those who/…/sit in the woods and drink”: the making of drinking spaces by youth. Qual Soc Work 19(3):424–439. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14733 25020 Auge M (1995) Non-places: Introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity. Verso, London Batchelor S, Whittaker L, Fraser A, Li L (2017) Leisure lives on the margins:(Re) imagining youth in Glasgow’s East end. In: Blackman S, Rogers R (eds) Youth Marginality in Britain: contemporary studies of austerity. Policy Press, Bristol, pp 117–131 BBC News (2020) Coronavirus: young people breaking rules risk ‘second wave’. https:// www. bbc. co. uk/ news/ newsb eat- 54056 771. Accessed 7 September 2020 BBC News (2021) Covid: £800 house party fines to be introduced in England. https:// www. bbc. co. uk/ news/ uk- 55757 807. Accessed 21 January 2021 Bengtsson T, Ravn S (2018) Youth, risk, routine: a new perspective on risk-taking in young lives. Rout- ledge, London Blackman S (2011) Rituals of intoxication: young people, drugs, risk and leisure. In: Bramham P, Wagg S (eds) The New Politics of Leisure and Pleasure. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 97–118 Blackman S, Rogers R (2017) Critically theorising young adult marginality: historical and contemporary perspectives. In: Blackman S, Rogers R (eds) Youth marginality in Britain: Contemporary studies of austerity. Bristol University Press, Bristol, pp 3–22 Bond A, Widdop P, Cockayne D, Parnell D (2020) Prosumption, networks and value during a global pandemic: lockdown leisure and COVID-19. Leis Sci 43(1-2):70–77. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01490 400. 2020. 17739 85 Brown D (2013) Young people, anti-social behaviour and public space: the role of community wardens in policing the ‘ASBO generation’. Urban Stud 50(3):538–555. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00420 98012 Buckingham D, Willett R (eds) (2013) Digital generations: children, young people, and the new media. Routledge, London Cabinet Office (2020) New National Restrictions from 5 November. https:// www. gov. uk/ guida nce/ new- natio nal- restr ictio ns- from-5- novem ber. Accessed 4 December 2020 Carastathis A (2014) Reinvigorating intersectionality as a provisional concept. In: Goswami N, O’Donovan M, Yount L (eds) Why race and gender still matter: an intersectional approach. Picker- ing & Chatto, London, pp 59–70 Carastathis A (2016) Intersectionality: origins, contestations, horizons. University of Nebraska Press, Nebraska 1 3 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 489 Children’s Commissioner (2020a) Report of the children’s commissioner of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. https:// www. child rensc ommis sioner. gov. uk/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2020/ 12/ cco- uncrc- report. pdf. Accessed 4 December 2020 Children’s Commissioner (2020b) The state of children’s mental health services. https:// www. child rensc ommis sioner. gov. uk/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2020/ 01/ cco- the- state- of- child rens- mental- health- servi ces. pdf. Accessed 4 December 2020 Clark C, Davila A, Regis M, Kraus S (2020) Predictors of COVID-19 voluntary compliance behaviors: an international investigation. Global Transitions 2:76–82. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. glt. 2020. 06. 003 Collins P, Bilge S (2020) Intersectionality, 2nd edn. Polity Press, Cambridge Coronavirus Act (2020) https:// www. legis lation. gov. uk/ ukpga/ 2020/7/ conte nts. Accessed 29 April 2021 Crenshaw K (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of anti- discrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, Chicago Crenshaw K (1991) Mapping the margins: identity politics, intersectionality, and violence against women. Stanford Law Rev 43(6):1241–1299 Currenti R, Flatley J (2020) Policing the pandemic: detailed analysis on police enforcement of the pub- lic health regulations and an assessment on disproportionality across ethnic groups. NPCC. https:// www . nor t h yor k s hir e- pfcc. gov . uk/ conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2020/ 07/ P olic ing- t he- P ande mic- NPCC. pdf. Accessed 11 December 2020 Gabriel MG, Brown A, León M, Outley C (2021) Power and social control of youth during the COVID- 19 pandemic. Leis Sci 43(1-2):240–246 Goffman E (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. Penguin, London Grace S (2020) Policing social distancing: gaining and maintaining compliance in the age of coronavirus. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 14(4):1034–1053. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ police/ paaa0 29 Graham L, Jordan J, Hutchinson A, de Wet N (2018) Risky behaviour: a new framework for understand- ing why young people take risks. J Youth Stud 21(3):324–339. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13676 261. 2017. 13803 01 Greene A (2020) Emergency powers in a time of pandemic. BUP Policy Shorts, Bristol Han E, Tan MM, Turk E, Sridhar D, Leung GM, Shibuya K, Asgari N, Oh J, García-Basteiro AL, Hane- feld J, Cook AR (2020) Lessons learnt from easing COVID-19 restrictions: an analysis of countries and regions in Asia Pacific and Europe. Lancet 396(10261):7–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0140- 6736(20) 32007-9 Hanckel B, Chandra S (2021) Social media insights from sexuality and gender diverse young people dur- ing COVID-19. Western Sydney University, Sydney. https:// doi. org/ 10. 26183/ kvg0- 7s37 Hannah-Moffat K, O’Malley P (eds) (2007) Gendered risks. Routledge-Cavendish, London Hansard society (2020) How many coronavirus-related statutory instruments has the government laid before the UK Parliament? https:// www. hansa rdsoc iety. org. uk/ publi catio ns/ data/ coron avirus- statu tory- instr uments- dashb oard# total- coron avirus- sis. Accessed 5 Feb 2021 Hill S (2015) Axes of health inequalities and intersectionality. In: Smith KE, Bambra C, Hill S (eds) Health Inequalities: Critical Perspectives. Oxford University Press, pp 95–108 Honeyman M, Maguire D, Evans H and Davies A (2020) Digital technology and health inequalities: a scoping review. Public Health Wales NHS Trust. https:// phw. nhs. wales/ publi catio ns/ publi catio ns1/ digit al- techn ology- and- health- inequ aliti es-a- scopi ng- review/. Accessed 11 December 2020 House of Commons and House of Lords (2021) The Government response to COVID-19: fixed penalty notices (HC 1364 HL Paper 272). https:// commi ttees. parli ament. uk/ publi catio ns/ 5621/ docum ents/ 55581/ defau lt/. Accessed 10 May 2021 Jones O (2020) Coronavirus is not some great leveller: it is exacerbating inequality right now. The Guard- ian. https:// www. thegu ardian. com/ comme ntisf ree/ 2020/ apr/ 09/ coron avirus- inequ ality- manag ers- zoom- clean ers- offic es. Accessed 19 January 2020 Lashua B, Johnson CW, Parry C (2020) Leisure in the time of coronavirus: a rapid response special issue. Leis Sci 43(1-2):6–11. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01490 400. 2020. 17748 27 Leavey C, Eastaugh A, Kane M (2020) Generation COVID-19: building the case to protect young peo- ple’s future health. The Health Foundation. https:// www. health. org. uk/ publi catio ns/ long- reads/ gener ation- COVID- 19. Accessed 27 November 2020 Levita L (2020) Initial research findings on the impact of COVID-19 on the well-being of young people aged 13 to 24 in the UK. COVID-19 psychological research consortium (C19PRC). https:// www. rcpch. ac. uk/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ 2020- 08/ Impact% 20of% 20COV ID- 19% 20on% 20the% 20well- being% 1 3 490 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 20of% 20you ng% 20peo ple% 20aged% 2013% 20to% 2024% 20-% 20Uni versi ty% 20of% 20She ffield. pdf. Accessed 6 August 2020 LGBT Foundation (2020) Hidden figures: the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBT communities in the UK (3rd ed). https:// lgbt. found ation/ publi catio ns. Accessed 6 August 2020 Lisitsa E, Benjamin KS, Chun SK, Skalisky J, Hammond LE, Mezulis AH (2020) Loneliness among young adults during COVID-19 pandemic: the mediational roles of social media use and social sup- port seeking. J Soc Clin Psychol 39(8):708–726. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1521/ jscp. 2020. 39.8. 708 MacDonald R, Marsh J (2005) Disconnected youth?: growing up in Britain’s poor neighbourhoods. Pal- grave Macmillan, Basingstoke MacDonald R, Shildrick T (2007) Street corner society: leisure careers, youth (sub) culture and social exclusion. Leis Stud 26(3):339–355. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02614 36060 08348 26 MacDonald R, Shildrick T, Furlong A (2020) ‘Cycles of disadvantage’ revisited: young people, families and poverty across generations. J Youth Stud 23(1):12–27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13676 261. 2019. 17044 05 Marmot M, Allen J (2020) COVID-19: exposing and amplifying inequalities. J Epidemiol Community Health 74(9):681–682. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ jech- 2020- 214720 Mason M, Tanner M, Piacentini D, Freeman T, Anastasia W, Batat W, Boland W, Canbulut M, Drenten J, Hamby A, Rangan P (2013) Advancing a participatory approach for youth risk behavior: founda- tions, distinctions, and research directions. J Bus Res 66(8):1235–1241. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2012. 08. 017 McVie S (2020) Data report on police use of fixed penalty notices under the coronavirus regulations in Scotland. https:// www. under stand ing- inequ aliti es. ac. uk/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ Data% 20rep ort% 20on% 20Pol ice% 20Use% 20of% 20FPN% 20190 820. pdf. Accessed 11 December 2020 Measham F, Moore K (2008) The criminalisation of intoxication. In: Squires P (ed) ASBO nation: The criminalisation of nuisance. Policy Press, Bristol, pp 273–288 Metropolitan Police (2020) Stop and search dashboard. https:// www. met. police. uk/ sd/ stats- and- data/ met/ stopa nd- search- dashb oard/. Accessed 16 November 2020 Morris L (2002) Dangerous classes: the underclass and social citizenship. Routledge, London NHS Digital (2020) Mental health of children and young people in England, 2020: wave 1 follow up to the 2017 survey. NHS digital. https:// files. digit al. nhs. uk/ AF/ AECD6B/ mhcyp_ 2020_ rep_ v2. pdf. Accessed 11 December 2020 NPCC (2020) Update: Latest COVID-19 FPN data, and news about police recruitment drive. https:// news. npcc. police. uk/ relea ses/ police- chiefs- welco me- posit ive- start- to- recru itment- drive. Accessed 15 January 2021 NPCC (2021: FOI request) Freedom of information request reference number: 21/2021. 8.2.21 Nygren KG, Olofsson A, Öhman S (2020) Risk, inequality, and (post) structure: risk as governing. In: A Framework of Intersectional Risk Theory in the Age of Ambivalence. Critical Studies in Risk and Uncertainty. Palgrave Macmillan. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 030- 33524-3_3. O’Gorman A (2016) Chillin, buzzin, getting mangled, and coming down: doing differentiated normalisa- tion in risk environments. Drugs: Educ Prev Policy 23(3):247–254. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09687 637. 2016. 11769 91 Orben A, Tomova L, Blakemore SJ (2020) The effects of social deprivation on adolescent development and mental health. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S2352- 4642(20) 30186-3 Pearson G (1983) Hooligan: a history of respectable fears. Macmillan, London Pfaller L (2020) Theorizing the virus: abjection and the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Sociol Soc Policy 40(9):821–829 Pilkington H (2007) In good company: risk, security and choice in young people’s drug decisions. Sociol Rev 55(2):373–392. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 954X. 2007. 00710.x Ravn S, Duff C (2015) Putting the party down on paper: a novel method for mapping youth drug use in private settings. Health Place 31:124–132. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. healt hplace. 2014. 11. 010 Reicher S (2020) Blaming Covid ’rule-breakers’ is a distraction: support is needed, not fines. The Guard- ian. https:// www. thegu ardian. com/ comme ntisf ree/ 2020/ nov/ 04/ blami ng- covid- rule- break ers- suppo rt- fines- lockd own. Accessed 4 November 2020. Roberts K (2011) Leisure: the importance of being inconsequential. Leis Stud 30(1):5–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02614 367. 2010. 506650 Roberts K (2020) Locked down leisure in Britain. Leis Stud 39(5):617–628. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02614 367. 2020. 17919 37 1 3 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 491 Robinson C (2009) ‘Nightscapes and leisure spaces’: an ethnographic study of young people’s use of free space. J Youth Stud 12(5):501–514. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13676 26090 30816 57 Rosenthal DM, Ucci M, Heys M, Hayward A, Lakhanpaul M (2020) Impacts of COVID19 on vulnerable children in temporary accommodation in the UK. Lancet 5(5):E241–E242. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S2468- 2667(20) 30080-3 Ross G (2021) “It felt like this might never happen” Clubs reopen in Northern Ireland. Mixmag, London https:// mixmag. net/ read/ night clubs- reopen- north ern- irela nd- news. Accessed 6 November 2021 Selfridge M, Mitchell L, Greer A, Macdonald S, Pauly B (2020) “Accidental intimacies”: reconsider- ing bodily encounters between police and young people who use drugs. Contemp Drug Problems 7(3):231–250. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00914 50920 929101 Shields R (1991) Places on the margin: alternative geographies of modernity. Routledge, London Shiner M, Carre Z, Delsol R, Eastwood N (2018) The colour of injustice: ’race’, drugs and law enforce- ment in England and Wales. http:// eprin ts. lse. ac. uk/ 100751/ 1/ TheCo lourO fInju stice. pdf. Accessed 16 April 2021 Smith LE, Potts HW, Amlot R, Fear NT, Michie S, Rubin J (2020) Adherence to the test, trace and isolate system: results from a time series of 21 nationally representative surveys in the UK (the COVID-19 Rapid Survey of Adherence to Interventions and Responses [CORSAIR] study). medRxiv. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1101/ 2020. 09. 15. 20191 957 Swaine S, Spracklen K, Lashua BD (2018) Khat-chewing in liminal leisure spaces: British-Somali youth on the margins. Leis Stud 37:4,440–4,451 The Audience Agency (2021) COVID-19 Cultural participation monitor: inequalities through COVID- 19. Centre for Cultural Value/The Audience Agency. https:// www. theau dienc eagen cy. org/ asset/ 2696. Accessed 10 May 2021 Tulloch P, Lupton D (2003) Risk and everyday life. SAGE, London Turner V (1974) Liminal to liminoid, in play, flow, and ritual: an essay in comparative symbology. Rice Ins Pamphlet-Rice Univ Stud 60(3):53–92 Turner VW (1995) The ritual process: structure and anti-structure. Aldine de Gruyter, New York Wilkinson S (2015) Young people’s alcohol-related urban im/mobilities. In: Thurnell-Read T (ed) Drink- ing Dilemmas: Space, Culture and Identity. Routledge, London, pp 132–159 Woodrow N (2017) Exploring the risks, harms and pleasures of licit and illicit substance use: a study of young people in a South-Yorkshire town. Lancaster University, Lancashire. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17635/ lanca ster/ thesis/ 255 YoungMinds (2020a) Coronavirus: Impact on young people with mental health needs Survey 2: Summer 2020. https:// young minds. org. uk/ media/ 3904/ coron avirus- report- summer- 2020- final. pdf. Accessed 4 December 2020 YoungMinds (2020b) Coronavirus: Impact on young people with mental health needs. Survey 3: Autumn 2020 - return to school. https:// young minds. org. uk/ media/ 4119/ young minds- survey- with- young- people- retur ning- to- school- coron avirus- report- autumn- report. pdf. Accessed 4 December 2020 Authors and Affiliations 1 2 Nicholas Woodrow  · Karenza Moore School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, S1 4DA, Sheffield, England School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, King’s Gate, NEI 7RU, Newcastle upon Tyne, England 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Applied Youth Studies Springer Journals

The Liminal Leisure of Disadvantaged Young People in the UK Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/the-liminal-leisure-of-disadvantaged-young-people-in-the-uk-before-and-yv9jDVUx52

References (74)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2021
ISSN
2204-9193
eISSN
2204-9207
DOI
10.1007/s43151-021-00064-2
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The global COVID-19 pandemic has created, exposed and exacerbated inequali- ties and differences around access to—and experiences and representations of—the physical and virtual spaces of young people’s leisure cultures and practices. Draw- ing on longstanding themes of continuity and change in youth leisure scholarship, this paper contributes to our understandings of ‘liminal leisure’ as experienced by some young people in the UK before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. To do this, we place primary pre-pandemic research on disadvantaged young people’s lei- sure spaces and practices in dialogue with secondary data on lockdown and post- lockdown leisure. Subsequently, we argue that existing and emergent forms of youth ‘leisure liminality’ are best understood through the lens of intersectional disadvan- tages. Specifically, pre-existing intersectional disadvantages are being compounded by disruptions to youth leisure, as the upheaval of the pandemic continues to be differentially experienced. To understand this process, we deploy the concept of liminal leisure spaces used by Swaine et  al Leisure Studies 37:4,440-451, (2018) in their ethnography of Khat-chewing among young British Somali urban youth ‘on the margins’. Similarly, our focus is on young people’s management and nego- tiation of substance use ‘risks’, harms and pleasures when in ‘private-in-public’ lei- sure spaces. We note that the UK government responses to the pandemic, such as national and regional lockdowns, meant that the leisure liminality of disadvantaged young people pre-pandemic became the experience of young people more generally, with for example the closure of night-time economies (NTEs). Yet despite some temporary convergence, intersectionally disadvantaged young people ‘at leisure’ have been subject to a particularly problematic confluence of criminalisation, exclu - sion and stigmatisation in COVID-19 times, which will most likely continue into the post-pandemic future. Keywords Young people · Liminal leisure · Lockdown · COVID-19 * Karenza Moore Karenza.moore@newcastle.ac.uk Extended author information available on the last page of the article Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 476 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 Introduction Despite the COVID-19 pandemic being described as a ‘great leveller’ (Jones 2020), there is emerging evidence that its differentiated negative impacts reflect and exacerbate underlying inequalities (Marmot and Allen 2020) and re-estab- lish exclusionary social hierarchies (Pfaller 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the disadvantaged positions from which many young people must negoti- ate not only their education and employment transitions, but also their participa- tion in leisure (The Audience Agency 2021). Leisure participation exclusion is being exacerbated by the intersecting crises of the COVID-19 pandemic, chronic underinvestment in state provision and related services and access to safe play and leisure facilities (Children’s Commissioner 2020a, b). The response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK and beyond (Han et  al. 2020) has seen national and regional lockdowns restricting people’s activities and movements through stay-at-home instructions enforced through emergency legal powers (Greene 2020). In spring 2020, nearly all UK leisure spaces outside the home closed, with opportunities for leisure, or rather leisure involving physical proximity, essen- tially stopped. Paradoxically, despite leisure spaces closing, available leisure time increased for some (Bond et al. 2020). Leisure plays an ‘essential’ role in young people’s lives and wellbeing (Lashua et al. 2020; Roberts 2011). Evidence is now emerging of the largely negative impact of restrictions and lockdown leisure upon young people’s wellbeing (Roberts 2020; NHS Digital 2020). Those with existing mental health conditions have been particularly affected (YoungMinds 2020a). Worryingly this is set against the backdrop of a perpetual crisis in the NHS’s Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) capacity and provision (Children’s Commissioner 2020b), suggesting increased challenges for those working with young people in already stretched services. Lockdown restrictions, socioeconomic conditions and future uncertainties have contributed to feelings of anxiety, loneliness and isolation in the context of a loss of coping mechanisms, most notably social support outside the family ‘unit’ (YoungMinds 2020b; Lisitsa et  al. 2020). Such conditions may have detrimental long-term impacts for young people’s health and wellbeing (Orben et al. 2020). During the pandemic, young people have been ordered to ‘stay at home’ to stay safe (Cabinet Office 2020). However, this ignores how access to safe and secure home spaces is profoundly shaped by socioeconomic disadvantage and inequality (Rosenthal et  al. 2020). Indeed, some young people are expected to navigate living, working and/or studying from home in cramped, unsuitable, and unsafe housing (Leavey et al. 2020; Rosenthal et al. 2020). Similarly, the removal of physical ‘safe spaces’ of leisure and social interaction such as youth clubs, school/college/university or simply the streets, alongside inequitable access to virtual technologies and spaces (Honeyman et  al. 2020), has proved particularly problematic for some young people (LGBT Foundation 2020), although invalua- ble for others (Hanckel and Chandra 2021). Through differentiated experiences of lockdown, including inequitable efforts to monitor and control youth ‘at leisure’ (Gabriel et al. 2021), the COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted uncomfortable and 1 3 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 477 neglected truths about inequalities, namely, that not all young people have unlim- ited access to technologies and digital forms of social interaction and that not all young people have safe spaces at home or even safe homes. When the UK entered lockdown enforced by legislation on 23rd March 2020, any social gathering indoors and outdoors became ambiguous and ‘suspect’. COVID- 19 measures have been in place in some form across the UK between March 2020 to November 2021, with oscillations between strict lockdown measures and partial reopening of licensed leisure spaces, dependent ostensibly on COVID-19 rates in geographical locations. The police were granted a variety of powers to punish lock- down infringements such as protests, demonstrations, vigils, socialising in streets, parks, house parties, free parties, illegal raves and illegal pay parties. During lock- down in England and Wales, police could dispense a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) to those deemed to be breaching ‘the rules’, starting at £200, rising to £6,400, with fines up to £10,000 for large gatherings or parties (Cabinet Office 2020). In Janu- ary 2021, the UK government announced new fines for COVID-19 house parties (of more than 15 people) starting at £800 (BBC News 2021). As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, albeit in a changed form given the UK vaccine programme (November 2021), we have seen continued disruption to licit and illicit youth leisure spaces and practices, including licensed venue closures, vaccine passport legislation and further anti-rave legislation. Some leisure venues such as nightclubs in North- ern Ireland have been shut for a 20-month period (Ross 2021). However, exclusion does not eradicate the desire for leisure, nor does the regulation of space prevent lei- sure practices, including substance use. Despite associated health and enforcement risks, young people continued to socialise in lockdown (Lashua et al. 2020; Roberts 2020). Young people’s differentiated responses to lockdown measures which were framed by the UK press as irresponsible and reckless (BBC News 2020) may be less ‘rebellion’ and more ‘reaction’ to continued conditions of exclusion, social isolation and loneliness (YoungMinds 2020a, 2020b). For some young people, ‘safe’ leisure remains unavailable, and available leisure possesses new ‘risks’ to be managed. Understanding what the COVID-19 pandemic means for disadvantaged young people’s leisure presents a considerable challenge. However, youth studies scholar- ship has long been concerned with what it means to be young and disadvantaged (MacDonald and Marsh 2005; MacDonald et al. 2020). Young people’s experiences in the pre-pandemic era therefore help us understand manifestations of disadvantage in COVID-19 times and beyond. This is how we might avoid the ‘covidisation’ (a single lens) of research, without ignoring the intersections of the COVID-19 pan- demic with other crises in youth transitions and cultures. To foreground continuity and change, we combine findings from a pre-pandemic study exploring disadvan- taged young people’s risk perceptions and practices (Woodrow 2017), with more recent ethnographic observations of youth leisure practices as well as media repre- sentations of youth ‘at leisure’ during the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). The latter are part of an ongoing longitudinal mixed methods study of young people’s illicit drug use practices in a range of public and private/domestic spaces by Moore. In so doing, we place primary pre-pandemic research around disadvantaged young people’s leisure spaces and practices in dialogue with secondary data on lockdown leisure. On these combined foundations, we offer our thoughts on enduring and 1 3 478 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 emergent ‘risks’, harms and pleasures of leisure spaces and related practices. At this juncture, we note that psychoactive substance use is a particularly important focus especially when illicit—as with street drinking or cannabis use—as young people may retreat to liminal leisure spaces to ‘stay safe’ from ‘risks’ such as police atten- tion. We discuss how some young people have been portrayed and treated as ‘risky’, how they have been policed and how they manage and negotiate their leisure and substance use practices before and during COVID-19 times. Intersectional Perspectives on Youth Leisure The past few decades have seen a shift in how inequalities are theorised, with an appreciation of the interplay or intersections between the privileges and disadvan- tages, and opportunities and constraints, apparent in non-essentialist inclusionary models of ‘identity’ (Collins and Bilge 2020; Hill 2015). Intersectionality was first deployed as a metaphor and developed into a powerful analytical concept by the Black legal feminist scholar Kimberle Williams Crenshaw (1989, 1991). Intersec- tionality seeks to explore and understand the effects of systems of inequality upon the most marginalised (Collins and Bilge 2020) and to look beyond notions of the individual as being subject to (dis)advantage in an ‘additive’ way. Intersectionality may be used then to appreciate interactions between (dis)advantages, whilst avoid- ing deploying it ‘as a theory of double or multiple oppression based on a positivist approach to categories (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexuality, dis- ability, age, citizenship)’ (Carastathis 2016:4). Instead of an additive or multiplicity approach to disadvantage, we use intersectionality as a provisional concept (Cren- shaw 1991; Carastathis 2014) to ‘think about how we think’ (Carastathis 2016:4) about how some young people ‘at leisure’ are produced as problematic social cat- egories by those with the power to define, dominate and control (Blackman and Rogers 2017; Gabriel et al. 2021). This enables an exploration of how young peo- ple’s leisure and related practices such as substance use are shaped by intersectional disadvantages and how in turn intersecting crises may (re)produce further ‘risks’ and harms to those already experiencing these disadvantages, ‘risks’ which must be negotiated and managed by the young people in  situ. An example of how the COVID-19 pandemic has intensified existing disadvantages is the exacerbated risk of involvement in the criminal justice system resulting from the differential polic- ing of poor black urban communities around both illegal drugs and COVID-19 laws (House of Commons/House of Lords 2021). Intersectionality as a provisional con- cept can help explore the complexity and diversity of young people’s leisure experi- ences, especially in COVID-19 times, and help explain how these experiences are shaped by relational positions of intersectional (dis)advantage and marginalisation. Echoing wider debates around the cultural and structural influences upon the lives of young people (MacDonald et  al. 2020), disadvantaged young people have long been excluded from various leisure spaces, for example, the commercialised licensed venues of night-time economies (NTE). Intersectional disadvantages pro- duce systematic patterns of inclusion and exclusion, shaping young people’s leisure participation (Wilkinson 2015). At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, youth 1 3 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 479 leisure exclusion was experienced more broadly by young people. Indeed, control measures and restrictions on legal licensed NTE leisure spaces in the UK such as night-time curfews and the closure of all pubs, bars, restaurants and nightclubs (Coronavirus Act 2020), as well as on unsupervised leisure spaces used by young people—such as private domestic spaces, flat and house parties (Ravn and Duff 2015), and public spaces, streets and parks (Robinson 2009)—resulted in ever more intense public, media and police scrutiny. In this, those experiencing leisure exclu- sion based on intersectional disadvantages have been particularly vulnerable to the criminalisation of social interaction in public and semi-public spaces (Brown 2013) and the proactive policing of drugs before and during the UK lockdown (Measham and Moore 2008; Metropolitan Police 2020). This is supported by a House of Com- mons/House of Lords (2021) report which concludes the way in which Fixed Pen- alty Notices (FPNs) have been used during the pandemic disproportionately penal- ises certain groups according to age, gender, race/ethnicity and social deprivation (see below for further discussion). A key continuity here is the historical positioning of some young people as simultaneously ‘at risk’ and ‘risky’, particularly those from racialised minority groups. A key change has been the UK government attempts to limit—and criminalise—much social interaction for a public health good and the negative implications of this criminalisation for young people. In COVID-19 times, whilst everyone is ‘at risk’ and ‘risky’, young people are represented as riskier than others, especially when ‘at leisure’, with this negative positionality commonly attrib- uted to our most intersectionally disadvantaged young people. Continuity and Change: the Pre‑pandemic North of England Town Study of Disadvantaged Young People ‘at Leisure’ The pre-pandemic study this paper draws upon explored the leisure practices and substance use, as well wider negotiation of employment transitions, of a sample of socioeconomically disadvantaged young people in a Northern Town in England (Woodrow 2017). Falling in the lowest quintile of the 2019 English indices of mul- tiple deprivation, and similar to post-industrial areas nationally and internation- ally (O’Gorman 2016), the data collection site had a range of interconnected dep- rivations including: poverty; high levels of youth unemployment; poor educational attainment; high crime rates; and poor health profiles. Data collection took place between April 2015 and January 2016 and included observations in participants’ public leisure spaces, in-depth interviews and short anonymous surveys with young people aged between 14 and 24. The pre-pandemic study produced 24 in depth inter- views with 27 young people lasting between 20 and 80 min. Data was transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Ninety-two percent of the sample was White British male, with many completing education or beginning to seek employment. Over 90% were living at their parental/family homes (Woodrow 2017). Young people were recruited for participation in the pre-pandemic study dur- ing youth service outreach work sessions in public leisure spaces, with face-to-face interviews conducted in local public spaces such as cafes. Despite initial enthusiasm for participation, it proved challenging to secure interviews with young people, with 1 3 480 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 many not attending arranged meetings, as due to the level of disadvantage, many participants did not have mobile phones or credit to allow meetings to be confirmed or altered. The challenges of engaging and accessing young people have been fur- ther exacerbated through COVID-19 restrictions, as some young people became close to ‘unreachable’ to youth researchers and youth workers (see below for fur- ther discussion). In the pre-pandemic study, to ensure that the perspectives and experiences of such young people were not missed, data was also collected through observations and recorded informal conversations in public leisure spaces. Surveys were also undertaken as in situ structured interviews, enabling conversation between the researcher and participant(s) during completion. This provided rich data, and the opportunity to observe interactions between young people in their own leisure spaces, again much missed by youth researchers and outreach workers during the pandemic. Risk Perceptions of the ‘Risky’ and ‘at Risk’: Then and Now The North of England town study explored disadvantaged young people’s risk perceptions around substance use in mainly street-based leisure spaces and times (Woodrow 2017). The concept of ‘risk’ has become a central feature of contempo- rary society and has been used to frame all aspects of young people’s lives, includ- ing leisure spaces and practices (Bengtsson and Ravn 2018). It is crucial to reflect on the concept of ‘risk’ to engage critically with this framing. ‘Risk’ has typically been understood through a rational actor model, where ‘risky practices’ are seen to be undertaken by young people due to naive lack of awareness or misunderstandings of associated issues (Mason et  al. 2013). This rationalist framework has informed dominant understandings of young people’s leisure practices including substance use but has been widely critiqued (Tulloch and Lupton 2003). In contrast, a socio- cultural risk framework sees ‘risk’ as being embedded in social and cultural contexts (Pilkington 2007). This perspective foregrounds social and cultural contexts and meanings to better understand young people’s engagement with risks, harms and pleasures and ‘risky practices’ (Graham et al. 2018). Further, recent developments in intersectional risk theory (Nygren et al. 2020) drawing on feminist and Foucauldian understandings of gendered risks (Hannah-Moffat and O’Malley 2007) helps youth scholars identify ways in which ‘risk’ governance and regulation regimes such as drug prohibition (re)produce inequalities among young people. The North of England town study participants conceptualised risks, harms and pleasures of their leisure and substance use practices—as well as their engagement with authority—primarily as being personal, immediate, acute and tangible, rather than abstract, potential, future-situated, chronic and long-term. Practices that were not perceived to be associated with such ‘immediate’ issues were differentiated as less risky, irrespective of their potential for long-term harm, tobacco consump- tion being one clear example. The participants held potentially erroneous beliefs around their abilities to avoid negative and long-term harms such as criminalisation (discussed below), with such beliefs shaping their current and future leisure prac- tices. How and where our participants located ‘risk’ for example within a specific 1 3 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 481 substance, practice and/or place, how they perceived associated pleasures and how they accessed and engaged with ‘risk media’ (lay and expert knowledge) were cru- cial to its negotiation. We suggest that applying this conceptualisation to young peo- ple’s leisure practices more generally in COVID-19 times can help us understand young people’s heterogeneous responses to lockdown and later post-pandemic leisure landscapes as nuanced, relational and shaped by intersectional disadvan- tages. Emerging research for example suggests that young males took more health ‘risks’ during lockdowns and were more likely to break lockdown rules than young women (Smith et al. 2020), with ‘risk’ beliefs around lower susceptibility to catch- ing COVID-19 and spreading the virus shaping this (Levita 2020). Appreciating young people’s conceptualisations of ‘risks’ as being largely focused on the immedi- ate (now) rather than potential (in ‘the future’) helps explain some young people’s adherence or otherwise to social distancing and lockdown measures and continued engagement with lockdown leisure spaces and practices (see also Clark et al. 2020). Young people have historically been constructed as simultaneously possess- ing and posing ‘risk’, with their leisure practices posing a long-standing concern (Blackman and Rogers 2017). Public, semi-public and private/domestic youth lei- sure spaces such as street corners, nightclubs and bedrooms are key sociospatial sites where young people produce subjectivities (Roberts 2011), make connec- tions (Abbott-Chapman and Robertson 2015) and experience intoxication (Ander and Wilińska 2020; Robinson 2009). The use of unsupervised and informal public spaces by young people—especially what Auge (1995) called non-places or tempo- rary border zones such as doorways and staircases—has historically produced anxi- eties and been framed as undesirable, contentious and antisocial. They are often the focus of regulation, notably when associated with ‘risky practices’ such as substance use (Blackman 2011; Blackman and Rogers 2017; Brown 2013; Pearson 1983). It is worth remembering that (drug) policy enactment is used to practice social control on young adults in the spaces they inhabit (Gabriel et  al. 2021). The liminal lei- sure spaces of young British-Somali men in which illicit Khat-chewing takes place are the focus of Swaine et  al.’s (2018) ethnographic study . Drawing on theories of social spatialisation which position spaces as sites or zones with values, repre- sentations and meanings (Shields 1991), Swaine et  al. (2018) note how the young men occupied leisure spaces/times (a public stairwell is mentioned) which—being ‘betwixt and between’ (Turner 1995:95, Turner 1974) or hidden/visible—enmeshed both backstage and frontstage leisure practices, amounting to ‘the expression of secret activities in communal settings’ (Swaine et  al. 2018:444) or what we might characterise as ‘private-in-public’. This draws on Erving Goffman’s concept of ‘the outside’, a third residual region or liminal space which acts both as semi-public front and semi-public backstage (Goffman 1959). As COVID-19 rules proliferated Khat (Catha edulis) is a shrub-like narcotic consumed for recreational purposes as a mild stimulant by cultures primarily located in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. In the UK, it is predom- inately consumed by British Somali men, although its use among young men is culturally prohibited (Swaine et al. 2018). In 2014 Khat was classified as a Class C substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, prompting concerns among drug policy change campaigners about the criminalisation of a specific population. 1 3 482 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 through the UK’s Coronavirus Act (2020), related statutory instruments (Hansard Society 2020) and emergency powers (Greene 2020), young people’s leisure prac- tices, in particular the use of public, private-in-public and domestic/private spaces, drew pejorative discourse, moving beyond the illicit and undesirable towards the illegal and ‘Covidiotic’. Indeed, young people have been vilified and stigmatised as reckless pleasure seekers and rule breaking disease spreaders, who are irrational and negligent of their potential threat to wider public health (BBC News 2020; Reicher 2020). We now turn to data which suggests that this vilification and criminalisation has fallen most heavily on the shoulders of our most intersectionally disadvantaged young people experiencing enduring leisure exclusions in COVID-19 times, mirror- ing pre-pandemic trends. ‘COVID Secure’? Enduring Differentiated Youth Leisure Exclusions The UK’s national and regional lockdowns and their proactive policing proliferated experiences of being ‘stuck at home’ with few legitimate accessible social spaces and activities (Adey et  al. 2021). The liminal leisure status which intersectionally disadvantaged young people such as those in Woodrow’s study experienced pre- COVID-19 through social, cultural and geographical exclusions was experienced by young people more generally. However, more affluent young people were better placed to navigate lockdown rules and ‘safely’ socialise through technologies or in private houses/gardens, whilst digital inequalities and housing precarity resulted in disadvantaged young people being largely unable to socialise in this way (Rosenthal et al. 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the extent of inequalities around access to inside, outside and virtual spaces of youth leisure. Inequalities in both access to and use of technology contribute to the digital exclusion of disadvantaged young people which inhibits the social benefits of online participation (Honeyman et  al. 2020). Disadvantages intersect with wider crises, perpetuating inequalities through inhibited sociotechnical participation. Digital technologies have long been mooted as an inclusion panacea for young people seen as being part of a ‘digital generation’ (Buckingham and Willett 2013). However, this position fails to rec- ognise that digital-leisure engagement can exclude as effectively as it includes. In COVID-19 times, young people experiencing intersectional disadvantages are vul- nerable to digital-leisure exclusions, with virtual alternatives such as online party spaces and meetings only available to those on the ‘right’ side of the digital divide. Indeed, whilst digital spaces and virtual play saw increased participation during lockdowns (Lashua et al. 2020), the most disadvantaged young people are still not afforded the unrestricted ability to access digital spaces for socialisation. The stop-start partial-reopening of the UK hospitality industry saw restrictions implemented to make leisure participation ‘COVID-secure’ (Cabinet Office 2020). This spawned a number of licensed socially distanced parties, such as Social Ave- nue in Manchester, where attendees were invited to ‘Come and dance at a distance, TOGETHER’. Such events provided leisure opportunities for young people who had the capital required to purchase event tickets, whilst limiting and excluding many disadvantaged young people. This highlights a prominent dimension of inclusion 1 3 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 483 and exclusion from leisure activities and space being orientated around socioeco- nomic characteristics, evident in Woodrow’s pre-COVID-19 study (see also Batche- lor et al. 2017), with financial resources allowing participation in ‘good’ legal, com- mercial recreational activities and spaces that more disadvantaged young people are excluded from. For Woodrow’s young people living in pre-COVID-19 times, there were a variety of inexpensive and often free activities available and engaged with such as hanging out in the park/on the streets. However, youth participation in these liminal leisure spaces during COVID-19 lockdowns was prohibited and vigorously policed. As the primary means of young people’s participation in partying moved to virtual and/or expensive COVID-secure physical spaces, the exclusion of the most disadvantaged was perpetuated, with leisure liminality emergent through intersect- ing disadvantages and the differential impacts of lockdown restrictions. Substance Use, Liminal Leisure Spaces and Policing On reflection, the COVID-19 pandemic and intersecting crises are highlighting precisely what intersectional disadvantage entails in terms of leisure engagement: differentiated youth leisure exclusions. The following quotes from Woodrow’s pre- pandemic study highlight how the socioeconomic positions of intersectionally dis- advantaged young people enable and constrain leisure practices in complex ways: You’re at that certain age aren’t you where you want to do stuff but you can’t, either you’re too young or too skint. (Frank aged 21) Like we sit outside bus station, which looks sad, but that’s like our park, do you know what I mean? Where else is there to go? (Ben aged 19) In the pre-pandemic study, ‘free time’ did not necessarily equate to freedom to engage in unrestricted leisure. Here, leisure practices were bound by intersectional disadvantages of age and economic inequality, resulting in the adoption of ‘alterna- tive’ leisure practices in liminal spaces. Similarly, throughout the pandemic, we have seen an increase in leisure time for many young people, but a reduction in leisure opportunities more generally (Roberts 2020). The young people in Woodrow’s study engaged with their liminal spaces, ascribing them with meaning, and claiming even- ing/night-time ownership of (ostensibly) public space through their participation and ‘place making’ practices such as collective music consumption and playing sports. There was an acute understanding of how the use of such spaces and practices had associated negative perceptions and implications. Despite this, young people still engaged in such leisure spaces, often actively defending their leisure practices: We’re just normal, we don’t do anything daft, but because we’re on the streets they make out we’re all criminals and druggies trying to cause trouble. (Cam- eron aged 19) For Woodrow’s sample, the leisure practices emergent in such spaces engaged friendship groups and provided valued informal social support, helping to ameliorate 1 3 484 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 the pressures, stresses and anxieties of their lives (see also MacDonald and Shildrick 2007; Robinson 2009): It’s just same shit, different day, so you just have some weed with your mates, and it’s just nice to forget about it for a while. (Barry aged 18) We just hang about around park, that’s all we do, chilling and that. If you’re with your mates having a laugh you’re not thinking about stuff. (Oliver aged 18) Public space for intersectionally disadvantaged young people is a key—and some- times even the only—source of ‘private’ leisure space. Indeed, the loss of this space due to lockdown rules meant the loss of private-in-public leisure spaces for many, alongside the benefits they provide. For the young people in Woodrow’s study, leisure time was focused on street-based socialising, with substance use being an accepted and pleasurable part of their leisure activities (see also O’Gorman 2016): We just hang about, there’s nothing to do, let’s get stoned and have a laugh, all your mates are there, let’s have a laugh. (Anthony aged 18) Substance use in public spaces such as the streets was discussed by pre-pandemic study participants as a pleasurable activity, but one associated with specific ‘risks’ (see also Batchelor et  al. 2017). Such risks included social embarrassment from erroneous use, and police surveillance and ‘hassle’ such as having substances con- fiscated, being ‘moved-on’ or sent home. They were not framed in terms of potential health harms or long-term implications from convictions: It doesn’t look good does it, like when you see people drinking in the park now you just think “what are you doing with yourself”, and bobbies come and you get it took off you so there’s no point. (Todd aged 19) All they [police] do it take if off you, if you’re acting like an idiot, but they don’t bother with us because they know we’re not going to do anything stupid. (Anthony aged 18) Further, potential risk and harms ‘in the future’ such as criminal records were not a prominent feature of their appraisals. Instead, previous and potential ‘hassle’ from the police shaped leisure practices, resulting in the use of more ‘hidden’ pub- lic space—or private-in-public spaces—for their leisure practices, away from poten- tial surveillance. This is understandable given that substance use in public spaces is widely subjected to formal and informal control mechanisms (Selfridge et al. 2020). Indeed, due to various intersecting disadvantages, the young people in the pre-pan- demic study were not able to retreat into private houses and virtual spaces for leisure when faced with surveillance, regulation and social control measures. Instead, they sought out and managed their use of available leisure spaces with private-in-public potential, negotiating the ‘risks’ that accompanied these: You don’t want to be buzzing off your tits in the bus station do you…better off at a house party, but if there’s nothing on, nothing for us to go to, you’re just like fuck it. (Oliver aged 18) 1 3 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 485 Enduring risks and harms from proactive policing and drug law enforcement, newly combined with coronavirus laws and rules, must be managed and negoti- ated by young people, notably by those already intersectionally disadvantaged. In COVID-19 times, Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) against people breaking lock- down rules in Scotland have been issued disproportionately in the most deprived communities, with people in the ten most deprived communities being up to 12 times more likely to be issued an FPN (McVie 2020). Clear gender intersections were also evident, with men being three times more likely than women to be issued a FPN for breaking lockdown rules (McVie 2020). Indeed, data obtained from a Freedom of Information Request to the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) on FPN across England and Wales from 26th March 2020 to 1st Janu- ary 2021 (NPCC 2021: FOI request) showed the majority of FPN (72%) being issued to men. Further, data for England and Wales between March 2020 and Jan- uary 2021 showing 43% of FPN were issued to people aged 18–24 (NPCC 2021: FOI request). This shows an increase in the proportion of FPN issued to young people from earlier data between March 2020 and April 2020 when 36% of FPN were issued to people aged 18–24 (NPCC 2020). Mirroring drug law enforce- ment inequities (Shiner et al. 2018), data for FPN for England and Wales between March and May 2020 show Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups being disproportionately affected, with FPN rates for BAME groups being 1.6 times higher than for White groups (Currenti and Flatley 2020). Further, BAME young men (aged 18–34) were twice as likely than White young men to be issued a FPN (ibid). Highly ‘visible’ groups of disadvantaged young people ‘hanging out’ in non-NTE spaces, as those in the pre-pandemic study did, are typically subject to police scrutiny disproportionate to their criminal or anti-social activ- ity. Subject to increased attention from authorities and laws prohibiting assem- bly, intersectionally disadvantaged young people remain especially vulnerable to the criminalisation and stigmatisation of social interaction emergent during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 has heralded continuity through the familiar presentation of disadvan- taged youth as ‘problem population’ alongside changes in the ‘risk’ environments of some young people. Socialisation in public and private spaces is subject to intense public and police scrutiny and increased police targeting and harassment of youth (Selfridge et al. 2020). State intervention in the lives of young people to ‘control’ their practices within the leisure spaces they create and attend is nothing new. Classic UK studies have demonstrated that policing serves as a means of exercising social con- trol over undesirable youth (Pearson 1983; Morris 2002). Recent attempts to regulate UK young people’s leisure practices through hefty fines (BBC News 2020, 2021), and increases in the proportion of FPN being issued to young people as outlined above, highlight continued attempts at social control of youth ‘at leisure’. Criminological scholars have critiqued the un-reflexive use of FPN based on new coronavirus legisla- tion (Grace 2020). Disproportionate use of FPN upon young people highlights the viru- lent targeting of police practices. Intersectional disadvantages are being compounded by profound disruptions to already precarious youth cultures and associated leisure spaces. The COVID-19 crisis is accelerating the narrowing of young people’s ‘safe’ 1 3 486 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 leisure opportunities through the exacerbation of existing differentiated leisure exclu- sions and the enduring proactive policing of youth sociability and intoxication practices (Measham and Moore 2008). Challenges and Implications of Research and Youth Work in Young People’s Leisure Spaces Research with young people in their leisure spaces is crucial, as it allows rich, nuanced experiences and localised variations in practices to be captured. Young people in Woodrow’s pre-COVID-19 study were accessed through attending established in-per- son outreach youth work, which sought to engage young people not typically in contact with services in their public and public-in-private leisure spaces and times. Access was enabled through Woodrow’s partial insider status as an outreach worker in the data col- lection site, and experience growing up in the local area. Whilst the research would not have been impossible to complete without this access, it would have been diffi- cult and time-consuming to establish presence and trust without these structures and experiences being in place. The young people in the pre-COVID-19 study were forced into more ‘hidden’ public spaces and, when possible, into private/domestic spaces due to their illicit leisure practices, making research and access challenging. From our experiences of working in youth and drug outreach, this raises concerns around youth substance use practices and the negotiation of ‘risks’ in the rapidly changing leisure landscape of COVID-19 times and beyond. The impacts of COVID-19 upon inter- sectionally disadvantaged young people’s leisure through lockdown rules and police scrutiny alongside young people moving into more hidden and ‘hard to reach’ physi- cal and virtual spaces mean that access to young people to understand their experi- ences becomes more challenging. Having leisure spaces limited, removed, stigmatised and criminalised has a profound effect on young people’s mental health and wellbeing (Roberts 2020; NHS Digital 2020). This impact upon young people’s long-term well- being is a pressing concern for youth studies and youth work. However, youth research and youth work on the impact of the pandemic on young people has been curtailed by measures meant to manage the risk of COVID-19 to the UK wider population, such as minimising in-person interactions, as experienced during Woodrow’s recent research with young people in the Public Health field. This may be described as the ‘covidisa- tion’ of youth research, where the ‘risks’ young people are thought to present to others are assumed to be in greater need of mitigation than the risks of not doing research and youth work with them. Intersectionally disadvantaged young people ‘at leisure’ are then subject to a particularly problematic confluence of criminalisation, exclusion and stigmatisation in COVID-19 times, a pernicious trend to be countered by youth researchers, youth workers and young people themselves. 1 3 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 487 Conclusion The position and positioning of young people in COVID-19 times combines strains of continuity and change. Foregrounding continuity and change means not exploring everything solely through the lens of COVID-19, however tempting that may be in ‘unprecedented times’. In exploring the continuities as well as changes in youth lei- sure experiences, differentiated according to intersectional disadvantages apparent prior to and during the pandemic, we hope to have highlighted opportunities to use insights from pre-pandemic studies to understand the contemporary context. This includes the interdisciplinary intersections of youth studies and criminology which pay attention to the policing of those young people inhabiting liminal leisure spaces who are largely excluded from legal commercialised leisure spaces. Leisure limi- nality is exacerbated by intersectional disadvantages, compounded by disruptions to youth leisure spaces and practices given the COVID-19 pandemic and the UK government responses to it. The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened intersectional disadvantages in youth leisure, notably the differential availability or otherwise of public, private-in-public, private/domestic and virtual spaces. Lockdown restrictions have meant that the leisure liminality of disadvantaged young people pre-pandemic through economic, sociocultural and geographical exclusions temporarily emerged as the experience of young people more generally. However, whilst all young people must manage their desire for pleasure and leisure in a context of social distancing, digital divides, rising NTE participation costs and proactive policing, some remain better placed than others to negotiate ‘risks’ and potential harms from criminalisa- tion for example. Indeed, young people experiencing intersectional disadvantages are especially susceptible to differentiated leisure exclusions and the criminalisation of social interaction in COVID-19 times and beyond. Drawing on pre-COVID-19 work with intersectionally disadvantaged young people, we note how when subject to increased policing and social control measures illicit leisure practices were not abandoned but moved to more liminal leisure spaces, with implications for con- necting with such young people. The continuation of existing leisure exclusions and the emergence of novel forms in youth leisure landscapes post-pandemic presents a unique challenge to those researching and working with intersectionally disadvan- taged young people for whom leisure—‘chilling and that’—remains essential. Funding NW’s PhD study was funded by an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) studentship. KM’s longitudinal study was partially funded by the University of Salford’s small grant scheme. Availability of Data and Material Data are available upon reasonable request. Code Availability Not applicable. Declarations Ethics Approval NW’s PhD study was approved by the Lancaster University Ethics Committee. KM’s longitudinal study was approved by the University of Salford Ethics Committee. Consent to Participate Written informed consent was obtained from all participants in NW’s PhD study. 1 3 488 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 Consent for Publication Written consent included consent for publication of the findings and the use of anonymised quotations in publications. Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Abbott-Chapman J, Robertson M (2015) Youth leisure, places, spaces and identity. In: Gammon S, Elk- ington S (eds) Landscapes of leisure: Space, place and identities. Springer, Hampshire, pp 123–134 Adey P, Hannam K, Sheller M, Tyfield D (2021) Pandemic (im)mobilities. Mobilities 16(1):1–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17450 101. 2021. 18728 71 Ander B, Wilińska M (2020) “We are not like those who/…/sit in the woods and drink”: the making of drinking spaces by youth. Qual Soc Work 19(3):424–439. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14733 25020 Auge M (1995) Non-places: Introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity. Verso, London Batchelor S, Whittaker L, Fraser A, Li L (2017) Leisure lives on the margins:(Re) imagining youth in Glasgow’s East end. In: Blackman S, Rogers R (eds) Youth Marginality in Britain: contemporary studies of austerity. Policy Press, Bristol, pp 117–131 BBC News (2020) Coronavirus: young people breaking rules risk ‘second wave’. https:// www. bbc. co. uk/ news/ newsb eat- 54056 771. Accessed 7 September 2020 BBC News (2021) Covid: £800 house party fines to be introduced in England. https:// www. bbc. co. uk/ news/ uk- 55757 807. Accessed 21 January 2021 Bengtsson T, Ravn S (2018) Youth, risk, routine: a new perspective on risk-taking in young lives. Rout- ledge, London Blackman S (2011) Rituals of intoxication: young people, drugs, risk and leisure. In: Bramham P, Wagg S (eds) The New Politics of Leisure and Pleasure. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 97–118 Blackman S, Rogers R (2017) Critically theorising young adult marginality: historical and contemporary perspectives. In: Blackman S, Rogers R (eds) Youth marginality in Britain: Contemporary studies of austerity. Bristol University Press, Bristol, pp 3–22 Bond A, Widdop P, Cockayne D, Parnell D (2020) Prosumption, networks and value during a global pandemic: lockdown leisure and COVID-19. Leis Sci 43(1-2):70–77. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01490 400. 2020. 17739 85 Brown D (2013) Young people, anti-social behaviour and public space: the role of community wardens in policing the ‘ASBO generation’. Urban Stud 50(3):538–555. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00420 98012 Buckingham D, Willett R (eds) (2013) Digital generations: children, young people, and the new media. Routledge, London Cabinet Office (2020) New National Restrictions from 5 November. https:// www. gov. uk/ guida nce/ new- natio nal- restr ictio ns- from-5- novem ber. Accessed 4 December 2020 Carastathis A (2014) Reinvigorating intersectionality as a provisional concept. In: Goswami N, O’Donovan M, Yount L (eds) Why race and gender still matter: an intersectional approach. Picker- ing & Chatto, London, pp 59–70 Carastathis A (2016) Intersectionality: origins, contestations, horizons. University of Nebraska Press, Nebraska 1 3 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 489 Children’s Commissioner (2020a) Report of the children’s commissioner of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. https:// www. child rensc ommis sioner. gov. uk/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2020/ 12/ cco- uncrc- report. pdf. Accessed 4 December 2020 Children’s Commissioner (2020b) The state of children’s mental health services. https:// www. child rensc ommis sioner. gov. uk/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2020/ 01/ cco- the- state- of- child rens- mental- health- servi ces. pdf. Accessed 4 December 2020 Clark C, Davila A, Regis M, Kraus S (2020) Predictors of COVID-19 voluntary compliance behaviors: an international investigation. Global Transitions 2:76–82. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. glt. 2020. 06. 003 Collins P, Bilge S (2020) Intersectionality, 2nd edn. Polity Press, Cambridge Coronavirus Act (2020) https:// www. legis lation. gov. uk/ ukpga/ 2020/7/ conte nts. Accessed 29 April 2021 Crenshaw K (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of anti- discrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, Chicago Crenshaw K (1991) Mapping the margins: identity politics, intersectionality, and violence against women. Stanford Law Rev 43(6):1241–1299 Currenti R, Flatley J (2020) Policing the pandemic: detailed analysis on police enforcement of the pub- lic health regulations and an assessment on disproportionality across ethnic groups. NPCC. https:// www . nor t h yor k s hir e- pfcc. gov . uk/ conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2020/ 07/ P olic ing- t he- P ande mic- NPCC. pdf. Accessed 11 December 2020 Gabriel MG, Brown A, León M, Outley C (2021) Power and social control of youth during the COVID- 19 pandemic. Leis Sci 43(1-2):240–246 Goffman E (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. Penguin, London Grace S (2020) Policing social distancing: gaining and maintaining compliance in the age of coronavirus. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 14(4):1034–1053. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ police/ paaa0 29 Graham L, Jordan J, Hutchinson A, de Wet N (2018) Risky behaviour: a new framework for understand- ing why young people take risks. J Youth Stud 21(3):324–339. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13676 261. 2017. 13803 01 Greene A (2020) Emergency powers in a time of pandemic. BUP Policy Shorts, Bristol Han E, Tan MM, Turk E, Sridhar D, Leung GM, Shibuya K, Asgari N, Oh J, García-Basteiro AL, Hane- feld J, Cook AR (2020) Lessons learnt from easing COVID-19 restrictions: an analysis of countries and regions in Asia Pacific and Europe. Lancet 396(10261):7–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0140- 6736(20) 32007-9 Hanckel B, Chandra S (2021) Social media insights from sexuality and gender diverse young people dur- ing COVID-19. Western Sydney University, Sydney. https:// doi. org/ 10. 26183/ kvg0- 7s37 Hannah-Moffat K, O’Malley P (eds) (2007) Gendered risks. Routledge-Cavendish, London Hansard society (2020) How many coronavirus-related statutory instruments has the government laid before the UK Parliament? https:// www. hansa rdsoc iety. org. uk/ publi catio ns/ data/ coron avirus- statu tory- instr uments- dashb oard# total- coron avirus- sis. Accessed 5 Feb 2021 Hill S (2015) Axes of health inequalities and intersectionality. In: Smith KE, Bambra C, Hill S (eds) Health Inequalities: Critical Perspectives. Oxford University Press, pp 95–108 Honeyman M, Maguire D, Evans H and Davies A (2020) Digital technology and health inequalities: a scoping review. Public Health Wales NHS Trust. https:// phw. nhs. wales/ publi catio ns/ publi catio ns1/ digit al- techn ology- and- health- inequ aliti es-a- scopi ng- review/. Accessed 11 December 2020 House of Commons and House of Lords (2021) The Government response to COVID-19: fixed penalty notices (HC 1364 HL Paper 272). https:// commi ttees. parli ament. uk/ publi catio ns/ 5621/ docum ents/ 55581/ defau lt/. Accessed 10 May 2021 Jones O (2020) Coronavirus is not some great leveller: it is exacerbating inequality right now. The Guard- ian. https:// www. thegu ardian. com/ comme ntisf ree/ 2020/ apr/ 09/ coron avirus- inequ ality- manag ers- zoom- clean ers- offic es. Accessed 19 January 2020 Lashua B, Johnson CW, Parry C (2020) Leisure in the time of coronavirus: a rapid response special issue. Leis Sci 43(1-2):6–11. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01490 400. 2020. 17748 27 Leavey C, Eastaugh A, Kane M (2020) Generation COVID-19: building the case to protect young peo- ple’s future health. The Health Foundation. https:// www. health. org. uk/ publi catio ns/ long- reads/ gener ation- COVID- 19. Accessed 27 November 2020 Levita L (2020) Initial research findings on the impact of COVID-19 on the well-being of young people aged 13 to 24 in the UK. COVID-19 psychological research consortium (C19PRC). https:// www. rcpch. ac. uk/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ 2020- 08/ Impact% 20of% 20COV ID- 19% 20on% 20the% 20well- being% 1 3 490 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 20of% 20you ng% 20peo ple% 20aged% 2013% 20to% 2024% 20-% 20Uni versi ty% 20of% 20She ffield. pdf. Accessed 6 August 2020 LGBT Foundation (2020) Hidden figures: the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBT communities in the UK (3rd ed). https:// lgbt. found ation/ publi catio ns. Accessed 6 August 2020 Lisitsa E, Benjamin KS, Chun SK, Skalisky J, Hammond LE, Mezulis AH (2020) Loneliness among young adults during COVID-19 pandemic: the mediational roles of social media use and social sup- port seeking. J Soc Clin Psychol 39(8):708–726. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1521/ jscp. 2020. 39.8. 708 MacDonald R, Marsh J (2005) Disconnected youth?: growing up in Britain’s poor neighbourhoods. Pal- grave Macmillan, Basingstoke MacDonald R, Shildrick T (2007) Street corner society: leisure careers, youth (sub) culture and social exclusion. Leis Stud 26(3):339–355. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02614 36060 08348 26 MacDonald R, Shildrick T, Furlong A (2020) ‘Cycles of disadvantage’ revisited: young people, families and poverty across generations. J Youth Stud 23(1):12–27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13676 261. 2019. 17044 05 Marmot M, Allen J (2020) COVID-19: exposing and amplifying inequalities. J Epidemiol Community Health 74(9):681–682. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ jech- 2020- 214720 Mason M, Tanner M, Piacentini D, Freeman T, Anastasia W, Batat W, Boland W, Canbulut M, Drenten J, Hamby A, Rangan P (2013) Advancing a participatory approach for youth risk behavior: founda- tions, distinctions, and research directions. J Bus Res 66(8):1235–1241. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2012. 08. 017 McVie S (2020) Data report on police use of fixed penalty notices under the coronavirus regulations in Scotland. https:// www. under stand ing- inequ aliti es. ac. uk/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ Data% 20rep ort% 20on% 20Pol ice% 20Use% 20of% 20FPN% 20190 820. pdf. Accessed 11 December 2020 Measham F, Moore K (2008) The criminalisation of intoxication. In: Squires P (ed) ASBO nation: The criminalisation of nuisance. Policy Press, Bristol, pp 273–288 Metropolitan Police (2020) Stop and search dashboard. https:// www. met. police. uk/ sd/ stats- and- data/ met/ stopa nd- search- dashb oard/. Accessed 16 November 2020 Morris L (2002) Dangerous classes: the underclass and social citizenship. Routledge, London NHS Digital (2020) Mental health of children and young people in England, 2020: wave 1 follow up to the 2017 survey. NHS digital. https:// files. digit al. nhs. uk/ AF/ AECD6B/ mhcyp_ 2020_ rep_ v2. pdf. Accessed 11 December 2020 NPCC (2020) Update: Latest COVID-19 FPN data, and news about police recruitment drive. https:// news. npcc. police. uk/ relea ses/ police- chiefs- welco me- posit ive- start- to- recru itment- drive. Accessed 15 January 2021 NPCC (2021: FOI request) Freedom of information request reference number: 21/2021. 8.2.21 Nygren KG, Olofsson A, Öhman S (2020) Risk, inequality, and (post) structure: risk as governing. In: A Framework of Intersectional Risk Theory in the Age of Ambivalence. Critical Studies in Risk and Uncertainty. Palgrave Macmillan. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 030- 33524-3_3. O’Gorman A (2016) Chillin, buzzin, getting mangled, and coming down: doing differentiated normalisa- tion in risk environments. Drugs: Educ Prev Policy 23(3):247–254. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09687 637. 2016. 11769 91 Orben A, Tomova L, Blakemore SJ (2020) The effects of social deprivation on adolescent development and mental health. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S2352- 4642(20) 30186-3 Pearson G (1983) Hooligan: a history of respectable fears. Macmillan, London Pfaller L (2020) Theorizing the virus: abjection and the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Sociol Soc Policy 40(9):821–829 Pilkington H (2007) In good company: risk, security and choice in young people’s drug decisions. Sociol Rev 55(2):373–392. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 954X. 2007. 00710.x Ravn S, Duff C (2015) Putting the party down on paper: a novel method for mapping youth drug use in private settings. Health Place 31:124–132. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. healt hplace. 2014. 11. 010 Reicher S (2020) Blaming Covid ’rule-breakers’ is a distraction: support is needed, not fines. The Guard- ian. https:// www. thegu ardian. com/ comme ntisf ree/ 2020/ nov/ 04/ blami ng- covid- rule- break ers- suppo rt- fines- lockd own. Accessed 4 November 2020. Roberts K (2011) Leisure: the importance of being inconsequential. Leis Stud 30(1):5–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02614 367. 2010. 506650 Roberts K (2020) Locked down leisure in Britain. Leis Stud 39(5):617–628. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02614 367. 2020. 17919 37 1 3 Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021) 4:475–491 491 Robinson C (2009) ‘Nightscapes and leisure spaces’: an ethnographic study of young people’s use of free space. J Youth Stud 12(5):501–514. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13676 26090 30816 57 Rosenthal DM, Ucci M, Heys M, Hayward A, Lakhanpaul M (2020) Impacts of COVID19 on vulnerable children in temporary accommodation in the UK. Lancet 5(5):E241–E242. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S2468- 2667(20) 30080-3 Ross G (2021) “It felt like this might never happen” Clubs reopen in Northern Ireland. Mixmag, London https:// mixmag. net/ read/ night clubs- reopen- north ern- irela nd- news. Accessed 6 November 2021 Selfridge M, Mitchell L, Greer A, Macdonald S, Pauly B (2020) “Accidental intimacies”: reconsider- ing bodily encounters between police and young people who use drugs. Contemp Drug Problems 7(3):231–250. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00914 50920 929101 Shields R (1991) Places on the margin: alternative geographies of modernity. Routledge, London Shiner M, Carre Z, Delsol R, Eastwood N (2018) The colour of injustice: ’race’, drugs and law enforce- ment in England and Wales. http:// eprin ts. lse. ac. uk/ 100751/ 1/ TheCo lourO fInju stice. pdf. Accessed 16 April 2021 Smith LE, Potts HW, Amlot R, Fear NT, Michie S, Rubin J (2020) Adherence to the test, trace and isolate system: results from a time series of 21 nationally representative surveys in the UK (the COVID-19 Rapid Survey of Adherence to Interventions and Responses [CORSAIR] study). medRxiv. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1101/ 2020. 09. 15. 20191 957 Swaine S, Spracklen K, Lashua BD (2018) Khat-chewing in liminal leisure spaces: British-Somali youth on the margins. Leis Stud 37:4,440–4,451 The Audience Agency (2021) COVID-19 Cultural participation monitor: inequalities through COVID- 19. Centre for Cultural Value/The Audience Agency. https:// www. theau dienc eagen cy. org/ asset/ 2696. Accessed 10 May 2021 Tulloch P, Lupton D (2003) Risk and everyday life. SAGE, London Turner V (1974) Liminal to liminoid, in play, flow, and ritual: an essay in comparative symbology. Rice Ins Pamphlet-Rice Univ Stud 60(3):53–92 Turner VW (1995) The ritual process: structure and anti-structure. Aldine de Gruyter, New York Wilkinson S (2015) Young people’s alcohol-related urban im/mobilities. In: Thurnell-Read T (ed) Drink- ing Dilemmas: Space, Culture and Identity. Routledge, London, pp 132–159 Woodrow N (2017) Exploring the risks, harms and pleasures of licit and illicit substance use: a study of young people in a South-Yorkshire town. Lancaster University, Lancashire. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17635/ lanca ster/ thesis/ 255 YoungMinds (2020a) Coronavirus: Impact on young people with mental health needs Survey 2: Summer 2020. https:// young minds. org. uk/ media/ 3904/ coron avirus- report- summer- 2020- final. pdf. Accessed 4 December 2020 YoungMinds (2020b) Coronavirus: Impact on young people with mental health needs. Survey 3: Autumn 2020 - return to school. https:// young minds. org. uk/ media/ 4119/ young minds- survey- with- young- people- retur ning- to- school- coron avirus- report- autumn- report. pdf. Accessed 4 December 2020 Authors and Affiliations 1 2 Nicholas Woodrow  · Karenza Moore School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, S1 4DA, Sheffield, England School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, King’s Gate, NEI 7RU, Newcastle upon Tyne, England 1 3

Journal

Journal of Applied Youth StudiesSpringer Journals

Published: Nov 1, 2021

Keywords: Young people; Liminal leisure; Lockdown; COVID-19

There are no references for this article.