Hi there.

Mr. Barnsley here.

Thank you for joining me as we do some deeper analysis into "An Inspector Calls".

We're really focusing on crime today, thinking about the differences between legal crimes and moral crimes and what Priestley is saying about both of them.

You are gonna need a copy of "An Inspector Calls" to hand.

I'd recommend the Heinemann copy, but you are gonna make sure you have a copy of the text because I'll be asking you to look for quotations.

Also, this shouldn't be the first time you've ever studied the play.

I'm gonna expect some prior knowledge of plot and characters and an understanding of Priestley's messages.

So if you haven't read the play, if you haven't watched the play yet, I would suggest starting elsewhere before you tackle today's lesson.

All right, if you are ready, then I'm ready.

Let's get started.

So by the end of today's lesson, you are gonna be able to explain how "An Inspector Calls" explores ideas around crime, morality and class.

Five keywords we are going to look out for.

The first is ethical.

This is relating to what is morally right or wrong, and you can see morally is in bold.

So that links to our second keyword there.

Moral.

Moral, it means to adhering to accepted principles.

Things that we all agree, principles that we all agree are either right or wrong.

They're, but often based on values like fairness, kindness, respect.

Foregrounding then is highlighting important aspects, drawing attention to them.

If someone is lenient, it means they are tolerant or permissive.

They're less strict or severe in judging or enforcing rules.

And accountability means taking responsibility for one's actions, accepting the consequences of one's actions.

Let's keep an eye out for them, see if we can use them in our own discussions and work later today.

So two learning cycles in today's lesson.

First, we're gonna be thinking about defining and identifying crime, making sure we understand what we talk about when we're talking about crime, particularly in regards to "An Inspector Calls".

And then we're gonna be thinking about perceptions of crime in the play, and particularly linking them to social class.

So let's start by defining and identifying crime.

So crime in the legal sense, when we're talking about crime and the law, it refers to acts which are seen as being an offence.

They are punishable by law.

However, it can be argued that crime is not just a legal issue, but it's also a moral issue.

So, for example, a legal crime might be something that breaks the law.

So theft, assault, murder, they are all crimes.

They are against the law.

A law has been broken.

But a moral crime is something where the actions are ethically wrong.

Most people would agree that this is not a right thing to do, but it doesn't necessarily mean a law has been broken.

It's not illegal.

So in "An Inspector Calls", what I really like about this play is how Priestley is examining crime beyond just the legal definition.

And he actually ends up really engaging with these ideas of crime as being a moral issue.

Actually more so than a legal issue.

So we know the Inspector investigates the following acts, or here are just some of the crimes.

Okay? So he investigates the fact that Mr. Birling fires Eva for wanting better wages and leading a strike.

He investigates Eric for stealing money and also implying that he assaulted, physically assaulted Eva.

Mrs. Birling, he investigates her active declining Eva's request for help.

Now they're just three of them.

We know there are other crimes or acts that occur in the play, but of the three that you can see on the screen, are these crimes? Would they be considered legal crimes? Would you argue they're moral crimes? What do you think? Do you think crimes is the right word to describe these? Over to you.

Pause the video and take a moment to discuss or think through this.

If you've got a partner, you can share your ideas with them.

Otherwise, you can just think through this independently.

All right, pause the video over to you.

Welcome back.

I wonder if you were saying, actually there's only seems to be one legal crime on here, which is Eric's the stealing of the money, that's a crime, and assault, that's a crime.

But actually Mr and Mrs. Birling don't appear to have committed any legal crimes.

Morally, ethically, you could say their behaviour is very dubious.

There'll be lots of people who will maybe look at them and think you've not behaved in particularly great ways here.

There will be other people who might look at Mr. And Mrs. Birling's behaviour and go, I don't see anything wrong with it.

It's, Mr. Birling doesn't have to pay Eva better wages.

So if she chooses to strike, that's up to her to lose a job.

There might be some people who agree with Mr. Birling.

But only one of those characters appears to have committed a legal crime.

What did you say about that word crime? Do you even want to use that word crime to describe the behaviour of Mr. Birling, Mrs. Birling.

I wonder what you think.

So we could argue that Priestley therefore in his text, is challenging this legal framework to highlight its inadequacies in delivering true justice.

If he's saying, actually, Mr. Birling hasn't committed a legal crime, Mrs. Birling hasn't committed a legal crime, but actually, their behaviour is not great.

Their behaviour has led to, arguably led to the death of an innocent young woman.

Therefore, is our legal framework adequate? Because it's not gonna lead to justice.

Arguably Mr. and Mrs. Birling are not gonna face justice here.

So what Priestley is doing through the course of his play is he's creating a moral framework, a framework in which the characters are being judged by the ethical responsibility they have for one another rather than legality.

I think that's really interesting, that we are applying our ethical beliefs, our moral beliefs to these characters' behaviour rather than what the law says they can and can't do.

So what we are starting to see, or what we do see, is that Priestley is foregrounding, putting greater emphasis on morals over legal crimes.

Why is he doing this? Well, arguably to emphasise personal and social accountability, because he knows that actually the law is not gonna make some of the Birling.

The law is not gonna make Mr and Mrs. Birling accountable for their actions because they have broke no law.

They have committed no legal crimes.

So by foregrounding morality, by putting the emphasis on that, he's still trying to force this sense of accountability for his characters, but also for us as audience members who are watching this.

True or false then? Arguably Priestley foregrounds the importance of the legal system in delivering true justice.

Is this true or is this false? What do you think? Pause video, have a think, select your answer and press Play when you think you've got the right one.

Well done if you said false.

Why? Well, it could be argued that actually challenging that legal system, he's foregrounding moral crimes.

He's emphasising the importance of personal and social accountability.

He's holding his hands and was saying, look, the legal system isn't always gonna make everyone accountable for the morally grey things that they might do.

Whereas if we foreground morality, we can hold people to account through their own personal and kind of social actions.

All right, let's do a bit of reading.

Let's kind of go back to the text here and I want us to look at Act 3, focusing page 51 and 52.

If you have the Heinemann copy, going from where the Inspector says where to where Eric says with, okay? So we're just looking at a short extract here.

What I want you to do, I'm gonna hand it over to you to read it to yourselves.

So if you've got a partner, you can read it together.

But I want you to think about the language Eric is using to describe the event.

Okay? So we're looking at focusing on the character Eric here.

How might this suggest that Priestley is fore grounding moral crimes over legal crimes? Okay? So let's look at the language Eric is using and let's kind of take it back to this discussion we've been having about Priestley foregrounding moral crimes over legal crimes.

All right, pause the video, give yourself plenty of time to read and discuss this question.

Again, you can do it in pairs, but don't worry if you're working by yourself, you can just think through this independently.

All right, pause the video, give this a go, press Play when you are ready to continue.

Okay, let's think of some of the things that you might have discussed then.

So you might have talked about some of Eric's language.

He says, chap and squiffy, which really seemed to downplay his actions.

It makes them seem less serious, yet we've already discussed that he's the only one who's broken kind of the legal law.

Arguably, we could say that Priestley is maybe minimising the criminal aspect, and he's emphasising actually the greater moral wrongdoing.

So yes, Eric's broken the law, but that's actually not the focus here.

It's the moral wrongdoing that Priestley wants to draw our attention to.

So Eric's phrase insisted, really softens the reality of his actions.

It's making the crime seem less explicit, shifting our focus to the deeper moral corruption at play.

I wonder if you came up with similar ideas to that.

Well done if you did.

So we are seeing here that the Inspector appears to be a bit more lenient with Eric.

He seems to be kind of less strict holding him.

He seems to be less severe with him than he is with some of the other characters, despite the fact that we know it's Eric who has committed these legal crimes.

Well, we see this in Act 3, page 51 when the Inspector states that Eric needs a drink.

So he appears to be trying to support Eric emotionally.

He deals with Mr. Birling firmly and he overrules him.

And this shows solidarity with his son Eric.

The Inspector also asks Eric these kind of short direct questions that allow for his confession to unfold and it gives him space to speak without being interrupted.

So let's think about why this might happen.

How might this link to these ideas that Priestley creates a moral framework where characters are judged by ethical responsibility rather than legality? What do you think is happening here? Okay, we've been talking about morality over legality.

How are we seeing this here? Right, pause the video, answer this question on the screen either by discussing with a partner or just thinking through this independently and press Play when you're ready to move on.

Tricky question there.

Why don't we compare your thoughts to those from one of our Oak pupils? See if you had any similar ideas.

So Lucas wrote that, "The Inspector's leniency "with Eric suggests Priestley values guilt "and accountability over legal punishment.

"By contrasting this with his firm stance "on Mr. Birling, Priestley highlights morality "as the true measure of justice." What do you think? Do you agree with what Lucas said? Are they similar to your ideas? Are there any of Lucas's ideas that you hadn't thought of and you thought, I really like that, that's a great idea? I wanna make a note of that so I remember it for future? So Lucas here arguing that the Inspector, yes, he is lenient with Eric because he values Eric's guilt, he values Eric holding himself to account, and therefore he sees that more important than Eric facing any illegal punishment.

In fact, he's much harsher with Mr. Birling because he doesn't show any accountability.

And even though Mr. Birling will probably never face legal justice, he really wants him to face some moral justice because he isn't showing any and therefore he is been harsher on him.

So do you agree? Do you agree what Lucas is saying? If you like any of these ideas, make a note of them now.

Pause video, take a moment to reflect and press Play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

True or false then? It could be argued that the Inspector is more lenient with Eric than other characters.

Is that true or false? Pause video, have a think and press Play when you've got an answer.

Yeah, that is true.

Well done if you've got that right.

Why is it true? Well, we can see he's more lenient with Eric.

He offers him support, he gives him space to confess.

And this suggests focus on moral responsibility over legal guilt because we know Eric is one of the few characters who does show accountability.

All right, over to our first task then, you are gonna choose one of the other characters.

So we've focused on Eric, I want you to either pick Mr. Birling, Mrs. Birling, Gerald or Sheila.

Choice is yours.

And I want you to answer this question.

How does Priestley present crime through this character? So the character that you choose, how does Priestley present crime through this character in "Inspector Calls"? Things that I want you to do.

I want you to identify whether this is an example of legal or a moral crime that they commit.

Explain how the character uses language to describe their actions.

And does this language either downplay their crime or emphasise the seriousness of their wrongdoing? And I want you to start trying to explain and how this links to Priestley's idea that moral responsibility should be prioritised over legal consequences.

All right, character of your choosing.

How do they present? How does Priestley use them to present crime in "Inspector Calls"? Pause video, give it a go and press Play when you are done.

Welcome back.

How was that? All right, let's have a look at one of our Oak people's answers, Jacob, and you can compare yours to them.

So Jacob decided to speak about Sheila and he wrote that, "Sheila's role in Eva's dismissal "is a moral, not a illegal crime.

"Her admission of blame shows her recognition "of personal wrongdoing "and emphasises how seriously she takes "her ethical responsibility.

"Priestley uses Sheila's self-awareness "to highlight the difference between legal "and moral responsibility, suggesting "that personal accountability should outweigh "legal consideration and societal norms." So I really like that Jacob has identified that this is an example of a moral crime, not a legal crime.

I really like how he's explained how the character uses language to describe their actions.

And I really like them how he's linked this all to Priestley's ideas about moral and legal accountability.

So why don't you now check your own answer and make sure you've identified whether it's a legal or moral crime, whether you've explained the character use of language, and whether you've explained how this links to Priestley's idea of moral responsibility? Pause the video and take a moment to reflect on your own work now.

Welcome back.

Right, it's time for us to move on to our second learning cycle.

And now we are gonna start to think about crime and social class.

So arguably, "An Inspector Calls" reveals this, the link between perceptions of crime, how crime is viewed and class.

So I want you to just read this quotation on from Act 1, page 22.

It's where Gerald states after to where the Inspector finishes with line.

So just go and find that, pause the video for a moment, just read that quote and press Play when you've found it and you've read it.

Welcome back.

Did you notice how Gerald uses the word respectable? This implies that his class as someone in the upper classes, actually protects him from being seen as a criminal.

Interesting.

The Inspector's response challenges that belief and he suggests that actual moral criminality transcends class.

It doesn't matter who you are, you can, good or bad, it doesn't matter what social class you are.

Moral criminality really does transcend class.

And I think this exchange starts to reveal how class influences perceptions of crime.

So I think we could be.

I think we could start seeing here that Priestley is perhaps suggesting that someone's status, perhaps upper class status, actually shields people from having to take accountability, because in some way they're not perceived as being the type of person who could commit crime.

Often they are protected more from kind of the legalities around breaking the law.

Not always, it's not to say that no upper class people ever faced the consequences of breaking the law, but they were probably protected, shielded from it much more so than the working classes.

But actually they're also being shielded from taking personal accountability even for these kind of moral crimes.

Really interesting, even this short extract, what it kind of shows us about that link between class and crime.

We also see in that quotation that Gerald uses the word y'know.

What does this assumption reveal about Gerald's perception of crime and class, do you think? What does this assumption reveal about Gerald's perception of crime and class? Over to you, pause the video, have a think, press Play when you've got some ideas.

Welcome back.

Things you might have discussed then.

It really shows this confidence Gerald has in his belief that the upper class is above suspicion.

He seems pretty confident here that he's not gonna be brought, that people aren't gonna be brought to justice.

It reflects this assumption that social status protects individuals from being seen as criminals.

This casual tone suggests that crime is not really a concern.

Seen as a concern for lower classes.

It, well, sorry, it's seen as a concern for the lower classes, not as a concern for the upper classes.

And it really highlights how class can shape perceptions of morality and accountability.

So which word does Gerald then use to describe himself and the Birlings? Is it A, civilised, B, respectable, C, honest, or D, responsible? A, B, C, or D? Pause video, make your choice and press Play when you're ready to continue.

Well done if you said B.

I think it is really.

This is.

I find this really difficult because I don't believe their behaviour is respectable, but there is this belief that because they are from an upper class family, that is how they will be reviewed.

Be viewed by others, by society and how they view each other.

And I think it really just does contrast with what we see and learn about them as a family.

So let's read a little bit about Act 1 then from page 11 where the Inspector says, Mr., to where Mr. Birling ends then, then.

Okay, what I want you to think about which words or phrases in Mr. Birling's speech show his belief that his status and his connections protect him from being held accountable? And again, how does this reflect his view of crime and class? All right, pause the video, take a moment to reread that extra and start to thinking, what's Mr. Birling telling us about how he views himself, his status, and how that kind of protects him from being held accountable? Pause the video, have a read, have a think and press Play when you're ready to continue.

All right, let's compare some of your ideas to those of our Oak pupils.

So Aisha and Jacob said.

Well, Aisha said, "Mr. Berling uses these kind of terms "of Alderman and Lord Mayor.

"They show his belief "that his connections in society "shield him from responsibility.

"These words suggest he expects his status "to protect him from scrutiny "and protect him from having to take accountability." Jacob said, "Mr. Birling assumes his connections "make him above reproach, indicates that he believes crime "and punishment are for those without influence, "highlighting his view "that social class determines your moral responsibility." What do you think? Do you agree with Aisha and Jacob? Why don't you? Go back, compare their ideas to the discussions you were having, see if they've got any new ideas, different ideas, and if you really like some of their ideas, now is the time to make a note of those.

Pause the video, take a moment to reflect and press Play when you're ready to continue.

So arguably, Priestley uses the characters in "Inspector Calls" to suggest that powerful people are less likely to be held accountable.

So we could argue then that Priestley is critiquing the legal system that allows moral crimes to go unpunished, and particularly those crimes of people who might be seen as being above the law.

Okay? And again, we don't want to make full sweeping statements.

We don't want to say that people from the upper classes were never held accountable, they were never accused of breaking the law, they were never sent to prison.

That is not true.

Okay? But I think what we can argue is that there were.

If you were working class, much more likely to be held accountable both legally and morally.

So true or false? Mr. Birling assumes his status makes him above reproach.

Is that true or false? Pause video, have a think and press Play when you are ready to continue.

Well done if you said that was true.

Why? Well, Mr. Birling believes his wealth, his social status, they protect him from responsibility.

And this shows a real arrogance and disregard for others.

So for our final task in today's lesson, I would like you to choose a different character from task A.

So you cannot use the same character you talked about in task A.

And I want you to answer the question, what is that character's attitudes towards class, crime and responsibility? So things you should do, identify your character's perspective, use quotations to support your points and explain how the quotation emphasises your character's attitudes.

And remember, we always link things back to Priestley's intentions and messages.

All right, over to you for this one.

Time for you to pause the video, give this a go and press Play when you're ready to continue.

All right, welcome back.

How was that? I hope you got some great ideas down on the page.

So self-assess your work now.

I want you to check that you have identified your character's perspective, used quotations to support your points, explained how the quotations emphasise your character's attitudes, and you've linked this to Priestley's intention and messages.

Over to you.

Pause the video, do some self-assessment.

Okay, before we finish today's lesson, I want to finish with a kind of a couple of reflective questions here.

So after exploring your character's view on crime, class and responsibility, do you feel more sympathetic or unsympathetic towards them? How do you think this helps highlights Priestley's critique of society? All right, over to you.

Let's just take a few moments to reflect on what we've learned so far in today's lesson, and then press Play when you are done.

Right, that's it.

We've reached the end of today's lesson.

You've done a really great job.

Let's have a look at the summary of everything that we have covered in today's lesson so you can feel really confident before you move on to your next lesson.

We've learned that Priestley explores both legal and moral crimes, that characters face moral reckoning, not legal consequences.

And this really highlights self-awareness as punishment.

Eric's character could suggest that moral accountability is more important than legal punishment for Priestley.

The play reveals how class affects perceptions of crime, and Priestley critiques the legal system and advocates for social justice over legal frameworks.

Really well done for all of your hard work today.

It's been a pleasure learning alongside you.

I hope to see you in one of our lessons again in the future.

Bye bye.