As a record and witness to poverty during a very specific time in British history, this book is a solid testimony. It's detailed and meticulous in its observations, and presents many valid criticisms of government response to the crisis. It also covers a monumental community effort to try to alleviate some of the problems caused by the extended lockdown, and is an eerie and sober portrayal of a very unusual time. Its strength here is undeniable, hence the three stars despite my criticisms.
The fact is there were some issues with this book. I have to admit that, while clearly not intended to be so, this book was pretty offensive on several levels. I believe completely that Hennigan's heart was in the right place, and the work he did was important and based purely in the desire to help others. What he did was difficult and admirable. It's just unfortunate that Hennigan does not trust the scenes he witnessed and subsequently wrote about to speak for themselves. He tries so hard to emphasis how dreadful the deprivation is that he not only ends up accidentally centring himself in the narrative, but he also comes across as ill-equipped to deal with this job. He's going into communities where people have to spend decades of their lives, if not their whole lives, and he's coming out talking about staggering home to suffer from nightmares and insomnia and chug nine-packs to cope like he's a journalist getting out of war-torn Rwanda in the 1990s. While this level of poverty is dreadful, I do not think this reaction and emphasis tells the story that Hennigan wants to tell. It unfortunately becomes increasingly akin to a privileged man on poverty safari spending space he should devote to the people whose stories he's trying to tell on instead letting us know how sensitive and decent he is by his reactions to witnessing such things. Don't get me wrong -- witnessing is not a passive or neutral act. It's fully possible to be traumatised by the act of witnessing. But this just doesn't feel like that.
I really can't explain it other than it feels self-indulgent and appropriative. If this is sincerely the effect it had over so brief an exposure, I wonder about the appropriateness of Hennigan being sent into such environments. I know places like this well -- I lived for three years on an estate that ranked in the top 1% most deprived areas in the entire UK. It was exactly like the places described in this book. And yes, it was depressing, but overall it was alright and 99% of people I met there were decent people who kept to themselves. Meanwhile Hennigan spends six months running deliveries and talks like he's coming out of combat. While I think he truly believes in his duty to witness, there's a certain desperation to be seen as an object of bravery and admiration that I'm uncomfortably familiar with from my work as a conflict journalist, and it's not enjoyable to read about nor flattering to anyone involved.
While I can excuse the majority of this under the umbrella of overenthusiasm and perhaps a slight lack of faith in his own witnessed accounts, I can't excuse the other major gripe I had. Hennigan makes some questionable choices that reveal an undeniable prejudice and voyeurism. While he thankfully stays clear of some of the more infuriating examples of this (he never equates cleanliness with morality, for example) he dwells a little too enthusiastically upon physical appearance, seeming almost thrilled and scandalised and revelling in the unkindest details, such as those who appear to struggle with continence. He also draws attention to women and girls in a way that he does not to boys and men, with predictable ire for those dressed in manners he clearly thinks to be too revealing. At one point he makes a comment about the length of the shorts a pair of girls he says to look about 14 are wearing that I doubt he'd appreciate an adult man directing at his own daughter. Naturally he makes no similar comments about men or boys in revealing clothing or lack thereof, such as shirtlessness, wearing only boxers, etc. There's also a lot of mentions of women wearing ill-fitting or revealing or "slipping" dressing gowns, but not men.
Finally, his most major bias seems to be that people from deprived areas are all violent. He constantly interpreted the dirty looks given to him and his work van to be a flaw on the residents' part, without really examining the fact that these marginalised people were probably glaring at the council livery on the van, expecting further trouble and stress they couldn't deal with on top of everything else. Even when he acknowledges their attitude changing when they realise he's just there to help (they become enthusiastic, welcoming, and chatty) he still puts the onus on them for their initial reaction and not the council's wisdom in sending him into areas who might distrust the council at a tough and stressful time in a vehicle plastered with council logos. Most damningly of all, however, is the fact that throughout the entire book, he is constantly mentioning how his adrenaline spikes and he's waiting for someone to attack him. He is always assuming these people are violent by nature, when every single time somebody approached him or spoke to him first, it was to ask him if he was lost and if he needed help finding the address. The first couple of times I could accept it as perhaps someone unlearning a bias, but he never let go of the idea that he was about to be beaten up imminently. It leaves a sour taste in the mouth; like he can spend so much time with these people (both with this volunteer work and the outreach work he did before) and still see them as half-savage unpredictable animals.
Overall, a decent witness to this time. But it should certainly be read with a critical eye, and with the biases running through it I worry that some people might get out of this book messages and lessons the author certainly did not intend. I've already seen people elsewhere using the contents of this book to justify their classism, when it's clear this book's intent was to encourage the complete opposite. It's a delicate subject that was unfortunately mishandled quite severely in places.