Crime will be the next immigration. Politicians will be punished for it
It's hard to shake off the sense that Britain is creeping towards lawlessness. Low-level crime is on its way to becoming legalised, whether officially – in the case of cannabis – or not – as with shoplifting. Public faith in the police is collapsing as many serious crimes like burglary and assault routinely fail to be solved, and sometimes even go uninvestigated, while 'speech crimes' trigger the full wrath of the law.
Too many neighbourhoods are becoming hotbeds of anti-social behaviour, with begging prolific and buildings defaced by graffiti. True, Britain is cash-strapped. But it's the fusion of chronic underinvestment with liberal idealism which is so toxic. Disorder is being normalised, criminals treated as victims, the rule of law eroded. Though politicians remain convinced that crime is a second-order issue, it could eventually prove the Labour Government's undoing.
My own local area in west London is disintegrating. It started with a clutch of beggars congregating outside the Tesco after Covid. Now they are joined by dishevelled women selling 'washing powder' and bare-footed addicts. For the most part, they are a nuisance rather than dangerous. Like many women in the city, when I walk the streets, I get the surreal feeling of being neither safe nor unsafe. With the crime rate in my area surging by a third since 2019, and several of my neighbours recently burgled, that may soon change.
When I expressed my concerns to police and crime commissioners this week, they echoed Mark Rowley's complaint about a lack of funds. Some say they find Rachel Reeves's claim that she is hiking police spending by 2.3 per cent each year exasperating.
A view prevails in Westminster that crime is a non-issue. Its proponents point to statistics that suggest it is at its lowest level on record. They think that technology is rendering crime a relic of the past, with their favourite example, carjacking, now largely a fool's errand thanks to security device innovation.
They think that any ongoing problems pertain to a tiny number of chronic offenders. Meanwhile, Left-leaning criminologists insist that conservatives' fears that 'soft' policing could drive up crime are prejudiced. Crackdowns are said to be 'counterproductive', alienating 'disproportionately-targeted' minority groups.
Such framing overlooks the risk that unrecorded crime is quietly climbing, as law-breaking becomes such a regular occurrence that some victims don't bother to report it. Other kinds are probably not being picked up properly by polling.
Even more worrying is the Leftist view that, if there is a specific issue with chronic offenders, it's the consequence of too much law and order rather than too little. Keir Starmer's prison guru, James Timpson, thinks Britain is 'addicted' to sentencing. Sadiq Khan has backed 'partial' cannabis decriminalisation, amid claims that policing the drug harms more than the substance itself.
The way in which the Left tries to romanticise these criminals is if anything becoming more strident – we are told that in the wake of austerity and Covid, certain law-breakers are, deep down, troubled souls. Shoplifters and fare dodgers who are allegedly 'struggling with the cost of living' are the latest group to which any 'compassionate' society should turn a blind eye, the Left insist.
This myth threatens to shake the foundations of our society by undermining the sacred principle that we are all equal under the law.
There is only so far we can fall down this rehabilitation rabbit hole before triggering a crime surge. Labour is adamant that the Michael Howard school of tough sentencing has failed. It has opted to release offenders early and ignore our rotting prison estate.
This is a terrible mistake. Even if prison isn't working in the sense that it isn't preventing ex-convicts from reoffending, policymakers should not use this as an excuse to avoid punishing those who break our laws. The answer to our failure to rehabilitate is not to allow criminals to escape punishment. In the most important sense, prison almost always 'works' by preventing somebody who is locked up from stealing or assaulting other people.
True, rehabilitation can sometimes work wonders. I have spoken with ex offenders who have been transformed by such programmes. One woman, Sonia, told me of how the support of one charity helped her evade the 'revolving door back to prison'. But resource-intensive, bespoke rehabilitation is tricky to scale. In austere times, the temptation to roll out rehab on the cheap could prove overwhelming, and will end in failure.
As veteran probation expert Mark Leech told me: 'There are prisoners that have done the courses so many times they could deliver them better than the tutors who deliver them.' Chasing a utopian ideal, with no idea how to make it work, let alone on a tight budget, is flirting with disaster.
Efforts by some criminologists to discredit the policing approach known as 'broken windows' could also end badly. This concept, which clamps down on low-level crime such as graffiti and drug-taking on the basis that tolerating 'minor' disorder leads to a culture that promotes much more serious crime, helped flatten a vicious crime wave in 1990s New York. It has been trashed in recent years, amid complaints it is racist and based on 'bogus' evidence.
I disagree. Broken windows could once again be a vital weapon against certain serious crimes, such as sexual offences. Police officers on the front line certainly seem to think so: as Matthew Barber, PCC for Thames Valley, says: 'You won't find many hardened criminals who didn't start doing things at a young age before getting steadily out of control. Fix those basics and you'll prevent an awful lot more serious crime down the road.'
Though Labour politicians may be in denial, a slow-burning crisis is unfolding. There is a widespread sense of malaise, that law is breaking down. In Red Wall towns, Labour's 'levelling up' projects are being undermined by anti-social behaviour. In the cities, alarm at gang violence, as well as muggings and burglary, may yet nudge professionals to the Right. Labour's inability to tackle crime could cost it dear.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves is leaving Britain defenceless
Last week, the Prime Minister said that we 'need to see the biggest shift in mindset in my lifetime: to put security and defence front and centre – to make it the fundamental organising principle of government'. The unfolding crisis in the Middle East underscores the need to do so. Now, more than ever, our national security must be the Government's overriding priority, trampling on any other competing demands for government money and ministers' time. But it isn't. This noble organising principle seems not to apply where it matters most: the Government's economic strategy. In her spending review this week, the Chancellor gave us her own definition of security: 'securonomics'. This ugly word, reeking of socialist greyness and uniformity, means – to quote Rachel Reeves – 'government must step up to provide security for working people and resilience for our national economy.' She is right about the need for economic resilience. For years, it has been clear that, in a turbulent world, the scale and structure of debt, combined with anaemic growth, makes our economy highly vulnerable to global shocks. Yet instead of rebuilding a fiscal buffer, the Chancellor has left us with a fiscal wafer so thin it could crack at the merest tap. Instead of bringing debt down, it will be higher at the end of the Parliament than today – and the cost of servicing it is already more than we spend on defence. And instead of supporting growth – critical to everything – the Government has suffocated it with higher taxes. Next, how has the Chancellor helped deliver 'security for working people'? For most working people, job security – the ability to find and keep a steady job – is key. Yet job insecurity is rising. By raising National Insurance on employers – a £25bn jobs tax – Rachel Reeves has provoked the biggest fall in employment in five years. Unemployment is ticking up. The broader definition of 'security' obviously encompasses our nation's defence. Although defence spending is set to rise to 2.5 per cent GDP during this Parliament, this is clearly not enough. At the upcoming Nato summit, the UK will be pressed to raise it to at least 3.5 per cent. But in Wednesday's spending review, what was the Chancellor's 'choice'? To give the NHS, not defence, a bigger slice of government largesse. 90 per cent of the total increase in spending from 2025-6 will go to health. The NHS will see a record cash investment: real-terms, day to day spending is set to increase by 3 per cent per year, costing an extra £29 billion. A government that sees defence as the organising principle of government would not have made that choice. It would have made the case that we need to move from a state that prioritises welfare to one that prepares for warfare. And as part of a strategy to put debt on a gradual downward path, it would have made tough decisions on spending overall – starting with a reform of incapacity and disability benefits, which now cost more than the defence budget. Instead, as her speech took us from spending more on affordable homes, to car production to training to buses in Rochdale, the Chancellor disorganised her Downing Street neighbour's organising principle, showing it the respect Tracey Emin had for her bed. There is only one conclusion one can draw from all this. Last week, when the Prime Minister said we need to make security and defence 'the organising principle of government', he left off four words: 'for this week only'. Lord Bridges of Headley is a former government minister; he was Chairman of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee between January 2022 and January 2025 Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
As Europe's free-travel zone turns 40, is Schengen under threat?
On June 14, 1985, government representatives from Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands gathered on a boat in a small Luxembourg village. The symbolic location – on the Moselle River at the point where France, Luxembourg, and Germany meet – was the town of Schengen. It was there, 40 years ago, that the Schengen Agreement was signed. The deal aimed to gradually eliminate border checks between member states, paving the way for the free movement of people. It was fully implemented in 1995, creating a passport-free travel zone across much of Europe. Today, the Schengen area is made up of 29 countries: 25 EU members plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Ireland and Cyprus are the only two EU members not signed up. The former has not joined as it has a common travel area with the United Kingdom and it would create border headaches, while the latter is currently in the process of joining. Other countries want to enter the club, such as Albania, which has growing economic, political, and security cooperation with Schengen countries and has benefited from visa-free travel since 2010. Often described as a cornerstone of European integration, Schengen enjoys strong public support. In a Eurobarometer poll from October, 72% of respondents identified it as one of the European Union's most important achievements. The economic benefits of Schengen Romania and Bulgaria's full accession to the Schengen club in January - after years of delay - underscores why. The full removal of border checks has ushered in noticeable economic benefits. The move has boosted Romania's appeal to foreign investors, according to Finance Minister Tánczos Barna. The elimination of border controls has simplified logistics, cut waiting times and reduced costs, making Romania more competitive across European markets. In Bulgaria, then-premier Nikolay Denkov called the milestone "the greatest success of Bulgarian diplomacy" since joining the EU in 2007. Dimitar Dimitrov, of the Chamber of Bulgarian Road Hauliers, said border delays with Romania had previously cost the sector around €300 million ($345 million) annually, with an average waiting time of 10 to 15 hours. Likewise in Croatia, which joined in 2023, Schengen membership enjoys near-universal support. The abolition of border controls is extremely important for Croatia as a tourist destination, given that many come by car. Since joining Schengen, kilometre-long queues at the border crossings with Slovenia and Hungary in the summer months have disappeared. Is the Schengen area being eroded? Despite its many benefits, the Schengen area has faced challenges too, particularly in the last decade. Several countries have reintroduced border controls, usually in a bid to curb migration and terrorism. Since such spot checks don't target every car crossing the border, many travellers experience little to no disruption - unlike during the Covid-19 pandemic, when many countries closed their borders almost entirely at times. In response to the terrorist attacks of November 2015, France reinstated spot checks at its land, sea and air borders with other Schengen members. It has renewed the scheme every six months since then, most recently for the period through October 2025. In 2015, Austria also introduced temporary border checks with Slovenia and Hungary in response to high levels of migration, but these have been repeatedly extended, causing difficulties for cross-border businesses and travellers. In October 2023, Slovenia imposed checks at its borders with Hungary and Croatia. Previously, Italy had reinstated border controls with Slovenia due to increased migration flows along the so-called Balkan route and national security concerns. Reimposing controls The European Commission says temporary border checks are allowed "in the event of a serious threat to public policy or internal security" but that they must be applied as a last resort measure, in exceptional situations. Countries can introduce the checks if they provide a valid justification and they can be extended every six months, usually up to two years. The justification then has to be changed for border checks to remain in place. Currently Slovenia, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Bulgaria and Italy have temporarily reintroduced border controls to some extent. Germany's new government has increased border patrols since it took office last month, to the frustration of some neighbouring countries. "We must avoid creating borders in people's minds again. Schengen must live on," Luxembourg Interior Minister Léon Gloden said in a meeting with his German counterpart Alexander Dobrindt at the end of May. The mayor of Strasbourg and her counterpart across the Rhine river in the German town of Kehl have complained about the ramped-up border checks between them, in a protest letter to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. The mayors say this is hurting daily life and causing fewer Strasbourg shoppers to visit Kehl. Over the past ten years, Germany has gradually reintroduced temporary checks along all of its land borders in a bid to reduce irregular migration. But the new government which took office on May 6 has since intensified the checks, as well as allowing border guards to reject those looking to claim asylum. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has also criticised the move, which has seen thousands of migrants sent back across the border from Germany. He threatened on Wednesday to introduce temporary border controls with Germany, should the pressure on border regions persist. Some countries avoid border checks Several Schengen countries have resisted the trend among their neighbours to reimpose border controls. Belgium has rarely tightened its border rules, only doing so temporarily during the pandemic in 2021. That's telling, considering that Belgium, like its neighbours, has come under pressure from migration and security incidents, such as the 2016 terror attacks in Brussels. Whenever neighbouring France, Germany or the Netherlands have reintroduced border controls, Belgium has defended the free movement of goods and tried to make sure trade was not overly disrupted. Likewise, Portugal has not reinstated border controls, except for some major events like the pope's 2010 visit to Lisbon and the pandemic. Portuguese public opinion has remained largely supportive of Schengen membership, viewing it as a symbol of European integration and freedom of movement, despite growing awareness of the associated security and migration control challenges. Schengen museum The changing attitude of some countries towards the Schengen area has been noticed by the curator of a museum dedicated to it, in the Luxembourg town where it all began. Following renovations, the museum will be reopened on Saturday as part of celebrations marking the 40th anniversary. Much has changed since the museum first opened in 2010, said its director Martina Kneip. "Back then, open borders were actually celebrated," she said. With Covid-19 and the refugee crisis, the sudden cry was: "Schengen is dead and no one wants it anymore, it's to blame for everything." The museum wanted to respond to this change in perception – one reason for the renovations. In the museum, everyone can see for themselves "how valuable and meaningful the idea of Schengen is," said Schengen mayor Michel Gloden. "We have succeeded in dismantling the borders between countries and the borders in people's minds must never be allowed to reappear." The content of this article is based on reporting by AFP, Agerpres, ANSA, ATA, Belga, BTA, dpa, EFE, HINA, LUSA, STA and PAP as part of the European Newsroom (enr) project.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
PC 'doubly' claimed wedding refunds
A police officer who "doubly" claimed refunds after his wedding was cancelled in 2020 due to the Covid pandemic has been found guilty of gross misconduct. Tom Walker, who was based in Bradford before resigning from West Yorkshire Police last month, "deliberately and dishonestly" received over £5,000 from a church in Bingley, the National Trust and the wedding caterers, a panel heard. Walker and his wife accepted the cash despite having already received a £13,000 insurance payout covering all wedding costs, members of the hearing were told. Walker, who did not attend the hearing on Friday, had admitted being "naive and mistaken", but he denied "dishonestly misleading anyone", the panel heard. The hearing, which was held virtually at the force's HQ in Wakefield, was told that Walker and his wife had been due to marry at All Saints Church in Bingley in April 2020, but were forced to postpone the ceremony weeks before when Covid hit. The couple later initiated a claim with their wedding insurers, which was eventually settled for £13,088.50 in February 2021. That covered costs including their catering, the booking of the church, bell-ringers and a £500 fee they had paid to the National Trust for the wedding reception at East Riddlesden Hall, near Keighley. However, the misconduct hearing was told that Walker then separately received and kept refunds from several organisations involved in the wedding. Presenting the case for the policing authority at the misconduct hearing, Andrew Pickin said the pair continued to pursue their catering suppliers for cash after their insurance claim was settled. They eventually received more than £3,900 from the company in instalments. The insurance payout had also covered the church service, even though the wedding was rescheduled rather than cancelled altogether. Mr Pickin said Walker had failed to disclose being double-paid to either the insurance company or several vendors involved in the wedding, conduct Mr Pickin described as "fundamentally criminal". The panel heard that West Yorkshire's policing standards department (PSD) received an anonymous tip-off through Crimestoppers in October 2023 about the situation. Members of the panel were told that a criminal investigation was launched, but was discontinued after the insurance company indicated the money concerned fell short of the threshold for which it would usually pursue a prosecution. When questioned by PSD officers, PC Walker claimed his "thinking skills had been impacted by the Covid pandemic and the stress of the wedding", the panel heard. It was said that the officer insisted he had initially believed the insurance payout was a "form of compensation" for the "arguing and stress" he and his wife had been caused through claiming. Katie Riley, the misconduct panel chair, said the case against the former officer was found to have been proven. She added that he would have been dismissed had he still been serving in the West Yorkshire force. Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North. West Yorkshire Police
