logo
Crime will be the next immigration. Politicians will be punished for it

Crime will be the next immigration. Politicians will be punished for it

Telegraph19 hours ago

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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Spending billions on unclean, risky energy? What a nuclear waste
Spending billions on unclean, risky energy? What a nuclear waste

The Guardian

time25 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Spending billions on unclean, risky energy? What a nuclear waste

Rolls-Royce pressurised water reactors have powered British nuclear subs since 1966, but small modular reactors (SMRs) aren't yet proven at scale anywhere on land (Rolls-Royce named winning bidder for UK small nuclear reactors, 10 June). Only three are operating worldwide: two in Russia, one in China. Argentina is constructing the world's fourth; is Labour simply keen to keep up with historical geopolitical rivals (Sizewell C power station to be built as part of UK's £14bn nuclear investment, 10 June)? The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reported actual cost overruns of 300% to 700% for all four projects. Rolls-Royce claims costs of £35 to £50 per MWh; so should we triple this? The government says the SMR project would create 3,000 new low-carbon British jobs, but at what cost? The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, can't know the true costs yet, and three reactors doesn't scream 'economies of scale'. Yet £2.5bn is already 10 times more than Great British Energy has invested into simple, cheap rooftop solar, which democratises energy savings. The true cost of renewables must consider intermittency and balancing costs, but why not invest more in flexibility through distributed renewables and grid-scale storage? And what of energy security? SMRs may mitigate against Putin snipping offshore wind cables, but increased reliance on imported uranium, and a heightened nuclear waste security threat, are significant risks. Last May, the IEEFA concluded that SMRs 'are still too expensive, too slow and too risky', and that we 'should embrace the reality that renewables, not SMRs, are the near-term solution to the energy transition'. Has this truly changed? The climate crisis requires scaling all feasible solutions as fast as possible, but, with limited capital, we should prioritise those that make economic sense HillMBA student, Cambridge Judge Business School As Nils Pratley says, Great British Energy's budget has been nuked to divert funding away from local energy initiatives (11 June). But let's get away from the idea that SMRs are a cutting-edge technology. Rolls-Royce is proposing a 470MW reactor, the same size as the first-generation Magnox reactors. Their 'small' modular reactor, if it ever emerges, will use the familiar method of generating a lot of heat in a very complex and expensive manner, in order to boil water and turn a turbine. It will bequeath yet more radioactive waste to add to the burden and risk at Sellafield. In the meantime, if government SMR funding continues, it takes money away from opportunities for cutting-edge technical and social innovation, discovery and training all around the country, as schools, hospitals, community groups, network operators and all of us get to grips with renewables-based systems. This sort of innovation is necessary, it's already benefiting us and it needs full-on government support rather than uneasy compromises with an increasingly redundant nuclear DarbyEmerita research fellow, Environmental Change Institute I'm a Scot who moved to the US in 1982. I returned to the UK seven years ago. In my time in the US, I worked with a few contractors as a chemist and health and safety manager on a number of environmental clean-up projects, chemical, biological and nuclear. The nuclear clean-up sites I worked on directly and indirectly were Hanford in Washington state, and Rocky Flats, Colorado. The multibillion-dollar Hanford cleanup is ongoing. Most of the problems there are as a result of gross mismanagement of nuclear waste during the cold war. I very much believe in wind, solar and other environmental solutions to energy production. I am cautiously supportive of small‑scale nuclear energy, but outraged by this government's failure to include the costs of the disposal of past, current and future nuclear waste in its support of 'cheap energy'. Has Ed Miliband taken into account future waste management issues? Google Hanford cleanup to see the real expense. Can we trust this and any future government to protect the environment, public health and the taxpayer from future nuclear 'cost overruns'?Peter HolmyardEdinburgh The more I read about the government's nuclear intentions, the more it sounds like HS2 all over again, ie another financial boondoggle. Where are the detailed costings? What is our experience with cost overruns, eg at Hinkley Point C? What is the overseas experience with pressurised water reactors (the kind proposed for Sizewell C) at Olkiluoto, at Flamanville, at Taishan? Uniformly bad in all cases, actually. No matter which way you look at this, viz the future cost overruns, the facts that we consumers will be on the hook for them, that reactors are never constructed on time, that nuclear wastes are unaudited, that we have to import all our uranium, that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2023 that renewables are 10 times better than nuclear at lowering carbon emissions, all point to a remarkably poor decision by the government, sad to Ian FairlieIndependent consultant on radioactivity in the environment; vice-president, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

Russia adviser Fiona Hill's alarming conclusion
Russia adviser Fiona Hill's alarming conclusion

The Guardian

time25 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Russia adviser Fiona Hill's alarming conclusion

Fiona Hill's assessment of the Russian threat to Britain is a classic example of how a seemingly rational argument based on a false premise and scanty evidence can lead to a mad conclusion (Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says, 6 June). It is especially alarming that this conclusion was reached by one of the three principal authors of the recent strategic defence review. The false premise is that Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is the first step to make Russia 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. Evidence that Britain is already under attack is provided by 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations … cyber-attacks and influence operations ... sensors … around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables'. It follows that Britain's economy and society must be geared up to resist the Russian menace. Deny the premise and the argument for a 'whole society' mobilisation against Russia collapses. What it reveals is the strength of the warmongering mood of official Britain. This is not to deny that we have to take precautions against the real danger of a significant US pullout, perhaps amounting to rendering article 5 of the Nato treaty meaningless, and that the Russians can be quite ruthless in exploiting an advantage if they think they have one. But this is a far cry from proposing, as the strategic defence review does, a national mobilisation in face of an immediate and pressing Russian Skidelsky Emeritus professor of political economy, Warwick University, Richard Balfe Former MEP, Anthony Brenton British ambassador to Russia, 2004-08, Thomas Fazi Author and journalist, Anatol Lieven Senior fellow, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statesmanship, Ian Proud Senior diplomat, British embassy, Moscow, 2014-18, Geoffrey Roberts Professor, University College Cork, Richard Sakwa Emeritus professor of Russian and east European studies, University of Kent, Brigitte Granville Professor of international economics and economic policy, Queen Mary University of London Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

Long-awaited Casey grooming gang review links illegal migration with exploitation of British girls
Long-awaited Casey grooming gang review links illegal migration with exploitation of British girls

The Sun

time28 minutes ago

  • The Sun

Long-awaited Casey grooming gang review links illegal migration with exploitation of British girls

A DAMNING review into rape gangs will directly link illegal migration with the exploitation of British girls, The Sun can reveal. The Home Office is expected to publish the long-awaited National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse next week. 1 A source familiar with the report said its author, Baroness Louise Casey, specifically links illegal migration with the violence perpetrated against vulnerable girls. The Sun understands there are fears in the Home Office that knowledge of the link between undocumented arrivals and grooming gangs could trigger more civil unrest. The Home Office today refused to deny the involvement of illegal migration in the Casey report. A government spokesperson said: 'Nothing is more important than protecting vulnerable children, and we are determined to crack down on vile grooming gangs once and for all. 'That's why we ordered a rapid national audit to uncover the true scale of this horrific abuse. 'This report – alongside our response – will be published shortly.' The Casey review was tasked with building a 'national picture of what is known about current group-based child sexual exploitation' and to 'identify local and national trends'. It will also 'provide an assessment of what is known about the demographics of grooming gangs and their victims, including ethnicity'. It comes as a grooming gang have been found guilty of raping and abusing two teen girls in Rochdale in a five-year reign of terror. The seven men "passed" the victims around for sex and preyed on them in squalid flats and car parks in the town. They groomed the girls from the age of 13 and made them their "sex slaves" by plying them with gifts, including alcohol and drugs. The victims both had "deeply troubled home lives", which meant they were easy prey for the fiends. During a five-year horror ordeal, the girls were expected to have sex "whenever and wherever" the defendants and other men wanted. As well as flats and car parks, the predators abused the teens on rancid mattresses, in cars, alleyways and disused warehouses. Mohammed Zahid, 64, Kasir Bashir, 50, Mushtaq Ahmed, 66, Roheez Khan, 39, Mohammed Shahzad, 43, Nisar Hussain, 43, and Naheem Akram, 48, were today convicted. Three of the abusers, Zahid, Ahmed and Bashir were born in Pakistan and worked as stallholders on Rochdale's indoor market. Father-of-three Zahid - known as Boss Man - gave free underwear from his lingerie stall to both victims. He was previously jailed for five years after he engaged in sexual activity in 2006 with a 15-year-old girl who he met when she visited his stall to buy tights for school.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store