What is cuckooing and how can you tell if your neighbour is a victim?
A flagship bill aiming to restore public confidence in the police and to give them the powers they need to crack down on crime is set to be introduced to Parliament on Tuesday.
The Crime and Policing Bill would see a broad range of reforms put in place, including restrictions on online knife sales, harsher penalties for shoplifters and a new specific offence for child exploitation.
The legislation would also bring in a separate offence for an exploitative practice known as "cuckooing", with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for those found guilty.
Cuckooing has become a key element of many county lines drug gangs' operations, with a number of local authorities warning that the practice has risen substantially in recent years.
Here, Yahoo News explains how it works, how to spot it, and what you can do if you think someone is a victim of it.
Criminals running county lines gangs often set up shop in a rural area or a small town for a short time by taking over a vulnerable person's home.
The term is named after the cuckoo's practice of taking over other birds' nests to raise its own young.
Gangs who take over a home could use it as a base for drug dealing, cooking drugs, human trafficking, sex work, or as a place to store weapons or other illegal items.
Often victims of cuckooing are drug users, people with learning disabilities, or people who suffer from mental and physical health problems.
Other common targets can include elderly people, people who are socially isolated, financially vulnerable people, sex workers or undocumented migrants, according to Hope for Justice.
However, the anti-trafficking charity says this list is by no means exhaustive and that "anyone has the potential to be a victim of cuckooing".
News: Cuckooing to be made a criminal offence. What is it? Learning-disabled people can be at risk from criminals who exploit them. Our short film See No Evil made with Cass Productions raises awareness through drama and real police insight. See comments for full video link. pic.twitter.com/gBlyZR5MM7
— Blue Apple Theatre (@BlueApplePlays) February 22, 2025
Explaining how it starts, Hope for Justice says the victim is often "befriended, charmed or manipulated into allowing the perpetrator into their home", at which point the offender will "start to exert control through force, coercion, deception or other forms of manipulation".
A common tactic is through exchange where the perpetrator may offer drugs or money to gain access to the property, which puts the victim into a form of debt bondage in which they are forced to repay the gang, while often the "benefits" they receive will decrease.
The so-called 'boyfriend method', "Romeo method' or 'loverboy method' can also be used by a perpetrator, who offers a relationship with the victim and then goes on to exert control over them.
It is difficult to get an exact figure on the scale of cuckooing across the country, as it is not yet a specific criminal offence, although the practice could still be included in police officers' crime notes.
However, a number of councils have reported that the predatory practice is on the rise significantly in their areas.
Figures reported by LocalGov showed there had been a 300% rise in cuckooing across London between 2018 and 2022.
In November 2023, Sussex Police said that in 2018, it was dealing with around two cases per month on average where gangs had taken over a vulnerable person's home, ITV News reported.
At the beginning of 2023, that number had risen to 20, marking a tenfold increase.
There are some tell-tale signs you can look out for if you think cuckooing might be going on in your area, as outlined by Hope for Justice.
These include a significant number of people entering and leaving the property throughout the day; an increase of bikes or cars parked outside the property; cars arriving at the property for short periods of time and anti-social behaviour, including increased noise and littering.
Damage to the property (either internally or externally) could also be a sign of exploitation, as well as the homeowner or tenant appearing anxious, isolated or on edge.
Did you know that victims of cuckooing are often forced to leave their homes? This leaves them homeless, and allows criminal gangs to sell drugs in their absence. Learn how to spot the signs of cuckooing and speak up, 100% anonymously, to our charity: https://t.co/zozCsZKDDD pic.twitter.com/XW0yNggv4i
— Crimestoppers (@CrimestoppersUK) December 14, 2024
If residents are showing signs of a poor emotional wellbeing; or of physical assault such as bruises, scars or cuts, this could indicate that they are being cuckooed.
Programme Challenger, a partnership working with Greater Manchester Police to tackle organised crime, also says that if the person you're concerned about suddenly has lots of new designer clothes, lots of money, or more than one mobile phone, it could be that they are being exploited by a criminal gang.
If you think you have spotted someone being cuckooed or if you are concerned about a drug related crime, you can call the police on 101, or 999 if it's an emergency.
You can also speak to Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111 or via the charity's website. You can also contact the Modern Slavery and Exploitation Helpline on 08000 121 700 or fill out an online form.
"Make a note of your concerns, times, dates, what has happened and identity or names of people coming in and out," Oxford City Council advises. "If there is lots of noise, download the Noise App to record it safely."
The local authority adds: "It is important you are safe, so do not approach any of the people you believe may be cuckooing your neighbour or take photographs."
Dawn raid at property as part of investigation into drug dealing and 'cuckooing' (The Bolton News)
New laws to protect children exploited by gangs in England and Wales 'will save lives' (The Guardian)
Criminals caught with 'signal jammers' used in car thefts to face five years in prison (The Independent)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Can you really separate the art from the artist? Science says you can't, but a new poll suggests the answer is complicated.
Sean 'Diddy' Combs was once one of the biggest names in American pop culture. For a time, his presence was almost inescapable. Not only did he have several hits of his own, under his former stage name Puff Daddy, but his record label, Bad Boy Entertainment, produced some of the iconic hip-hop albums of the 1990s and 2000s. He also founded a TV network, launched a successful clothing company, became the face of a popular liquor brand and threw parties that some of the world's biggest celebrities rearranged their calendars to attend. Today, though, his public persona has been overwhelmed by allegations of Today, though, his public persona has been overwhelmed by allegations of how he has conducted his private life. Combs is currently standing trial in Manhattan on five criminal counts, including sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy. Federal prosecutors have accused him of carrying out an extended campaign of abuse against women that included coercing them to participate in marathon sex parties, while using threats of violence and the power of his business empire to cover up his misdeeds. If convicted, he could end up spending the rest of his life in prison. Combs is far from the first celebrity to face allegations of horrific personal conduct. Whenever such claims arise, they force us to reconsider a beloved artist's work in light of their alleged behavior. Just how much do charges of misconduct affect how people view an artist's creative output? Can we really 'separate the art from the artist,' or does one's personal behavior inevitably tarnish their creative legacy? These questions have existed for a long time. Some of history's greatest artists have been accused of doing truly awful things. But the debate has become more pointed in recent years, in the wake of the #MeToo movement and the backlash against cancel culture. Combs's case shows how complicated these situations can be. When the allegations against him first came to light, streaming numbers for his music plummeted, but they actually increased in the wake of his arrest. A new Yahoo News/YouGov poll offers a glimpse into how Americans make sense of celebrities' behavior and how it influences their entertainment decisions. Rather than providing a definitive picture, the survey of 1,560 adults shows just how complicated these considerations can be and how divided we are in how we respond when the artists we love are accused of conduct we abhor. In the survey, which was conducted May 22-27, an overwhelming majority of people said that an artist's personal behavior can influence their choice of whether to watch their movies, listen to their music or otherwise engage with their art. That doesn't mean that they write off the work of any celebrity who faces allegations of misconduct, though. For most people, the specific circumstances are what matter. Sixty-seven percent of respondents said their choices depend on the artist and what they're accused of. Only 21% said that they will automatically abandon artists who do things they don't approve of 'because you can't separate the artist from the art.' Just 12% believe an artist's personal behavior doesn't matter at all 'because the art and the artist are separate things.' While it's clear that an artist's actions inform how most people view their work, that doesn't necessarily mean they will avoid it entirely if they disapprove of their behavior. Less than half of respondents (47%) said they have personally stopped consuming at least one artist's work because of things they have done. Nearly the same number (45%) said they have not. The nature of allegations matters as well. Sexual assault involving children was unsurprisingly the top reason respondents listed for why they stopped consuming an artist's work. Extreme political views, sexual assault involving adults, racism and domestic violence also ranked high on the list of 'cancelable' offenses. While all of these various factors appear to matter to some degree, it's not clear which one carries the most weight when it comes to specific artists. For example, sexual assault against children is viewed as the most egregious offense, but just 11% of people in the survey said they had stopped listening to music from Michael Jackson — who was accused of molesting multiple children during his lifetime. Three times as many people (33%) said they had stopped consuming R. Kelly's work in light of a string of sexual abuse claims involving minors that he has faced. Recency, familiarity, age and politics play a role here too. When given a list of celebrities who have faced high-profile allegations of wrongdoing, more respondents said they had stopped consuming Combs's art than any of the other options, possibly because reminders of those accusations are all over the news right now. Generational differences showed up in the results as well. Americans over 65 were more forgiving across every type of allegation — with the exception of drug use or excessive drinking, which they viewed as disqualifying at a higher rate than any other age group. Older people were also more likely to say they had stopped consuming work from Bill Cosby, who was a massive star in their generation before being accused of sexual assault by dozens of women. Despite Gen Z's purported reputation for hypersensitivity, younger people were either equally likely or less likely than millennials or Gen X-ers to say that they would stop consuming an artist's work across all different types of allegations — including anti-LGBTQ statements and sexism. At first glance, politics doesn't seem to be that big of a factor, but its influence really starts to show when you zoom in a bit. Democrats, Republicans and independents were equally likely to say they had abandoned an artist because of their behavior. Which artists and the kind of behavior varies dramatically, though. Just 5% of Republicans said that anti-LGBTQ statements had caused them to stop consuming an artist's work, compared with 34% of Democrats. GOP voters were also less likely to cite racism, sexism, domestic violence and sexual assault involving adults as reasons to give up an artist. The same is true when it comes to most individual artists, with particularly large gaps for celebrities who have expressly aligned themselves with President Trump. For example, seven times as many Democrats (30%) as Republicans (4%) said that they have stopped watching films starring Mel Gibson, who has faced various accusations of making antisemitic and racist comments statements over the years and whom Trump named as a 'special ambassador' to Hollywood in the early days of his second term. Researchers have been studying whether humans can separate art from artists for decades. For the most part, they have found that we can't. Studies consistently show that our moral judgments on individuals influence how we view things that are associated with them. Part of that is the result of high-level thinking, where we carefully weigh our appreciation of the art against our distaste for the artist's actions. But the process also happens at a more visceral, unconscious level. In one famous experiment from the 1990s, most test subjects refused to put on a sweater after being told to imagine that it belonged to Adolf Hitler, under the illogical belief that they would somehow be contaminated by his evil if they did. 'If a person does something that I find to be really repugnant, morally speaking, then I will have an unconscious sense that close, intimate contact with things they've created may affect or corrupt me in some vague, hard to specify manner,' James Harold, a professor of philosophy at Mount Holyoke College and the author of the book Dangerous Art, told Yahoo News. Thanks to technological advances, we can now see this process at work on a biological level. Researchers in Germany recently found that people instinctively viewed classical paintings as lower in quality when they were told about bad things the artists had done in their lives. 'These artworks are processed differently at the neural level. ... This shift in brain activity happens very quickly, during the early stages of perception and emotional processing,' Hannah Kaube, a doctoral candidate at the Humboldt University of Berlin who helped lead the study, told Yahoo News. 'This suggests that the effect is not just conscious, but occurs spontaneously and automatically.' Brain scans showed that the unflattering information caused an instant emotional change in the subjects, reflecting that they now viewed the work more negatively. Interestingly, though, those same scans found that work by 'bad' artists was also more arousing. Brain activity that's typically associated with more thoughtful, deliberate thinking was not triggered by the information. 'People may not even realize their feelings about the artwork are being shaped by what they know about the artist — but their brain shows that it is,' Kaube said. So if nearly all of us carry our judgments of an artist's behavior with us when we consume their art, why are some people able to still enjoy it while others feel obligated to give it up? 'The concept of 'separating art from the artist' can be considered along two interconnected dimensions: whether people should separate the two (an ethical question), and whether they actually do (a psychological one),' said Kaube, who only focuses on the second dimension in her research. Some of the explanations are straightforward. It's a lot easier to shun an artist if you're not a fan of their work in the first place or if you're of an age where they weren't really a big star to your generation. It's probably not a big ask for the average 20-year-old to stop watching Woody Allen movies over his adopted daughter's claim that he sexually abused her, for example. There's also the fact that a lot of people simply don't believe that the allegations against a celebrity are true or don't think that what they're accused of is that big of a deal. Some celebrities have very successfully turned public opinion in their favor after being targeted with allegations of misconduct. Our reactions are also a reflection of how we see ourselves, Harold argues. 'Much of the separating the art from the artist is expressive behavior,' he said. 'It has to do with a person's self-conception, who they think they are. ... We associate art as expressing something about the humanity of the person who made it, and so then you don't want to be affiliated with that human being.' External factors can also play a big role. Shared fandom can be a potent source of community in the digital age. So when allegations come out, fan groups often process the news collectively, which can influence any individual member's decisions. 'Refusing to engage with the work of somebody who you recently learned has done something bad can be a way of expressing your concern for other members of the group,' Harold said. Those dynamics can work in the other direction too, pushing members to keep engaging with a maligned artist in order to avoid losing a community they care about. Institutions can also influence our responses. When a museum, studio or entertainment venue announces that they will no longer work with a certain artist, that sends a broad message that their actions are disqualifying. If that doesn't happen, it can create the implication that the artist's behavior might not be so bad. One of the nation's most powerful institutions, the legal system, still hasn't registered its final judgment on Combs, which could prove to be the most important factor in how the public ultimately views his music. The accusations have already affected his standing. Nearly half of the respondents in our poll (47%) said the allegations had changed the way they view him as an artist. In the end, though, it's reasonable to expect that a guilty verdict would cause even more people to question whether his songs really deserve a spot on their playlists.
News24
18 hours ago
- News24
Ahee, Papa Penny, ahee! MKP MP lightens up Safa's appearance in Parliament
Screenshot The attempted grilling of Safa by Umkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) MP and musician Gezani Kobane, popularly known as Papa Penny, during the association's appearance before the parliamentary portfolio committee for sport on Tuesday left many South Africans in stitches. The musician-turned-politician asked Safa chief financial officer (CFO) Gronie Hluyo why he was still in the employ of Safa when he was facing serious charges of fraud and corruption while other staff members had already faced discipline and suspension. Reading his prepared question, Papa Penny was the talking point after the meeting. Some people called for Parliament to have translators and allow members to speak in their own languages.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: Amendment would stop prosecutions of women for getting abortions
A widely shared post on social media claimed MPs 'are voting to legalise abortion up to BIRTH. No limits. No safeguards.' The poster also said: 'On 4 July, Parliament will vote on a law that would: Remove ALL criminal penalties for abortion.' They added: 'Under MP Diana Johnson's amendment: No time limits. No gestational protections. No punishment for abortions at 7, 8, even 9 months.' The proposal being discussed was not tabled by Diana Johnson, nor is there any evidence Parliament will be voting on it on July 4. It also does not remove all criminal penalties for abortion and maintains most of the limits that are currently in place. If the amendment is made into law it will still be illegal for a woman to terminate her pregnancy outside of the current rules – which among other things limit abortions after 24 weeks into a pregnancy – but her actions would be decriminalised, meaning she would not be punished. However doctors who perform abortions which are not permissible under current laws could still be punished. Who has tabled the amendment? The poster initially said that the changes could come under an amendment from Diana Johnson MP. Ms Johnson did table an amendment to the last Government's criminal justice bill, however that bill – and therefore the amendment – was abandoned when the election was called. In a reply to another user, the original poster instead said they were referring to an amendment which 'has been tabled by Tonia Antoniazzi to the government's Crime & Policing Bill.' Ms Antoniazzi has indeed filed an amendment to the current crime and policing bill which is making its way through Parliament. The two amendments are very similar in their wording, although not identical. What does the amendment say? Ms Antoniazzi's amendment is called NC1 and reads: 'Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion. For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.' Ms Antoniazzi's explanatory note which accompanies the amendment states that the change would 'disapply existing criminal law' on abortion from 'women acting in relation to her own pregnancy.' This is at any point in the pregnancy, the note states. It adds: 'It would not change any law regarding the provision of abortion services within a healthcare setting, including but not limited to the time limit, telemedicine, the grounds for abortion, or the requirement for two doctors' approval.' What does the current law on abortion say? The 1967 Abortion Act made abortion legal in some circumstances. In its current form the act allows an abortion if the pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner, and as long as the woman is not more than 24 weeks pregnant. The act also sets other restrictions on when an abortion can be legally carried out, including the need for sign-off by two registered medical practitioners. Outside of the parameters in which the 1967 act made abortion legal in certain circumstances, the practice is still governed by acts passed in 1929 and 1861 which can punish abortion with life imprisonment. When will the amendment be voted on? The Crime and Policing Bill, which this amendment has been attached to, has passed its first and second reading in the House of Commons. It is currently in the so-called report stage and a third reading in the Commons is due to happen 'on a date to be confirmed'. In a first reading the bill is presented to the Commons and not debated. The bill's general principles are debated at the second reading, then amendments come at committee and report stage. At the third reading MPs decide on whether to pass the bill. If they do it then goes onto the House of Lords. At the time of writing there was no sign of the crime and policing bill on the House of Commons schedule for July 4. In fact that day is a Friday and the House of Commons normally only sits on Mondays to Thursdays, sometimes sitting on Fridays to consider private member's bills. The crime and policing bill is not a private member's bill. Would this legalise abortion up to birth? No, the bill would decriminalise abortion up to birth for the pregnant woman, not legalise it. Decriminalising something means that while it is still illegal, breaking that law does not carry any penalty. The suggested amendment would only deal with 'a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy'. Therefore the amendment does not change the current law on whether doctors can provide an abortion after 24 weeks. Other safeguards around legally provided abortions remain unchanged. Doctors and others who provided an abortion outside of the legally defined parameters could still be punished. It is just the pregnant woman who would escape punishment in such a scenario. Thread of posts on X (archived) UK Parliament – Dame Diana Johnson's amendment (archived) UK Parliament – Criminal Justice Bill, news (archived) Post referring to amendment (archived post and thread) House of Commons – Crime and Policing Bill, Amendment Paper (archived) Criminal Justice Bill – Cross-party amendment briefing (archived) – Abortion Act 1967 (archived) – Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (archived) – Offences against the Person Act 1861, section 58 (archived) – Offences against the Person Act 1861, section 59 (archived) UK Parliament – Crime and Policing Bill, details (archived) UK Parliament – Crime and Policing Bill, news (archived) UK Parliament – Bill stages (archived) UK Parliament – What's on: Friday 4 July 2025 (archived) – Guide to Parliamentary Work (archived)
