Most knife-crime offences in London are robberies and hotspots include popular tourist areas
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech.
Most knife-crime offences in London are robberies and hotspots include popular tourist areas
People in Carnaby Street in London, near Oxford and Regent streets. Photo / Mary Turner, the New York Times
The West End of London has been revealed as the British capital's knife-crime hotspot.
More knife offences were recorded in a single area between Oxford Circus and Piccadilly Circus than in 700 other similar-sized locations in the city.
It was among more than 200 hotspot areas that accounted for more than a quarter of all London's knife crime last year, according to research by the Policy Exchange think-tank.
The geographical concentration of violence comes as knife crime in London has increased by 58.5% to a record 16,789 offences in the three years to 2024. This represents some 32.1% of all knife crime in England.
The Policy Exchange report recommended that Scotland Yard should adopt an enhanced 'zero-tolerance' strategy in the top 20 knife crime hotspots where officers would be 'explicitly tasked' to conduct 'very high volumes' of stop and searches.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
Misusing The Children: The UK Online Safety Act, Privacy And Censorship
The United Kingdom can always be relied upon to supply us with the eccentric, the admirably dotty, and the odd extreme bit of adventure in policy. Lately, those mad protectors and censors with their shields of false virtue and hollow intellect have decided to launch an assault on the users of the Internet. In this, they are joining the platoons of hysteria from such countries as Australia, where age verification restrictions on platforms are all the rage. It's all about the children, and when adults start meddling with children, all sorts of trouble arise. Much in line with the foolish, and potentially dangerous efforts being made by the eCommissioner (not a misspelling) in Australia to impose 'industry codes' of child safety, the UK Online Safety Act (OSA) is being used to blanket social media, search engines and virtually any other site of service with age verification restrictions. The OSA lists three categories that are said to be harmful to children: primary priority content, priority content and non-designated content. Primary priority content is a British favourite of the repressed classes: pornography, and content that supposedly encourages suicide, self-harm, or various behaviours and disorders with eating. (If only there was a form of pornography that might encourage good eating habits.) Priority harmful content covers abuse relevant to race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability or gender reassignment and any content that incites hatred against such people. To this, among others, can be added bullying, the promotion of 'serious violence, and depiction of serious violence' whether authentic or fictional. To make things even more expansively ludicrous, the regulations cover content that is non-designated (NDC), which might as well be the entire body of knowledge and existence on this planet and beyond seen by the regulators of the day as dangerous. Examples are skimpy, and do not mention the enriching apple in the Garden of Eden offered to Eve by the opportunistic serpent. Something, however, is 'NDC if it presents a material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children in the UK'. What a triumph of insufferable vagueness. The onus is placed on the online service providers to ascertain whether the hosted content is harmful to children. 'As the regulator, we won't be accessing individual pieces of content, or telling online services to remove legal material,' states the UK Office of Communications, Ofcom. They are, in effect, being enlisted by the government as moral, vigilant guardians, never the wisest thing when it comes to technology companies. If the providers in question determine the material to be harmful, they must implement various mitigation measures. Ofcom lists some of them: 'highly effective age assurance to protect children from [harmful content online]'; safer algorithms to limit access to such harmful content (goodbye much literature and culture); effective moderation; transparent reporting and complaints processes; supportive information for children and 'strong governance and accountability'. This constituted a true charter for docile imbecility. The platforms are told to implement an age verification process that is 'technically accurate, robust, reliable and fair.' These include, among a range of options, facial age estimation, granting the age-check service access to bank information, digital identity services, which include digital identity wallets, credit card age checks, mobile network operator age checks and uploaded photo-IDs. Social media platforms such as Reddit, Bluesky, Discord, and have already imposed age checks to comply with the July 25 deadline. Ditto Pornhub, the most visited pornographic online provider in the UK, Tube 8, YouPorn and RedTube. The well named Carl Dong, Obscura VPN founder, is not shy in calling the law a 'ticking time-bomb for the privacy of UK citizens.' The broader consequences of the OSA are snappily summed up by Paige Collings, senior speech and privacy activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation: the OSA is nothing less than a 'threat to the privacy of users,' a restriction on free expression by arbitrating online speech, an imposition of 'algorithmic discrimination through face checks' and excludes 'millions of people without a personal device or form of ID […] from accessing the internet.' The cleverer users will simply make a mockery of the whole show by using other means of regulatory subversion, including installing a VPN (Virtual Private Network) and browsing the web as if the user was from another country where age-verification rules do not apply. 'The logistics,' explains Graeme Stewart, head of public sector at Check Point Software, 'are near impossible. You could, in theory, ban the sale of VPN equipment, or instruct ISPs not to accept VPN traffic. But even then, people will find workarounds. All you'd achieve is pushing VPN underground, creating a black market for VPN contractors.' A rush for the most appropriate VPNs has already been ushered in while a petition featuring over 481,000 signatures urging the repeal of the OSA has gathered steam. On July 28, the government responded in the customary tone deaf manner, admitting to having 'no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act'. Instead, it was 'working with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.' Critics of these digital walls of restriction and exclusion face a body of manipulated public opinion. Gone are the days when everyone could post, mention and vent on any topic with merry impunity and noisy enthusiasm. Information superhighways have become potholes fought over by tribes and regulatory zealots inoculated against debate. Many members of the public seem to want censorship as a form of stand-in parenting, and a YouGov poll found a majority of Britons satisfied with the law (the latest figure as of July 31 comes in at 69%). Yet again, such an encroachment is being done in the name of the children, who are to be left permanently immature and unspoiled by the richer, more complicated life. Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: bkampmark@
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- NZ Herald
Robbery of royal family's items leads to $6.7 million insurance payment
The stolen boxes, one encrusted with diamonds, have not been recovered. Photo / Getty Images The two royal snuff boxes were found to be among the stolen artefacts, according to the museum. They were on loan from the Royal Collection Trust, which controls the royal family's art collection, and the trust's annual financial report revealed the resulting £3m insurance payout. 'During the year, an insurance settlement was received in respect of snuff boxes stolen whilst on loan to the Musée Cognacq-Jay,' the report said, adding that the money had been placed into a fund 'to be used for the enhancement of the collection'. Also taken in the robbery were two snuff boxes belonging to the Louvre Museum in Paris and three that were on loan to the Victoria and Albert Museum of London, according to the trust. The trust's website details how European jewellers began to make luxurious boxes in the 1600s as the practice of using snuff became increasingly fashionable, and the two stolen artefacts were part of a wider collection of such items held by British royals. One of the stolen boxes dates from the 1700s and was previously owned by Russia's ruling Romanov family but was confiscated by Soviet authorities after the revolution and was eventually purchased by Queen Mary, King Charles III's great-grandmother. The Royal Collection Trust describes it as a 'spectacular bloodstone box' and one of the finest German-made boxes of its kind. The other stolen box was given to King George V as a birthday present in 1920, and is made of gold and lapis lazuli, with an onyx cameo depicting the birth of Venus, according to the trust's website. The two boxes and the other artefacts stolen in the heist have not been recovered – and it is not the first time that thieves have targeted the Musée Cognacq-Jay. In March 1937, the New York Times reported that several 18th-century gold snuff boxes and items of jewellery had been taken by a gang who smashed their way into a glass display case. On that occasion, the suspects were described as a 'blond young woman and an elderly woman, and a bewhiskered, decorated man'. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Lizzie Dearden ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
Further Legal Breakthrough In Saint Lucia For Caribbean LGBT Rights
London: 30 July In another historic breakthrough for human rights in the Caribbean, the High Court of Saint Lucia yesterday struck down a discriminatory, colonial-era, criminal law that targeted lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. Saint Lucia now joins Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica and St Kitts & Nevis as the fifth country in the Eastern Caribbean to decriminalise gay sex in recent times, leaving only five remaining countries in the Western Hemisphere with criminalising laws still on the books. Same-sex sexual activity between men and between women was prohibited under the Criminal Code 2004, which criminalised acts of 'buggery' and 'gross indecency'. These provisions carried a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. The High Court held that these criminalising provisions contravene fundamental human rights, including the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and protection from discrimination on the basis of sex (interpreted to include sexual orientation). Téa Braun, Chief Executive of the Human Dignity Trust, says, 'This victory marks another significant legal milestone for the LGBT community in the Caribbean and demonstrates the importance of the courts when law makers fail to respect fundamental human rights. We extend our heartfelt congratulations to the litigants and activists who have tirelessly pursued justice.' The case was led by regional LGBT umbrella organisation, the Eastern Caribbean Alliance for Diversity and Equality (ECADE). The discriminatory law was inherited from the British during the colonial period, in which the English criminal law was imposed upon Saint Lucia. Despite adopting a new Criminal Code in 2004, Saint Lucia opted to retain the provisions and continued to criminalise same-sex sexual activity until this historic day. Today's judgment follows a landmark 2021 decision from a top regional human rights tribunal, finding that laws criminalising LGBT people violate international law.
