Retailers call for urgent national action on high street crime
Once seen as a major shopping destination, Oxford Street has struggled in recent years – becoming better known for phone snatching and sweet shops.
High Streets UK, a group that represents 5,000 UK businesses, is calling for ring-fenced funding for police to protect key shopping destinations.
The body includes members from business improvement districts in Aberdeen, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds, Liverpool, London and Newcastle.
Dee Corsi, chair of High Streets UK and chief executive of founding member New West End Company, said: 'Flagship high streets are engines of the local and national economy, drivers of tourism, and anchors for communities. But without urgent national action on crime, they are at serious risk.
'We have welcomed the Government's renewed focus on retail crime in particular.
'But we must go further and faster to tackle all types of crime affecting high streets, having a devastating effect on businesses and communities, tarnishing the UK's global reputation, and jeopardising tourism and investment.'
According to the most recent official statistics, the number of shoplifting offences recorded by police in 2024 surpassed 500,000 for the first time.
Ms Corsi said it is critical for additional funding for policing in the upcoming spending review to be ring-fenced for key high streets.
'The UK's flagship high streets are important cultural and economic centres – with High Street UK locations generating over £50 billion in economic value every year – yet growing complex challenges around crime and anti-social behaviour put these locations at risk,' she said.
'Take London's West End – the internationally renowned home to Oxford Street, Bond Street and Regent Street is an important driver of jobs, investment, and tourism, contributing 3% of the capital's economic activity.
'Despite this, continued underfunding of policing has left it facing real issues including anti-social behaviour, shop theft and organised business crime.
'Through the collective voice of High Streets UK, we are calling for the Government to recognise the value of these locations – as economic hubs, anchors for community, and tourism destinations – by ring-fencing dedicated police support.
'Failing to do so puts growth, and flagship high streets, at serious risk.'
High Streets UK held its second quarterly meeting on Wednesday, drawing up four key points that it is urging the Government to tackle.
Ms Corsi added: 'At our Safer High Streets Forum, we shared our frontline experience of the international criminal gangs, business crime, prolific offenders and anti-social behaviour affecting our high streets – none of which can be meaningfully tackled with the current systems and resources in place.'
High Streets UK has called for boosted police numbers around high streets, separately measuring performance for the specific areas.
It wants immediate jail terms for those who breach criminal behaviour orders, quicker sentencing for crimes linked to retail, and a focus on repeat offenders.
And it is calling for national measures to tackle organised crime that affects high streets including begging gangs, and the creation of a national framework for businesses to report crime.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
The wait of the law: justice delayed is an injustice in itself
Eight hundred and ten years ago, the writers of Magna Carta slipped a crucial word into the document they forced King John to sign. The monarch had to promise not to 'deny or delay' justice to his subjects. The law must decide — and, crucially, it must do so promptly. Today we report that the average wait for a case to come to trial at magistrates' courts has reached 346 days. For some people it extends to three years. The price of this indefensible delay is paid by the innocent. First, the victims, who after being traumatised by crime are left in limbo, with that trauma unresolved; second, those who are wrongly accused, living with an unjustified stain on their reputation and a shadow over their future. After eight centuries Magna Carta has no legal force, but its moral authority remains. The government should recognise that, and act accordingly. Justice delayed is not only justice denied: it is an injustice in itself.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
The Bayoh inquiry is at a crossroads – the Crown Office must decide
On May 3, 2015 in Kirkcaldy, Sheku Bayoh was restrained on the ground by six police officers. He died. In November 2019, Humza Yousaf announced a full judicial inquiry into the circumstances of Bayoh's death, including an investigation into what role, if any, race played in these events and their aftermath. Lord Bracadale was appointed to lead the inquiry by the Scottish Government, with Angela Grahame KC as its main lawyer. Core participants were identified, including the Bayoh family, Police Scotland, the Crown Office, and the individual police officers involved in the incident giving rise to Bayoh's death. Remarkably, the Equality and Human Rights Commission declined to get involved in the most significant official investigation into race and policing in Scotland in decades. To date, the inquiry has heard almost 125 days of evidence and legal argument over the better part of six years. Until Lord Bracadale recalled the participants to the oral hearing at Capital House this month, we thought the evidential parts of the Bayoh inquiry were basically over and awaited Bracadale's formal conclusions. READ MORE: Presiding Officer to step down at Holyrood election Now, his investigation may be fatally compromised before a single conclusion has been published. Last week, lawyers for the Scottish Police Federation lodged a formal recusal application, arguing that the inquiry was tainted by apparent bias and that officers under investigation by it had 'lost confidence' in the independence of the chair. It isn't unheard of for public inquiries to shed their chair before reaching conclusions and if this happens early enough in their progress, it need not fatally compromise their work. Because inquiry chairs tend to have grey hairs, human frailty being what it is can also have an impact, as age and illness catch up with very long-running inquiry processes. Lady Poole did a bunk from the Scottish Covid inquiry for reasons still unexplained, leaving Lord Brailsford to step in. Child abuse inquiries across the UK have burned through a number of chairs during their long and painfully slow progress. But if Bracadale steps down in response to this pressure, it is difficult to see how the inquiry could meaningfully recover. The Bayoh family's solicitor Aamer Anwar has described the move as an '11th hour,' 'desperate and pathetic attempt to sabotage the inquiry' by 'the Federation and those hanging on to their coat tails'. But the legal arguments involved are serious and if Bracadale decides not to recuse himself, we can expect further litigation in judicial review at the Court of Session. One of the tricky things here is the nature of public inquiries. Public inquiries aren't courts – though given the plantations of lawyers who have sat through the Bayoh inquiry hearings, you could be forgiven for mistaking them for one. Unlike courts, core participants aren't free to choose what evidence they'd like to lead. The lawyers in the room can apply to the chair to ask questions of witnesses, but they don't have the absolute right to cross-examine as they or their clients might like. The process is inquisitorial, and counsel for the inquiry takes the lead. But like all public decision-makers, there's an overriding requirement for public inquiries to adopt a fair procedure. What fairness requires depends on the circumstances, but one aspect of fairness deals with bias – actual or apparent. Some biases are easy to identify. If one of the core participants is best friends with the inquiry chair, we have a problem. If the judge in charge is on the board of trustees of one of the organisations involved in the scrutiny, the fair-minded observer might have their doubts about their independence. Legally, the question is 'whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased' in the circumstances. The case for Bracadale's recusal is based on a range of critical observations about how Bracadale and his lawyers have handled the investigation, but focus primarily on five private meetings they held with the Bayoh family and their legal representatives without any of the other core participants being present, aware of the meetings or given comprehensive information about what precisely was discussed. 'Mindful of how long the inquiry has lasted and the attendant effort and time that has been invested,' Scotland's prosecuting authorities have also concluded 'with great regret' that the inquiry appears biased in favour of Bayoh's surviving relatives. While repeatedly stressing 'there is no basis for assuming anything other than good intentions on the part of the Chair,' the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) told the judge they share the Police Federation's disquiet and have submitted supporting arguments, arguing that the inquiry has been actually biased in its language and approach to the evidence. Explaining these meetings, the inquiry has stressed 'the engagement of the families with the inquiry is crucial to the effectiveness of the inquiry in fulfilling its terms of reference. If the inquiry failed to obtain and retain the confidence of the families its effectiveness would be prejudiced'. READ MORE: Labour blasted as 'deeply authoritarian' over plans to proscribe Palestine Action 'Over the years from 2015, the families lost confidence in the various state institutions with which they had dealings – Police Scotland, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, and the Crown Office. There was a real prospect that they would not engage at all with the inquiry process or at some point would cease to engage with it,' they said. For these aspirations, Bracadale is also criticised by the Crown Office, who maintains 'the fair-minded observer would question whether that was consistent with a stated intention to proceed in a way that was entirely impartial and independent of any person'. But their argument stretches a long way beyond this. They suggest, for example, that the inquiry's approach to witnesses has tended to focus on evidence that met aspects of counsel's 'case theory' which 'usually appeared to align with the position of the family.' Cherry-picking, essentially, with a mind made up, determined to extract answers from witnesses that fit the theory rather than reflect a perhaps more muddled and messy reality. This suggestion stretches a good way beyond suggestions of apparent bias. Reflecting on how some witnesses were examined, COPFS also complained that this 'case theory was at times pursued with notable vigour, creating the impression that the purpose was to validate rather than test the theory'. The prosecuting authorities – themselves the subject of criticism in evidence before the inquiry, remember – don't set out what precisely they understand the inquiry's 'case theory' to be – so the innuendo reading of these complaints is all we're left with. At least the Police Federation are more uncompromisingly direct about the legal consequences of their recusal application. They insist that comments from Bracadale – including suggestions he was 'profoundly moved' by Bayoh's sister's description of the impact of her brother's death on their family – 'suggest or create the appearance' that the inquiry has 'pre-judged, or evinced a closed mind to, material issues' at stake, including the relative blameworthiness of the dead man. Objection was also taken to a human impact video which opened the inquiry, with Roddy Dunlop KC suggesting that 'arranging and paying for a video tribute to the life of one core participant when it was known that other core participants did not accept the description of Mr Bayoh as the 'victim' is again problematic – all the more so when the chair had indicated in advance (privately) that this would 'be a very strong start to the hearings''. Although the Crown Office stresses they aren't questioning the motives or intentions of the chair, their submission argues the inquiry's approach to the questioning of witnesses was actually biased and biased in favour of Bayoh's family – a remarkable allegation meriting much more critical comment than it has received. If the Solicitor General is right, then as a matter of law, Bracadale must resign. If they are confident in their legal analysis, the Crown Office should say so. At the hearing last week, Scotland's prosecutors limply argued it was a 'matter for the inquiry' how to respond to their full-frontal attack on how the inquiry has discharged its duties investing this death in custody. Given the startling breadth of the Crown Office's attack on its work, this isn't legal politesse but pure cowardice.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Scotland's financial plan must show child poverty funding
The documents set out the Scottish Government's priorities for the next five years, and includes estimates for amounts of tax to be collected, and spending in areas like health, education and local government. Read more: Ahead of the Holyrood statement, Ms Robinson blamed the 'disappointing' outcome of the UK Government's recent Spending Review and Westminster's welfare reforms for worsening Scotland's financial outlook. She said the Scottish budget had been short-changed by £1.1 billion in day-to-day funding compared to UK departments. 'This government has delivered a balanced budget every year while taking steps to improve the overall sustainability of our finances. "This is despite a deeply challenging financial situation caused by rising global instability, persistent higher inflation and over a decade of UK austerity. 'Our disappointing settlement at the recent UK Spending Review has made the situation worse, short-changing the Scottish Government by £1.1bn in our day-to-day funding compared with UK Government departments. "This comes on top of reductions in our funding worth hundreds of millions of pounds as a result of the UK Government's proposed welfare reforms and failure to fully fund its employer National Insurance increase. 'In this context, it is important that we take action to maximise funding targeted at frontline services such as our NHS.' Shona Robison will deliver the MTFS on Wednesday (Image: Robert Perry) The MFTS is usually published each May, but this year's was delayed by four weeks due to the timing of the UK Government's multi-year Spending Review, published on June 11. As a result, MSPs will not be able to scrutinise the document until September, after the summer recess— much to the frustration of Holyrood's Finance and Public Administration Committee. According to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, the gap between what the Scottish Government spends and what it takes in is expected to grow from £1bn in 2024–25 to almost £2bn by 2027–28. The Fiscal Sustainability Delivery Plan, due to be published alongside the MTFS, is expected to set out how the government intends to close this gap—though details remain sparse. Stephen Boyd of the IPPR think tank told The Herald on Sunday that expectations were high for a more detailed and transparent strategy. 'At this stage, and given the month-long delay in publication, it is entirely reasonable to expect that long-standing criticisms will start to be addressed in this MTFS,' he said. "Information presented consistently on a year-to-year basis; more detailed information on spending priorities and future trends; more detailed information on risks and how these will be mitigated.' Mr Boyd said the strategy must outline how the Scottish Government plans to fund the First Minister's key priorities: tackling child poverty, growing the economy, addressing the climate crisis and improving public services. 'It is difficult to see how significant progress can be made on these priorities, especially the first, without spending more money,' he said. 'The MTFS should begin to set out a longer-term tax strategy, recognising that taxes will likely have to rise. 'The tax strategy published alongside this year's budget included a number of commitments for the remainder of this parliament—for example, that over half of Scottish taxpayers will pay less Income Tax than they do in the rest of the UK. 'The MTFS should begin to set out a longer-term strategy recognising that taxes will likely have to rise to respond to the demands of an ageing society and the climate crisis.' Read more: Mr Boyd said that despite increases in the block grant announced in the UK autumn budget and the Spending Review, Scotland's public finances 'remain tight'. 'Unless the Cabinet Secretary is prepared to raise taxes, portfolio funding settlements are likely to be tight, especially if—as it's reasonable to expect—health is protected. 'It is reasonable to expect that parts of the public sector—and their workforces—will be disappointed by the MTFS. 'It is entirely possible that a revised approach to pay and workforce will be signalled in the MTFS. Pay settlements have been relatively generous in the devolved public sector over recent years. 'It will be interesting to see how the Cabinet Secretary navigates this politically fraught terrain. 'As the modelling produced by IPPR Scotland and others shows, it is clear that more generous welfare payments are required to make significant progress on the First Minister's main priority of eradicating child poverty. "Yet, the First Minister recently suggested there will be no further increases in the Scottish child payment. 'The MTFS will provide a clear signal on just how serious the Scottish Government is about meeting this priority.'
