Sex crimes in Scotland at second-highest level in 54 years
Opposition politicians blamed the rises on 'savage' cuts to frontline policing under the SNP government, which was accused of bringing the justice system to 'breaking point'.
Liam Kerr, the Scottish shadow justice secretary, said: 'These shocking rises are the inevitable consequence of the SNP's savage and sustained cuts to frontline policing.
'Whether it's sexual crimes, other violent offences, shoplifting or domestic abuse, the trend is up, and Scotland's streets are becoming less safe.
'The increase in weapons being carried by school pupils exposes the epidemic of violence in Scotland's schools – and the woeful inadequacy of nationalist ministers' response to it.'
'Multiple' explanations
Justice Secretary Angela Constance expressed concern over the rise in reported sexual crimes, but said that 'multiple factors' were responsible.
She said these included efforts to tackle sexual offending by increasing confidence in the justice system so more victims come forward, improving support for victims and modernising the law on sexual offences.
According to official data, recording of overall crime remains below the level prior to the Covid-19 pandemic and down 51 per cent from its peak in 1991.
Damage and reckless behaviour crimes decreased to their lowest level since 1976, from 41,129 to 38,738.
However, crimes against society, including drug possession, increased by 3 percent from 61,650 to 63,398 while lower-level offences such as road traffic and antisocial offences rose slightly from 174,073 to 175,919.
Violent crime decreased
Ms Constance pointed out that violent crime was down significantly in the past 20 years, with serious assaults and homicide levels at record lows.
She said: 'However, we cannot afford to be complacent and I have been consistently clear that any instance of violence is one too many.
'That is why we are taking a wide range of actions to prevent, reduce and tackle violence, with more than £6 million funding invested over the past three years.'
Scotland is 'a safe place to live'
Addressing the wider drop in reported crime, Ms Constance added: 'These figures show that Scotland continues to be a safe place to live with reported crime falling by more than half since 1991.
'This comes on the back of the flagship Scottish Crime and Justice Survey which also showed people feel safer in their communities.'
The Scottish government said £4.2 billion will be invested this year across the justice system including a record £1.64 billion for policing – an increase of £70 million from 2024-25.
Projects supporting young people at risk of being drawn into criminal activities, under the Cashback for Communities programme, will receive up to £26 million over the next three financial years.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Five children taken to hospital after tree falls in Essex park
Five children have been taken to hospital, including two with serious injuries, after a tree fell in a seaside park in Essex on Saturday. Essex police said they were called to Chalkwell park in Southend-on-Sea shortly before 3pm, where they found 'a number of casualties'. An East of England ambulance service spokesperson said: 'Two children were transported by road to Southend University hospital. 'A further three children were later transported by road to the same hospital with minor injuries.' Police advised the public to avoid the area. Adam Hutchins, 47, told the EssexLive website: 'I heard there were kids playing on the tree. They heard a big crack. 'It must have [been] pretty loud. They went running over and there were kids underneath the tree. 'All the cricket guys ran over and tried to loft the tree up. I think it's one of the oldest trees. It had metal stands propping it up.' David Burton-Sampson, Labour MP for Southend West and Leigh, described it as a 'worrying incident', adding: 'My thoughts are with those affected.' Daniel Cowan, the leader of Southend's city council, said on Saturday: 'I'm aware of this very serious incident. We're working with Essex police, the ambulance service and fire service, who are still at the scene. 'I do understand that a tree has fallen, there's a number of casualties and we're just asking the public to avoid the area while those services carry out their work, and my thoughts are with those affected.'
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Palestine Action are not terrorists. The RAF is just grossly incompetent
One can see why the Government is proposing to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. That anyone could enter the RAF base at Brize Norton, one of the most significant we have, and smear red paint on planes was deeply humiliating. Once, the commanding officer of the base would have resigned immediately; the security officer would have been moved to the cookhouse, if he was lucky; and the Defence Secretary would have offered his resignation. But no-one resigns these days, so branding the intruders 'terrorists', as if they were some ruthless group trained to outwit military professionals, with death and destruction their aim, makes them sound all the more formidable, and their victims all the more helpless. It is an unconvincing cover for the sort of grotesque incompetence that characterises our public sector and public services. That was the RAF; the next day it was the Metropolitan Police unable to prevent an epidemic of daylight robbery on the streets of the West End; the next NHS maternity services that humiliate and degrade women giving birth. What Palestine Action, however organised and bonkers and loathsome they are, did was not terrorism: it was vandalism. You might as well call football hooligans terrorists, or the groups of louts who on hot summer evenings riot because they are bored and the police upset them by seeking to restore order. Terrorism is a truly abhorrent, lethal, wicked and repulsive thing: chucking paint over planes and ridiculing the RAF and the Government in the process does not even begin to compare with it. This devaluation of a word with a precise meaning is highly dangerous. Lord (Toby) Young, in his excellent work for the Free Speech Union, has disclosed that Prevent – the increasingly preposterous, Left-leaning body that tries to stop terrorism at its roots – has done research that suggests 'red flags' for spotting potential far-right terrorists are people who like, among other things, Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, GK Chesterton's poems, The Bridge On the River Kwai, The Dam Busters and Yes, Minister. Where do I give myself up? Many of us remember real terrorism, perpetrated by real terrorists: the Birmingham and Guildford Bombings; the Hyde Park Bombings; murders in Manchester, both by the IRA in 1992 and 1996 and, a generation later, an Islamic extremist who killed 22 at the city's Arena in 2017; the massacre on 7/7, which killed 52 innocent people in 2005; and if that's not enough, Lockerbie. I could go on. Does all that utter horror compare with exposing the pitiful security at Brize Norton and slapping paint on planes? Of course not. This seemed to start in 2016, after the abominable murder of Jo Cox, the Labour MP, by Thomas Mair, a recluse and weirdo unknown to the authorities. He was rapidly branded a 'terrorist' by politicians when it became clear he had a deeply unhealthy obsession with the far-right and its doctrines. He was a member of no terrorist organisation. What he did was appalling, but he was no more a terrorist than any politically-motivated psychopath acting alone. Ms Cox's murder came days before the Brexit vote. Those who branded Mair a 'terrorist' (and the authorities rapidly followed suit) were surely not trying to associate him with the Brexit movement – were they? On Friday, four people were arrested over the Brize Norton incident. If convicted, they must suffer exemplary punishment. However, I hope the Government accepts its responsibilities for such pathetic security. And I also hope that in future it reserves the term 'terrorist' for those who really merit it, rather than diluting it for idiotic troublemakers or lethal misfits.
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Are we safe, if nuclear weapons are here?': trepidation in Norfolk village over new jets
The genteel west Norfolk village of Marham does not seem to be at the forefront of Britain's military might. A dance class is about to start in the village hall, a game of crown green bowls is under way and swallows are swooping around the medieval church tower as wood pigeons coo. 'It's a lovely, quiet little village,' says Nona Bourne as she watches another end of bowls in a match between Marham and nearby Massingham. Like many, Bourne is troubled by the news that this week thrust Marham to the frontline of UK's nuclear arsenal, in the biggest expansion of the programme for a generation. Without consultation, RAF Marham is to be equipped with new F-35A jets capable of carrying warheads with three times the explosive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Bourne said: 'When they spread it all over the news that these planes are going to come here from America with these bombs, it makes you think we're going to be targeted. My bungalow is five minutes from the base.' The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is planning a protest in Marham on Saturday. Bourne, whose son-in-law used to work at the base, is tempted to take part. 'I might join in,' she says. 'My daughter says we've always been a target here, but I am concerned. If I was younger I'd think about moving, but I'm 83, I'm not going anywhere.' Sisters Becky, 29, and Katherine Blakie, 31, are heading to a friend's house for a plunge in their hot tub. 'I read about the weapons on Facebook,' says Becky. 'It's strange to think they'll be here in little old Marham.' Becky, who works in fundraising, is annoyed that the village was not consulted about the decision. She says: 'Marham and the RAF base are intertwined so we should definitely have had a say.' Katherine, a medical student, says: 'It makes you think, 'Are we safe, if people know nuclear weapons are here?'' At this stage it is unclear where the nuclear warheads will be housed, but new jets to be based at Marham have the capacity to drop them. Wherever they are stored, the fear Marham will be a target is widespread in the village. 'Look what happened at Pearl Harbor,' says Patricia Gordon after finishing her bowls match. 'We'd be obliterated here.' She adds: 'And with Donald Trump's finger on the button, does it matter that we've got nuclear weapons or not?' But her partner, Bruce Townsend, 77, a retired lorry driver, thinks the nuclear deterrent works. He says: 'You can't give up nuclear weapons. Iran, and those countries, know damn well that if they start anything, they'll just get wiped out.' He adds: 'I feel the same about the protest as I did about people who tried to ban the bomb. It's stupid. They can't change it.' It is the men in Marham who seem more relaxed about the prospect of nuclear-armed planes on their doorstep. Chris Joice, a carer who used to work at the base, says: 'We've had F-35s for so many years, and having the next model isn't going to make much difference.' Joice is out walking a friend's dog, Millie, who has an RAF roundel pendant strapped to her collar. He is concerned about the lack of consultation: 'I'm just annoyed that all these decisions go ahead and the common man doesn't have a single word in.' He adds: 'No one needs that kind of firepower. I'd rather people rolled dice to settle their beefs.' Others are more full-throated in their support. Jim Smith, 79, a retired construction worker, remembers nuclear weapons at the base in the 1950s. 'They had them up there in 1958 or 59 when they had the V bombers. It stopped a world war then. And it's no different now.' A man on a bike who would only give his name as John recently retired as a grounds maintenance worker at the base. He says: 'They're never going to attack us. It would be Armageddon if it comes to that. So it doesn't make a shite's worth of difference worrying about it.' He adds: 'I don't mind protest, I'm a biker so I'm all about freedom, but I've got better things to do. People protesting here don't live in the real world, they should worry instead about people sleeping on the streets in King's Lynn.' Colin Callaby, 64, is out picking cherries from a tree in the middle of the village. The cherries, which he plans to turn into wine, are the sweetest he has ever known. 'We're right in the firing line,' he says, 'but if there's going to be a nuclear bomb we're all done for so I'd rather be right underneath it and die instantly than be 50 miles away and take weeks to die from radiation.' He adds: 'It's very sad that mankind has got to spend billions of pounds on mass destruction and we can't do something better with that money. But what can you do?'
