X Close

London knife crime undermines case for permissive policing

Zero tolerance? Credit: Getty

Zero tolerance? Credit: Getty

31 July 2025 - 7:00am

A new report by the think tank Policy Exchange, on London’s spiralling street crime, reveals the scale of the crisis facing the Metropolitan Police. Knife crime increased by more than 50% between 2021 and 2024. The Met solved only one in 20 muggings last year. Criminals using knives have partially migrated from London’s deprived boroughs to the city’s retail and nightlife hubs. Yes, the West End features heavily in the statistics, but so do suburban areas such as Kingston upon Thames and Romford.

The cash-strapped Starmer administration appears tone-deaf. While the Government announces early release schemes for prisoners, London’s Labour Mayor ponders decriminalising cannabis and advocates reducing stop and search. Unsurprisingly, Nigel Farage’s Reform makes hay with stories of increasing lawlessness in British towns and cities. As for the Conservatives? The Cameron and May governments’ police “reforms” — including the closure of hundreds of police stations — hatched many of the chickens currently coming home to roost.

For the last two decades, the UK has experimented with a slow-motion version of the radical policies championed in Democrat-controlled cities in the USA. These include an ideological hostility to street policing, a near-obsession with racial politics, and a liberal attitude to penal policy. California experimented with non-custodial sentencing and — like Britain — set a limit on the value of stolen property police were prepared to investigate. By 2022, for example, the US state experienced violent crime 31% higher than the national average. This created an uber-permissive environment for criminals of every stripe. Britain’s experiment, at least, has taken longer to collapse — but collapse it most certainly has.

What, then, is the way forward? One is “zero-tolerance” policing, along with the use of facial recognition technology, tougher sentencing and redeploying deskbound officers into frontline roles. Zero tolerance is a much-maligned and misunderstood term, traditionally seen as beyond the pale by the policing establishment. To operational officers, it simply means “policing” known hotspots and known troublemakers, which sometimes involves slapping handcuffs on suspects and searching them. In other words, stop and search.

The Policy Exchange report also recommends the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) limits “their involvement to misconduct cases involving chief officers or cases which involve death or serious corruption with other cases dealt with entirely by police forces”, as well as “curtailing” the IOPC’s powers to overrule chief constables. This, in essence, would see the public body stripped of the majority of its casework, returning bread-and-butter complaints to local professional standards units.

IOPC overreach is seen as a serious issue within the police, even by senior officers determined to root out bad apples. They suspect the IOPC is overly political, resenting its ability to second-guess decisions made by chief officers at disciplinary hearings. Recent cases include the Metropolitan Police officers sacked for stopping and searching Olympic athlete Bianca Williams and her partner. They were subsequently reinstated on appeal, after their dismissal was deemed “irrational”. Then there are long-running firearms cases, where officers found not guilty in court are pursued by the IOPC for professional misconduct. Officers view this as a vindictive, “two bites of the cherry” approach, designed to cost them their livelihoods. In short, police are scared of doing their jobs, especially those in confrontational roles.

The crisis itself puts Keir Starmer in a bind. The solution to soaring street crime requires increases to both police funding and prison capacity. This is before accepting politically sensitive changes to stop-and-search policy. The question, then, is simple: is Labour prepared to tack Rightwards on law and order? One suspects the Prime Minister’s advisers would prefer to do so, but it is unlikely that Starmer’s increasingly restive backbenchers will follow suit. In the meantime, the crime rate will only increase, adding to the growing sense of national decline currently pervading the UK.


Dominic Adler is a writer and former detective in the Metropolitan Police. He worked in counterterrorism, anticorruption and criminal intelligence, and now discusses policing on his Substack.

China is threatening America in the AI race

Reports sugget Zhipu AI  has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

Reports sugget Zhipu AI has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

1 July 2026 - 10:18am

China is trying to catch up with America on artificial intelligence. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Zhipu AI — one of China’s six “AI tiger” LLMs — has released a new model that can rival leading US systems, including Anthropic’s Mythos, in cybersecurity tasks such as pinpointing security bugs. While this marks a milestone in China’s drive to catch up with Western AI capabilities, strong performance on a single benchmark does not mean it has taken the lead. Chinese models still lag behind their Western counterparts in broader capabilities, such as autonomous operation. Skepticism is therefore warranted before resorting to hysterical conclusions, but complacency about the geopolitical implications of China’s AI advances would be an even greater mistake.

On the infrastructure side, Chinese AI is still constrained by access to advanced chips, with American labs way ahead in computing capacity as well as investment. Analysis from earlier this year suggests that Chinese models are likely to be at least a few months behind those in the US. But they are still continuing to make progress, or that the geopolitical importance of AI will be decided only by whose LLM has ventured deeper into the technological frontier. The practical applications of AI, countries’ to capture foreign markets, and the application of AI into the real economy will matter just as much.

Here, China may hold an advantage. As with its dominance across many critical supply chains, Beijing may not need to produce the most advanced AI systems — only those that are affordable and widely deployable. In doing so, it could consolidate global influence by supplying functional, low-cost AI at scale.

Beijing seems to be pursuing exactly that path, developing an AI “open-source” strategy that offers affordable, widely available AI models for companies and individuals to use and modify as they wish. The production of the DeepSeek AI model, which matched the performance of Silicon Valley tools such as ChatGPT at a fraction of the cost for users, created goodwill among Chinese models with developers.

The four most popular models on OpenRouter, an AI hardware platform for developers, are now all Chinese. The goal for China is not only to win the frontier-model race, but to make its systems the default layer of AI adoption across industries and global markets. For most economies, the choice is increasingly between an affordable tool they can deploy now and a more robust one that may be out of reach.

And while the countries adopting Chinese models may be exposed to political pressure and cyber threats from Beijing, safer and more capable alternatives matter little if they are unaffordable. American AI companies are already under pressure to monetize products whose operating costs are rising. If Chinese open-source models become the cheap default for startups, universities, governments and businesses across the developing world, then America’s AI lead will be eroded from below.

Perhaps more concerning for America in the long run is how AI can give Chinese manufacturing even more strength, through the ongoing integration of AI as a general-purpose technology. China’s new Five-Year Plan mentioned AI more than 50 times and includes an “AI+” action plan aimed at spreading AI across the economy.

Beijing has been pioneering automation of its critical infrastructure for years, with promising recent results in increasing warplane production capacity. In that regard, China’s open-model strategy and manufacturing dominance will reinforce each other. Cheap, adaptable models accelerate deployment across the real economy while those deployments generate real-world data and use cases that can feed back into further model improvement.

The United States should not dismiss the importance of its lead in the AI race. That lead worries Beijing, not least because a more automated Chinese economy would also become more vulnerable to AI-generated cyber threats. But nor should Washington assume that China cannot catch up with American capabilities over time.

This AI competition represents part of a broader struggle over tech supply chains and geopolitical influence. Decisions over whether to adopt US or Chinese models could produce a more fragmented global reality, with different regions relying on different cloud providers, chips and security structures. The result will likely be a global economy which is divided into competing spheres, rather than one which produces a single winner.


Miquel Vila is a political and geopolitical risk consultant focusing on industrial strategy, critical infrastructure and global supply chains.

miquelvilam