Fact check: ‘Channel migrants' in prison and fake ‘Amazon' deals
Are 'Channel migrants' 24 times more likely to go to prison than British citizens?
New analysis from the Conservative Party last week claimed migrants who cross the Channel in small boats are 24 times more likely to go to prison than the average British citizen.
We've repeatedly asked the Conservatives about their research but haven't received a response, so we don't have full details of their calculations.
But based on the details reported, the claim that 'Channel migrants' are 24 times more likely to go to jail is not reliable. The University of Oxford's Migration Observatory says there is no reliable publicly available data on the proportion of small boat arrivals who go to prison.
The first report of the claim said the Conservative analysis is 'based on the 10,838 foreign criminals' in prison in England and Wales in March 2025.
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) figures do show that in March there were 10,838 'foreign nationals held in custody', a figure which excludes people who also held a British passport. (Some were awaiting trial or in prison for non-criminal reasons, so not all are necessarily 'criminals'.)
These figures only show the number of foreign nationals in prison at a given point in time though, so can't reliably tell us how likely it is for a foreign national to go to prison at some point during their time in this country.
The report went on to say that the March prison data suggests the rate of British citizens in jail is 0.14%, compared with 0.18% for foreign nationals, and that the rate is 'significantly higher for the nationalities who make up the largest small boat arrivals, including Somalians, Afghans, Iraqis, Albanians and Iranians'. It said the Conservative analysis suggests 'some 3.4% of small boat migrants could go to prison', and that this is 24 times the 0.14% British citizen imprisonment rate.
It is not clear from the story how exactly the 3.4% figure was calculated — we don't know for sure all the nationalities it covers, what proportion of small boat arrivals those nationalities account for and over what period, or how else the figures may have been adjusted.
The report did explain that imprisonment rates for specific nationalities were calculated by dividing the number of people of each nationality in custody in March by the number of people in England and Wales who held a passport from that country as of the 2021 Census (again excluding people with a British passport).
But this is not a reliable way to calculate the proportion of foreign nationals in prison in 2025, because it takes no account of how the population of different nationalities in England and Wales may have changed since 2021. In recent years there have been significant changes to migration patterns to the UK and a surge in small boat crossings.
The Migration Observatory told Full Fact: 'Getting accurate data on criminal conviction rates by nationality is very hard because the UK currently does not have accurate population data for each nationality.
'The migrant population has changed significantly since 2021… and more recent population estimates are highly uncertain due to data collection issues. Some groups of migrants are particularly likely to be undercounted, such as Albanians.'
What's more, the prison data used in the Conservative analysis appears to refer to all those of each nationality in custody, not specifically those who arrived via small boat.
Those counted are likely to include people who have migrated by a range of different routes—for example, some may have visas. And as the Home Office noted in its response to the analysis, these figures could also capture foreign nationals placed in custody while here temporarily (for example, while on holiday).
The analysis appears to assume small boat arrivals are jailed at the same rate as others of the same nationality who arrived by another route. But we don't know whether or not this is the case.
The Migration Observatory told us one reason for the variation in imprisonment rates between different nationalities was likely to be 'differences in socio-economic status among people arriving on different immigration routes'.
It said: 'For example, people from comfortable backgrounds with high levels of education and professional jobs are much less likely to go to prison, and this is likely to be true among migrants too (such as those arriving on work visas for skilled jobs). Age and sex also play a role: young men have higher offending rates.
'As a result, it would not be surprising if people arriving in the UK through different routes (eg, on work visas versus small boats) had different offending rates, though the data are currently not good enough to understand these trends properly.'
The Home Office said the comparison made in the analysis was 'completely unfounded', adding: 'It is inappropriate to apply foreign imprisonment rates to small boat arrival data as these consist of very different groups of people.'
The MoJ told us that it does not currently collate data that would identify how foreign nationals in custody arrived in the country, or their immigration status (beyond figures for the number issued with an immigration detention order). It noted though that the justice secretary has asked civil servants to review what more data can be published, and similar work is also being carried out at the Home Office.
Too-good-to-be-true 'Amazon' offers on Facebook
In the last year we've fact checked at least 10 examples of fake offers supposedly from Amazon circulating on social media, promising everything from iPads to Dyson vacuum cleaners at very low prices or even for free. We wrote about one such offer for £3 laptops earlier this week, ahead of Amazon's Prime Day promotion.
Amazon has repeatedly told us such Facebook posts, which often feature photos of piles of boxes in a warehouse with someone poorly edited into the picture beside them, are not genuine offers from the company. But we have sometimes seen them engaged with or commented on hundreds of times.
The posts often urge Facebook users to fill in surveys or follow a link to claim the supposed deal. These links may then lead to poor imitations of the real Amazon website, or an apparently unrelated web page. Sometimes the web pages ask people for their personal information and payment details.
This isn't a problem unique to Amazon – we see posts making similar false claims about other retailers too, such as Argos, Tesco and John Lewis.
Here are a few tips on how to spot this kind of fake offer:
– Always double-check posts sharing deals that seem too good to be true – if a post is promising a £3 Samsung TV or £1.78 PlayStation 5 console, it's probably not legitimate.
– Check whether an offer has been shared by a company's official page on social media, which will often have a high number of followers, a verified blue tick on platforms like Facebook or Instagram and a long post history.
– If you click a link, a different URL and page layout to the official website can be giveaways that something isn't quite right, as can grammatical errors in the text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
The convictions that count are the ones that sometimes sting
I bring up Goldberg's essay not only to recommend it but also because I was struck by the question with which he introduced it: 'What principle do you hold,' he challenged his readers, 'that is against your self-interest or political desires?' Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It's a cogent and revealing test. It obliges anyone who answers the question to think about whether they embrace their convictions as a matter of principle or merely because they're convenient. Anyone can defend the freedoms or prohibitions that serve their own purposes. The truer test of ideological and moral seriousness is whether you adhere to your principles even when doing so cuts against your interests, tastes, or partisan loyalties. Advertisement This isn't an ivory-tower abstraction. American history is rich with examples of people who upheld principle at real personal cost. John Adams, though a patriot who hated British rule, risked his career to defend the redcoats accused in the Boston Massacre, convinced that even despised defendants deserved counsel and a fair trial. Justice John Marshall Harlan, raised in a Kentucky family of enslavers, broke with his social milieu to insist in his lone dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that 'our Constitution is color-blind.' And in 1960, Richard Nixon, urged by allies to contest an election marred by serious irregularities, refused to plunge the nation into turmoil, saying the country's stability mattered more than his own ambition. I have tried to meet that test in my own writing — with what success, I leave others to judge. For instance, I defend the right even of Holocaust-deniers to spread Advertisement I have sometimes put a version of Goldberg's question to candidates in a primary election: Can you name a position you take that is clearly opposed by most of your party's base? Rarely have I gotten a substantive answer. Most politicians duck the question, unwilling to announce that they uphold an unpopular position on principle — even though doing so would be pretty strong evidence that their convictions were genuine. What makes this problem worse is the increasingly common belief that only those who agree with us are legitimate participants in American life. Too many on the right write off their opponents as anti-American, while too many on the left see theirs as irredeemably bigoted or authoritarian. If you begin from the premise that dissenters are not merely wrong but illegitimate, then there is no reason to extend to them the rights or freedoms you claim for yourself. But that mind-set drains principle of all meaning. Defending free speech only for your allies is like championing religious liberty only for your own faith: That's not upholding a principle — it's wielding a partisan cudgel, something that has become endemic in contemporary American life. So much of what bedevils our civic discourse these days, Goldberg writes, begins with 'the premise that America is defined by our politics and, therefore, the people with the wrong politics are not Americans.' Which is why Goldberg's challenge ought to be posed more often. A principle that only applies when it's easy isn't much of a principle at all. So, readers, I'll put the same question to you: What principle do you hold that runs against your own interest or desire? Please give it some thought and share your reflections. In a future column, I'll share some of the more intriguing and noteworthy responses. Advertisement Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
On This Day, Aug. 20: Augusta National Golf Club admits women for 1st time
1 of 7 | Former Secretary of State and Augusta National Member Condoleezza Rice watches the Drive, Chip and Putt National Championship at Augusta National in Georgia on April 4, 2021. On August 20, 2012, Rice and businesswoman Darla Moore became the first female members of the club. File Photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI | License Photo Aug. 20 (UPI) -- On this date in history: In 1741, Danish navigator Vitus Jonas Bering became the first European to reach what is now called Alaska. In 1858, theories by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace regarding evolution were published in a British scholarly journal. In 1968, about 200,000 Warsaw Pact troops and 5,000 tanks invaded Czechoslovakia to crush the "Prague Spring" -- a brief period of efforts to democratize socialism in the country. In 1977, the second U.S. Voyager spacecraft -- one of two launched in 1977 -- left Cape Canaveral, Fla., bound for Jupiter and Saturn. The two Voyager space probes are still transmitting data. In 1986, postal worker Patrick Henry Sherrill killed 14 fellow workers and wounded six others in the Edmond, Okla., post office before killing himself. File Photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI In 1989, 18-year-old Eric Menendez and 21-year-old Lyle Menendez -- the Menendez brothers -- killed their parents with a gun. The brothers were arrested in March and in 1996, both were convicted and sentenced to life in prison. In 1996, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed into law an increase in the minimum wage in two steps from $4.25 to $5.15 an hour. In 1998, U.S. missiles struck sites in Afghanistan and Sudan said to be linked with terrorists. The attacks were in response to the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania 13 days earlier. In 2003, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was suspended after refusing to comply with a federal court order to remove a rock inscribed with the Ten Commandments from the lobby of the state Supreme Court building. File Photo by Morris Abernathy/UPI In 2008, a Spanair jetliner crashed on takeoff in Madrid, killing 154 people and injuring many others. Observers said the left jet engine was on fire as the plane took off. In 2009, the Libyan convicted of the 1968 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Scotland killing 270 people, was freed from prison on compassionate grounds. Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, who had been sentenced to life in prison in 2001, had prostate cancer. He died in May 2012. In 2011, two U.S. hikers who said they had wandered into Iran by mistake were sentenced to eight years in an Iranian prison for espionage. They were freed one month later and returned to the United States. In 2012, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and businesswoman Darla Moore became the first female members of Georgia's Augusta National Golf Club, site of the Masters, one of golf's most prestigious events. The club had long been under attack by women's rights groups, and others, for its all-male membership. In 2014, mudslides caused by heavy rains killed about 70 people in residential areas on the outskirts of Hiroshima, Japan. In 2020, former senior adviser to President Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, was arrested and charged for allegedly bilking political donors out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. He was later pardoned by Trump and the charges were dismissed. File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI
Business Insider
4 hours ago
- Business Insider
BP, Shel, CVX: Oil Stocks Give Mixed Reception to Ukraine Peace Hopes as Prices Slide
The prospect of peace in Ukraine hasn't brought much joy to the oil price as it slid in early trading today. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. Brent crude futures lost 0.7% to trade at $65.09 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate futures retreated by 1% to $62.82 a barrel. Peace Summit The drop came after what appeared to be a successful meeting at the White House between President Trump, Ukraine's leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy and a gaggle of European leaders, including British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In a social media post following the meeting, Trump said he had spoken with Russian president Vladimir Putin and was working to arrange a summit between Putin and Zelenskyy, to be followed by a meeting of all three leaders. An end to the conflict, calming at least one of the main geopolitical crises around the world would be a plus for the global economy. But, it might not be so welcome in the balance between oil supply and demand. That's because a deal could see the lifting of sanctions on Russian crude exports bringing more oil onto the market, at a time when demand is still volatile. 'An outcome which would see a ratcheting down of tensions and remove threats of secondary tariffs or sanctions would see oil drift lower toward our $58 per barrel Q4-25/Q1-26 average target,' said Bart Melek, head of commodity strategy at TD Securities. Stocks React Suvro Sarkar, lead energy analyst at DBS Bank, added: 'Oil prices are largely responding to outcomes of recent meetings between Trump-Putin and Trump-Zelenskyy and while no outright peace deal or ceasefire seems imminent, there has been some progress made and chances of further escalation or intensification of sanctions on Russia from US or Europe may be off the table for now.' All of these key stocks have had a volatile 2025 to date hit by international issues such as Ukraine and Iran, as well as tariff fears. That uncertainty may be down to tempered expectations over whether the current talks will actually lead to an end in hostilities. According to the Wall Street Journal, cryptocurrency-based prediction market, Polymarket, currently points to a 38% chance of a ceasefire, well below the 78% seen in March.
