Disputed or debunked claims about migration and crime in the UK
Here are some of the high-profile claims that have been disputed or debunked.
Conservative Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said on Radio 4's Today programme on Monday that 40% of sexual crimes in London last year were committed by foreign nationals.
The claim was sourced from the Centre for Migration Control (CMC), a thinktank and blog that describes its purpose as 'controlling and reducing migration to Britain'. It is run by the Reform UK activist Robert Bates.
CMC's claims come from the Metropolitan police's response to a freedom of information request. The Met issued a breakdown of the number of people who had been proceeded against – ie brought before a court – for sexual offences by nationality. This does not mean they have been found guilty of committing the offence as Jenrick said. For example, there were 14,242 defendants brought to court for sexual offences at magistrates courts in England and Wales in 2024, but 8,098 convictions, according to Ministry of Justice statistics.
'Some of the data we're seeing is very striking,' Jenrick also said. 'Afghans and Eritrean nationals are 20 times more likely to be convicted of a sexual crime than a British national.' The statistic about Afghans has been repeated by Reform UK's chair, Zia Yusuf.
This is a muddled figure that also came from the CMC, after it submitted freedom of information requests to the MoJ. It is based on population statistics from 2021 but data on offences covering the years between 2021 and 2023. That means the statistic is likely to be based on a significant underestimate of the number of Afghan and Eritrean nationals in the UK – meaning the comparison with British rates is unlikely to be 20 times as high. Immigration to the UK from Afghanistan has risen significantly since 2021 because of the Taliban's return to power, while Eritrean migration has also risen due to wars in Eritrea, Sudan and Ethiopia.
The Guardian contacted Jenrick for comment.
Nick Timothy, the Conservative MP for West Suffolk, deleted a post on X this week that accused the Metropolitan police of 'facilitating illegal working'. He had shared a photo that appeared to show police officers escorting a Deliveroo driver through a crowd of protesters outside a hotel. The original post claimed to depict how 'an illegal Deliveroo worker is literally getting a full police escort'.
The Met replied that 'this person was delivering to the hotel, they were not being accommodated there. There is no evidence to suggest they were working illegally. They were surrounded and intimidated by those gathered outside and officers intervened to make sure they got away safely.'
The context is that companies including Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats have committed to tighten security checks after reports some asylum seekers were working illegally as couriers.
Earlier this year, there was a controversy over a Telegraph front page report that said as many as one in 12 people living in London were illegal immigrants. The story included quotes from Chris Philp, the Conservative shadow home secretary, who called the figures 'deeply alarming' and said it was 'totally unacceptable to have these numbers of illegal immigrants in the UK'.
The Telegraph and several other newspapers had to issue corrections for misrepresenting the findings in several ways. The one in 12 statistic was based on an unpublished study commissioned by Thames Water to measure the demand for water supply. The study concluded that there could be between 390,355 and 585,533 irregular – not illegal – migrants in and around London. The Telegraph used the higher figure and divided it by the 7 million population living in specific 'water resource zones', rather than the 9 million population of London.
Most importantly, the Thames Water study was seeking to estimate the number of people who use water that are not in official statistics so included not just migrants but those with second homes, visitors and tourists. It also included people given indefinite leave to remain, as well as some British-born children of migrants with irregular status.
The most recent official estimates for the number of irregular migrants in the UK date from 2017. The Pew Research Center said the number was between 800,000 to 1.2 million, while the Greater London Authority's central estimate for the whole of the UK was 674,000 – going up to 809,000 when including UK-born children of unauthorised migrants.
At a press conference on Monday, Nigel Farage told TV crews that he would discuss an open criminal investigation – the alleged rape of a child. But he said there would be nothing in the press conference that would go against contempt of court laws. Two men have been charged in connection with the alleged crime.
When an alleged perpetrator has been charged, there are strict rules about what can be reported, to prevent prejudicing and potentially collapsing a trial. However, the leader of Warwickshire county council, George Finch, later made a number of references, including referring to the men as 'criminals' when they have not been found guilty.
Farage then defended Finch when questioned as to whether he had broken contempt laws, saying it was 'good' that he had become 'slightly emotional'.
The issue of naming the race of alleged perpetrators has been in the public eye since a baseless social media conspiracy theory surrounding Axel Rudakubana, the Southport murderer. After he killed three young children in July 2024, it was purported on social media that authorities were covering up his true place of birth. Rudakubana, who was born in Cardiff to Rwandan parents, was falsely portrayed in a variety of social media posts as being a Muslim asylum seeker.
Hashtags
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
CDC union says vaccine misinformation put staff at risk after Atlanta shooting
A union representing US Centers for Disease Control employees has demanded that the federal government condemn vaccine misinformation after a man who evidently blamed the Covid-19 vaccination for making him depressed and suicidal aimed gunfire Friday at the CDC's headquarters in Atlanta. The 30-year-old shooting suspect, who killed a police officer and died during the attack, had also tried to get into the CDC's headquarters – but he was stopped by guards before driving to a pharmacy across the street and opening fire, a law enforcement official told the Associated Press on Saturday. The CDC workers' union said the deadly violence Friday was not random and 'compounds months of mistreatment, neglect, and vilification that CDC staff have endured'. It said vaccine misinformation had put scientists at risk. The American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2883, added that the CDC and leadership of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHH) – headed by Trump administration appointee and avowed vaccine safety skeptic Robert F Kennedy Jr – must provide a 'clear and unequivocal stance in condemning vaccine disinformation'. Such a public statement by federal officials is needed to help prevent violence against scientists, the union said in a news release. 'Their leadership is critical in reinforcing public trust and ensuring that accurate, science-based information prevails,' the union said. Patrick Joseph White was armed with five guns, including at least one long gun, when he attacked, said an official who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation. White's gunfire hit at least four CDC buildings, agency director Susan Monarez said on X. DeKalb county police officer David Rose was mortally wounded while responding. Rose, 33, a former US marine who served in Afghanistan, had graduated from the police academy in March. White was found on the second floor of a building across the street from the CDC campus and died at the scene, Atlanta police chief Darin Schierbaum said. He added that 'we do not know at this time whether that was from officers or if it was self-inflicted'. The Georgia bureau of investigations said the crime scene was 'complex'. The agency added that the investigation into the violence would take 'an extended period of time'. Fired But Fighting, a group of laid-off CDC employees, has said Kennedy Jr is directly responsible for the villainization of the CDC's workforce through 'his continuous lies about science and vaccine safety, which have fueled a climate of hostility and mistrust'. Kennedy Jr reached out to staff Saturday. The DHH secretary said 'no one should face violence while working to protect the health of others'. Thousands of people who work on critical disease research are employed on the attacked campus. The union said some staff were huddled in various buildings until late at night. More than 90 young children were locked down inside the CDC's Clifton school. The union said CDC staff should not be required to immediately return to work after experiencing such a traumatic event. In its statement Saturday, it said windows and buildings should first be fixed and made 'completely secure'. 'Staff should not be required to work next to bullet holes,' the union said. 'Forcing a return under these conditions risks re-traumatizing staff by exposing them to the reminders of the horrific shooting they endured.' The union also called for 'perimeter security on all campuses' until the investigation is fully completed and shared with staff. White's father contacted police and identified his son as the possible shooter. He said White had been upset over the death of his dog and also had become fixated on the Covid-19 vaccine, according to the law enforcement official who spoke to the AP anonymously. A neighbor of White told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that White 'seemed like a good guy' but spoke with her multiple times about his distrust of Covid-19 vaccines in unrelated conversations. 'He was very unsettled, and he very deeply believed that vaccines hurt him and were hurting other people,' Nancy Hoalst told the Atlanta newspaper. 'He emphatically believed that.' But Hoalst said she never believed White would be violent: 'I had no idea he thought he would take it out on the CDC.'
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘Don't share pictures of shoplifters – it breaks data protection rules'
Photographs of suspected shoplifters should not be displayed in stores in case they breach data protection laws, the UK data watchdog has said. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) said putting up images of thieves in a local area, such as in shop windows, 'may not be appropriate' behaviour. Its advice page for shopkeepers on how to tackle shoplifting says retailers 'must only share personal information that's proportionate and necessary to achieve your purpose'. The disclosure comes after The Telegraph revealed that police officers had told a shopkeeper to take down a sign calling shoplifters 'scumbags' because it could cause offence. Richard Tice, the leader of Reform UK, said that shopkeepers should be encouraged to put up photographs of shoplifters. 'We should be letting the general public know of the photographs of people who have a track record of stealing in towns,' he said. Anybody who was against doing so 'is on the side of the criminals and should be ashamed of themselves', he added. 'This highlights the complete insanity of GDPR which is damaging to healthcare, it's damaging to law and order. It's damaging to businesses and our economy,' he told The Telegraph. Mr Tice added that shopkeepers should be able to put up signs and have the right to say 'it's my shop and I determine who comes into it'. Katie Lam, a shadow home office minister, said that she met a constituent last week who was 'plagued by shoplifters', but police told him to take down photographs of the suspects. She wrote on X: 'He gives police CCTV, card details, licence plates. No action apart from a visit to say he must take down pics of thieves 'because of GDPR'. 'Our system should crush the lawless and protect the law-abiding. It does the opposite.' Official figures last month showed that nearly three thefts per minute were being reported in Britain. Retailers have expressed frustration that police have 'abandoned' treating shoplifting like a crime, following an increase of 20 per cent in a year. Last week, The Telegraph disclosed that Rob Davies, a North Wales shopkeeper, had put up a handwritten note in his store following repeated thefts that read: 'Due to scumbags shoplifting, please ask for assistance to open cabinets.' But officers from North Wales Police attended his retro shop in Wrexham and told him to take down the sign because it could cause offence. The ICO said that data protection laws could help retailers tackle shoplifting by sharing criminal offence data 'as long as it's necessary and proportionate'. In a blog post from 2023, the regulator said: 'We want businesses to be able to take action to prevent crime, but we want people who aren't breaking the law to be able to go about their day without unjustified intrusion.' Actions that the ICO recommends as 'appropriate' to retailers include sharing suspect details with the police, or information about the incident with a manager or another store nearby. But under actions that it says 'may not be appropriate', it includes local businesses sharing images between each other on a messaging platform, or in a staff room. It also cautions against 'putting images in the local area, such as shop windows and lampposts. You must only share personal information in a way that's proportionate and necessary to achieve your purpose'. The guidance says: 'Sharing images in this way gives access to those who don't have the appropriate authority to see them or take any action.' The ICO is a non-departmental public body, which is sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology The British Retail Consortium calculates that businesses are losing £1.8bn to theft each year, and an additional £700m is spent on extra security.
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Revealed: Chagos deal to cost 10 times what Starmer claimed
Sir Keir Starmer's Chagos Islands deal will be 10 times more expensive than he has claimed, official figures reveal. The Government's own estimate of the cost of giving away the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius is almost £35bn, according to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act – far higher than the £3.4bn figure Sir Keir has previously used in public. Labour ministers now face claims that they misled Parliament and the press with an 'accountancy trick' to hide the size of the bill from taxpayers. Under the terms of Sir Keir's deal, the UK will give up the Chagos Islands by the end of this year and lease back the Diego Garcia military base, a facility built there in the 1970s that has been used by UK and US forces. The cost of the agreement has been fiercely disputed. Sir Keir claimed in May that it would cost £3.4bn over 99 years, accounting for inflation and other discounts, but the Conservatives said it would total £30bn. An official document produced by the Government Actuary's Department shows the cost of the deal was first estimated at 10 times Sir Keir's figure, at £34.7bn, in nominal terms. It explains how the cost was lowered by the Government using inflation estimates, then reduced again under a controversial accounting method sometimes used by the Government for long-term projects. The total cost, which ministers refused to release to Parliament, is equivalent to 10 Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, or more than half the annual schools' budget. Sir Keir now faces accusations that he misled Parliament, because he told MPs in February that cost estimates between £9bn and £18bn were 'absolutely wide of the mark' and suggested the true figure was lower. The document shows that civil servants were first instructed to lower the cost of the deal on paper to £10bn, to account for an estimated annual inflation rate of 2.3 per cent over 99 years. Then it was reduced again by between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent per year using the Treasury's Social Time Preference Rate, a principle that money spent immediately is more value than funds earmarked for future spending. The final figure was calculated to be 90 per cent lower than the cash value of the payments the UK will make to Mauritius over the next century, in what critics say was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. Writing for The Telegraph (read the article below), Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said: 'Instead of owning up to the costs, Labour have used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only a mere £3.4bn. 'We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers. But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts.' Foreign Office sources insisted ministers had used a 'standard' calculation for long-term government spending, and denied accusations that it was part of a 'cover-up'. However, other projects announced by Labour have not used the same method, which has allowed ministers to advertise higher spending on popular policies. Angela Rayner has since launched a 10-year affordable homes plan that included inflation-level increases in government spending as part of the cost of the policy – a method not used with the Chagos deal. The calculations behind the deal were revealed in response to a freedom of information request submitted by the Conservatives. MPs have previously requested the document in Parliament but ministers have refused to release it, in an apparent breach of government transparency rules. Darren Jones, a Treasury minister, said in June that it was 'not normal practice' for the Government to release 'corresponding financial analysis' alongside policy announcements. Official guidance by the Cabinet Office says any information subject to FOI should also be released to MPs, while the ministerial code states that departments 'should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public'. Dame Priti is expected to demand a correction and apology over the 'cover-up' from Sir Keir when MPs return from their summer break on Sept 1. Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said: 'It's bad enough that Starmer and Reeves' economic mismanagement has created a £50bn black hole in the public finances, prolonging the cost of living crisis. 'Now our research has uncovered the Government's own figures showing Labour's Chagos surrender is costing the country another £35 billion. Add that to their £50 billion black hole, and it's clear – when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.' A Government spokesman said: 'The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, and to keeping British people safe. 'The average cost is £101 million per year, and the net present value of payments is £3.4 billion – this is less than 0.2 per cent of the annual defence budget. 'The deal is supported by our closest allies, including the US, Canada, Australia and Nato. The costs compare favourably with other international base agreements, and the UK-US base on Diego Garcia is larger, in a more strategic location and has unparalleled operational freedom.' Starmer has been caught red-handed lying to the public Keir Starmer and David Lammy have been caught red-handed lying to the British public over the costs of Labour's Chagos surrender deal, writes Dame Priti Patel. This pair of diplomatic dunces have left Britain humiliated, weak, and the laughing stock of the international community. We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers. But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts. Even when the treaty was published and we could see the payments schedule, Labour tried to pull the wool over our eyes and deny the costs. When it was asked questions about the cash payments over the 99 years of the deal, it refused to answer. And when reports suggested the cost of the deal could be from £9 billion to £18 billion, Starmer claimed this was 'absolutely wide of the mark' whilst the Foreign Office tried to claim it was 'entirely inaccurate and misleading'. In fact, instead of owning up to the costs, Labour has used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only £3.4bn – still a vast waste of money. But now we know the costly truth, having dragged the figures out of Government, kicking and screaming, through a freedom of information request. It's an mind-blowing £35bn. That's almost double the entire annual policing budget. Ten brand new aircraft carriers, 70 hospitals or a 5 per cent income tax cut. New prison places to lock up criminals, funding for social care, and millions upon millions of potholes could be fixed, with the £17bn local highways maintenance backlog covered twice ever. The list goes on. Every single Labour minister is complicit in this cover-up. Instead of paying for front line services in Britain and reducing our tax burden, these payments have lead to Mauritius being able to pay down its debt, cut income tax and slash VAT. Just think, as Rachel Reeves plots tax rises in the autumn to cover her catastrophic financial mismanagement, Labour is forcing you to pay for tax cuts in a foreign country. Is it any wonder the Mauritian prime minister has been bragging about how he secured concession after concession from Labour? From more money up front to the removal of a unilateral right to renew the proposed lease on Diego Garcia to the exercise of sovereign rights over the crucial military base, time and time again Britain backed down in negotiations. It's not just Starmer and 'Calamity' Lammy who are to blame for this diplomatic humiliation. Starmer's friend Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, and Jonathan Powell – Tony Blair's top advisor during the last Labour government's dodgy dossier scandal – have both been involved in these negotiations. They must be the worst team of negotiators in history. And it gets worse. Labour has manipulated parliamentary process to deny the House of Commons a meaningful debate and vote. So frightened are they of democracy that they have wilfully misled Parliament and ignored long-standing parliamentary conventions on holding debates and votes on treaties. The scale of the financial cost is bad enough, but Labour's Chagos surrender deal has profound and serious consequences for our national security and defence. This isn't just about paying for the privilege of something we owned last month. This is a critical strategic asset. In a world that is becoming increasingly dangerous, giving away a military base to a friend of our enemies is a supreme act of self-harm. Under the terms of the treaty, we need to disclose key information to Mauritius about the movements of UK, US and our allies' vessels and aircraft around Diego Garcia, and any military strikes we take from there. This is deeply concerning as, in recent years, Mauritius has grown closer to our key strategic threats – China, Russia and Iran – forging new partnerships, including one with Russia just days before the treaty was signed in May. This means that sensitive information risks being handed over to a friend of our enemies. Again, rather than facing up to the truth of what they are doing to our national interest, Labour ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, attempt to baselessly lie their way out of it. Starmer has tried to claim China, Russia and Iran were against the deal and it was necessary for our national security. That could not be further from the truth. China has welcomed the treaty since it was signed, while Iran and Russia have issued supportive statements towards Mauritius securing sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Senior Mauritian officials have also publicly thanked China and Putin for their support. Starmer and Lammy must think the British public are gullible to swallow their lies. But we all know the truth. Labour has recklessly undermined our national security just because it wants to appease the whims and demands of its Left-wing lawyer and activist friends, and non-binding opinions issued by obscure international bodies few in Britain have heard of. As a result of Labour's stupidity, lies and incompetence, British taxpayers face a huge £35bn cost, our national security and defence capabilities have been damaged, and it has undermined our standing in the world. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses, and friend and foe alike have seen how feeble Labour is at negotiations over the Chagos Islands and will take advantage of us for years to come. Today, it has become all the clearer why Labour's Chagos surrender deal must be ripped up and consigned to the rubbish bin of history – and that Starmer and Lammy are incapable of understanding, let alone defending, the British national interest. Throughout this whole sorry saga, it is only the Conservative Party that has been fighting against Labour's Chagos surrender. We've challenged the Government in Parliament and in the public to the point where ministers are complaining about the pressure we're putting them under. And we'll keep on exposing Labour's lies and failures as we do all we can to oppose this deal, stand up for hard-pressed British taxpayers and fight for our national interests to be put first.
