Article on the threat to UK women from Afghan immigrants

[SwirlyGates]

"The statistics clearly show that Afghan nationals pose a disproportionate threat when it comes to sex offences. Last year, Sky News’s data and forensics unit – using annual population survey data from 2021 and Met Police figures – found that, for Afghan nationals, there were 59.2 sexual offence charges per 10,000 across England and Wales. The corresponding figure for UK nationals was 2.7 offences per 10,000 people."

https://www.spiked-online.com/2026/08/17/we-need-to-talk-about-afghan-sex-offenders/

The Spiked article actually misrepresents the Sky article, which does a deeper dive into the data and concludes "Our estimates conclude that Afghans are closer to three times more likely to be convicted of a sexual offence than someone born in the UK". NB though age is mentioned, i.e. recent migrants are more likely to be young and criminally active, neither seem to analyse sex, though it is mentioned in Farage's figures - there must be more male immigrants than female; presumably this has been taken into account?

More and more I find the threat, especially to women, troublesome and worrying. To generalise, the Left view all immigration as all fine and dandy; the Right disagree and want it reduced or stopped. On the other hand, Burnham's proposal to place asylum seekers in middle-class areas implicitly shows that he knows that they are problematic: "We cannot have a situation where it's only the poorest communities in the country that receive all of the dispersal of refugees and asylum seekers." If the refugees and asylum seekers are beneficial to the UK, which is promoted as the Left-wing view, then he would be saying that the rich/middle class areas will benefit from his plans, rather than saying they need to share the burden. "Blackpool, and other communities ... have had to take more than their fair share of asylum seekers," she [immigration minister Anna Turley] added. "That's put a huge burden on local communities and created real civil unrest." www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c204d4z1gg8o

TL:DR Are male immigrants, especially illegal ones, a particular threat to women, and if so what can be done?

I didn't say they weren't
I just said that they weren't the reason for the prison overcrowding crisis. "Tigers kill more people than guns" "that's not true" "oh so you don't even care about people being killed by guns and tigers". If your argument is a good one you don't need to invent reasons to support it.
Albanians are overrepresented. At one point they were a huge problem because they were arriving illegally and, despite having no legitimate claims to asylum (Albania not being a war zone) weren't being processed and deported due to a deliberate policy not to process claims at all in the hopes it would deter asylum seekers. This was a very stupid policy**. I am glad it no longer exists and now there are drastically lower numbers of Albanians in the asylum system.

**Please understand when I say this was a stupid policy it is not because I don't think policies to deter Albanian fake asylum claimants shouldn't exist. I just want them to work.

But those offenders still needed to have committed a crime to have been incarcerated.

That's really depressing.

But don't they keep track of crime-solving rates? If they are recording all these crimes and not solving any, the arrest and conviction rates must go right down? And as per the Telegraph article mentioned above, why do they not bother solving even the simplest of crimes, with evidence spoon-fed to them?

People are really fed up of police wasting time attending Pride parades or arresting people for tweets, while ignoring the things that matter to the general public.

Oh OK that makes sense. We need more prisons in that case.

I think most of us have met/have men close to us who are decent and kind.

But despite this, most of us have no problems with men as a whole not being allowed into certian areas as a safety precaution. Because the statistics are clear on what group is a bigger threat to the other.

It also does not good to pretend all cultures are equal. They are not. There are countries I would not visit, because their cultures are barbaric, violent and unsafe. Yes, every country has committed violence in the past. But there are ones in the present day still actively particpating in the slave trade, the public gang rape and murder of girls and women, and tribal warfare.

I have no desire to see any of those cultures become a significant minority in the UK.

@EvangelicalAboutButteredToast this is not a woke lefty news source so it might be more trusted by you: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/albanian-asylum-seekers-in-the-uk-and-eu-a-look-at-recent-data

• "Albanian citizens accounted for 17% of UK asylum applicants in 2022, but just 3% in 2024.
• Albanian small boat arrivals fell sharply after 2022."

It points out that the percentage of applications that were successful fell sharply in 2022. That could be a big reason behind the change in numbers arriving. However, it also points out later that for successful grants the vast majority (88% were for women due to modern slavery claims). Approvals for those fell anyway later, and maybe they weren't legitimate. But they won't have contributed either way to overcrowding in men's prisons.

Albanian men never saw their claims approved in high numbers. That was never a pull factor. What was was the deliberate government policy not to process their claims. It went down drastically following a change to how fast they returned them and cooperation with Albanian authorities.

I don't actually like high levels of irregular migration. But all the evidence shows that processing claims faster and better cooperation with other countries drives down levels most effectively. But people advocating for this are called "woke" and "soft lefties" by the same people advocating for policies that have been proven not to work but that looks "tough".

Sorry @SwirlyGates I didn't mean to quote you.

I think we should spend more on the police honestly. Sometimes the police are incentivised to "solve crimes" this usually leads to more attention paid to easy to solve cases. Sometimes they are directed to focus on violent crimes, sexual crimes etc rather than easy to solve crimes. This is, to me, good but pulls focus from shoplifting etc. really we need more police so there are enough resources to go round.

The age verification is still a contentious issue.
There have been cases of older men passing themselves off as minors.
In the recent photos re
A level results there was one in particular who had amazing results.
He looked to me to be ?mid to late 20s ?
Ostensibly not more than 19.
I found it concerning.

Yes if you return everyone people stop arriving.

You're referencing Dartmoor wrt radon gas. Being rented from Duchy of Cornwall despite being unusable.
https://prisonguide.co.uk/prince-william-hmp-dartmoor-duchy-cornwall-profit/
A whole other issue there.

For which one needs cooperation with the countries concerned. I don't think we should be cooperating with the Taliban. They murdered British soldiers and oppress women in their countries. Therefore giving them money to accept returnees, as suggested by some parties, turns my stomach. However we might be able to find other solutions there. Or find.other ways to reduce Afghans arriving by small boats in the first place. All those methods will, alas, involve cooperation with Europe. For Afgans who have already been granted asylum, or whom have legitimate claims especially women and especially those who we took into the country after the fall of Kabul but who haven't committed crimes. I don't think we should be backtracking and handing them back to the Taliban. The Taliban would like that. They see those people as their enemies or (in the case of women or child victims of sexual abuse) their property. If deterrence is your aim it wouldn't help there. For men from Afghanistan (or any other country) who have committed sexual crimes my personal answer is we send them back by trebuchet.

In general (not just for Afghanistanis) swiftly processing applications, making the approval requitments strict and clear, sending back those who fail to their home country or failing that their place of departure (France) while allowing those with legitimate claims to then swiftly integrate is the best way forward.

Yep, you only have to look at the way women and girls are being enslaved, denied education, forced into marriage as children in Afghanistan to see that it's probably not very wise to import men from that or similar countries en mass. As a woman, a mother to daughters and a grandmother to granddaughters I despair that this is being allowed to happen.

then swiftly integrate

How do you envisage this happening? What if they don’t want to integrate?

Is it the best way forward?

You can’t vet, from any country, so you need the crime to happen to know who to send back. It’s too late,

The victims can’t be a proxy vetting service for arrivals. Rhiannon Whyte still suffered.

I question whether it’s the best system or way forward when it ends with the outcomes listed below.

Well, I meant more get jobs, training etc which they are not allowed to do while in the asylum application process. This being dragged out for years isn't good for anyone, especially if it involves kids etc who are less and less likely to be integrated the longer they spend in the system. I know "doctors and engineers" is a widely mocked stereotype at this point. But I can't (on the face of it) see the problem with guys like this working https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1514966767327381&id=timesandsundaytimes . Even if he needs to get UK qualifications (a good idea) people like him should be allowed to contribute in other ways. Bearing in mind it's only after his application was processed he was even allowed to apply. It just feels like a waste...

Where "failure to integrate" is a euphemism for committing serious crimes against women and children then I refer back to my earlier point about trebuchets.

I don't mean they don't solve crime. Of course plenty of good work is done. But a bigger and bigger part is a mix of hybrid social services (was at A&E when my wife was admitted to see more than one patient with major drug issues be escorted all day by 2-3 officers. Each.), chauffeur service (a lot of driving to and from police stations, back home, around the county), and a minimal protect and serve ethos.
This impression given to me is that the job is so beauracratic and data driven, so controlled by diktats, that the job can very much be crowd control, damage limitation, baby sitting and surveying crime. And less so solving crime.
In my own area of physical therapy, you can wait months for an NHS physio appt, and more interest is taken in whether your grandmother had heart disease, your mental health, your weight, whether you're ok to have other health study data collated, than the physio getting their elbows into your hamstrings.
A fellow who applied to work at my clinic said in the hospital he worked at, he was buried by data, very rarely getting people better by his own hands.
But knew a ton about patients blood sugar levels, lol.

There's currently a problem with foreign doctors. It's very difficult for newly-trained doctors who have come through the British training system to get jobs in the UK, and lots of them are emigrating to Australia. The jobs are apparently going to foreign-trained doctors. But I heard on the radio the other day that 75% of cases of medical malpractice are by foreign-trained doctors.

I've heard from quite a few NHS professionals that their trusts have employed 'experienced' healthcare professionals from abroad (radiographers, nurses etc.) thinking that they are getting a bargain.

Staff are finding that they often know less than first year student placements, are more than willing to cut corners and often ignore safety requirements. But it is highly frowned upon for any British staff to complain or even raise the issue.

Well this is a clear admission there's a problem. However though it may affect asylum claim it doesn't make clear it will lead to a refusal.
New behavioural guidance for asylum seekers has been published by the Home Office.

A nine-page booklet covering issues including respect in public, sex and consent, and gender equality, has gone online, with guidance on how laws and customs in the UK may be different from the home country of asylum seekers.
Behaviour guidelines for life in UK published for asylum seekers - BBC News

^https://share.google/2v0WebIVgqjw2Qu^wZ

Have you read it? Riddled with the most apologetic language, anyone looking at it would have no idea what the UK stands for, what we expect from people coming here to settle, what happens if you don't comply.
A whole bunch of "wouldas shouldas".
What a joke this country has become.

Didn’t other countries issues those guide ages ago? I mean it’s obvious to that it won’t help. But there may be people lurking who think it’s a great idea.

then again, those people have somehow completely missed the extent of the problem across Europe….

Meanwhile, Poland has...what?....5% of the population made up by immigrants. I saw an interview with their PM where somebody tried to shame him and he wasn't having it at all.

Basically said "we're a Christian country with Christian values and we can manage our country as we see fit. My job is to serve the people who voted me in and we don't want to dilute our societal values with mass immigration from countries that don't share them".

No bullshit and to the point. The Polish contractors I work with can't believe the state of the UK. They think we're mugs for getting walked all over.

@GaIadriel that is ridiculous. Why would anyone try to shame him for that? It’s actually a lot higher than I thought it was going to be. Even if it was 0.05%, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

What kind of leery and/or violent man is going to read a nine page booklet and think "ah yep, better not stab a woman with a screwdriver, that's not allowed here".

I suppose it's better than pretending there's no problem. Not much better though.

9 pages and it <still> doesn't say you <can't> rape/be violent etc, more that you <shouldn't be> beastly, doesn't say that you <will be> imprisoned, but that you <could be>.
The Sir Humphreys and Burnham team just <cannot> state unequivocally who we are, what's expected, what's not tolerated, what will happen.
<Any> hint that we're rating our culture as superior, and that our ways will be followed, fills our intelligentsia with absolute horror, so obfuscating language, and cultural smoothing or crushing is the order of the day.
I fear the country is lost, we still have so much that's brilliant about us, but the inability of our elites to have faced up to the reality of what's happened to us, on their watch, likely to carry on unimpeded by Burnham and likely to be accelerated by the likely left govt that wins in 2029.