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?

The job thing is a bit of a red herring. I wouldn’t be surprised if the preference is to work, after all many take whatever is going if they can.

I think we have to think about our own underemployed young people as well.

Or I might be naive thinking people want a job.

You are right, if they are provided with everything without lifting their finger, then why work!

I'm not sure what happened in Ceuta was an organic migration wave.

The vast majority were Moroccan young men. They looked healthy, well dressed and well fed. They crossed the border in flip flops, carrying no food, water or documents, almost as if they had nothing better to do of an afternoon. Once the afternoon entertainment was over they literally walked back into their lives.

I am going to put my conspiracy hat on and say that the whole thing was a show of force by Morocco. Those men were not economic migrants or asylum seekers. So what the hell were they? Hopefully we will find out one day.

There is a role that often gets overlooked and it's that of the people trafficker. Not just the guy that you pay at Calais so you can get a bumcheek on the boat to Dover - no, the recruiters in the small villages that paint Europe as the land of milk and honey. Pure evil.

if they are provided with everything without lifting their finger, then why work!

There's certainly a type of young man who would rather have everything paid for without having to work. And that's the type of man we are pull-factor-ing.

I think they were told they could get into the EU / Spain.

it didn’t turn out to be the case although Ceuta still looks pretty badly impacted by the few thousand left, if the images are correct.

It does show what happens when people believe a legal route is open, which is why opening centres in various countries is questionable. The demand would be similarly overwhelming.

It's a good question. Before trying to find out, I predicted the answer, correctly: the government does not cross-reference employment data with asylum seekers data. So we don't know.

I have long suspected that thousands of undocumented migrants are in the UK without the government knowing accurately how many they are and where they are. That's because I distrust government competence. Recent stories of the early release of prisoners is an excellent example.

Yes and they’re frequently highly exploitative.

@Kingdomofsleep you realise that ultimately the majority of the ones who are granted asylum here don’t work after that? That’s what we know from refugee organisations, the government doesn’t keep figures I think. (surprise)

I apologise if I’m wrong, but I have a feeling you’ve got a rather rosy picture of who’s actually showing up here if you think they can just compete in the job market.

I mean it’s Afghanistan, it’s messed up obviously. The only people we should take from there are women who will have been traumatised. Trauma plays out in different ways and because of the differences in men and women that do exist men more likely to be violent than women.

I live near an immigrant hotel, it’s not great. Lots of local issues but I’m sure the man from found with his knob out in a woman’s garden in the middle of the night down the road from me meant no harm. Plus girls at the local secondary school who were harassed are of marriageable age in their culture so what’s the problem.

I’m not even white and my Dd was an immigrant. arrived on a plane with all his papers, visa and passport with a decent standard of English decades ago. His CV showed he had been chief finance officer for a finance company in Hong

Funnily enough quite a few immigrants and descendants of immigrants don’t like it as well. Not all immigrants are created equal.

Anyone with no papers should never be allowed in.

And in addition to that we have posters who actively encourage women to partner up with them, as if women dint have the agency to make decisions like this without prompting.

What can possibly go wrong!

I think you've misunderstood my point entirely.

We should not be housing and feeding men who do not contribute to society by working.

I said so already upthread. If they are not employable, they should leave. Find a job, or find some other way for paying upkeep.

This article was interesting on estimating the current UK population. spectator.com/article/we-have-no-idea-how-many-people-are-living-in-britain/

There is no need for the UK to encourage arrivals. It’s a popular destination because of a variety of intersecting factors, including language, location (easier to get to than the US for African and Middle Eastern citizens), and historical and familial links. So no, outside shortage occupations I’m not sure why there is a need for ‘encouragement’. Even then I think, long term, shortages should be addressed by training existing British residents.

I don’t have a problem with tightening up immigration controls or reviewing provisions for seeking asylum. Having said that, I think it would be naive not to recognise that some commentators primary motivation is to eliminate immigration as a whole or asylum as a whole, or at least to severely curtail it. That’s not to say they don’t care at all about women and girls, but it can make it difficult to establish what is a genuine attempt to make them safer and what is only about keeping ‘those men’ out, while not really caring much what other men do.

That’s why I keep coming back to, and I make no apologies for it, the necessity of more voices from the left objectively looking at the data and not waving it all away with a cry of “racists”.

My first post on this thread is essentially about the reluctance of the left to face facts. Andy Burnham was right to say middle class areas must also accommodate asylum seekers but he didn't address the bigger issue: the steady inflow of undocumented mainly young men, because Labour wouldn't like it.

I haven’t made any such argument, and if you think a medical degree prevents a man being a danger to women, I’d suggest you haven’t been paying attention.

With this topic it’s worth separating work visas from the asylum process.

For the latter knowing where Afghanistan sits on the index you quoted how can women and girls be prioritised?

Very interesting. And it makes the case for ID cards, so opposed by the right, which is amusing.

Okay I’d just like them to not be here full stop

I don’t think working makes the situation any better. Quite possibly it will make it worse.

It's so strange that some people conflate concern for irregular arrivals with a hatred of immigrants generally.

I have lived here as an immigrant for a long time and I have never considered hostility for small boat entrants as though it includes me. It simply doesn't.

A huge proportion of UK voters is concerned about the small boats, but happy with immigrants who work and contribute, especially in shortage jobs.

The bogeyman racist who hates his Indian doctor, Chinese teacher and Polish nurse is mostly mythical in my opinion (and experience).

Edit to add - and I agree that working immigrants (like myself) are some of the most vehemently opposed to irregular arrivals. You see this in the US too.

I’m not clear about your point, sorry. I’ve stated elsewhere and don’t like the conflation of immigration and the asylum process, but the article we are commenting on does just that. There are common factors in the choice of the U.K. as a destination for both work visas and asylum, and indeed illegal immigration.

I’d want to see the safety of women and girls being given much more weight in the decision making process regarding immigration and asylum, regardless of where the applicants are coming from

It’s interesting though where people would draw a line if they think applicants should be treated differently. Below the UK, which would include France and the USA among other places. Placed below 80, which would still include China and Israel or cut off anything below 100th place, which would cover Ukraine, India and South Africa.

We could just accept only women refugees, or family units, particularly from countries like Afghanistan where women and girls are at MUCH MUCH higher risk at home, unlike the young fit men who are merrily leaving them behind to die or be forced into "marriage" (very often slavery). Reminder that women cannot leave the house without a male chaperone, so for women whose male chaperones leave, they're likely to suffer even worse human rights abuses and harms immediately as a result of the men leaving.

So our quota could be made up entirely of women. Much lower risk to the existing population and for Afghans certainly much more in need of asylum.

Much less likely to survive small boat crossings though, so the immigration system would need to be reformed.

Titania Mcgrath?

I agree with this but the Equality Act forbids sex discrimination, which this would count as.

For the same reason that can't simply free all our women prisoners to prevent early release of male sex offenders and murderers, which is something a lot of people would be happy with.

I think work visas and employment lends itself to ability to check backgrounds. Either through police certificates or other records.

The asylum process does not, there’s no way to know if a male has committed a crime under the Taliban or in war torn Sudan.

Plus other factors, but vetting is a key distinction. So in order to change the asylum system to prioritise women and girls this would have to be changed dramatically.