In 2024 between 40% and 47% of those charged for sexual offences were foreign nationals - despite them accounting for just a quarter of the capital's population.
Do tell: What would the numbers look like if there were an institutional bias that led to over-prosecution of foreign nationals and under-prosecution of British nationals?
What would they look like if British accusees had a cultural capital advantage (linguistic fluency, knowledge of law, access to representation, personal contacts)?
What would they look like if we took into account the fact that in 2024 only 2.7% of rape cases resulted in a charge the same year? Would the other 97.3% change the outcome?
University researcher here, I have taken the time to analyse the data provided by the freedom of information request and in realty the top 5 nationalities are:
Nationality Number = % of 7798
British 4629 = 59.4%
Romanian 308 = 3.9%
Indian 193 = 2.5%
Polish 128 = 1.60%
Italian 113 = 1.4%
It is very dangerous to manipulate data - from observation you are targeting non-white individuals which has very serious racist undertones.
Surprise surprise, a pressure group set up to find bad news stories about foreigners, funded by people and institutions representing wealth, found bad news stories about foreigners.
They know people are not going to vote for austerity, cuts to public services and tax cuts for the rich, unless they are served up with a big helping of immigrant bashing.
You couldn't be more deluded. The real number of foreifn crime is much higher because the amount of cases taken on by prosecution has to be nailed on guilty, for the most part. Considering that the capital is majority foreign where abouts is your numerical leg to stand on you big dolt?
Can you please explain why in your calculation spread sheet you have 0 offences under British for 2018, 2019 & 2020 as well as very low numbers for 2021 & 2022? It appears that you have missed included the data from the Met Police report under "United Kingdom" for those years. This is giving an artificially low value of offences per 10,000 population for British people.
Also can you please explain where you got the population of the various ethnicity's within London as none of the data sets linked for population contain a value of 12,000 Afghans living in London so trying to work out which sheet you got that from.
It's absolutely painful to read some of the comments here. I saw a comically weak rebuttal about "institutional bias". Do tell why this seems to not affect certain nations whatsoever? I.e., every foreign European nation, almost all Asian nations (those not infected with Islam). In African nations, for example, we see countries that border one another, and as soon as one is Muslim majority, sexual offending explodes.
Whilst there is no perfect estimate, the figures given for the FOREIGN NATIONAL population in LONDON (which is what is being talked about here) appear to be accurate. The 60IQ inbred cretins who immediately wrote "HOW DID YOU GET THESE FIGURES, THESE AREN'T THE FIGURES OF THIS NATIONALITY IN THE UK" need to have their internet access revoked.
The data is "per capita" as to deal with the data in absolute terms would be moronic when we are discussing small immigrant groups. The question being raised is why these groups are offending so extensively, not whether their offending numbers are the highest in the nation as a raw total.
Afghan crime stats are only around 3%, not the 73% you've claimed. You haven't even listed their population number correctly, something you could have spent thirty seconds googling. What a monumental fuck up.
You've clearly deleted the notes section of the FOI. The notes in the original FOI clearly explain that the incidents are not individual people, and that one person will have been listed multiple different times; they're also NOT convictions but just crime reports.
I have a few questions after reviewing this data which has dominated headlines but is clearly misleading.
1) How have you estimated the populations of each ethnicity? Your estimate for Afghan immigrants, for example, is about 3x LOWER than the current estimated population. I would like to know how you measured this total for each ethnicity?
2) The current migrant population of London is estimated to be 40% (according to the 2021 census). Why does your article suggest it is 25%?
3) How have you adjusted the offences for repeat offenders being counted multiple times?
4) How have you adjusted the numbers for increases in population?
It’s accurate that convictions among Indian nationals rose sharply—but that alone doesn’t prove a broader moral or cultural claim. Foreign nationals account for around 14% of UK sexual offence convictions, and while per-capita rates are higher for some groups, the numbers are based on shaky population estimates. Data points toward systemic trends—not sweeping indictments of entire communities.
Can you clarify how you arrived at the population numbers? I checked your sources but couldn’t find anything matching your data. For instance, you list Sudanese population in the UK as 7,000, but the only place I found that figure was as the margin of error for “Female Sudanese by country of birth.
I urge everyone to look at the raw data provided by the information of information request and see the true numbers - also please note that there are 4 separate categories for British, United Kingdom, Scottish and Northern Irish which should have all be under the same category
Can you please explain why in your calculation spread sheet you have 0 offences under British for 2018, 2019 & 2020 as well as very low numbers for 2021 & 2022? It appears that you have missed included the data from the Met Police report under "United Kingdom" for those years. This is giving an artificially low value of offences per 10,000 population for British people.
Also can you please explain where you got the population of the various ethnicity's within London as none of the data sets linked for population contain a value of 12,000 Afghans living in London so trying to work out which sheet you got that from.
Row 152 shows combined total of "United Kingdom", "British", and "England" for the years 2018 - 2024 as well as the grand total. These are the figures on which the per capita rate is calculated.
The population data comes from the Annual Population Survey and assumes the upper end of the ONS' estimates. Thanks for your questions!
That is not the upper end. You took the margin of error alone. You're supposed to add the "Persons Estimate" to the margin of error to get to the upper end. High school statistics. Embarrassing!
The other 53% were naturalised.
Exactly
Oh dear, I see the liberal far left racist extremists are out in force on this.
They just can't bear the truth!
They treat the truth like an illness.
Do tell: What would the numbers look like if there were an institutional bias that led to over-prosecution of foreign nationals and under-prosecution of British nationals?
What would they look like if British accusees had a cultural capital advantage (linguistic fluency, knowledge of law, access to representation, personal contacts)?
What would they look like if we took into account the fact that in 2024 only 2.7% of rape cases resulted in a charge the same year? Would the other 97.3% change the outcome?
There isnt enough native British in London for this to be true.
University researcher here, I have taken the time to analyse the data provided by the freedom of information request and in realty the top 5 nationalities are:
Nationality Number = % of 7798
British 4629 = 59.4%
Romanian 308 = 3.9%
Indian 193 = 2.5%
Polish 128 = 1.60%
Italian 113 = 1.4%
It is very dangerous to manipulate data - from observation you are targeting non-white individuals which has very serious racist undertones.
per capita.
You are only using per capita to fuel your agenda - your analysis is not the true picture, you are fulled by racist hatred.
Per capita is per capita you ignoramus.
You must be a Leftie imbecile.
Are 77th trialling AI trolls? You cannot be for real. This is appalling bad
Surprise surprise, a pressure group set up to find bad news stories about foreigners, funded by people and institutions representing wealth, found bad news stories about foreigners.
They know people are not going to vote for austerity, cuts to public services and tax cuts for the rich, unless they are served up with a big helping of immigrant bashing.
You couldn't be more deluded. The real number of foreifn crime is much higher because the amount of cases taken on by prosecution has to be nailed on guilty, for the most part. Considering that the capital is majority foreign where abouts is your numerical leg to stand on you big dolt?
Can you please explain why in your calculation spread sheet you have 0 offences under British for 2018, 2019 & 2020 as well as very low numbers for 2021 & 2022? It appears that you have missed included the data from the Met Police report under "United Kingdom" for those years. This is giving an artificially low value of offences per 10,000 population for British people.
Also can you please explain where you got the population of the various ethnicity's within London as none of the data sets linked for population contain a value of 12,000 Afghans living in London so trying to work out which sheet you got that from.
It's absolutely painful to read some of the comments here. I saw a comically weak rebuttal about "institutional bias". Do tell why this seems to not affect certain nations whatsoever? I.e., every foreign European nation, almost all Asian nations (those not infected with Islam). In African nations, for example, we see countries that border one another, and as soon as one is Muslim majority, sexual offending explodes.
Whilst there is no perfect estimate, the figures given for the FOREIGN NATIONAL population in LONDON (which is what is being talked about here) appear to be accurate. The 60IQ inbred cretins who immediately wrote "HOW DID YOU GET THESE FIGURES, THESE AREN'T THE FIGURES OF THIS NATIONALITY IN THE UK" need to have their internet access revoked.
The data is "per capita" as to deal with the data in absolute terms would be moronic when we are discussing small immigrant groups. The question being raised is why these groups are offending so extensively, not whether their offending numbers are the highest in the nation as a raw total.
Lastly, this data is consistent with both conviction rates and prison populations - see https://www.migrationcentral.co.uk/api/v1/file/f8290297-9c71-4992-b7fc-d4b8a19da668.pdf
https://www.migrationcentral.co.uk/api/v1/file/1715b851-eb4a-49be-9f30-8891558e3bdd.pdf
https://www.migrationcentral.co.uk/api/v1/file/ca255606-9b93-4efc-af06-bbfe4c6f5172.pdf
(Ministry of Justice, Police National Computer Data) and https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2024
Your stats are bogus, and you know it
Afghan crime stats are only around 3%, not the 73% you've claimed. You haven't even listed their population number correctly, something you could have spent thirty seconds googling. What a monumental fuck up.
You've clearly deleted the notes section of the FOI. The notes in the original FOI clearly explain that the incidents are not individual people, and that one person will have been listed multiple different times; they're also NOT convictions but just crime reports.
I have a few questions after reviewing this data which has dominated headlines but is clearly misleading.
1) How have you estimated the populations of each ethnicity? Your estimate for Afghan immigrants, for example, is about 3x LOWER than the current estimated population. I would like to know how you measured this total for each ethnicity?
2) The current migrant population of London is estimated to be 40% (according to the 2021 census). Why does your article suggest it is 25%?
3) How have you adjusted the offences for repeat offenders being counted multiple times?
4) How have you adjusted the numbers for increases in population?
I look forward to these answers.
It’s accurate that convictions among Indian nationals rose sharply—but that alone doesn’t prove a broader moral or cultural claim. Foreign nationals account for around 14% of UK sexual offence convictions, and while per-capita rates are higher for some groups, the numbers are based on shaky population estimates. Data points toward systemic trends—not sweeping indictments of entire communities.
How is “foreign national” defined in this claim?
Can you clarify how you arrived at the population numbers? I checked your sources but couldn’t find anything matching your data. For instance, you list Sudanese population in the UK as 7,000, but the only place I found that figure was as the margin of error for “Female Sudanese by country of birth.
Crazy how people call Indians bad but there are sooo hug Indian population compared to other races yet they're soo down in the list
Hi there - just subbed grateful if you would check out my latest post
https://substack.com/@beingandpolitics/note/p-170153790?r=j4dtk&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I urge everyone to look at the raw data provided by the information of information request and see the true numbers - also please note that there are 4 separate categories for British, United Kingdom, Scottish and Northern Irish which should have all be under the same category
Can you please explain why in your calculation spread sheet you have 0 offences under British for 2018, 2019 & 2020 as well as very low numbers for 2021 & 2022? It appears that you have missed included the data from the Met Police report under "United Kingdom" for those years. This is giving an artificially low value of offences per 10,000 population for British people.
Also can you please explain where you got the population of the various ethnicity's within London as none of the data sets linked for population contain a value of 12,000 Afghans living in London so trying to work out which sheet you got that from.
Row 152 shows combined total of "United Kingdom", "British", and "England" for the years 2018 - 2024 as well as the grand total. These are the figures on which the per capita rate is calculated.
The population data comes from the Annual Population Survey and assumes the upper end of the ONS' estimates. Thanks for your questions!
That is not the upper end. You took the margin of error alone. You're supposed to add the "Persons Estimate" to the margin of error to get to the upper end. High school statistics. Embarrassing!