An article in The Guardian by London mayor Sadiq Khan caught my attention for its deceitfulness. The mayor claims that London is now “safer than ever” in terms of violent crime, without listing any meaningful statistics for readers to compare then and now.
Mayor Khan appears to base his claims on the reduced murder rates. He writes, “London’s homicide rate is lower than rates in New York, Berlin, Brussels, Milan, Toronto and Paris, five times lower than the rate in LA, and almost 12 times lower than the rate in Chicago.”
But the murder rate being low is often because of medical advances (as explained here by Arctotherium). When fewer people die on the operating tables after getting shot or stabbed, there are fewer homicides. For London, this just means that the British NHS hospitals are doing a great job at saving lives after stabbings and shootings, etc. However, this does NOT simply imply reductions in violent crime.
Khan adds that “hospital admissions of young people for knife assault have fallen by 43%” since 2019, but he doesn’t mention that knife crime incidents recorded by the police have remained the same! The graph below shows that by 2025, there has been no meaningful reduction of “police recorded knife or sharp instrument offences” in London compared with 2019.
So how can one claim that London is now “safer than ever” when the risk of getting attacked by a sharp or pointy weapon is the same today as it was during the peak hell of 2019?
How do we explain the 43% drop in hospitalizations after knife attacks? Well, I guess people were lucky to wear their recommended stab vests! Since the number of knife attacks has remained the same, the reduction in hospitalizations must partially stem from better care by physicians, thus avoiding hospital admissions. Using the hospitalization statistics as evidence, then, that London is now “safer than ever” appears to be extremely deceitful.
London is not safer. It is just as unsafe.
The mayor further writes that causes of violent crime are poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunity. In other words, he’s strangely suggesting, albeit in a covert way, that violent crime is somehow mostly committed by people with recent migration backgrounds, i.e., those demographics allegedly without wealth, equality or opportunity.
This is false. There are several immigrant demographics in the UK with lower arrest rates than White British people. However, according to the UK’s own 2024 nationwide statistics on arrests, black people appear to have the highest arrest rates overall.
In fact, the aforementioned UK government website literally states, and I quote:
black people had the highest arrest rate in 38 out of 42 [UK] police forces
This fact cannot be explained by immigration, since other immigrant groups are, by far, not as criminal or violent as black citizens in the UK (up to 10 times less, by comparison). It cannot be explained by poverty, inequality, or lack of opportunity, since other demographics with even greater poverty and even less opportunity rarely commit violent crimes. And, rest assured, most people without money or opportunity don’t commit violent crimes.
Yet, Khan is making a dangerous and illogical argument, surreptitiously blaming White people or native Britons overall for the crimes being committed against them. Who else’s fault would Khan think it is that people lack opportunity and wealth? He doesn’t say it out loud, for that would be racist, but the silence is deafening.
Is Khan saying violence is justified as long as it’s poor migrants targeting people they perceive as having unjust amounts of wealth and opportunity? Perhaps due to colonialism, imperialism, or their own diligence and hard work? Is he saying it’s all White people’s fault? Isn’t that extremely racist to suggest?
Khan, for example, makes no mention of imported male aggression or culturally justified violence, such as among Arab, (North) African, Middle Eastern, or various Islamic cultures that treat violence very differently, for example in clan-based and ethnocentric settings. He also doesn’t mention the migration of criminals to the more lucrative West to find, exactly, the “lacking opportunity”, etc.
He doesn’t mention that it’s black people who have the highest arrest rates in London. The same black people who receive a disproportionate share of housing benefits, welfare payouts, and general societal coddling. If anything, based on how blacks in the UK are being treated, they should have the lowest crime rates. In reality, they still have the highest.
This isn’t a problem of slavery, either, since the largest share of blacks living in London are immigrants of the modern age. They are largely free blacks, descendants of African blacks who were never enslaved by Whites. These are not your usual ‘African-Americans’ who can claim that slavery victimized them for 400 years.
Khan then finishes his uninformative article by lamenting the death of a black child, 10-year-old Damilola Taylor, who was killed in the year 2000. Although his killers, two 16-year-old brothers, bear British first and last names, their father was a black immigrant from Jamaica. Indeed, as per the UK government’s own statistics, even mixed half black people perform worse.
The mayor then expresses his emotional feelings about investing in “deprived neighborhoods”, the sorts of neighborhoods where native White Britons have long been replaced by mass immigration.
Sadiq Khan’s concern is not for British people, but for anything that may help diminish the value of White British people and of White people in general. The title of Khan’s article was, “Sorry, Trump and Farage – London is no lawless ‘warzone’. Violent crime is lower than ever”. Except, it’s not. Violent crime is as high as ever.
What stands out is that different ethnicities appear to be responsible for different crimes. Black Londoners are responsible for most violent crime, including stabbing and shooting, whereas Pakistani Muslim people in the UK are responsible for most group-organized rapes.
Instead of pretending all is well, why don’t we just go after the known criminals? Alas, if I had been a British citizen living in Britain, I would have most likely been arrested for writing this article. I would have gotten up to three years in prison for “hateful words”.
“Safer than ever” depends on what you mean.
Is a city safer, if slightly fewer gangbangers knife each other, but robberies and rapes increase?
When we say that a city is safe, we mean: “We can walk through it, without getting either accosted nor robbed”.
We don’t mean: “Hey guess what! Only 39 gangbangers got knifed as opposed to 52 last year!”
Literally 50% (could easily be 100%) of people I know have had a bike or phone stolen or an apartment broken into. I have had 2 bikes stolen and been broken into twice. Most people only report the crime if they have insurance. I would not be surprised if 80% of crimes go unreported.