Home Office to Publish Nationalities of Foreign Criminals
Her decision will require a significant overhaul of the department's statistical processes after officials initially advised that compiling and publishing such data would be too complex.
For the first time, the Home Office is expected to publish a breakdown of the nationalities of foreign criminals currently awaiting deportation from the UK.
Under existing rules,
There are currently
Government sources anticipate that the data will highlight Albanians, Romanians, and Poles as the most represented nationalities among those awaiting deportation.
Related Stories
10/16/2023
3/7/2023
The most common offences are expected to include drug production and supply, various types of theft and robbery and acts of violent assault.
'Any foreign national who abuses our hospitality by committing serious crimes should be in no doubt—they will face the full force of the law and be removed from the UK at the earliest opportunity.
'We are committed to ensuring the public is better informed about the number of foreign criminals awaiting deportation, their countries of origin, and the crimes they have committed. This is why, for the first time, ministers have directed officials to produce a broader range of data on this group and to publish it in a transparent manner,' a Home Office spokesperson said.
Rising Numbers
Official statistics reveal that the number of FNOs awaiting deportation rose to 19,244 by the end of 2024, up from 17,907 when the Conservative government left office in July, and significantly higher than the 14,640 recorded at the end of 2022.
This increase comes despite
The Home Office is currently upgrading its
Once completed, officials say the new system will allow for more detailed and accurate statistical releases, potentially starting by the end of 2025.
Until then, further breakdowns—such as offence types and nationalities—will be published as 'experimental statistics'.
Political Pressure
The announcement follows sustained pressure from opposition figures to disclose more information on migrant crime.
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick welcomed the news, adding that the British public 'deserve the truth about migrant crime and the costs of low-skilled immigration.'
'The cover-up is coming to an end. We'll finally see the hard reality—that mass migration is fuelling crime across our country,' he said.
The Conservative minister has long campaigned for greater transparency on this issue.
Last year, he
'Following over a year of pressure from campaigners—including my own attempt to change the law—it appears there's been a breakthrough.' Jenrick
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp
Home Office officials have cautioned that detailed breakdowns will depend on the successful completion of system upgrades and the resolution of data recording gaps.
Quicker Deportation Pledge
Foreign inmates make up around 12 percent of the prison population across England and Wales.
Last month the government
Prisons minister James Timpson said it was unacceptable for taxpayers to fund the detention of foreign criminals.
Since elected into government, Labour removed 2,580 foreign criminals, a 23 percent increase on the same period 12 months prior.
'Under this government removals are up by nearly a quarter. We're now taking action to ensure this is done swifter, easing pressure on overcrowded prisons and on the public purse,' said Timpson.
PA Media contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
42 minutes ago
- Forbes
Neutrality Is A Myth: Generative AI And The Politics Of Everything
Artificial intelligence (AI), once discussed chiefly as a technological innovation, now sits at the center of a societal reckoning over truth, power, and the future of democratic discourse. President Donald Trump's impending executive order—reported in the last few days by news outlets as conditioning government contracts on whether firms' AI systems are 'politically neutral'—captures how generative AI has become not just a commercial or technological concern, but a flashpoint for ideological and epistemic struggle. The order comes in the wake of controversies involving Google's Gemini and Meta's chatbot, which generated images of racially diverse Nazis and Black depictions of America's Founding Fathers. These outputs were framed by their developers as counterweights to historical exclusion, yet were widely denounced as historical fabrications, viewed by critics as examples of 'woke' technology supplanting accuracy with ideology. Executive order written under torn paper. AI's , Bridges, and the Politics of Design The anxiety surrounding AI deepened when Elon Musk's Grok chatbot spiraled into an antisemitic meltdown, producing hateful screeds and referring to itself as 'MechaHitler' before Musk's company intervened. The episode demonstrated how generative systems, even when tightly supervised, can produce destabilizing and harmful content—not merely reflecting the biases of their creators, but amplifying extremes unpredictably. Such incidents destabilize public trust in AI systems and, by extension, the institutions deploying them. These dynamics underscore a broader truth articulated by Langdon Winner in his now decades old seminal essay, Do Artifacts Have Politics? Winner contended that technologies are never neutral; they embody the social values, choices, and power structures of those who design them. His most enduring illustration was Robert Moses's low-hanging parkway bridges on Long Island, allegedly built to prevent buses—and therefore lower-income passengers—from accessing public parks. Critics at the time dismissed Winner's argument as over-deterministic and accused him of reading intent where circumstantial evidence sufficed. Yet whether or not Moses's motives were as deliberate as Winner alleged, the broader point has endured: infrastructure, from bridges to algorithms, channels social outcomes. Generative AI, often marketed as a neutral informational tool, is in reality a deeply value-laden system. Its training datasets, inclusionary adjustments, and 'safety filters' reflect countless normative decisions—about whose histories matter, what harms to mitigate, and which risks are acceptable. Generative AI apps icons —ChatGPT, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Claude, and Perplexity — are seen on a ... More Google Pixel smartphone. The Algorithmic Newsfeed and AI Persuasion The power of such systems is magnified by shifts in how Americans consume information. Most now rely primarily on digital platforms—social media feeds, streaming video, and algorithmically curated aggregators—for news . Television and traditional news sites remain significant, but algorithmic feeds have eclipsed them. These digital ecosystems privilege engagement over deliberation, elevating sensational or tribal content over balanced reporting. When generative AI begins writing headlines, summarizing events, and curating feeds, it becomes another layer of mediation—one whose authority derives from fluency and speed, not necessarily accuracy. Recent empirical research suggests this influence is far from benign. A University of Zurich study found that generative AI can meaningfully sway online deliberations, with AI-authored posts shifting sentiment in forums like Reddit even when participants were unaware of their origin. This dynamic threatens deliberative democracy by eroding what is referred to as 'public reason'—the ideal of discourse grounded in rational argumentation and mutual recognition rather than manipulation. When AI-generated content becomes indistinguishable from authentic human contribution, the public sphere risks devolving into what philosopher Harry Frankfurt described as a marketplace of 'bullshit,' where the concern is neither truth nor falsehood, but the sheer pursuit of persuasion and virality. In this photo illustration, the American social news aggregation, web content rating, and discussion ... More website, Reddit, logo is seen displayed on an Android mobile device with a figure in the background. (Photo Illustration by Miguel Candela/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) AI, Memory, and Manufactured Truths The dangers are not confined to subtle persuasion. A June 2025 Nature study demonstrated that large language models systematically hallucinate or skew statistical information, particularly when questions require nuanced reasoning. A separate MIT investigation confirmed that even debiased models perpetuate stereotypical associations, subtly reinforcing societal hierarchies. UNESCO has warned that generative AI threatens Holocaust memory by enabling doctored or fabricated historical materials to circulate as fact. And reporting by The New York Times has detailed how AI-driven bots, microtargeted ads, and deepfakes are already reshaping electoral landscapes, creating an environment where voters cannot easily discern human-authored narratives from synthetic ones. The Word 'History' is crossed out on a blackboard with the words 'Re-Writing History' chalk writing ... More underneath. This is for a learning about Re-Writing History Concept. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Consensus, AI and the Weaponization of Knowledge These technological developments intersect with a cultural trajectory that I have described, several years ago, as the 'death of the second opinion,' as public and digital discourse increasingly favors frictionless consensus over contested deliberation. Platforms reward virality, not complexity; generative AI, with its capacity to produce seamless, confident prose, reinforces this tendency by smoothing over ambiguities and suppressing dissenting voices. The space for pluralism—the messy, contradictory engagement that sustains democratic culture—is contracting. Even legacy broadcasters, which once offered starkly divergent perspectives, reflect this homogenization. News networks, despite their ideological differences, now tailor much of their content for algorithmic optimization: short-form videos, emotionally charged headlines, and personality-driven narratives designed to thrive on social feeds. AI-driven tools, which draft summaries and even produce full story packages, exacerbate this shift by standardizing the cadence and texture of news, eroding the distinctiveness of editorial voices. Simultaneously, institutions once regarded as neutral have become sites of contestation. In 2024, a U.S. prosecutor reportedly threatened legal action against Wikipedia over alleged partisan bias, raising alarms about state intrusion into crowd-sourced knowledge. Around the same time, a coordinated campaign on X, branded 'WikiBias2024,' accused Wikipedia of systemic ideological slant. These conflicts reflect a broader epistemic insecurity: as AI, social media, and legacy institutions all mediate public understanding, every node in the information ecosystem becomes suspect, politicized, and weaponized. Computer screen showing the website for free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. (Photo by Mike Kemp/In ... More Pictures Ltd./Corbis via Getty Images) AI and the Mirage of Neutrality President Trump's proposed executive order must be understood within this fraught landscape. According to early reports, the initiative will require AI vendors seeking federal contracts to undergo 'neutrality audits,' produce 'certifications of political impartiality,' and submit to recurring oversight. While these measures echo prior federal interventions into private technology—such as the Justice Department's demands that Apple unlock the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone—the implications here are arguably broader. Whereas Apple's dispute centered on specific criminal evidence, the neutrality mandate would deputize federal agencies as arbiters of political balance in a dynamic and interpretive domain. The risk is not merely bureaucratic overreach, but the entrenchment of a preferred ideological baseline under the guise of balance. Any audit mechanism, after all, must be designed according to someone's conception of neutrality, and thus risks ossifying bias while purporting to erase it. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) headquarters building on January 20, 2024, in Washington, DC. ... More (Photo by J.) The impulse to demand neutrality, while understandable, may itself be symptomatic of what Freud described in Civilization and Its Discontents as the longing for an 'oceanic feeling'—a sensation of boundless connection and security, often tied to religious or existential comfort. In the context of AI, many seem to hope for a similarly oceanic anchor: a technology that can transcend human divisions and deliver a singular, stabilizing truth. Yet such expectations are illusory. Generative AI is not a conduit to universal reality; it is a mirror, refracting the biases, aspirations, and conflicts of its human architects. Recognizing this does not mean resigning ourselves to epistemic chaos. It means abandoning the myth of neutrality and designing governance around transparency, contestability, and pluralism. AI systems should disclose their data provenance, flag when diversity or safety adjustments influence outputs, and remain auditable by independent bodies for factual and normative integrity. More importantly, they should be structured to preserve friction: surfacing dissenting framings, offering uncurated outputs alongside polished summaries, and ensuring that a 'second opinion' remains visible in digital spaces. Democracy cannot survive on curated consensus or algorithmic fluency alone. It cannot endure if truth itself becomes a casualty of convenience, reduced to whichever narrative is most seamless or viral. The stakes are not abstract: as UNESCO has warned, when the integrity of pivotal histories is compromised, the very notion of shared truth—and the moral lessons it imparts—begins to erode. Democracy does not thrive on sanitized agreement but on tension: the clash of perspectives, the contest over competing narratives, and the collective pursuit of facts, however uncomfortable. As generative AI becomes the primary lens through which most people access knowledge—often distilled to prompts like, 'Grok, did this really happen? I don't think it did, but explain the controversy around this issue using only sources in a specific language'—the challenge is not whether these systems can feign neutrality. It is whether we can design them to actively safeguard truth, ensuring that pluralism, contestation, and the arduous work of deliberation remain immovable foundations for both history and democracy.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Right-Wing Leader Says Conservatives Need ‘Scalps' of Woke Wall Street CEOs
In late January, the CEO of the pro-business American Legislative Exchange Council told right-wing operatives and officials that they need a 'scalp' from one of two supposedly woke CEOs of major Wall Street firms. Lisa Nelson, who leads ALEC, was discussing Larry Fink of BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, and Brian Moynihan of Bank of America, the second largest bank in the country. She appeared to be speaking metaphorically, as she struggled to refer to an unknown movie. Nelson made the comments at the Consumers' Research Summit in Sea Island, Georgia. Rolling Stone has obtained exclusive audio and documents from the event. Nelson noted she had spoken about this at breakfast. 'Whether it's Larry Fink or Brian Moynihan, we have got to take one of these guys out,' she said, presumably another metaphor. She added, 'Brian Moynihan is the guy, or Larry Fink is the guy that we should have their scalp.' ALEC is a powerful 'bill mill' that brings corporations, conservative advocates, and state legislators together to hash out right-wing, pro-business legislation that is then introduced nationwide, with a focus on red states. A spokesperson for ALEC declined to comment for this story. 'Over the past three years, the assets BlackRock manages on behalf of our clients have grown by $4 trillion to $12.5 trillion,' says a BlackRock spokesperson. 'We are focused on delivering for each and every client in every market we operate in around the world, including helping millions of Americans in states across the country retire with dignity.' Bank of America declined to comment, though a person familiar with the matter says that the bank's representatives attended ALEC's annual meeting last week. Fink and his firm BlackRock have become primary targets in conservatives' crusade against environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing and initiatives promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The firm has trillions in assets under management, and manages billions of dollars for public pension funds. Because of its extensive holdings, BlackRock exerts enormous influence across the stock market through shareholder votes. In his widely-read annual letters to CEOs, Fink has written that 'climate risk is investment risk.' Moynihan, for his part, has defended the idea of inclusion in the workplace, characterizing it as a positive business opportunity. Consumers' Research targeted Bank of America in 2023 for engaging in 'anti-consumer' behaviors: namely, having internal DEI training and offering tips for how clients can calculate their greenhouse gas emissions. Amid Republican attacks on ESG and DEI, including from President Donald Trump, BlackRock and Bank of America both dropped out of Net Zero alliances, which require a commitment to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Additionally, both companies have eliminated their DEI goals, while maintaining a general commitment to inclusion. Consumers' Research, which hosted the event, is at the center of a network of nonprofits tied to the right-wing power broker Leonard Leo that is waging a 'War on Woke' against corporations and financiers who embrace ESG investment criteria — or the idea that asset managers should consider the threat of planetary devastation when deploying money. Leo's network helps fund ALEC, which has pushed model legislation in the states to ban asset managers for state retirement funds from promoting ESG. The anti-ESG coalition has notched some wins in terms of BlackRock and Bank of America's public posturing, but these conservatives argue the fight is far from over. 'We have our good examples. We're sharing them every day when they get out of something,' Nelson noted, but 'it's words right now.' That's why conservatives need their scalps, Nelson explained. 'And, you know, and that's — it's like the scalps. I don't know what the movie is,' she said, adding it was about 'taking the scalps.' 'Brian Moynihan would be the perfect person,' Nelson continued. 'We were talking about it at lunch, or breakfast. I think he is ideologically all-in on everything he's doing.' Comparing him to JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, the ALEC chief said she doesn't believe that Dimon is 'all-in' ideologically. 'I think he is just seeing where the winds are blowing and trying to have his cake and eat it, too — and 'I'm gonna play footsie with everybody,' and all is going to be OK for JPMorgan in his mind,' Nelson asserted. Nelson spoke with a JPMorgan executive on a panel at ALEC's annual meeting last week. A JPMorgan representative declined to comment but confirmed the firm is an ALEC member. ALEC does not disclose its donors or a full list of its members. The organization receives some corporate funding, including from Chevron, and donations from lobbying groups for Big Pharma, fossil fuel interests, the telecom industry, and electric utilities. ALEC's Private Enterprise Advisory Council includes Mike Thompson, a top lieutenant at Leo's consulting firm CRC Advisors, which helped manage the summit; as well as execs at Consumers' Research; the American Bankers Association (ABA); oil billionaire Charles Koch's business empire; and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington's top business lobby. Bank of America previously cut ties with ALEC in 2012. Nelson, who previously ran global government relations at credit card giant Visa, made her comments about the CEOs during a larger conversation about the necessity of political neutrality in public investments. Fiduciaries, like BlackRock, are legally bound to act in the best financial interests of their clients. Conservative politicians and groups, ALEC included, have demanded that companies eschew ESG and DEI as part of their investment criteria, arguing the only thing that should matter is maximizing shareholder profit. During Nelson's panel, an operative asked the panelists if they had any examples where Republican-led states had 'in their efforts to kind of correct, [and] go from liberal ESG investing, instead of going back to neutral, they over-corrected,' to a place where they're putting public money into conservative investments. 'If we want neutral, we should want neutral,' the operative said. Debate ensued, with most participants concluding that long-suffering conservatives needed to beat back Big Banks, who are in cahoots with the Left — neutrality be damned. 'That's a very good kind of point to bring up,' Nelson said. 'But I think you know, we should plant our flag as far as we possibly can.' Thompson, the CRC exec who moderated the panel, agreed, but was more explicit, comparing the Left and Big Banks to Hitler: 'If the Allies said, 'Hey, Hitler, will you go neutral? You've taken over France. You've got Northern Africa. You've got all this stuff. We'll stop if you stop.' OK, he'll stop for a little while and then he'll keep coming.' He complained about an initiative attempting to get companies to reduce their climate impact, because it was rating corporations and docking them for giving money to nonprofits that do not align with their climate goals. 'Which means ALEC,' Thompson said, adding it 'means Consumers' Research should get no money from the other side.' 'We need to stop their momentum and then push back,' Thompson continued. 'We don't need them to go, 'Oh, we're neutral now. We've run over 90 percent of your world. We've burned down 90 percent of your house, and now we'll stop' … Sometimes that means not neutral. It means get us back to where we can be neutral. It's not enough to say, 'We're no longer gonna push the DEI agenda, but we're still going to have trans bathrooms, you can go to any bathroom you want, do whatever you want. No, no, no. You have to rip out all those policies.'' Tom Jones — the right-wing opposition researcher notorious for publishing a DEI Watch List of mostly Black federal officials he decided should be fired by Trump — argued that conservatives should not 'get wedded' to neutrality. 'Publicly held funds should reflect the values of Americans, and if that means we're not going to invest in companies that support boycott, divestment, and sanctions, [against Israel] or we're not going to invest in companies that use slave labor in China, or we're not going to invest in companies that invest in Iran because it's a threat to American national security, we should 100 percent have those policies,' said Jones. 'I don't know what neutral means — but legal and principled,' said perennial anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, who seemed irritated with his compatriots' hypocrisy. 'I think you can't go to a court and say, 'We want to make decisions that aren't fiduciary, but we shouldn't be ruled to be stealing people's money, but they do.' I have no idea how you don't get laughed out of court with any argument…. This is a real slippery slope, and I don't know how you make that argument without laughing at yourself.' Described by NPR in 2001 as a 'conservative revolutionary,' Norquist famously told the outlet: 'I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.' A spokesperson for Consumers' Research tells Rolling Stone, 'For years, megalomaniacs at the helm of powerful corporations like BlackRock and Bank of America exploited their positions to impose a political agenda and bully others into compliance. The American people have had enough and they are demanding a return to business, not activism. Neutrality means moving away from the far left and back to focusing on consumers. There is still a long way to go and damage to make amends for before these companies and others like them can earn the public's trust again.' GOP attorneys general — long financed by Leo through their Republican Attorneys General Association — are currently suing BlackRock on alleged antitrust violations regarding its coal investments. The effort is being led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose top deputy bragged during a different panel that he threatened another big bank, Wells Fargo, into leaving the Net Zero Banking Alliance. (Texas had similarly threatened Bank of America's bond business, until it dropped out of the climate coalition.) Even former Congressman Ken Buck, who was the ranking Republican on the Antitrust Subcommittee, thinks Paxton's case against BlackRock is politically motivated 'lawfare.'In May, Democrats in the Senate and House announced probes into the exodus of banks from major climate change initiatives. Sheldon Whitehouse, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, tells Rolling Stone: 'We have apparent open admissions — straight from the mouths of fossil-fuel-funded Republican operatives and lawmakers — of their phony anti-ESG scheme and their calls for the 'scalps' of the banking executives who've warned about the systemic risks from climate change.'Facing increasingly costly legal backlash from Republican state officials in the Leo network, BlackRock has tried to mend fences with conservatives. In January 2024, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick detailed Fink's moves to get back into his good graces, by lining up investors for new natural gas plants in the state's power grid. That didn't dissuade Paxton from launching the antitrust lawsuit against BlackRock last November. Fink's firm withdrew from the Net Zero Asset Managers alliance in January, but the attacks from conservatives have not abated. They've continued even after the financier made a huge overture to Trump, in helping to achieve one of his key priorities: wresting control of the Panama Canal from China. Multiple agencies in the Trump administration have since written letters in support of Paxton's antitrust lawsuit. From the sounds of it, no amount of concessions will satisfy these conservatives, only scalps. More from Rolling Stone Jimmy Fallon Responds to Colbert Cancelation: 'I Don't Like What's Going On' Stephen Colbert Addresses Cancelation by Telling Trump to 'Go F-ck Yourself' Jon Stewart to CBS After Colbert's 'Late Show' Cancellation: 'Go F-ck Yourself' Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Spain Blocks Key Measures on Electricity System After Blackout
By and Jorge Zuloaga Save Spain's Parliament blocked a set of key rules approved by the government following the nationwide blackout in April. The rules gave the country's competition authority, CNMC, more powers to supervise private operators' management of electricity voltage. They also included resilience measures, with a budget of €750 million ($881 million) and an estimated annual savings of €200 million once implemented.
