Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What false claims has the far-right in Britain made?
Executive Summary
The British far‑right has repeatedly promoted a set of recurring falsehoods about migrants, crime, benefits and public health that mix anecdote, exaggeration and outright debunked claims. Reporting and fact‑checks show specific fabrications — from migrants allegedly eating swans and carp to overstated claims about street danger and welfare generosity — and these narratives have been amplified by political actors and street movements with clear political aims [1] [2] [3]. Below I extract the principal claims, show which have been disproven, and place them in political and social context using multiple contemporary sources (September 2025).
1. The sensational wildlife story that was never verified — “Migrants are eating swans and carp”
The claim that migrants in London’s parks were catching and eating swans and carp circulated widely after comments by prominent far‑right figures; Full Fact and Royal Parks rejected the evidence, saying there was no verified incident of swans killed or eaten and no substantiation for mass carp thefts [1]. Reform UK messaging used vivid imagery to imply lawlessness; independent fact‑checking found only anecdotal, unverified pictures and hearsay. The episode illustrates how emotionally vivid but uncorroborated stories can be amplified for political effect, leveraging public affinity for wildlife to stoke anti‑migrant sentiment [1].
2. Street safety claims overstated — “People afraid to walk after 9pm; streets unsafe for women”
Far‑right messaging has repeatedly asserted that Londoners are afraid to go out after dark and described migrants as “droves of unvetted men” who threaten women, claims which contradict crime statistics and local reporting that show more nuance and declines in many crime categories. Media analysis flagged these statements as part of a broader tactic to link immigration to public safety fears despite data that do not support a simple causal relationship [2] [3]. Those narratives exploit legitimate anxieties about safety while oversimplifying causes and ignoring official evidence about policing and crime trends [2].
3. Welfare and asylum benefit myths — “Asylum seekers get lavish support”
A central far‑right trope is that migrants are a fiscal burden who receive generous payments; in reality, official figures show limited weekly asylum support (e.g., around £49.18 in some schemes) and strict rules that prevent wider access to public funds for most asylum seekers [3]. Campaign rhetoric claiming migrants live comfortably on generous benefits misrepresents the design and scale of asylum support and ignores administrative constraints. Political messaging framed migrants as economically predatory even as researchers and public opinion surveys indicate much of the public rejects xenophobic definitions of national belonging, suggesting a gap between rhetoric and broader social attitudes [3].
4. Crime and extremism narratives amplified by street groups — “Calls for repatriation and neo‑Nazi chants”
Street mobilisations linked to figures like Tommy Robinson have produced confrontations and extremist rhetoric, with reports of chants invoking Hitler and calls for repatriation during protests; policing recorded injuries and arrests amid clashes with anti‑racist groups [4] [5]. These events show the far‑right’s capacity to convert online narratives into physical demonstrations that heighten community tensions. Coverage underscores how street rhetoric and symbolic violence strengthen perceptions of a growing threat, even as such groups remain a minority and law enforcement responds to potential public‑order and hate‑crime risks [4] [5].
5. Health misinformation within far‑right platforms — “Covid vaccine harms”
At political conferences and allied platforms, speakers such as Dr Aseem Malhotra promoted false links between Covid vaccines and cardiac death or cancer, assertions refuted by public‑health experts and data [6]. This medical misinformation dovetails with political narratives about distrust in institutions and is used to galvanise sceptical constituencies. Public‑health authorities and peer‑reviewed research contradict these claims; the inclusion of medical misinformation in political events shows how health anxieties are weaponised within far‑right messaging ecosystems to broaden appeal [6].
6. Why these false claims spread — politics, media, and mobilisation
Far‑right actors use shock, anecdote and repetition to prime audiences: vivid claims about swans or rapes spread faster than nuanced data. Media attention to confrontations, polling spikes for Reform UK, and social platforms amplify simple narratives that fit preexisting fears [2]. Polling in September 2025 showed Reform UK rising in support, which both reflected and fuelled intensified messaging; critics argue this creates a feedback loop where electoral prospects legitimise more extreme claims, while supporters frame the discourse as “telling truths the establishment ignores” [2].
7. Bottom line: which assertions are demonstrably false and why it matters
Fact‑checking consistently debunks the most sensational claims — no verified evidence of swans being killed or mass carp theft; welfare largesse claims misstate official benefit levels; public‑health assertions about vaccines are unsupported by evidence [1] [6]. These falsehoods distort public debate, shape policing and policy priorities, and exacerbate social divisions. Tracking and rebutting specific fabrications, while explaining the broader political incentives that drive them, is essential for a fact‑based public conversation about immigration, safety and public health [1] [3] [6].