How true is Nigel Farage's claim that in central London women are afraid to wear jewelry and men are afraid to wear watches due to growing street crime?

1. Fear on the streets: the data Farage leans on

Farage often cites anecdote and private surveys to illustrate fear — a Survation poll indicating 57% of women felt unsafe walking London streets was used to bolster his messaging, and a fintech survey claiming one in three Londoners had experienced phone theft has circulated in his camp; those figures feed the impression that people avoid wearing visible valuables ^[3]. Journalists note police-recorded “thefts from the person” are markedly higher in London and have risen since the pandemic, which supports the claim that snatch‑type crimes are a visible problem in the capital ^[1].

2. The broader statistical context: selective snapshots vs long trends

Experts and commentators point out that England and Wales have seen big long‑term falls in violent crime, and headline national crime is lower than a decade ago, meaning selective presentation of London thefts can exaggerate a general “lawlessness” thesis ^{[2] [5]}. The Conversation and other analyses stress there are two major crime measures—police‑recorded crime (which Farage favours) and the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)—and they do not always move in the same direction, so relying on one source gives a partial picture ^[2].

3. Where the data and the rhetoric meet: London is more complicated

Reporting by The Guardian and Sky News emphasises nuance: while thefts from a person are “almost five times” the national average and are concentrated in certain places and times, other measures (like some violent‑crime types or weapon possession) have fallen, and some local forces show reductions in phone thefts in specific areas such as the City of London ^{[1] [6]}. This mix means there are real hotspots and behaviours (people taking precautions) without an unambiguous city‑wide collapse.

4. Polling and perception: fear can outpace objective risk

Polling that records high levels of fear—such as the Survation finding about women’s safety—matters politically and socially even when the criminal‑justice metrics are mixed; commentators note that fear of crime is a powerful political tool and can be amplified independent of comprehensive data trends ^{[3] [2]}. In short, people’s behaviour (choosing not to wear visible valuables) can be driven by perceived risk as much as by measured risk.

5. Questions about sources and motives behind the numbers

Several outlets and watchdogs have flagged that Farage and allies sometimes use contested or partisan sources—think‑tanks and small surveys whose methodologies are disputed—to support dramatic claims about migrants and crime; critics argue these figures are selectively framed to advance a political agenda ^{[4] [7]}. Journalists and analysts caution that some high‑impact statistics cited publicly do not come from mainstream police or CSEW data, and that matters when assessing the claim’s accuracy ^{[3] [4]}.

6. What’s supported, what’s not found, and what remains ambiguous

Available reporting supports that certain thefts (like snatch thefts and “theft from the person”) are higher in London than the national average and have created concerns that lead people to take precautions ^[1]. Sources do not present direct, systematic evidence that “most” women won’t wear jewellery or that “most” men won’t wear watches across central London at night; instead the evidence is a mix of surveys about fear, localized crime stats, and media anecdotes (not found in current reporting). Analysts urge caution about scaling individual stories into a claim of total lawlessness ^{[2] [6]}.

7. Bottom line for readers: a measured verdict

Farage’s core point—that visible thefts in parts of London make some people alter behaviour—is grounded in real problems documented in police data and public polling; however, his broader framing of a uniformly “lawless” central London and implied total social breakdown is not fully supported by the wider, long‑term datasets and is amplified by selective sources and partisan messaging ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Readers should weigh local police trends, national surveys like the CSEW, and the provenance of any statistic (mainstream police data vs partisan think‑tanks or small private polls) before accepting sweeping claims ^{[2] [3]}.