The UK Evidence, the Data Failures, and the Safeguarding Duty We Keep Avoiding
By Aneeta Prem
Children cannot wait for systems to become comfortable. They need protection when it matters.
Across the United Kingdom, children are being forced into marriages they do not want, removed from education, confined within their own homes, subjected to surveillance, threats and violence, and punished for asserting basic autonomy. These harms are often discussed cautiously, framed as sensitive or complex. The evidence is neither ambiguous nor new. What remains unresolved is why safeguarding systems continue to hesitate when the indicators are already visible.
This paper sets out what the UK evidence actually shows, explains how official figures should be read, and examines why children continue to be failed. It is written to support action rather than debate. Precision matters. Language matters. Delay has consequences.
What we mean by dishonour abuse
In UK law and safeguarding practice, the following are all recognised forms of child abuse:
- forcing or coercing a child into marriage
- arranging a marriage where consent is absent, compromised or meaningless
- removing a child from education to facilitate marriage or control
- confinement, surveillance and restriction of movement
- threats, intimidation and violence by family members
- female genital mutilation
- coercive control exercised by extended family networks
These harms are often grouped in official datasets under the term “honour-based abuse”. This paper uses the term dishonour abuse because the language used to describe harm influences how seriously it is taken. There is no honour in the abuse of a child. Responsibility lies with the perpetrator and with systems that fail to intervene.
What the UK data shows and what it cannot show
In the year ending March 2024, police in England and Wales recorded 2,755 dishonour-abuse-related offences, using the official classification applied to so-called honour-based abuse. The figure is published by the Home Office.
The number is real. It is also partial.
Police-recorded crime data measures what reaches the criminal justice system, not the full scale of harm. A single victim may be linked to multiple recorded offences. Many victims, particularly children, never reach the police at all. Others are identified only after irreversible decisions have already been taken on their behalf.
Children living under family coercion are among the least likely to appear in police data. They are dependent on adults, isolated from peers, and frequently prevented from disclosing abuse. The absence of a police record should never be mistaken for the absence of risk.
Why police figures understate harm
Dishonour abuse is systematically undercounted for well-established reasons:
- disclosure is delayed or actively prevented
- victims are pressured into silence or withdrawal
- children removed from school disappear from professional view
- abuse is mislabelled as family conflict or cultural dispute
- recording practices vary across police forces
The Crown Prosecution Service has repeatedly identified the same obstacles to prosecution: victim withdrawal under coercion, lack of corroborative evidence, fear of reprisals and complex family involvement. None of these are anomalies. They are features of abuse that operates through control rather than isolated violence.
Geography and recording: why some areas appear higher
Official statistics regularly show higher numbers of recorded offences in areas such as Leicestershire, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. This is often misread.
In practice, higher recording frequently reflects:
- larger and younger populations
- specialist safeguarding units
- stronger links with third-sector services
- more consistent police tagging
Areas with lower figures may simply be identifying less effectively. Geography tells us where abuse is being recognised, not where it exists.
Prevalence patterns and why naming them matters
UK data over many years, including casework trends from the Forced Marriage Unit, shows that forced marriage and related forms of child abuse disproportionately affect children from Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage families, followed by Indian heritage families. The majority of victims are British nationals.
This pattern has been consistent for more than a decade.
Naming this is not a judgement on communities. It is a safeguarding necessity. Patterns support early identification. They do not assign collective blame. Abuse is perpetrated by individuals and families, not by ethnic groups.
The evidence does not show that faith causes abuse. It points to specific forms of extended family enforcement, transnational marriage practices and gendered coercion. Avoiding these facts does not protect communities. It leaves children exposed.
Why this is not about religion
Public debate often collapses ethnicity and religion into a single explanation. This is inaccurate and unhelpful.
In relation to organised child sexual exploitation and grooming gang cases, serious case reviews and criminal investigations have repeatedly identified Pakistani heritage men operating within networks. The evidence does not support framing these crimes as religious in origin.
Precision matters. Religion must never be used as a shield for child abuse. Equally, faith should not be used as a proxy explanation when the underlying issue is coercive control, entitlement and exploitation.
The safeguarding failures that keep repeating
Dishonour abuse persists not because professionals do not care, but because systems hesitate.
In practice, this often looks like a series of small decisions that feel cautious in isolation and catastrophic in combination: a school absence explained away, a concern downgraded pending “more information”, a referral delayed to avoid escalation. By the time certainty is reached, choice has already been removed.
The same failures recur across cases:
- repeated or unexplained school absence is minimised
- safeguarding thresholds are misunderstood or inconsistently applied
- concerns are logged but not acted on
- fear of “getting it wrong” overrides professional judgement
- training varies widely across health, education and policing
- there is no single statutory definition of dishonour abuse
Under the Children Act 1989, professionals have a clear duty to protect children from significant harm. Forced marriage, confinement and family coercion meet that threshold. Delay is not neutrality. It is a decision with consequences.
Why language shapes intervention
Language directs response.
The term “honour” sanitises harm and centres the perpetrator’s justification rather than the child’s experience. Dishonour abuse places responsibility where it belongs and removes ambiguity. Clear language supports decisive intervention.
This is not about rhetoric. It is about whether abuse is recognised quickly enough to stop it.
What must change now
If children are to be protected, the following are essential:
- early intervention when warning signs appear
- consistent safeguarding training across all professions
- clear thresholds and confident escalation
- accurate and complete data recording
- language that names abuse without euphemism
Safeguarding is not a matter of cultural comfort. It is a legal and moral duty.
Dishonour abuse is child abuse. It thrives on hesitation, silence and misplaced caution.
The evidence is long-established. What is missing is consistent action. When child abuse is treated as a cultural controversy, systems retreat, professionals hesitate and children are left managing risks the law already recognises as unacceptable.
Children cannot wait for systems to become comfortable. They need protection when it matters.
Sources and evidence
- UK police-recorded crime data on so-called honour-based abuse, year ending March 2024 (Home Office)
- Forced Marriage Unit casework trends and summaries
- Crown Prosecution Service outcomes and attrition reporting
- Statutory safeguarding duties under the Children Act 1989
