Crime statistics by country of origin

Yes when I was growing up I was very much aware of prejudice and bigotry between Indians and Pakistanis.

Hindus / Sikhs vs. Muslims. Seems like you are regurgitating it here.

Your parents telling you all these stories and people in the temple regaling those “muslims hordes targeting nice Sikh girls” does not mean it was happening.

I look forward to this data coming out. And not a second before time.

If people are uncomfortable with what is being reported then clearly there is a massive issue.

As a young Sikh girl, I was taken to a Sikh temple and informed that Muslim men were targeting Sikh girls - getting them drunk, buying them gifts and then blackmailing them with pics etc. This was YEARS before the media reported on the raping gangs. THE AUTHORITIES WERE TOLD. But nooo, the police couldn’t investigate cause rAcIsM. Meanwhile girls in care were having their lives ruined. SHAME ON THEM

I say this a British Indian.

Let’s call a spade a spade. The UK is a very special place - we have freedom, safety, opportunities - please God can we protect it.

Milo you are the only person on this thread who has mentioned Muslims.

But anyhoo - tell you what - why don’t you give the equality and human rights commission a call on Monday - point out that they are incorrect in their guidance on the law - and then you can upload the link when they correct it. I have no doubt they would welcome you letting them know. Sounds like a pretty major screw up!

It’s not only comparing it to British people - it’s comparing it to other countries of origin.

the stastics upthread show men from Syria where SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to commit sexual offences than men from other countries of origin. Sounds like something to think about.

and rather than just ignoring this and pretending it’s not happening far better for proper informations and leadership.

Cologne was a significant turning point in German politics and the mismanagement of resonable
concerns is a dig ficant factor in shifts to the far right

Your link doesn't mean anything. Asylum seekers are protected under the the ECHR, The Refugee Convention, the UDHR, The Human Rights Act and many other laws and instruments.

When I talk about the principle of non discrimination it means all people are treated equally regardless of factors like sex, disability, religion, nationality,race sexual orientation or age.

You cannot therefore reject an application for asylum because you don't want Muslims. Asylum seekers cannot be discriminated because of religion. You cannot reject a claim because the applicant comes from a certain country because asylum seekers cannot be discriminated because of nationality. And so on.

I mean Milo - have you just read that summary of equality act obligations to migrants refugees and asylum seekers and concluded that …. It is not about asylum seekers.

you are trumpesque in your approach to public policy

We're talking about asylum seekers.

Fuck me, I've been driven to look this up ...

Public authorities carrying out immigration or nationality functions are not required to have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity in relation to age; religion or belief or race (where race means nationality or ethnic or national origins). However, they are required to have due regard to the fostering of good relations ...

The Equality Act includes exceptions which mean that certain immigration decisions can be made in relation to: disability; race (where race means nationality or ethnic or national origins); and religion or belief, without being unlawful under the Act. Common examples are: decisions on entry clearance, and additional questioning ...

There are also exceptions which allow direct or indirect nationality discrimination, or indirect discrimination based on place of residence/length of residence, when it is done to comply with another law or ministerial arrangement ...

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/general-duty-faqs-gb#doesthepublicsectorequalitydutyapplytomigrantsrefugeesandasylumseekers

Fuck me, I've been driven to look this up ...

Public authorities carrying out immigration or nationality functions are not required to have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity in relation to age; religion or belief or race (where race means nationality or ethnic or national origins). However, they are required to have due regard to the fostering of good relations ...

The Equality Act includes exceptions which mean that certain immigration decisions can be made in relation to: disability; race (where race means nationality or ethnic or national origins); and religion or belief, without being unlawful under the Act. Common examples are: decisions on entry clearance, and additional questioning ...

There are also exceptions which allow direct or indirect nationality discrimination, or indirect discrimination based on place of residence/length of residence, when it is done to comply with another law or ministerial arrangement ...

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/general-duty-faqs-gb#doesthepublicsectorequalitydutyapplytomigrantsrefugeesandasylumseekers

It looks like Milo has suffered discrimination in the way we use it socially - meaning negative prejudice.

Milo isn't getting that discrimination actually means "telling the difference between" and making choices on that basis. Vegetarians discriminate between plant-based and animal-derived foods, in order to choose their preferred diet.

You're trying to explain that we already discriminate between applicants based on their country of origin, but Milo isn't hearing you because "discrimination" is a bad thing in Milo's mind.

But Milo discriminates all the time, you couldn't get through life without doing it.

Apologies if I've misunderstood your objection, Milo. I'm somewhat baffled by your objections otherwise.

You don’t get it. The UK government says you only have this spot for a residency visa if you come from this one country. It is discriminating against people from all other countries when it decides who gets this spot. So the UK does discriminate according to where people come from. The point is that the UK makes lots of decisions about what countries it wants people to come from - so it’s hardly ground breaking to say where it doesn’t want men coming from. Country of origin is an entirely legitimate reason to discriminate when it decides who it lets in.

It looks like Milo has suffered discrimination in the way we use it socially - meaning negative prejudice.

Milo isn't getting that discrimination actually means "telling the difference between" and making choices on that basis. Vegetarians discriminate between plant-based and animal-derived foods, in order to choose their preferred diet.

You're trying to explain that we already discriminate between applicants based on their country of origin, but Milo isn't hearing you because "discrimination" is a bad thing in Milo's mind.

But Milo discriminates all the time, you couldn't get through life without doing it.

Apologies if I've misunderstood your objection, Milo. I'm somewhat baffled by your objections otherwise.

Let's say we do manage to get data published saying that 1% of British people commit crimes each year and 3% of Ruritanian people do.

(Or to put it another way, 99% of British people are law-abiding in any given year and 97% of Ruritanians are. Let's skip over the fact that about 27% of British people have a criminal record from some point in their lives.)

What are you going to do with that information? Ban immigrants from Ruritania since they are "three times as likely to commit crimes" as British people? Run headlines in the Mail saying "Shame of Ruritanian crime statistics"? Look the other way if the local vigilantes beat up a Ruritanian bloke after someone gets assaulted because "It was probably one of them anyway"?

I'm old enough to remember when it was acceptable to try and make distinctions like this based on skin colour, and it wasn't a great time.

I do understand it. A refugee is fleeing their country. In the Ukraine it was because of war, in Hong Kong because of oppression etc

Therefore the country of origin is why someone seeks refuge. They have a well founded fear of persecution.

It's not because the UK discriminates against every single country in the world bar Afghanistan. It's because people are fleeing Afghanistan that they are seeking refuge.

Let's say we do manage to get data published saying that 1% of British people commit crimes each year and 3% of Ruritanian people do.

(Or to put it another way, 99% of British people are law-abiding in any given year and 97% of Ruritanians are. Let's skip over the fact that about 27% of British people have a criminal record from some point in their lives.)

What are you going to do with that information? Ban immigrants from Ruritania since they are "three times as likely to commit crimes" as British people? Run headlines in the Mail saying "Shame of Ruritanian crime statistics"? Look the other way if the local vigilantes beat up a Ruritanian bloke after someone gets assaulted because "It was probably one of them anyway"?

I'm old enough to remember when it was acceptable to try and make distinctions like this based on skin colour, and it wasn't a great time.

Indigenous Australians are actually indigenous. Most white people in Britain haven't been here for very long relatively. Most were immigrants.