To think that white British/ American etcmen are just as much a threat to women as migrants?

Can you describe the system of application? How many do you see applying to your way of entry?

As for the ‘wives and daughters’ they don’t bring them. 80% crossing are men, and 75% of the small group of children are boys. Can you explain why? Is it that the genetics of men from such countries mean they’re overwhelmingly more likely to have sons? Or is it simply that they’ve left the daughters behind?

This point would be relevant if men, women and children were equally represented in boat crossings, but as it stands 76% are single men.

I’m happy to keep discussing the thread title, but these tangential ‘gotchas’ are getting a bit boring now

Benefits, free healthcare, free everything?

Manage demand?

Only people who get granted asylum will come to the UK in a safe way.

Again, why do you think a man flees such a country and seeks safety for himself and his family (wife, daughter, mother, sister) in the UK?

I think the outrage at the moment in the UK is that the legal defense of some migrants that have commited sex crimes, is that "they didn't know it was not allowed here" and that "there are cultural differences that prevented the perpetrators from understanding their behaviour was unacceptable" which is absolute bollocks.

YANBU at all!!!

‘So, again, my point is unless and until there are statistics being recorded on the ethnicity of perpetrators, we cannot say they are more, or in this case, less of a threat.’

This is literally what you responded to.

Although yes, I would argue it’s inherently more risky coming from any country where the women being raped is the criminal, and not the rapist.
I really don’t see how that’s controversial tbh

I’m sure you’ll disagree though.

You’ll need a way to manage demand. How would you?

You are proposing safe and legal routes, I think the UK government should do that too.

And you cannot say they are more of a risk either.

Yet posters do use it as a reason why the UK should ban refugees from certain countries seeking asylum.

The point of other systems is to assess before entry.

It’s better to know if a man has committed a serious crime before arriving, and we don’t now that.

If we have to wait until after it’s not helping the victim of that crime. It’s already happened.

I said, clearly and more than once, you cannot say they are less of a risk

What you quoted wasn’t a response to you, but happy to oblige.

No, the thread topic is whether they are ‘less’ of a risk than white British or American men.

Them potentially losing refugee status is irrelevant to whether they’re are more or less of a risk.

Are you saying the UK should deny all men from certain countries entry to the UK?

If you could quote me (press the 'quote' on the far left of my post) or @ me (press @ and you'll find a drop box where you can press my username), that would be appreciated.

The thread is about asylum seekers being a danger to women and girls. If an asylum seeker is found to be a danger to the country, they can be refused refugee status. That means they can't settle in the UK.

If asylum seekers or refugees commit sexual offences whilst in the UK, they can lose their refugee status. You keep saying that the law isn't relevant which I find bizarre since surely the point of the thread is about protecting women and girls.

Foreigners who commit an offence with at least a 12 month sentence, can be deported.

Yes. And we should apply it to every man.

So, again, my point is unless and until there are statistics being recorded on the ethnicity of perpetrators, we cannot say they are more, or in this case, less of a threat.
And if men are coming from countries where rape is not considered rape, then it becomes far more difficult to apply it to those demographics.
Thats the whole point.

The safeguards people rely upon are rendered useless

I agree. I'd actually like someone to calmly tell me why they think this is a good idea.

You could apply that to every man arriving in the UK from abroad.

You’re misunderstanding, and conflating two separate things.

There are no stats on the ethnicity of convicted rapists.
The report into grooming gangs by Baroness Casey highlighted this very clearly.

There are statistics about where asylum seekers are from.

Because 1 doesn’t happen, we can’t know what % applies to the separate demographics of 2

So if there are no statistics, then why the presumptions about asylum seekers coming from certain countries?

Again, that’s irrelevant to the topic at hand?
My responses are regarding to thread subject ‘To think that white British/ American etcmen are just as much a threat to women as migrants?’

And my point is, as no statistics are held on these men, we cannot know.

The countries they are coming from don’t hold the statistics.

This country doesn’t hold the statistics, as ethnicity of perpetrators are not recorded.

Why they’re here, or whether they’re sent back is irrelevant, as is citing laws stating reasons why they can be sent back.

It’s also checking which is absent. Recently we got a new passport and the person had to do a police check which gives transparency. Supplied by this country to the other one.

There’s nothing in place to check.

Ofcourse it matters why they are claiming asylum, their reason will be an import factor in having their claim granted or refused.