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

It would be really helpful if you either quote my post or @ me when you respond or I don't know you've responded. Many thanks.

No I'm not willfully misunderstanding you, I find what you're saying hard to follow but there's obviously a misunderstanding here. The law is in two parts.

1. You can be refused refugee status if you're found to be a danger to the country.

1. You can have your refugee status stripped if you commit sexual offences whilst in the UK.

This information is found in the link I provided above, so you can clarify.

It’s just constant shifting goalposts here. It doesn’t really matter why tbh.

The fact of the matter is they are coming here, and there are no stats held/being collected to show if they are more like to commit sexual assault and rape.

Why do you think these men are fleeing those countries?

Can anyone say how Labour will determine what serious sexual crimes have already been committed?

.

.

.

What is being promoted exactly?

I think you’re the only one struggling to understand my points. Wilfully I suspect.

My whole point is that there are no statistics to say whether these men are more of a threat than white British men.

Laws about refusing asylum for convicted rapists are irrelevant when men are coming from countries who do not view it as rape.

Citing this law means nothing, there is no protection in it, and it is therefore irrelevant.

You can't see the difference between the government providing boats and shipping people in and people coming here themselves?

I find it difficult to follow your posts, so was asking for clarification. There's no need to be rude.

I thought we'd already covered this above. If someone has not been prosecuted for a crime, then no, they won't have a conviction. However, like I said above, we have British law and everyone has to comply with that law whilst in the UK. If an asylum seeker or refugee is found guilty of sexual offences in the UK, they can lose their refugee status.

Cool. Change the wording to ‘the men who are shipping themselves in’ then.

Makes no substantive difference to the point I’m making.

I refer you to my previous response:

We're not 'shipping in' men. That makes it sound as though the government is going out of their way to bring asylum seekers here.

What happens is that the people on the small boats claim asylum when they land in the UK. Under the law, they're entitled to certain rights and protections while their case is processed. One of those rights is accommodation and they're taken to their accommodation.

The government isn't going to Iran or Syria and bringing people to the UK in boats they've provided.

It’s obvious.

Again, you’re confused. And again, I’m not following your logic, or how you think that’s what I’m suggesting?

What I am suggesting is if a man is coming from a country where, when a rape occurs, it is the woman who will be arrested, and not him, then there will be no conviction by which to refuse asylum in the first place.

I’m sure you’ll have trouble understanding this as well though 🙄

I’m started from the assumption that men from more misogynistic countries are more misogynistic.

You're starting from the assumption that all men from certain ethnicities are a danger to women.

I'm not confused at all but thank you for your concern. If you don't think all asylum seekers are rapists and sex offenders, why are you saying that they're dangerous?

What point is irrelevant? Your post is a bit jumbled.

And again, all very irrelevant if they’re coming from a country where rape is a crime for the woman who was raped, and not the rapist

You seem to be suggesting that the police and courts don't comply with British law but with the laws and mores of the perpetrator's country of origin. Is that correct?

Exactly. Look at the laws and lack of any register in the country controlled by eg the Taliban. The men comply to those laws which mean the lack of any freedom for women.

I think some just read Labour stuff without thinking it through.

No, I’m starting from the perfectly logical assumption that men from the most misogynistic countries on the planet are more likely to be misogynistic. A conclusion anyone with half a brain can draw.

So how are they getting to these hotels?

Yes so is there a sex offenders’ register under the Taliban?

No, you’re the one who’s confused.

Me stating there’s no statistics about these men is absolutely not saying ‘all of these men are rapists’.

I’d love to understand the thought process behind you coming to that conclusion?

The fact that men staying in migrant hotels have been charged with rape makes your point irrelevant.
’You can be refused’ not ‘will be’. And again, all very irrelevant if they’re coming from a country where rape is a crime for the woman who was raped, and not the rapist

No, but what they are saying is we shouldn’t have immigration because of the safety of our women and girls. And yet they are not also protesting outside pubs and clubs about white men raping women.

You're starting from the premise that all men from certain ethnicities are sex offenders. The Refugee Convention states that refugee status can be withheld if you're a danger to the country and you must comply with the laws of the country you're in.