AIBU to oppose housing 1,000 undocumented young men near Piddington?

By 72% too many you mean you’re ok with 28% of the men?

It’s lazy to assume that men from the main asylum seeking countries are all responsible
for trampling women’s rights. Sudan is in civil war, Eritreans have the same limited rights whether male or female, Afghan culture is not the same as the Taliban rule, Iran also. Of course it’s easier to just say ‘they hurt women’ because then you needn’t think of them as individuals and you can pretend there are e no women among them, or no women that they are travelling ahead with a view to bringing with them.

Imagine there was a religious coup in your country, armed by other nations, and you were forced to live under a religious occupation (as happened in Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, parts of Iraq). It’s almost impossible for women to travel
around except on foot. You can’t get documents to leave the country, the system is corrupt and it might be seen as disloyal. Would you put up with it? Would your husband, father, sons, brothers be better staying and challenging a regime that would hang them
from cranes? Or better escaping and trying to make a life they could safely bring you to?

I'm just saying why it happened. If someone was interrupting a speech I was giving at a conference or event or talk I'd not be happy and I'd want security to forcefully remove them.

If you have data showing the risk to women and girls from tourists vs other types of arrivals I’m interested to see it. Any population of men brings risk. So sure, ban all of them if you wish but no point pretending some are automatically safer than others without reliable data. Which unfortunately we don’t have. I’m sure we’d all be thrilled if we could predict the rapists and contain them.

The only person conflating the smoking and rape is you. I’m talking about leaflets.

Rape is terrible for population health btw, for glaringly obvious reasons.

She's being sarcastic on purpose to show how silly the "let them all in there's no danger whatsoever" view is

Great, so it’s ok with you to assault women if they ‘cause a ruckus’? Who defines that? If a woman shouts or sings or laughs in a public place is it a ruckus? How about if a woman wears a revealing outfit, or dances, or disagrees with a man?

Turns out you have more in common with Taliban culture than you think.

Tourists aren’t planning to live here in large groups and don’t create the same risk to women and girls as 1,000 men so risky that we have to provide “don’t rape” leaflets for them.

FYI smoking cessation is for both individual and population health improvement. Rape cessation is about mitigating the risk of serious harm to women and children. The fact that you conflate these two is mind boggling. But do you not think the leaflet having to be created in the first place shows that maybe it’s time to stop and seriously think about the kind of people we let into this country. Is it worth it? Is the “potential of new languages and food” as someone said earlier really worth the safety of our girls?

40% of all asylum applicants and 28% of small boat arrivals are women and children.

I mean I wouldn't be disruptive at any party confidence. I've been to events where I disagreed with the speakers. I didn't go cause a ruckus. I didn't also bring in political banners (which are against the rules). Had she just complied with the rules, and asked a question or two during the Q&A period all would have been well.

Why do you say the geography is so different? Is it the distance between coastlines? Because the new further away crossings are about the same.

Yeah sure that’s what’s happening.

And yet on the meantime so many rape women while waiting for their wives. Large groups of men being dropped into small areas are not safe in any situation. I’m not bothered about looking politically correct, I’m thinking of the safety of me and my DD and other women and girls

Of course it is, but the leaflets are provided in both cases in the full knowledge that not everyone needs the advice.

Sure, that’s an approach. And to never had to it you’d need to also prevent any men or boys coming to work or study or holiday too. Wanna do that?

Yes, you will get both. There’s rarely a single
solution to a complex problem. I don’t think there’s much to copy from Australian deterrence because the geography is so different. For me it’s more about reducing the number of irregular arrivals so the processing can be more efficient and people can be removed if unsuccessful. That still doesn’t solve the problem of where to remove people to where their countries are not safe. Though Germany has removed people back to Afghanistan so that could be possible too. Third countries might be an option for people rejected and potentially irregular arrivals could be rerouted there before they get in a boat if we had out of country processing and if there was a pull factor in the third country.

Quite a different situation getting smoking cessation advice and getting rape cessation advice.

We have enough problem men in this country as it is. Why add to it?!

Traditionally men migrate first to prepare the way for their families. This has been the migratory pattern for decades, if not centuries. You may notice that the vast majority of passengers on the Windrush were men.

To clarify - id have no problem whatsoever with this being women and children. But not men, no men and especially not men from countries that people are advised not to travel to. But isn’t it funny how it’s NEVER women and children. Just men - what are they doing here? I can promise you it’s not to enrich our country

I imagine the swathes of men from countries where women are treated as second class citizens. Meaning my teen DD would be at risk - you don’t have to look far to find Many instances of undocumented men using culture as an excuse for raping and harming children. To many of us the potential of learning a new language (people don’t actually learn a new language from meeting an undocumented immigrant do they?!) isn’t worth our daughter’s lives

Wow. She deserved it?

The vile couple that clearly assaulted her deserve to have the book thrown at them

maybe her fucking skirt was too short

Disgusting

Where are you more likely to face a horrific sexual assault in the west or in a country where women have no rights?

You can but unless you meet the demand for Sudan, Eritrea, Pakistan, Iran etc you will get both safe routes and crossings.

International law will still apply and if you can’t say yes to all those who meet the criteria arriving on shore is another way to enter.

So I suppose you could add more routes but the question is how many yes would you need to meet the demand for Sudan / all others?

Some of our friends in the continent actually do record crimes by per capita and by ethnicity. And the results especially across the Nordic nations are clear.

The limited data we have clearly shows certain groups are over represented as well

You’re suggesting the UK can only have safe routes if it copies Australian deterrent practices?

Obviously that’s not true. The Ukraine and much smaller Afghanistan schemes were examples that they UK could replicate for other countries, or they could create something new.

Oh so being disruptive means someone has the right to attack you with a weapon and pull your hair? The irony of being disruptive at the conference of the party of disruption.

So its ok to beat up women who are disruptive?!

She was being disruptive and no one says white people don't commit crime at all.