Why are governments putting women and girls at higher risk of sex crimes?

[Absentmindedsmile]

Fact: Hundreds of thousands of men are entering Europe (as in the continent), from countries where women and girls are second class citizens.
**
Fact: The sex crime rate statistics associated with different nationalities living in the UK have been published. An example is provided below.
**
**Facts:
….the [sex crime] rates, based on convictions per 10,000 of the population put Afghans, with 77 convictions, at the top with a rate of 59 per 10,000 – 22.3 times that of Britons.
**
They were followed by Eritreans, who accounted for 59 convictions at a rate of 53.6 per 10,000 of their population.
**
Britons accounted for 12,619 sex offence convictions, representing a rate of 2.66 per per 10,000 of their population in England and Wales.
**
https://archive.md/6AXAy Archive version
**
Fact: This example data blows up any erroneous claims from people suggesting that British men commit more sex crimes when numbers in the population are accounted for / are more likely to commit a sex crime.
**
There’s above is factual data. It is not racist to provide it. To claim this, is quite simply, wrong. Perhaps it’s projection, the mind boggles.

To want ‘no debate’ and bleet on with incorrectly placed accusations of racism, is to shut down people’s valid concerns.

Tin hat on for the people who want no debate on this issue, and instead of protecting women and girls, insist on protecting men from countries where women and girls are treated as second class citizens.

More data has been promised.
**
**

You started the whole thread with data that you expected people to read and then agree with you. When other data has been referenced, you just ignore it.
So really, all the data becomes irrelevant because us “lefties” can find data that correlates to our viewpoint too.
Maybe just be honest that you don’t like asylum seekers?

@mnhq https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/100-womens-rights-groups-warn-against-racist-weaponisation-of-vawg/

Please read this and explain to me how you can allow racist propaganda on this site.

Lol, have you actually read the thread?

The OP made a "valiant attempt"

It was pointed out that the so-called "facts" presented by the OP had been found by a reputable independent fact checker to be seriously flawed.

It was pointed out that over 100 VAWG charities have spoken out against the weaponising of violence against women and girls in the debate about migration.

And, when pushed to comment on the fact check article, the OP distanced themselves from the data by claiming that they weren't "their facts" in any case.

What exactly did you think was valiant?

The numerator is for number of offences in 2023 and the denominator is the number of people of each nationality in 2021. As we know, there has been a big increase in people coming to the country between 2021 and 2023 and that will make a really big difference seeing as the overall numbers of people are relatively small. For example one of the groups that have the biggest difference are Afghans - but there has been a massive increase in asylum seekers from Afghanistan since the Taliban took over in 2021 so it is completely inappropriate to use an old denominator. You can look up blogs/articles explaining this.The underlying numbers are correct but they have been put together incorrectly.

Those facts come from Centre for Migration Control

Ipso Ruling on that article

https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings/00910-25/

IPSO finds The Telegraph to have breached clause 1 of the Editors’ Code in an article which impressively managed to present data sourced by Rob Bates’ Centre for Migration Control ‘think tank’ more misleadingly than the original CMC report did!

I’ve not denied the facts provided have been disputed. I’ve said they haven’t been debunked. And they haven’t been debunked.

No the facts didn’t ’come from’ the CMC. I’ve provided ref as to where the facts originated. Please rtft. You’ll find the information you need. Of course you can pick and choose to your hearts content. Everyone else seems to..

Yes @BeckyAMumsnet, could you explain how this kind of propaganda and disinformation is compatible with the spirit of the site when so many women's charities are calling for it to stop?

These groups are talking about far right weaponisation of data. If you and others don’t understand the difference between that and this thread, there’s not much else to say. Some might say that lack of comprehension and differentiation is part of the problem.

So tell us why you disagree with the Sky News article. What is it that they have got wrong, exactly?

I'm sure that you will be eager to defend the reliability of your own claims, so go ahead, pull the Sky News Fact Check apart and tell us why you still think you're right.

I'm all ears!

There is no difference.

’women’s charities’ are calling for far right weaponisation like Tommy Robinson and co to stop. And rightly so. They’re hideous.

This thread, is not that. MN understand that. You do not.

How is it different?

The far right are spreading disinformation about VAWG in order to stir up fear and hatred of migrants.

You are also spreading disinformation about VAWG. I can only guess at your own motives.

For the nth time, they are not ‘my own claims’. It is published data, recorded by the police, available only due to a FOI request.

I’ve posted facts. Sorry for you you can’t seem to tell the difference. Suits your agenda I guess..

Calling op out as a racist is not a personal attack it's a fact adjudged by the content of their posts. It may be that mn hq believe my judgment is wrong , what do you think?

Do you think racists consider me calling them "racist" is an insult - I suspect not.

You’re illustrating the ‘global family’ perspective very nicely. But the fact remains that one of the most important functions of government is that it protects the interests of its own people. It’s actually a position of privilege (and deep naïvety) to say you can dispense with this principle.

If you believe that a state has a moral duty to correct past wrongs, even against the current interests of its own people (and I think most people wouldn’t subscribe to this), you’re assuming that Britain has indeed had a net detrimental impact on other countries, which is contentious. In the end, even if you subscribe to all of this, surely the appropriate response is to improve the lot of those countries as a whole, not simply to accept whichever people can get visas or risk entering illegally. Such a system of atonement doesn’t make logical sense (because you can’t take everyone and you are probably taking their youngest and most skilled people) and is highly inequitable to the people left behind.

But the fact that they have been disputed means that they are questionable. That makes them somewhat less than facts. They might best be described as 'an analysis subject to dispute'.

The first definition of a fact in the online OED is 'something known or proved to be true'. Your 'facts' fail on that criterion.

If we're going to make policy, it should be based on actual facts. Not the narrative of people with an agenda (as has also been shown to be the case on this thread).

The raw numbers come from the police. The "analysis", which consists of a deliberate manipulation of the facts with a clear intention to mislead, comes from a far right source. The data that you have quoted is based on the "analysis" rather than the FOI data.

This has already been explained to you but you are choosing not to engage.

And if you present the so-called data in your OP as "fact", which you very enthusiastically did, then they are absolutely "your facts".

I recognise that you are unable to defend them. I will even give you the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that you didn't realise that you were misrepresenting the data when you first posted. But if you are going to stand by the misinformation quoted in your OP, then it becomes clear that you don't actually care about the truth because you have another agenda that you want to promote.

We're going round in circles now. We've established that you didn't post facts and you weren't able to defend your data.

There is no difference between what Tommy Robinson and his ilk are doing, and what you are doing on this thread.

Academics consider the most reliable crime statistics are those provided by the British Crime Survey. Statistics from the police are notoriously unreliable due to their own racism and targeting of ethnic groups and racial profiling which skews statistics. (Stop and search as an example). Unless you've studied the area of criminal statistics, it's easy to extrapolate incorrect conclusions.

The SE is very different. You have areas of very high deprivation, where more services are concentrated, and some affluent areas which have more volunteers.

But other areas (which are prime ground for Reform) seem more apathetic, mainly though it's because housing is expensive, council tax is massive, and people are just trying to get on.

Compassion is an appropriate emotion for one person to feel for another. It is not a principle on which you can base your immigration policy. If you do, you will firstly not be able to prioritise the interests of your electorate and secondly, you will find that the amount of suffering in the world is too much for your country to handle.

Sorry op, as someone who is high up in one of the VAWG organisations you mention you're going to need to explain to me why you think this when for many years we've been campaigning for better protection and status for trafficked women, better access to resources for trafficked women and promoting the safety and wellbeing of women globally.

I'm still really, really confused why you seem to think organisations like mine or any of the many I work alongside are only concerned about local women's welfare? I have yet to see this on the ground or in media or anywhere else. I have, however, seen opinions like the one you keep raising called out as harmful.

Our immigration policy must be based fundamentally on the basic principles of human rights though - and seeking asylum is a human right.

Also, we are not supporting asylum seekers or any other immigrant in a vacuum, there's a whole wide world out there and many countries are doing a heck of a lot more than we are. I'd also gently remind you that many immigrants are propping up our economy, particularly our healthcare system and given that we have an ageing population its very likely that we will get to the point where we are dependent on immigration for jobs that keep us safe and well like care professions. Asylum seekers make up a teeny percentage of immigrants. Many come here and work, aren't entitled to any benefits and support themselves and pay into the local economy via tax. A small, small percentage have their application for asylum declined and go under the radar but those numbers are small in the grand scheme of things.