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.
**
**

Every single one of these organisations would also have said twaw. They occupy a very specific political space.

"But the fact remains that one of the most important functions of government is that it protects the interests of its own people."

In an ideal world, but our government has massively let down its own people with chronic and intentional undercutting of public services and years of austerity. This was brought to a head when covid put pressure on systems that had already been crippled by government choices and decisions that helped our wealthy become wealthier and our poor become poorer. Isn't it curious that at the same time we started to see a big increase in government encouraged media spinning out stories of how immigration was the problem and politicians using intentionally incorrect language such as "illegal immigrant" when the correct term is asylum seeker to create the idea of a bad guy to blame?

To me this has been engineered BY government in order to shift the blame off themselves and their own shoddy leadership.

I also think unfortunately we are at a place where it would be very difficult for us to create improvement in some countries where in the past we've meddled and I personally will never think it's okay to turn someone away to die when you could help.

You presented them as facts when you posted the article

I didn't mention protests. That isn't how refugee status is determined at all, it depends on the circumstances of the individual. How do you know very few asylum seekers have documents?

Yes, absolutely there are human rights considerations. But obviously these have to be balanced by the impact on the society. In past eras when human rights legislation was developed it simply wasn’t possible for large numbers of people to seek asylum in the way they do now.

The economic argument for migration is separate and in democratic terms is a settled issue, in that the electorate has said clearly that it wants numbers to be lower. I think it’s also the case that most people would prefer labour to be imported from countries that are culturally similar in terms of attitudes towards women.

Could you please explain how your thread doesn't weaponise VAWAG?

Well, quite. And then there's Reform's proposed plan for dealing with it all, which would

• Pay the Taliban to take back Afghan refugees
• Include women and children in their deportation scheme

Nothing says 'protect women and girls' like shipping them back to one of the most violently misogynist regimes in the world...

You've posted a distorted representation of some cherry picked data.

Claiming this is fact every 5 minutes doesn't make it true.

You refuse to acknowledge the harm that this rhetoric is doing to women and girls outside of your blinkered version of the world, despite claiming to work with women's group. That shows a distinct inability to learn and grow leaving you susceptible to damaging propaganda which you appear to be happy to spread.

Try engaging in an open and honest way, you might just learn something about yourself.

Does anyone have any proper % of how many men are seeking asylum V women (and children ) and where from ??

Asylum is for vulnerable people. Yes yes yes men will be vulnerable under despotic regimes but women are always far far more vulnerable .I'd like to see some comparison stats.

The no.s the op gave are from a foi - this is the most impartial and accurate we have.

Bc it's not published by anyone it's only obtained by requesting

There's the threat of being sent back, the threat of 'protestors' and growing racial tension, the cruelty in giving the bare basics, the additional trauma given the abuse many women have gone through, the threat of tents and detention centres. Indeed, these people really care about women.

The numbers OP gave are not raw data from a FOI, they are data from a FOI analyses (read: manipulated) by someone associated with the far right agenda and then presented. It's a case of lies, damned lies and statistics.

Without the methodology used, it's meaningless and manipulative.

My eyes tells me I see mainly men on the boats and where there are posting but that doesn't mean women aren't coming.

It's just id rather give women and children this safe haven first ?

I agree they have been hugely incompetent in many ways. But that doesn't absolve them from responsibility for trying to manage immigration to the benefit of the country. Many refugees are not facing imminent death, but obviously by definition they are at risk of human rights violations. The trouble is, human rights abuses are happening everywhere, at much greater levels than we can address by simply providing refuge for everyone. For example, the European Court of Justice has ruled that any woman living in Afghanistan should be eligible for asylum. It is very clear why this is, but it demonstrates the scale of the issue and that it cannot be solved simply by shifting everyone to Europe.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2025/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-uk

Thanks top pockets so men are claiming asylum in huge numbers and self selecting who we take by their actions

I think the people who think they are absolutely correct about having an open doors policy for asylum seekers need to consider what they think this country will look like down the line if we adopt this stance. It’s certainly a kind and charitable way to think. It’s hard to criticise to be honest. If I had no kids I’d probably be quite happy for this country to go to hell in a hand-basket. I’m already more than half way through my life and am pretty content to not have much or expect much from anything or anyone.

The problem for me is I’ve brought two kids into this world and I feel pretty guilty about that. Times felt so different thirteen years ago. You could easily rent a house, a weeks food shopping was fifty quid, things felt lighter politically and socially. There was more optimism! I don’t think I’m the only one who is looking at how things are unfolding currently and wondering what this country will look like in twenty/thirty years. If we allow uncontrolled migration then we can kiss goodbye to our green spaces as house building will need to continue unabated.

Also I do worry about the social cohesion aspect, there are tensions already, are we sleepwalking into a more polarised society where people rigidly keep to their own communities? Will that spill into violence if you wander into the wrong area? I don’t know. I would feel much more comfortable if I thought any government had a handle on it whatsoever. It feels like successive governments have just shrugged and washed their hands of it and organised crime gangs are basically running the show. That’s scary!

I’d love someone to tell me I’m being an idiot and it’s not the situation at all but I think a lot of people feel the same as me.

You haven't bothered reading the links that several people have posted, then.

Your understanding of the data posted by the OP, and where it comes from, is incomplete.

Many of the men will bring over their wives and daughters once they are safe.

I am sure you can understand why more men make the dangeous journey than women.

I think there are very few people who think there should be an “open doors” policy.
But we need legal and safe routes and a system that processes asylum seekers swiftly. The aim should be that if they are eligible to stay, they are able to work and contribute to society, not stuck in a hotel for years whilst the government fanny around.
We are a country built on immigration, it has always been the same.

@TopPocketFind it's been argued everywhere and no I don't buy it.
My DH would never ever leave us in a perilous situation and leave us no.

You don't have to buy it, you can look it up and read about experiences.

VAWG is high on these journeys, slavery risks as well.

@EvangelicalAboutButteredToast

Will that spill into violence if you wander into the wrong area?

Your post rang some bells:

Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that the country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking—not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre...As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood".

Enoch Powell

Yes, I used to work as a children’s rights advocate. I worked with several young girls who had made the journey to the uk. I worked with two girls at one point from Eritrea. They were 14 years old. Their families paid to get them out of the country and then the traffickers abused them horrifically - sexually and physically. They were abused by multiple people on their journey to safety. Their stories were heartbreaking.

We're not really. Immigration at any scale is a very recent phenomenon in the context of British society. It's only in the last few decades that significant immigration has happened here. The USA is "built on immigration" and I think that phrase is imported from there, but the USA is very different culturally and demographically.