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.
**
**

It's not vague at all. No idea why OP thinks it is.

And noted that there's not the slightest attempt from OP to acknowledge all the lies spouted on this thread.

@pointythings I have not said anything untrue. The fact you seem to think so is more reflective of your perspective. Twas ever thus. Confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance. Blah. Blah. I get it, you love Labour. Support them. No matter what you must, because not many people do now.

I’m must go now so feel free to rant away untruths, I’m not ignoring you I’ve just got work to do. 🧡

The lazy 'labour fan' rhetoric is back I see.

You have presented data as facts that have been debunked. You have not acknowledged this.

Nothing to do with how people may or may not have voted at the ballot box.

But you have implied something that is at best misleading in the quotation above, OP. Using this in a discussion about support for asylum seekers. Because we know that asylum seekers do not receive UC.

Using the word ‘would’ to be a bit vague is pretty thin cover.

In the interest of completeness following my deletion, permit me to say I didn't vote in the last GE because of being foreign. I just challenge lies and misinformation because it's the right thing to do. It really isn't about political allegiances.

I saw your post and agreed with it, no idea how it warranted a deletion.

I did not understand the deletion either

I complained to mumsnet about leaving racist threads up and that it appeared to me they are consequently complicit in spreading lies and misinformation. This is their response. I was continually calling op a racist.

Hello Princessofwells,

We’ve repeatedly reminded posters that challenging content is allowed, but personal attacks are not. Your repeated attacks on other users breach our Talk guidelines.

Claims that we are “condoning racism” are unfounded and misleading. Mumsnet does not support or tolerate racism in any form. Moderators are not here to endorse every suggestion or viewpoint, and we won’t always do what you want. Part of constructive discussion is engaging respectfully with views you may disagree with, while allowing the site to function fairly and safely for everyone.

Continued breaches of our guidelines will result in post removals and could ultimately lead to suspension.

The problem of course with their response, is that calling someone who is racist, 'racist' is a statement of fact rather than opinion, using the criminal definition of racism. And there is a complete failure in this response to address that mumsnet confirmed in one of their posts the so called 'facts' were true. But of course they aren't. I really don't understand how they feel that is acceptable behaviour on their part. It's nothing to do with endorsing views, it's about truth and lies, misinformation and the racist agenda supporters of the far right hold and promulgate.

I have lived in two Muslim countries and I would say Muslim men are the last people you would choose from the global population. I’m sure there are many very kind and educated Muslim men but if there’s a choice it wouldn’t be them.

Did you choose to live there?

Please define 'far left'.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9b9roSRWtJQ&pp=ygUgV29ya2luZyBpbiBtaXJncmFudCBob3RlbCBzeW5kZXk%3D

this was filmed by a young girl 'Sydney' who's been covering the protests so not connected to the other guy, who mirrored her upload.

I think his account holds a lot of weight having worked in two all male hotels.
I don't think the accounts of repeated harassment towards women and kids knife crime, and dealership level of drugs and aggression over food preferences can be 'debunked' over a possible discrepancy about weather its £70's or £40.

I also looked up the no. And £40 is what the gov is saying.
However I'm willing to contact the uploader and ask if possible to clarify.

I still don't think that his experience can be written off entirely over a £30 difference.

Other accounts are backing up claims of of free phones - it could well be the charity's are in contracts with gov for phones and it sounds like it's some do gooders with a Nokia 10, it's likely to be private contract worth £££,£££, but it sounds very different when reported on.

There are loads of instances where immigrants committing crimes get reported as ' local' so this doesn't appear in the statics as is.

In this longer video this podcaster spends several months living in a mirgrant hotel and its well researched, he includes a lot of figures like how £8.2 million a day is spent in these schemes ( payed for by tax payer obvs) while winter fuel payment for older people and waspi women payment getting threatened. It's hard to not make the connection between poverty and services cuts and these figures.

This hotel is more family based and he documents the daily taxi services to schools ( payed for by tax payers)
And details the school places given.

There's less emphasis on drug and knife crime due to a more family setting, but dose show and extremely high standard of living with phones, all meals and services included.
He also mentions s'harasment issues from mirgrants towards other mirgrants and their minor children ' because its the normal where there from' age if consent is is - child. And the person in question just genuinely thinking they handnt done anything wrong here.

He briefly shows fromage in context of saying he was the only politican questioning this issue. Feel free to skip that bit. It dosent take away a video account of living standards any British pensioner would be more than happy with while they have to chose btwn 'heating and eating"

Couldn't edit in time , this the guy who spent several months living in the hotel

Can I just what it is you want as government policy? The way I am interpreting it is:
All immigration (entry visas?) should be stopped for citizens of countries where their rate is sexual assault is greater than that of UK citizens?

Not to speak for op but in terms of ' what do you want' - the cost to uk citizens should be factored in.

The £8.m a day should be spent on, the care sector, pensioners, children in poverty, homeless, domestic violence charities, getting people back into work, helping the high Street, schools , disabilities help, water and sewage.

What do we 'owe' to anyone else. A post war scheme that would have never invisoned this world wide piss take.

They need to stop accepting asylum from ‘irregular entries’. If they know there’s zero chance to get legal status, they won’t come.

The nonpartisan Full Fact had investigated the kerfuffle over phones for refugees and asylum seekers. It has found that some charities offer phones directly to them, but the government is not providing contracts for this purpose.

Most of the phones are used and reconditioned.

How on earth would anyone who sees someone using a phone have a clue how it was obtained? The fact that observers are making baseless claims should alert the audience. Sadly, it seldom seems to.

£30 difference is not nothing, it's also £60 difference when meals are provided.

Telling people that asylum seekers have £9.95 pw doesn't quite get as much outrage.

And yes, the hotel costs are too high. Don't blame asylum seekers for that, blame the previous ogvernment who handed out the contracts. And whilst you at it, add austerity and Brexit to that list

In order to do that, it needs to be possible to claim asylum from outside the UK - safe routes. There are currently none. And if the current government brought in safe routes, you can bet certain posters on this thread would be howling in outrage - because they feel it's OK for the UK to accept 0 asylum seekers.

Why don’t they just accept a limited number from the UNHCR? No need for the government to establish their own system.

How would that work?

UNHCR themselves emphasise that their efforts are woefully insufficient. Why should valid asylum claimants they cannot reach be excluded?