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.
**
**

How do you think America or Canada get refugees? They allow a limited number that are vetted (usually from refugee camps) and then flown over. Why can’t you do the same?

No need to establish what will certainly be very messy safe routes.

To get back to my original point. Here are some examples from Germany.

‘Germany is acknowledging the unspeakable’

‘In 2023, there were 761 gang-rapes registered in Germany — almost two per day; 47.5 per cent of the suspects were foreigners.

The frequency of such crimes — which were rare in Germany as late as the 1990s — has hovered between 600 and 800 per year for the past 7 years. The statistics go on for page after mind-numbing (or mind-boggling) page.

Berlin’s police chief delivered the upshot: “Bluntly stated, our numbers show that violence in Berlin is young, male, and has a non-German background.” What is straining German law enforcement (and society) is the sheer number of young male asylum-seekers. Germany famously relaxed its border controls in 2015-2016, permitting an influx of some 1.3 million people from countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, and Turkey. Then as now, about 70 per cent of asylum-seekers were male and most are under 35 years old.’

https://thecritic.co.uk/germany-is-acknowledging-the-unspeakable/

So what you are suggesting is setting up refugee camps (where) and distribute those people around the world?

You think you can do a better job vetting than the UNHCR? I don’t believe that at all. I also don’t believe the UK is competent enough to establish ‘safe routes’ that posters like yourself propose. They just seem unworkable from the get-go.

UNHCR already do this work. Why would you want the British government to fund and organize such a thing?

I don't understand what you mean

‘These statements may sound benign, but they shatter taboos. German politicos and journalists have long suppressed discussions of why certain groups of foreigners are overrepresented in crime statistics; Section 12 of the official German press code even forbids identifying the ethnic ancestry of criminals to combat “discrimination”.

Any references to “crime by foreigners” (Ausländerkriminalität) as a distinct problem were met with charges of xenophobia and racism. What has moved the Overton Window is a stream of grim crime statistics published by government agencies or, just as frequently, leaked to journalists. ‘

It all sounds very familiar.

@Absentmindedsmile

I think an issue is along side all the others is that whilst they are legally claiming asylum we can't hold them and find out who they are to make sure they are safe.

Anyone can claim asslyum

Its like a broken record on here.

Pp posts "FACTS" generalising how awful refugees are.
"FACTS" are thoroughly debunked.
A different poster recites "FACTS", Ignores data saying they are not to be trusted and gives their opinion that they are right.
"FACTS' are shown to be wrong again.

Just because people keep posting videos posted by dubious players with an agenda, it doesn't make them true.

It's tedious and shows that you can't educate stupid.

I think people in need deserve help. If the UN cannot provide it, and by their own admission this is true, then yes - governments need to step in and do their best.

Don’t put words in my mouth

I disagree. I don’t think individual governments should be in the business of moving around people using taxpayer money.

UNHCR will of course say they don’t have money to address it all—the need is seemingly never ending.

But other countries do take in a number of refugees directly from their camps, no reason you could not do this as well instead of insisting on reinventing the wheel (and probably eventually complaining that the UK needs to spend ever more taxpayer money on these homegrown initiatives)

Do you want the UNCHR to run massive refugee camps?

I am not understanding what you want the UNCHR to do

They already do? And many countries already take refugees directly from camps that they manage.

But what are you suggesting will happen to refugees not in those camps?

It’s better that you determine how many you can realistically support and just accept that amount from refugee camps.

That doesn't answer my question

I disagree but I accept you have a thought out point of view, and an interesting one.

You can’t just accept whoever shows up at the border and allow them to apply for
asylum. Irregular arrivals are likely going to be finished very soon in Europe, it’s just been a complete disaster from the start and incredibly unpopular with the public.

Again. What do you personally OP wish to see as government policy on this.

Do you wish for there to be zero entries for people from those countries with a high rate of sexual offences than UK citizens?

You’re heavy of the Fact: innit, but so far you have had zero constructive to say about what you personally want.

But what do you suggest will happen with those who claim asylum via irregular means?

I think they should be deported. Obviously you will disagree. And if their home country won’t take them, then something akin to the Rwanda plan. But they should never be allowed to settle in the UK. Just a nonstarter as far as I’m concerned.

Deported where to?

It's easy to say but not so easy to do.

Rwanda would take 300-500 a year, a drop in the ocean.

And if asylum is granted, why should they not be allowed to settle in the UK?

I am not saying we should accept everyone, I am saying we shouldn't dehumanise people seeking refuge.

Uhm yeah that’s not true. Much earlier in the thread I suggested a possibility. However I’m not a politician and I’m not paid to be one. That’s their job.

We choose them, we pay for them, they work for us. They are Supposed to work in our interests. Innit.

Lately on radio 4 they’ve had various past politicians including Jack Straw and David Blunkett talking about immigration and basically they say do something now - tweak the echr or set up a new place to send them and get it done soon - they don’t want Labour back in the wilderness which is guaranteed as things stand

It makes me glad neither of them are still in government.