Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

607 replies

Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 12:37

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.
**
**

OP posts:
Thread gallery
19
Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 18:06

MiloMinderbinder925 · 26/08/2025 17:43

I wouldn't bother. The OP is too absorbed in 'saving women and girls' to listen to the front line organisations.

Christ your attitude really is awful. Reminds me of playground stuff.

OP posts:
MiloMinderbinder925 · 26/08/2025 18:08

Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 18:06

Christ your attitude really is awful. Reminds me of playground stuff.

At least I'm not using VAWAG to stir up division and hate. Making life for female asylum seekers more difficult and weaponising women's trauma.

PhilippaGeorgiou · 26/08/2025 18:09

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 26/08/2025 18:02

See, I don't really regard "woke leftist" or any of the other variations that I've seen on that theme to be personal insults either. But I absolutely agree that, if we're going to delete "racist" as if it is a term of abuse, then these other labels that people like to use should be treated similarly.

Personally, I would prefer that MNHQ focus on removing the racist disinformation that is actually harmful, rather than fannying around with deleting posts where people say that others are "woke" or "racist" or whatever. I saw one poster get deleted for calling someone else "bonkers" recently. Astonishing when you compare that to so much of the content that is left to stand.

We're not delicate snowflakes. I'm sure that those engaging in robust debate are resilient enough to deal with being called "woke" or "racist" or "radical left" or "far right" or whatever. I'm far more concerned about the insidious disinformation that is being spread with the deliberate intention of stirring up anti-migrant feeling.

Sorry - that was the point I was making. I really don't give a shit about being called a woke leftist. I am awake, unlike half the people around here; and I am certainly left wing. But it is a comment made as a personal attack, and MNHQ seem to be fine about that. But as you say, call someone a racist (which I see as descriptive) and you are deleted. Either delete every personal insult, or none of them. But when you see a pattern about what is and what isn't deleted, then you have to ask why.

Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 18:11

MiloMinderbinder925 · 26/08/2025 18:08

At least I'm not using VAWAG to stir up division and hate. Making life for female asylum seekers more difficult and weaponising women's trauma.

As I said to your playground bully friend

VAWG organisations understand the differences between bigoted racists, and people who are concerned with women and girls’ safety. A feat which you so far, have not achieved.

OP posts:
MikeRafone · 26/08/2025 18:13

Fact is governments aren’t putting woman and girls at a higher risk.

if the population was completely white men the rates of SA would be higher. The fact is the men coming from abroad and arriving here in uk in boats are diluting the population and reducing the risk

not something that you’ll want to hear
something you’ll want to ignore

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 26/08/2025 18:15

PhilippaGeorgiou · 26/08/2025 18:09

Sorry - that was the point I was making. I really don't give a shit about being called a woke leftist. I am awake, unlike half the people around here; and I am certainly left wing. But it is a comment made as a personal attack, and MNHQ seem to be fine about that. But as you say, call someone a racist (which I see as descriptive) and you are deleted. Either delete every personal insult, or none of them. But when you see a pattern about what is and what isn't deleted, then you have to ask why.

Yeah, I totally agree.

I wonder if MN could clarify whether or not we are allowed to express the opinion that a poster is a racist.

@BeckyAMumsnet, please could you confirm if you consider the term "racist" to be a personal attack, and whether we are allowed to say this when we feel it is evident that a poster is posting racist content.

Or is it that we are allowed to say that "everything you have posted is racist" but we cannot say "you are racist"?

LupaMoonhowl · 26/08/2025 18:15

Completely disingenuous to characterize ‘racist’ as descriptive - it is clearly pejorative and is clearly intended as an insult.
An insult is a personal attack.
Ironic that those who are most racist are actually those attacking the OP who see only colour, and reduce all ‘non-white’ people to a single category, assuming they must be left wing and pro unrestricted immigration, rather than as people with a whole range of different political views, and families who care about the welfare of their children and protecting them from dangerous and undocumented young males from violent and misogynist countries.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 26/08/2025 18:15

Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 18:11

As I said to your playground bully friend

VAWG organisations understand the differences between bigoted racists, and people who are concerned with women and girls’ safety. A feat which you so far, have not achieved.

Endlessly repeating something doesn't make it true. You're so involved in VAWAG that you weren't aware that over a hundred front line organisations called for a stop to weaponising it for far right purposes.

That constant inflammatory rhetoric like yours makes vulnerable women and children more unsafe. It's not me doing the bullying.

RingoJuice · 26/08/2025 18:16

MikeRafone · 26/08/2025 18:13

Fact is governments aren’t putting woman and girls at a higher risk.

if the population was completely white men the rates of SA would be higher. The fact is the men coming from abroad and arriving here in uk in boats are diluting the population and reducing the risk

not something that you’ll want to hear
something you’ll want to ignore

That’s not true by the fact you simply have MORE MEN, and they’ll skew young … another risk factor. So your risk will be overall higher

Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 18:18

MikeRafone · 26/08/2025 18:13

Fact is governments aren’t putting woman and girls at a higher risk.

if the population was completely white men the rates of SA would be higher. The fact is the men coming from abroad and arriving here in uk in boats are diluting the population and reducing the risk

not something that you’ll want to hear
something you’ll want to ignore

😂😂 Who woke you up from the chair in the corner?

The fact is, I’m not quite sure where to start with deconstructing your load of random untruths, stated on the basis of fck all.

So, I won’t. Lots of data in this thread - and much more I haven’t posted which is available to you online.

OP posts:
MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 26/08/2025 18:19

LupaMoonhowl · 26/08/2025 18:15

Completely disingenuous to characterize ‘racist’ as descriptive - it is clearly pejorative and is clearly intended as an insult.
An insult is a personal attack.
Ironic that those who are most racist are actually those attacking the OP who see only colour, and reduce all ‘non-white’ people to a single category, assuming they must be left wing and pro unrestricted immigration, rather than as people with a whole range of different political views, and families who care about the welfare of their children and protecting them from dangerous and undocumented young males from violent and misogynist countries.

If people see the term "racist" as pejorative, that implies they they see racism as a bad thing. So why exactly do they parade their racism around like a badge of honour?

Do you think we shouldn't be allowed to call out racism, misogyny, ablism or homophobia when we see them?

Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 18:20

LupaMoonhowl · 26/08/2025 18:15

Completely disingenuous to characterize ‘racist’ as descriptive - it is clearly pejorative and is clearly intended as an insult.
An insult is a personal attack.
Ironic that those who are most racist are actually those attacking the OP who see only colour, and reduce all ‘non-white’ people to a single category, assuming they must be left wing and pro unrestricted immigration, rather than as people with a whole range of different political views, and families who care about the welfare of their children and protecting them from dangerous and undocumented young males from violent and misogynist countries.

Thank you and very well said.

OP posts:
MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 26/08/2025 18:20

Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 18:18

😂😂 Who woke you up from the chair in the corner?

The fact is, I’m not quite sure where to start with deconstructing your load of random untruths, stated on the basis of fck all.

So, I won’t. Lots of data in this thread - and much more I haven’t posted which is available to you online.

Edited

Yeah, loads of data in this thread like the fact check data that you have chosen not to engage with. Funny that, for someone who seems to love data so much.

ginasevern · 26/08/2025 18:26

MiloMinderbinder925 · 26/08/2025 18:03

No, as stated 70% are found to be eligible for refugee status. That means that 30% haven't. It's proven through the refugee process. It's not true at all that only women experience human rights abuses. For example, about 157,634 Syrians were arrested between March 2011 and August 2024 and around 10,221 were women.

Firstly I asked how refugee status is measured or proved. Most of it is based on oral testimony not documentation. Secondly, I didn't say that only women were subject to human rights issues but I did say that the countries involved have terrible (even medieval) attitudes towards women. Lastly, I'm not surprised that far fewer women were arrested. It's far less safe for women to protest.

MikeRafone · 26/08/2025 18:27

Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 18:18

😂😂 Who woke you up from the chair in the corner?

The fact is, I’m not quite sure where to start with deconstructing your load of random untruths, stated on the basis of fck all.

So, I won’t. Lots of data in this thread - and much more I haven’t posted which is available to you online.

Edited

Yet you pull up an article from the telegraph 😂 devoid of facts

Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 18:28

@MiloMinderbinder925

That is a very strong claim indeed.

‘constant inflammatory rhetoric like yours’

It is also an untrue claim. I have only posted facts. The truth obviously hurts you, I can understand that. It is not nice information to face up to and accept. Particularly when one has convinced oneself of other beliefs.

However. Please stop bandying about such accusatory claims.

Reporting people to MN isn’t my style, I prefer to keep everything on the table. But the way you want to interact henceforth, is up to you.

OP posts:
NeverDropYourMooncup · 26/08/2025 18:29

Oh, joy, another racist political posting.

[

Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 18:30

MikeRafone · 26/08/2025 18:27

Yet you pull up an article from the telegraph 😂 devoid of facts

Aw gawd. More nonsense. Until you provide information / comment to discuss / debate, rather than bizarre little untrue unhinged comments , I’ll leave you to it.

OP posts:
Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 18:31

NeverDropYourMooncup · 26/08/2025 18:29

Oh, joy, another racist political posting.

[

Rtft, appreciate that takes a little thought and time. But it does help when you think you need to comment on something.

OP posts:
MikeRafone · 26/08/2025 18:32

Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 18:30

Aw gawd. More nonsense. Until you provide information / comment to discuss / debate, rather than bizarre little untrue unhinged comments , I’ll leave you to it.

Oh gosh, so you e not looked at the data others have shown to debunk you/ you just want to try and use insults…

your insults may make you feel better but your arguments are still pants

MikeRafone · 26/08/2025 18:33

Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 18:30

Aw gawd. More nonsense. Until you provide information / comment to discuss / debate, rather than bizarre little untrue unhinged comments , I’ll leave you to it.

Oh gosh, so you’ve not looked at the data others have shown to debunk you/ you just want to try and use insults…

your insults may make you feel better but your arguments are still pants

Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 18:33

MikeRafone · 26/08/2025 18:32

Oh gosh, so you e not looked at the data others have shown to debunk you/ you just want to try and use insults…

your insults may make you feel better but your arguments are still pants

Pants. Indeed.

OP posts:
MiloMinderbinder925 · 26/08/2025 18:34

ginasevern · 26/08/2025 18:26

Firstly I asked how refugee status is measured or proved. Most of it is based on oral testimony not documentation. Secondly, I didn't say that only women were subject to human rights issues but I did say that the countries involved have terrible (even medieval) attitudes towards women. Lastly, I'm not surprised that far fewer women were arrested. It's far less safe for women to protest.

Refugee status is determined by testimony and evidence of a well founded fear of persecution. You have no idea how that is evidenced. Men are persecuted for multifarious reasons, not just protests.

MikeRafone · 26/08/2025 18:34

Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 18:33

Pants. Indeed.

glad you agree 👍🏻

NeverDropYourMooncup · 26/08/2025 18:36

Absentmindedsmile · 26/08/2025 18:31

Rtft, appreciate that takes a little thought and time. But it does help when you think you need to comment on something.

Seeing as the thread started with a blatant 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' style false dichotomy, it's hardly going to improve things by reading all of your racist postings, rather than just the first one plus a couple of the 'I'm just saying...you're the racist, not me...you're unhinged' combination of faux naivete and ad hominems.

Just another racist, just another load of racist posts.

Swipe left for the next trending thread