Crime statistics by country of origin

[Zebedee999]

The government is proposing to publish crime statistics by country of origin.

A few weeks ago I mentioned some statistics from other European countries (and in fact the UK) showing that sex crimes against women by men of certain countries are 40 times those of the indigenous British. I got called racist (the stats are by country not race) and of course the stats were removed as racist.

Personally I think women's safety should be the overriding priority and such statistics should be used as part of a process to determine who can move to the UK. Why allow in men who statistically will carry out 40 times the sex crimes of the indigenous population? Let in women by all means.

I am genuinely interested why my view is racist when to me it is simply prioritising women's safety. AIBU to want immigration processes to prioritise women's safety?

"Indigenous"? Ohhhkayyy then.

Can you please explain what you mean by indigenous British? Do you mean people who can trace their ancestry back to the Celts? Which most people in Britain probably can't do.

I think these stats should be widely available; one, if they aren't, then you give fuel to conspiracy theorists, and two, because then we can have a public debate and expect the government to sort things out, not that they will...

Or if the category "white british" applies when you tick a form.

People who are British by nationality.

The reason they're " hidden" is because they know it would lead to increasing public tensions like last summer when groups went on the rampage attacking minority communities.

Apologies, I do not understand your point. Maybe I used the wrong word. I mean legally British people. Best wishes

How do they measure country of origin? Is it the country that you were born in? The country that you hold a passport for ?

I ask because I’m mixed race- what would I be recorded as ?

If someone is born in one country but lived in the UK for the majority of their life, what are they recorded as ?

Just British. The stats are by country not by race. Partly why I am puzzled people say the stats are racist (and me for quoting them previously in the context of female safety).

yes it’s a classic ploy: control the data and censor the use of language then women cannot organise and assert our rights as we cannot “prove” that we are being targeted or say who we are being targeted by otherwise we are deemed to have committed racism.
Much like those who were pushing to have male crimes to be recorded as female crimes, and our freedom of speech curtailed by forcing female rape victims call their attackers women in court.

call me racist or a terf or whatever you like. it’s all a control tactic that ultimately victimises women. If you are threatened by data and accurate information then you are the fascist, not I.

I'm all for statistics but the problem is they are often deliberately presented/misinterpreted.

For example a few years ago there was the claim that Mohammed is the most popular name for new-born babies, implying that there are more Moslems being born than any other group, which is obviously not the truth.

I have observed men from non- British cultures have a different mindset on how they speak to women and young girls. After ESOL lessons at a local college, opposite the high school, regularly harassing schoolgirls. I would trust them. Police were informed as were the college and the behaviour lessened. I believe lesson times were changed rather than behaviour changed. Also; spitting in the street is seen as normal.
I live in a multi-cultural area and many residents have been born here or lived here for decades. They celebrate their culture but are respectful of others and are no more a threat than anyone else.

It doesn’t imply anything of the sort, and anyone who sees this data and comes to that conclusion is not very bright. The data is perfectly accurate. People can use it to imply things, but don’t blame the statistic.

hiding statistics give more room for information to be misrepresented as people fill information voids with guesswork or lies.

Because the UN anti racism declaration thingy says racism relates to race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.

but they are widely available. Not published by the British government, but the government of that country (European in particular)… you just have to be resourceful enough to research them / translate the webpages

Because racism also includes nationality according to CAB.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/discrimination-because-of-race-religion-or-belief/discrimination-because-of-race/#:~:text=Race%20discrimination%20is%20when%20you,and%20ethnic%20or%20national%20origins.

men from non- British cultures

Yeah, those French have a lot to answer for. And as for Canadians...well, honestly. Deeply worried about that lot from Norfolk Island as well. Can't trust any of them.

If you wish to be racist, please just spit it out and don't be coy about it. Anyone who isn't British is "non-British", and I am damned positive that isn't what you meant.

When it's a headline on the front of the Daily Mail it's not 'data' but a claim, with one obvious intention.

Your first nationality. It’s not about where you were born but where you were first registered as a citizen. Being mixed race isn’t relevant to that.

However I would say that there should be more complete data on this including: whether the attacker has british nationality at all and nationality of their parents.

See all the bad faith actors are out already, trying to make the OP look like the bad guy. She hasn’t said anything people don’t already know looking at the stats from other European countries.

How do these brain dead leftie luvvies think they are helping social cohesion and community relations by insisting that anyone who points out the obvious is racist. How do they think it’s helping to advocate for uncontrolled mass immigration when it clearly is problematic. How do they think it helps those second and third gen immigrants who are lumped in with the new arrivals even though they have assimilated and would not feature in those stats, yet will bear the consequences of people getting sick of the impact of uncontrolled immigration in the last 25 years.

But of course these people have no idea what they are talking about. For them, it’s just a fashionable badge to shout ‘oi racist’ at everyone who calls out the obvious. You are behind the times folks. Your tactic will not work anymore.

I do not know what definition of "foreign national" vs "British" the government have used in the past or will use in the future. In my simple mind "British" is someone who has or could have a British passport -

Statistics on foreign national offenders and the immigration system - GOV.UK

I would say that it’s because crime isn’t black-and-white. Even if you look at British statistics alone, you will see that more deprived areas of the UK will be more prone to crime. That means that if you take a country that has more poverty, less social care available to its citizens, you’ll see a higher rate of crime. That doesn’t mean that people from that country are Somehow genetically more predisposed to commit them, but you become the product of your environment. There is nothing to say that you won’t continue to commit them, or that if you migrate to a country with better opportunities that you will, but purely saying that where you come from statistically means that you are likely to be a criminal is problematic.

But everyone regardless of nationality would be required to have it recorded so where’s the racism?

or is data collection inherently racist?

I’d be very interested to see these statistics too. I know what you are getting at and I agree with you, i feel there is a lot of disingenuity going on here.