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?

What are you on about?
People - my children and yours, are subject to the laws of the land in which they live.

That means, smoking crack in Portugal, fill your boots.
Do it in Singapore and expect to get caned (if you are lucky).

Being able to immigrate to a country is a privilege which in most places can and will be removed if you make yourself a cost on the tax-payers.

No matter where you go there are some differences in how citizens and non citizens are treated. E.g. non citizens don’t get a vote, and they are at risk of deportation if convicted of a crime.

It isn’t only Pakistani child rapists that get deported- Boris Becker (white/european) was - and his crime was neither violent nor sexual.
It is no surprise that criminals get deported, and if not splitting up families is important, I would suggest the onus is on the adults not to be criminals, rather than on the rest of society to act as a useful idiot to the worst of the worst.

… but you feel free to be a child rapists useful idiot. I’m going to avoid doing that if I can.

I gave my opinion earlier in the thread. First, sexual assault statistics are very conservative because it's rarely reported. A victim is more likely to report stranger assault than one by a partner or colleague. Stranger assault is very rare in comparison to assault by someone you know.

Rape convictions in the UK are a joke and we need more specialised police, more specialised services and more bobbies on the beat. I think that misogyny should be a hate crime and we need better street lighting.

These rape apologists are going to look very idiotic when the stats are released. They will have their ‘supreme court’ moment all over again like two weeks ago.

When the figures show the same things as the stats on the continent, then these pearl clutchers will be nowhere to be found. Either they will go quiet as a mouse, or they’ll pretend they never came out with some of the drivel they are coming out with on this thread, or there will be some other whataboutery.

Why are they all always on the wrong side of history. And never learn. If you want a badge of honour for being progressive, at least pick a cause which isn’t going to make you look stupid.

A friend from Nigeria told me that her favourite thing about living here is that when there is a bang outside she doesn't need to worry. She said raids at gunpoint where women are raped are relatively common. She was in a shared house that was raided at gunpoint by men with machine guns, her friends were raped, she gave the man that held her at gunpoint a condom and asked him that if he wad going to rape her please could he use the condom - she doesn't know how or why he didn't rape her, perhaps he had a moment of conscience. She loves Nigeria but she wouldn't live there again as there is a high risk of violence.

Is your friend black?

The progressives on here would label her racist or a race traitor for saying this about Nigeria. After all, she is allowed to say stuff like this. It upsets the enlightened ones.

Yes she is, as is her Nigerian husband - both lovely people.

When are these stats being released? I can’t see anything online.

I suspect you know that indigenous Australian heritage is one of the largest and most diverse with over 400 different tribes, languages, cultures.

The difference between them and a person claiming they are indigenous British is that there really is no such thing. I suspect you also know I was inviting you to explain what that means to you, and how you know and are so certain.

Are you 100% from the same Celtic tribe with no Norman, Roman or Danish heritage? You have no way of knowing. The chances are your ancestors are from many different places in Europe and potentially other continents. It would be highly unlikely that your every ancestor was born on this Island.

Ancestry and indigenousness does not mean you can trace your great great greatgrandparents back to Basingstoke so you're 100% British. Unless you do know in which case I am genuinely interested with no offence.

I didn’t say I am indigenous British, but I do find this hand wringing in an attempt to justify ‘ethnic pride’ among communities which are deemed to be a left wing cause, versus the vilifying of pride in being an ethnic group deemed to be a ‘right wing cause’.

As for indigenous Australians, would you say Lydia Thorpe is not an indigenous Australian?

No @sparrowflewdowndid but you did tag me and ask me what I meant. So I replied and invited some clarity by what those who think British Indigenous isn't an oxymoron.

Is the argument you are trying to make “British people today are less ethnically ‘pure’ than indigenous Australians, therefore it’s OK for working class children to be groomed and trafficked, and those who want to stop it are racists.”? Because that’s what it looks like to everyone here.

Lmao, no it doesn't

No it really does, you are deflecting away from the substance of the arguments being made. And the question is why - the best reason is that you’re a troll, but the more you post, the more people will think you have some vested interest going on.

So why don’t you tell us why your focus is on pretending you’ll have a substantive discussion- if only people could just make their points in exactly the right way which is pleasing to you. People see the tactic for what it is.

Not a troll 🤣 oh my God, calm down. Report me if you think I'm a troll.

Literally just asked how that poster knows all her ancestors were born on the British Isles.

What's my vested interest then? This is genuinely hilarious.

There you go again with your deflection tactic, with the supercilious “this is hilarious.” What difference does it make where her ancestors come from in deciding whether sex traffickers should be deported, and why are you trying to make it relevant.

There I go again! 🤣

God.

I asked her a question. Her comment was about how "British pride" is being shut down or something, not really relevant to the debate either.

Actually the debate isn't about whether sex traffickers should be deported it's about whether crime statistics should be shared about country of origin.

What is it you actually want from me? What will satisfy you

I’m not sure why Labour think they will benefit from this. It highlights some issues that they won’t gain from surely. Others might.

Yes, however people may have arrived before they needed a visa, they may have no criminal record or known gang associations despite being in a gang, or they could be brought into a gang after coming into the country - particularly young people. And you also see that these associations can carry on in subsequent generations who are natural citizens, although that doesn't afford the possibility of deportation. It's still important in link analysis though.

I’d like you to (a) state whether or not you support the reporting of crime statistics by nationality (b) if not, how you might persuade the poster to share your point of view as to why that is the case and (c) apologize for having to be dragged to engage with her in good faith.

I imagine that Labour is doing this because of accusations that there was official cover up of the ethnic origins of the Rotheram etc. sex grooming gangs.

btw, Indigenous in such statistics would normally mean British nationality from birth AND lived entirely in the UK from age birth to age 18 or some other young adulthood age. Indigenous is for this kind of purpose, nothing to do with colour of skin or Celtic heritage or even where your parents were born and raised.

Statistics = rates, or should do anyway, you would need denominators for the counts to have any meaning.

Problem is that you'll have very small counts of most ethnic groups unless culprits are meant to be identified and counting the denominator is really tricky. Imagine an offender who was Born in Hong Kong to (white) British father and HK mother, raised there until age 6 then moved to UK after which they got prosecuted for groping a woman: what do they call that ethnicity and which denominator are people like that grouped into? Even worse, how do you count all the other people with a similar background to say you've identified their 'ethnic' group?

A) Yes I do.
B) Not applicable because I support A
C) I absolutely do not owe anyone an apology for asking them a question they can't answer.

Have a lovely day.

You can still identify trends though can’t you.

there are a number of techniques to account for variables

I think it’s to justify their next stage of policy.

And why are people more concerned about the rights of non nationals to have the right to live here than the protection of women and girls against possible violence?

id rather an individual male who does not pose a risk be barred from entry than a woman and girl be sexually assaulted.

@MyOliveHelper and yes if it was my adult son being banned from another country on that basis I would be very happy with that