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?

Good question when I thought this was supposedly about culture 🤔

I didn't say it was.

I am ethnically "impure" myself (if you insist on using the word "pure"). I was responding to people claiming there is no such thing as an indigenous British person but are happy to claim there are indigenous people in other countries which always strikes me as racist.

We all have to come from somewhere. No reason to be embarrassed about anywhere someone comes from (unless you are American at the moment, perhaps...😉)

Or use faux concerns about eugenics as red herrings

The percentage of foreign nationals in the UK make up 9.3 % of the population. That does not include their children born here who will not be counted as a foreign national and it does not include those foreign nationals who have acquired British citizenship.

So, 9.3 %. However, they are responsible for more than 23% of sex crimes.

Yes, it's a big thing to take on board isn't it. maybe dampen a cloth and put it over your forehead. The shock will pass.

People keep going on about how far their ancestry goes back as though that makes them superior, I'm guessing.

You're trying to muddy the waters, Milo! Always a sign that things aren't going too well.

We were talking about using the NHS. The poster thought that we wouldn't need to ship in foreigners if foreigners weren't using it.

An early poster claimed there was no such thing as an "indigenous " person from Britain. This is wrong. We may as well get our facts and language straight to be able to hold a sensible discussion.

I am not the one talking about genetics.

My point stands that the term indigenous British is not correct as that's not what indigenous means.

Why is it important?

I think the issue is very politisised. For instance, it's entirely uncontroversial to say that you felt uncomfortable as a woman visiting eg Morocco or Egypt, and were harassed.

However the second that same (just for example) Moroccan or Egyptian man comes to the the UK as an immigrant or asylum seeker, it's suddenly racist or offensive to want to have a discussion about the impact on women's safety. Why?

You can't talk about cultural differences on the one hand and then use terms like indigenous British (and discussion of great grandparents and DNA) without making it clear you're suggesting a genetic predisposition to crime.

I disagree with this. Clearly someone who has generational roots in a particular country or place will have a different culture from someone who has just arrived from an entirely different part of the world, where attitudes to women and girls are known to be different and worse.

I have no idea. It clearly was to the early poster and I felt my lived experience was being dismissed in a racist manner.

My point stands that the term indigenous British is not correct as that's not what indigenous means.

How are you defining "indigenous"? Because if one were to get extremely pedantic, no-one is unless you're living in equatorial Africa and can prove you've never migrated and returned at any point.

You felt they were being racist to you? How so?

Because they claimed that no one can trace their ancestors back to the Celts thus minimising my ancestors and ancestry in a dismissive manner.

How is that racist towards you?

You edited your post. The Celts weren't a race, they were a collection of tribes from around Europe.

I believe the dna technique used to make this claim has been discredited.

How many generations ago do grandparents/great-grandparents need to have migrated for me to be considered British?

My grandparents are Irish, I guess I'm indigenous Irish then eh. Am I culturally Irish having been raised in England?

Why is everyone else allowed to be from somewhere? Apart from the British. If I said to someone who had ancestors in say Nigeria "no Nigerians can trace their ancestors back to people who lived in Nigeria 2000 years ago and actually all Nigerians are incomers who moved there" I suspect some of them might say hang on I've done a DNA test and that's not right.

That's the type of point I was making. Perfect reasonable. You can try and make an argument out of it if you want though.

How many generations ago do grandparents/great-grandparents need to have migrated for me to be considered British?
My grandparents are Irish, I guess I'm indigenous Irish then eh. Am I culturally Irish having been raised in England?

If your grandparents immigrated to England then clearly you have generational roots there, which is what my post says.

Someone up thread said that the stastics look at country born in and I think country lived in until aged 18. Or something alone those lines.

there are clearly defined parameters in the data collection

Which bit did I edit? I can't remember and don't know how to find out.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. There is such a thing as British culture and being British. It's fine to say I'm British.

We are talking about sex crimes-the NHS has been dragged in,

That has been done, as the fact that foreign nationals are responsible for 23% of sex crimes while making up less than 10% of the population is a position that cannot be deflected without crazy mental gymnastics.

However, if you insist-let's do it in simple terms.

The NHS employs 100 people to look after 1000 people. This works well. Hurrah.

Then, there is an influx of another 200 people (including children of foreign nationals and those who have acquired British nationality or the right to stay.)

Now, the 1000 NHS employees must look after 1200 people. This is tricky. So it employs another 20 people in order to cope.

As you say, most of those 20 people are now immigrants.

So, the 20 extra people have been employed to look after the 200 immigrants,

If those 200 people weren't here (and no-one is doubting their right to be legally here) then the NHS wouldn't have had to employ the 20 extra people.

So yes, the 20 extra people are needed. They are needed to look after the immigrants.

If I do a DNA test half of my genes (as I am only half British) hail from the west of Britain. So whatever that means. The point still stands.