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?

Based on the discussions here no I'm not keen for the government to facilitate discussions of this nature as any new data they provide will clearly be lost in a sea of nonsense about race, culture, genetics, religion, grooming gangs, asylum seekers and VAWG.

And that's from someone who actually does give a shit about the government commitment to reducing VAWG.

Getting into ridiculous discussions like the one here will do nothing to achieve that.

Let's focus on the actual well known statistics about VAWG and violent crime and focus on addressing that, shall we?

I wish I hadn't joined this conversation at all to be honest.

I'm not up on this law and am supposing you've summarised it correctly: Asylum seekers have a right to seek refuge without discrimination.

Not an automatic grant of permanent asylum.

I've just been reading about the EU's refusal to continue sharing Schengen criminal data with the UK. This data includes swathes of background information on asylum seekers. We're going to need stronger measures aimed at refusing asylum to troublesome applicants, since we'll no longer be getting the heads-up from Schengen members who've processed them before.

As outlined above they can refuse an application if the person has committed a serious crime. That would include crimes against women and girls.

We're signed up to various international laws and as such have obligations.

I don’t think you’ve grasped the point. The UK determines it can accept a pot of asylum seekers - it only accepts applicants from some country of origin for this

it has decided eligibility for asylum on the basis of country of origin - it has used country of origin as the basis for discrimination

No of course they don't get automatic refugee status. They have to be processed and they need to provide evidence of persecution or danger.

Asylum? - the UK should set up.officrs on the centre of Paris, in Rome, in Brussels, possibly more.

Potential asylum seekers register there, get assessed when their name comes up. Yes or no, after appropriate investigations.

No asylum granted for those arriving in the UK if person has passed through these counties where an office has been set up.

Cheaper than Rwanda, stops channel.ports being ghettos, saves lives in the channel.

I don't understand your point. How is accepting refugees from certain countries discriminatory?

Well, yes, you have to discriminate! The questions are about which factors to base your discrimination on, and how you decide.

If you say all discrimination is bad, you're saying we open all borders to all comers, no checks required. Indiscriminately, see?

I agree, too many posters are mathematically undereducated and have not listened to my posts early on that you cannot directly and meaningfully compare data from two vastly different sample sizes.

It's perfectly possible to calculate offenders per 100,000 per the graph of the German figures that I posted. This solves the different sample sizes issue just fine in most cases unless it's ridiculously low, but when you have population groupings at least in the thousands that's not an issue.

Yep. Couldn't be bothered to reply to that bit of nonsense (thank you!), especially with the sneering little comment about uni-level statistics. Which I also have, though advanced stats isn't needed for the topic in hand.

I know you don’t get it. That’s the problem.

my point is that you keep banging on about the UK can’t discriminate.

it already does - it specifically discriminates on the basis of country of origin.

for some asylum spots it has excluded everyone who’s not from Ukraine/HK etc etc

the point is that the notion of deciding who can have asylum on the basis of country of origin happens already.

so your repeated blanket cries that the UK can’t discriminate because of human rights is nonsensical and so broad as to be meaningless.

I see. You think that the UK taking part in various refugee schemes is discriminatory because they should be open to every asylum seeker on the planet.

The vast majority of asylum seekers, around 70%, stay in neighbouring countries. Some have come to the UK to seek asylum.

We cannot discriminate based on things like nationality, religion or ethnicity whilst processing their claims. They are protected by national and international law.

We also took part in various schemes such as Hong Kong and Ukraine. We're not allowed to discriminate against those asylum seekers whilst processing their claims.

You talk about people making sneering remarks but have been happily scattering laughing emojis on my posts.

Whilst processing the claims of asylum seekers, we can't discriminate against things like ethnicity or religion. They're protected under national and international law.

No. I am saying that country of origin - in itself - can be a deteminant for asylum. Asylum seekers are excluded from/discrimated against on the sole basis of their country of origin

and as said national/internal law is not sacrosanct. It can, does and should change and evolve as countries and the world evolve.

the current framework very clearly fails women and girls appallingly. It should be questioned in all kinds of ways.

I laughed at this, @MiloMinderbinder925, and some of your other less than trenchant one-liners:

I don't understand your point. How is accepting refugees from certain countries discriminatory?

We discriminate between refugees from Ukraine and those from other countries. Ukrainians get preference over the others.

All of life involves discrimination.

You don't seem to understand what a refugee is. A refugee is someone who can't return to their country of origin because of a well founded fear of persecution.

It's obviously based on their country of origin.

I know, it's very amusing. I've explained what it means to be discriminatory so perhaps it's no longer amusing.

Hang on, so this isn't about males coming to the UK from Countries where there is statistically more sexual violence towards women and children? Previous posters clearly stated such males should not be allowed in. But you're saying it's about whether those males having emigrated here, are then statiscally proven to commit more sexual violence in the UK? Because those are two different matters.

Discrimination in itself is not a bad thing.

It’s the reason for and impact of discrimination that can be considered undesirable

a basic principle for discrimination against all men - as a group - is to safeguard women and girls from violence against men. Because how do you work out which individual men’s will commit the violence. So some men are discriminated against even when they actually pose no threat. Is that unfair against those individual men? Maybe. Is the impact of that unfairness on those men worse than the impact of women and girls of no discrimination at all? That is how these lines are drawn.

so the question is what should we do at the doorway to the UK if statistics show that men from a particular country of origin - at a group level - are more likely to commit violence against women and girls if allowed into the UK. Should we apply the basic principle of discrimination against all men from that group to safeguard women and girls - because how do you work out which individual men’s pose from that group will commit the violence. The statistics will show what the risk is to women and girls and the benefits of the discrimination against that group of men can then be evaluated.

The statistics being discussed are about offending rates in the UK - ie the stats will show where men convicted of sexual offences IN THE UK come from (put simply)

Are they returned if imprisoned over a year for a sexual crime? How does that work

My personal view is that men from countries where misogyny - really bad misogyny - is the norm should always be considered with utmost caution. It’s not even personal - they’ve been brought up to believe women are basically chattels or like animals that you own, beat and order around. That any hint of what they perceive to be ‘sexualised’ behaviour (ie showing your calves) is a Carte Blanche to sexually assault as they’re worthless and immoral. That women should wait on you hand and foot because they’re slaves and lesser.

I went to Egypt when I was 20 and it was the most terrifying experience of my life. I was aggressively sexually assaulted, and this was within 5 minutes of leaving my hotel onto an allegedly tourist focussed street. Honestly those of you who have never found yourselves vulnerable in one of these countries have no idea. Romanticising the men as feminist freedom fighters being suppressed by the powers that be is laughable. It’s ingrained in them, and I remember a long post by a Mumsnetter who spent a long period working with asylum seekers who had to quit in disgust at how they treated women and how disheartening it was that they found their ‘education’ about women in British society laughable - as in, they laughed out loud at it.

Another time I had a Pakistani female housemate who was on a student visa which was expiring and she was terrified to return home as she said the sexual harassment and oppression was unbearable. She said you couldn’t even catch a bus, in ‘respectable’ clothes as the men would stare and grab at you. We brainstormed how to keep her in the country but she said she would return as she wanted to do things legally so she could hopefully return one day on a permanent basis. Watching her go was awful.

I think people who wang on about sexism against male asylum seekers are cut from the same cloth as those who wang on about discrimination against transwomen.

How can you not understand this?

the government sometimes decides whether to grant residency on the basis of where people come from. In other words it discriminates on the basis of country of origin.

Let's say we do manage to get data published saying that 1% of British people commit crimes each year and 3% of Ruritanian people do.

(Or to put it another way, 99% of British people are law-abiding in any given year and 97% of Ruritanians are. Let's skip over the fact that about 27% of British people have a criminal record from some point in their lives.)

What are you going to do with that information? Ban immigrants from Ruritania since they are "three times as likely to commit crimes" as British people? Run headlines in the Mail saying "Shame of Ruritanian crime statistics"? Look the other way if the local vigilantes beat up a Ruritanian bloke after someone gets assaulted because "It was probably one of them anyway"?

I'm old enough to remember when it was acceptable to try and make distinctions like this based on skin colour, and it wasn't a great time.

Asylum seeking legislation has not taken into account of the steady rise in cases, if you compare it to 2011 it was around 4,000 and it is now around 20,000 per year.
The obligations that we understood when the laws were draughted have changed.

Labour should address and change the law as it is looks incompetant to allow it to coontinue to grow every year if the people smuggling business is left unchecked.

I was in Eastbourne on Saturday and a small procession went passed me of young boys, all very young around 16-20 range and they were singing 'Oh when the Saints' and had a banner saying 'Stop the boats'.
They were working class type boys, not something I've seen- that generation getting involved in politics before, it's usually middle class students doing trans or stop the oil rallies etc.
I think this issue is bigger than people think.