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?

But my understanding in Afghanistan that as far as women go it’s all bets are off as it were. Eg they can’t work at all, can’t leave the house unconcerned, no education etc - and in the context of civil society that is barely functioning.

to be honest I’d be thrilled to know that there was at least some sections of Afghanistan women that weren’t being so horrifically oppressed

your analysis of Pakistan sounds like class is a big determinant - and my understanding was that while
of course there will be different classes in Afghanistan - women were pretty much across the board excluded from public life.

I think so - and also something for men about power.

i remember seeing ages ago an Oprah interview with a famous rapper - can’t remember his name
and I wish I could. He was saying something which basically meant along the lines of he couldn’t understand why women didn’t see female stippers as of lower value than “good moral women”. I can’t remember how he phrased and I wish I could. But basically for him it was fine that men went to strippers (and I’m gonna assume prostitutes) but women who WERE strippers were of lower value than “wives and mothers”. And he couldn’t get his head around the fact that Oprah didn’t think that.

basically women are whores and Gods police and our value (and safety) is determined by this.

i can’t stress enough that I don’t think it’s a race thing. I think it’s a culture thing. I think some men who do horrible things to women would be delightful if they’d just grown up on some other way. I also think that there are many white British men who are just itching to be more openly violent against women and girls.

A deeply engrained cultural message against women and girls is our biggest and most important way to be safe given our lower physical strength. Which is why it BAFFLES me that so many women are so desperate to want to ignore stats that show where there are cultural risks and threats. Some men might be deported for sexual crimes boofuckinghoo. Some men might be convicted of sexual assault when they would have got away with it with not they were white - bootuckinghoo. The answer then is to increase convictions of white men not the other way round.

gotten away with it if they were white

Yes class, and the ones who seem to be doing worse have the longest history of being British given that they arrived here in the 60s or 70s.

Even in Afghanistan right now, there are women who genuinely report to be happy with the conditions. Of course it has fallen.

Another thing to bear in mind is that communities here are likely to be made up of people who wouldn't be happy where they hail from and had the means to leave there. Whether as refugees or migrants. So we have to be cautious when we apply certain ideas about Afghani women back in Afghanistan, to Afghani communities here.

By that I mean we may see some cultural norms that would be intolerable for us, but they are happy with in a place where they can choose otherwise, such as the UK.

For instance, not assuming that every husband that seems to speak for his wife is being controlling in a midwifery setting. Some women, often due to cultural norms, don't like to feel they are challenging authoritative figures like medical staff, but they do want to benefit from the type of patient led care we have here.

To do this, they speak extensively to their husband and other relatives about what they want and need to know, and then get the husband to relay this information to the staff. This is her preferred way of doing things and getting and giving consent. With experience, you learn to do this while still ensuring that the woman is informed and agreeing to the choices made. The better you get at it, the more you're able to interact with the woman and ensure her engagement.

You're doing things her way.

I'm not sure how helpful it would be in tackling sexual violence against women.

You see it doesn't make sense that women would think there is a heightened risk from foreign men, when we all know the risks from men from our own communities is as high. My partner is from the same community as me - our cultural commonality is definitely something that has made us a better match. I think that is common in itself. We are more likely to have relationships with people from a similar background.

We also know partners pose the most risk of abuse to us. So it follows that the men most dangerous to me as a Black Caribbean woman are the Black Caribbean men I'm most likely to partner given my dating history. If you primarily associate with white men at close quarters, they pose the most risk to you.

They already analyse the stats by ethnicity on the govt website, so the opportunity to be racist is already there [esp given the data on display there].

Nationality data might enable analysts to understand whether a particular crime set is ‘home grown’, but as nationality often changes over time it would need to look at those born British and those who’ve acquired citizenship along with non-nationals, and then run data on British [inc naturalised] v British [at birth only] to understand if there is a statistical significance.

Cultural norms of female oppression though remain just that though. Of course where women are brought up in a different culture - just as men - you would expect them to bring them across as there base level of experience.

accommodating a cultural norm with a goal of helping a woman having a good outcome is of course the exact opposite of tolerating cultural norms of male violence against women

i think the philosophy of first goal is very much used and abused for the second goal

It's a thin line, the very same behaviour could also be a red flag.

Ok, but you’ve been suggesting statistics are used in that way, hence my asking 🤷🏼‍♀️

I can chose the men I associate with. I can’t chose the men I don’t know who pose a violent threat.

so one thing I imagine would be the extent to which stats show it is greater intimate partner etc violence versus stranger violence. And I would include grooming gangs within the group of stranger violence can though there is an element of an ongoing relationship

and again - why are you suggesting that women have e to make a choice about what violence they get to reduce?

so what if there are also OBVIOUSLY - other risks for male violence. This is where the bollocks dog whistle comment came from whatshername
yesterday. Why NOT identify male violence in different communities.

if the stats show that men from particular communities are being UNFAIRLY prosecuted or targeted for violenve against women and girls for sure that does show racism - but as far as im
aware that is not the patterns that are being identified

i agree. But I don’t think the stats and male violence the Op is referring to are thin line calls

I don't think it's unreasonable to have the data published, and openly discuss the issues in collection, analysis, and within the justice system. If the data is being collected by the government, they should publish it and the purpose and uses of that collection.

I'm not sure how we would ensure "immigration processes to prioritise women's safety" purely on this type of data and without some of the issues we've had before with immigration laws claimed to be for one purpose, but did no such thing (and likely put in for entirely different reasons). When the age for a marriage visa was raised above the age for marriage, it was claimed to be for women's safety in preventing forced marriages of young women, but in the years with the higher age, there was no evidence it did that. It largely prevented young people from Anglo countries who married Brits, and I believe it ended up being scrapped as age discrimination. Better direct laws and practices came in that have done far more than messing indirectly with the immigration system.

If we make it harder based on some countries of origin or by sex, there will be questions under the Equality Act, and there will likely be far better ways to handle the issue than messing with the immigration system.

People who are British by nationality.

Then we're not looking at crime stats by country of origin, but by nationality - one can have a nationality of a country one has never been to through parents or, in Ireland's case, grandparents.

I'm British by nationality, because I naturalised. My country of origin isn't the UK and it would not be listed as such in correct data.

As much as people make jokes, I do think i would be interesting to see how those originally from countries like the US line up with others. Remarks are often made about how it's foreigners from countries where women are not respected and have fewer rights, it would be interesting to see how strong that correlation is.

Your first nationality. It’s not about where you were born but where you were first registered as a citizen.

It's still a little more complicated than that - for obvious example, Boris Johnson's first nationality would be American, due to where he was born and he would have to been registered as a US citizen first; however, by birth he also had the right of British citizenship due to his parents and British laws. He got rid of his US citizenship. Which should we count his country of origin as? It would likely depend on who is giving or collecting the data and if they allowed multiple countries to be included. There will always been some issues like this with this type of data.

I would agree that statistics are used in this way. To look behind the stats and provide support, not restrict or ban a particular group of people based on them.

And I can GUARANTEE you that at many points in the investigation that led to the arrest of terrorist suspects today there country of origin and the insights into their likely behaviour would have been referred to many many many times

if the statistics show it is relevant to violence against women and girls - which as others have said about seems pretty self evident - why should it not be referred to when analyzing interventions for violence against women and girls - whatever those interventions be

I said non- British because they were attending ESOL lessons and I don’t know their nationality although I’d hazard a guess at Eastern European.
Am I racist towards them? Yes I am. The vile creatures sexually harassing schoolgirls outside their school means I do not welcome them in this country and frankly don’t want my taxes spent on them.

Every single poster knows exactly what you mean @Zebedee999

Those who know exactly what you mean -but who don't like the fact that these statistics will show (already do) that more sex crimes are are committed by non British- will try to muddy the waters. They are apologists-another word for them to tussle with.

It's an old trick-it's used to divert, distract and take attention away form the obvious and undeniable fact that is being made.

In this case the obvious and undeniable fact-according to official available statistics-are that non British men are more likely to commit sex attacks.

Whenever someone comes along asking you to define what a perfectly ordinary word or term means-or who asks you for "links please" don't engage. They are trying-in a very basic way to trip you up. Simply ignore.

If, on the other hand, you are using a term like ,"Appositional Phrase", for example then it is reasonable for a poster to ask what that means. 😁

Have you reported them to the police?

Men are banned from women only spaces because they are stastically more likely to be violent against women and girls than other women and girls (plus dignity and privacy but mostly this). So there you go - 49% of the population are banned from a number of places because of stastics at a group level and not based on individual risk analysis.

Recent stats were specifically released on changing rooms. Statistics such as these inform when discrimation against men is reasonable and proportionate with respect to transgender people are allowed to use spaces reserved for the other sex.

Cultural original is another relevant statistic to determine likely threat of male violence to women and girls.

Lots of Brits aren't very bright though, are they?
Statistics without explanations can be easily misread, as in the case of the popularity of the name Mohammad (and variations of).
This is why we should have trustworthy press that doesn't use statistics to mislead the public.

Yes they were reported to the police and the college. Shortly after that, their lesson times were changed so they weren’t hanging around at school finishing time.

Good.

Your chances of being hurt by a man increase the more you associate with him. If you never associate with men from X background, the chance of them harming you are much smaller than the men with whom you do associate.

How many men from these backgrounds you worry about do you personally have as friends or partners?

What is the background of the men you do most often associate with? These men, and the men who know these men and you, are most likely to harm you and the other women around you.

Most people that have these race and religious based concerns will never associate with anyone from those backgrounds and certainly not in a sexual/romantic context. In turn, nor will their children because they've been socialised to fear them and find them repulsive. They will however gravitate towards men from their own backgrounds who have similar xenophobic views and this is positively associated with domestic abuse.

What you have to understand about grooming is that the victim chooses to associate with the perpetrator at some point. That's part of the grooming. There often comes a point where they feel they cannot leave, but in many cases of grooming, the person doesn't want to distance themselves because they're brainwashed for much of the ordeal. So the chances of someone who has been raised in an anti-immigration, xenophobic and ethnocentric family is very unlikely to be vulnerable to the advances of a South Asian grooming gang.

It doesn't protect them from being groomed, though.

my personal concern is stranger violence - and again I refer to Cologne as a mass example of what I am personally concerned about. And also low level offensive sexual harrasmenr when out and about.

Stranger violence DOES occur - and street harassment most certainly can be prevalent. It’s also about the daily environment in which women and girls live. I don’t know anyone who works on the Daily Mail - but I think that contributes to a drip feed of misogyny and rape culture. All of these things add up.

as I said - is there a reason why just because intimate partner violence may be more common therefore this can’t also be important?

and also if the violence is against women from the same culture again SO WHAT? I care about what happens to other women and girls.

it’s not xenophobic to fear male violence from groups of men that are more likely to harm women’. I fear violence from all men - and if there is a particular group that poses a particular threat then I think that should be addressed.

If the statistics show that there are no differences according to culture of birth (or whatever the parameters are) then that’s just great.

I also have concerns about the level of violence against women and girls by male police officers as a group. And think that needs targeted intervention. Does not make me policephobic.

So do you think the majority of men who commit everyday sexual harassment and stranger violence are from these backgrounds?

I think male gender, substance abuse and mental health issues are more likely to be the common factors that perpetrators of these crimes share.

Male gender would be what I think is prevalent among sexual harassment offenders. I don't think ethnic background or religion will be part of that.

And by the way, I'm not speaking about harassment that would necessarily meet a criminal standard. I'm talking about all sexual harassment. Violence is a little different because anything physical is assault unless it meets very specific circumstances.