To think that white British/ American etcmen are just as much a threat to women as migrants?

[malificent7]

I am not excusing grooming, paedophile sex rings and unmonitored immigration at all but I hate all these protests.
I know that my white male ex teacher is a sex offender. Not to mention the Epstein scandal.
Aibu to think that ALL men are a danger to women...not just men of different ethnicities/ religions etc?

I'm not confused at all but thank you for your concern. If you don't think all asylum seekers are rapists and sex offenders, why are you saying that they're dangerous?

What point is irrelevant? Your post is a bit jumbled.

And again, all very irrelevant if they’re coming from a country where rape is a crime for the woman who was raped, and not the rapist

You seem to be suggesting that the police and courts don't comply with British law but with the laws and mores of the perpetrator's country of origin. Is that correct?

You're starting from the assumption that all men from certain ethnicities are a danger to women.

I’m started from the assumption that men from more misogynistic countries are more misogynistic.

Again, you’re confused. And again, I’m not following your logic, or how you think that’s what I’m suggesting?

What I am suggesting is if a man is coming from a country where, when a rape occurs, it is the woman who will be arrested, and not him, then there will be no conviction by which to refuse asylum in the first place.

I’m sure you’ll have trouble understanding this as well though 🙄

It’s obvious.

I refer you to my previous response:

We're not 'shipping in' men. That makes it sound as though the government is going out of their way to bring asylum seekers here.

What happens is that the people on the small boats claim asylum when they land in the UK. Under the law, they're entitled to certain rights and protections while their case is processed. One of those rights is accommodation and they're taken to their accommodation.

The government isn't going to Iran or Syria and bringing people to the UK in boats they've provided.

Cool. Change the wording to ‘the men who are shipping themselves in’ then.

Makes no substantive difference to the point I’m making.

I find it difficult to follow your posts, so was asking for clarification. There's no need to be rude.

I thought we'd already covered this above. If someone has not been prosecuted for a crime, then no, they won't have a conviction. However, like I said above, we have British law and everyone has to comply with that law whilst in the UK. If an asylum seeker or refugee is found guilty of sexual offences in the UK, they can lose their refugee status.

You can't see the difference between the government providing boats and shipping people in and people coming here themselves?

I think you’re the only one struggling to understand my points. Wilfully I suspect.

My whole point is that there are no statistics to say whether these men are more of a threat than white British men.

Laws about refusing asylum for convicted rapists are irrelevant when men are coming from countries who do not view it as rape.

Citing this law means nothing, there is no protection in it, and it is therefore irrelevant.

What is being promoted exactly?

.

.

.

Can anyone say how Labour will determine what serious sexual crimes have already been committed?

Why do you think these men are fleeing those countries?

It’s just constant shifting goalposts here. It doesn’t really matter why tbh.

The fact of the matter is they are coming here, and there are no stats held/being collected to show if they are more like to commit sexual assault and rape.

It would be really helpful if you either quote my post or @ me when you respond or I don't know you've responded. Many thanks.

No I'm not willfully misunderstanding you, I find what you're saying hard to follow but there's obviously a misunderstanding here. The law is in two parts.

1. You can be refused refugee status if you're found to be a danger to the country.

1. You can have your refugee status stripped if you commit sexual offences whilst in the UK.

This information is found in the link I provided above, so you can clarify.

Ofcourse it matters why they are claiming asylum, their reason will be an import factor in having their claim granted or refused.

It’s also checking which is absent. Recently we got a new passport and the person had to do a police check which gives transparency. Supplied by this country to the other one.

There’s nothing in place to check.

Again, that’s irrelevant to the topic at hand?
My responses are regarding to thread subject ‘To think that white British/ American etcmen are just as much a threat to women as migrants?’

And my point is, as no statistics are held on these men, we cannot know.

The countries they are coming from don’t hold the statistics.

This country doesn’t hold the statistics, as ethnicity of perpetrators are not recorded.

Why they’re here, or whether they’re sent back is irrelevant, as is citing laws stating reasons why they can be sent back.

So if there are no statistics, then why the presumptions about asylum seekers coming from certain countries?

You’re misunderstanding, and conflating two separate things.

There are no stats on the ethnicity of convicted rapists.
The report into grooming gangs by Baroness Casey highlighted this very clearly.

There are statistics about where asylum seekers are from.

Because 1 doesn’t happen, we can’t know what % applies to the separate demographics of 2

You could apply that to every man arriving in the UK from abroad.

I agree. I'd actually like someone to calmly tell me why they think this is a good idea.