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?

Yes. And we should apply it to every man.

So, again, my point is unless and until there are statistics being recorded on the ethnicity of perpetrators, we cannot say they are more, or in this case, less of a threat.
And if men are coming from countries where rape is not considered rape, then it becomes far more difficult to apply it to those demographics.
Thats the whole point.

The safeguards people rely upon are rendered useless

If you could quote me (press the 'quote' on the far left of my post) or @ me (press @ and you'll find a drop box where you can press my username), that would be appreciated.

The thread is about asylum seekers being a danger to women and girls. If an asylum seeker is found to be a danger to the country, they can be refused refugee status. That means they can't settle in the UK.

If asylum seekers or refugees commit sexual offences whilst in the UK, they can lose their refugee status. You keep saying that the law isn't relevant which I find bizarre since surely the point of the thread is about protecting women and girls.

Foreigners who commit an offence with at least a 12 month sentence, can be deported.

Are you saying the UK should deny all men from certain countries entry to the UK?

What you quoted wasn’t a response to you, but happy to oblige.

No, the thread topic is whether they are ‘less’ of a risk than white British or American men.

Them potentially losing refugee status is irrelevant to whether they’re are more or less of a risk.

I said, clearly and more than once, you cannot say they are less of a risk

The point of other systems is to assess before entry.

It’s better to know if a man has committed a serious crime before arriving, and we don’t now that.

If we have to wait until after it’s not helping the victim of that crime. It’s already happened.

And you cannot say they are more of a risk either.

Yet posters do use it as a reason why the UK should ban refugees from certain countries seeking asylum.

You are proposing safe and legal routes, I think the UK government should do that too.

You’ll need a way to manage demand. How would you?

‘So, again, my point is unless and until there are statistics being recorded on the ethnicity of perpetrators, we cannot say they are more, or in this case, less of a threat.’

This is literally what you responded to.

Although yes, I would argue it’s inherently more risky coming from any country where the women being raped is the criminal, and not the rapist.
I really don’t see how that’s controversial tbh

I’m sure you’ll disagree though.

YANBU at all!!!

I think the outrage at the moment in the UK is that the legal defense of some migrants that have commited sex crimes, is that "they didn't know it was not allowed here" and that "there are cultural differences that prevented the perpetrators from understanding their behaviour was unacceptable" which is absolute bollocks.

Again, why do you think a man flees such a country and seeks safety for himself and his family (wife, daughter, mother, sister) in the UK?

Manage demand?

Only people who get granted asylum will come to the UK in a safe way.

Benefits, free healthcare, free everything?

This point would be relevant if men, women and children were equally represented in boat crossings, but as it stands 76% are single men.

I’m happy to keep discussing the thread title, but these tangential ‘gotchas’ are getting a bit boring now

As for the ‘wives and daughters’ they don’t bring them. 80% crossing are men, and 75% of the small group of children are boys. Can you explain why? Is it that the genetics of men from such countries mean they’re overwhelmingly more likely to have sons? Or is it simply that they’ve left the daughters behind?

Can you describe the system of application? How many do you see applying to your way of entry?

Can't you think of why?

Why do you think more men make the dangerous journey than women, come on it is nor hard.

And if you really can't think of reasons, google is your friend.

Oh, you edited after I replied

Genetics, care to explain?

If their country back home is so dangerous they are forced to make a life threatening journey from France to England then that country is too dangerous to leave their female loved ones unprotected and vulnerable there for years while they get the paperwork done.

We weren’t born yesterday.

Well, as I said google is your friend if you would like to inform yourself.

I’ve read all the so called ‘reasons’. None of them are good enough to leave your female loved ones in country so dangerous you are forced to flee (and where you do take your kids, very mostly just the boys).

You seem surprised that in terrifyingly misogynistic countries, the men see the women as inherently worth less. It should be totally obvious.

Me too. I don’t understand why people on MN are so keen to support men from countries where women are mistreated on a daily basis. In some countries women can’t have an education, can’t vote, can’t work and even can’t be part of society but people see no problem with the views men from these countries have of women and how much they despise western women.

Edited.