To think the men women need protecting from aren’t asylum seekers but the ones shouting outside the hotels?

[ForSoberBrickOwl]

I read in the Guardian this week that 40% of the men arrested during last year’s racist riots had already been reported to police for domestic abuse. That stat hasn’t left my mind.
It makes me think that the men standing outside asylum hotels claiming to “protect” women are often the very ones we need protecting from.

AIBU to think the real danger isn’t coming from migrants, it’s coming from the violent, radicalised men already here who use women’s safety as a smokescreen?

..with passports and ID by controlled routes...as opposed to....

And their ringleader (Farage) going to the US to suck up the bum of Trump. What a hypocrite. It’s almost as if it’s ok for women and girls to be sexually abused if it’s done by white people.

Thank you @StopFeedingTheSeagulls. When did people become so stupid that they can't understand that people arrested for rioting LAST YEAR aren't the same as people protesting and trying to protect women and girls including alot of women protestors (the pink ladies). And yes the far left is well known for sexual assaults and was at the forefront of trans activism so are no friend of women but no one seems to be investigating them ...wonder why? Alot of posters on here are just useful idiots and care more about their leftist credentials than protecting women and children. www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/09/socialist-workers-party-rape-kangaroo-court

It was supposed to be lighthearted? Difficult to know on MN where men often equals evil.

The stats suggest that the men women should be afraid of are those in a relationship with them, or those who they've had one with.

The terrible fact is that women are far more likely to be abused by the man they go home to, than anyone else.

Just because they need protecting from one group of men doesn’t mean that another group of men are not a threat.

But this is the problem as I am saying. The people that can consider the nuance of an argument often stay quiet but the people that can’t shout so loud that they ‘rule’ the discourse. I’m really not sure how we get around this?

100 x this. I work in a diverse area and meet hundreds of asylum seekers/refugees/illegal migrants as part of my work. 99% of them are incredibly kind warm people who are just doing there best and trying to get to safety or set up a better life for their families.
The majority of bad behaviour I see are from British nationals- entitled, rude, often racists etc. I’m sick of the rhetoric from people who’ve never met a ‘boat person’ let alone have a meaningful interaction.

I have seen valid videos of local protests. I can also see the people on my local Facebook groups supporting them and being a village I know what they are like. The chants to a ‘confirmed by the council and local social services workers I know’ hotel of only families and women and children of hugely racist songs was appalling. People are not stupid in this case

Is this another test balloon thread?

I live in Epping where the whole thing started. I'm a parent of teenage girls so of course Im concerned about their safety. However, nothing has impacted on out feeling of security so much as the ongoing protests. We all now have to avoid going anywhere near the centre of town when a protest is on. Over thirty people have been arrested so far, almost all men, usually for violent behaviour. The hotel in the town has been used for asylum seekers for years now and this is the first time there has been any kind of trouble.

Sorry just feeling a bit ranty and bored ha ha, no AI here.

I’m really unsure how we can stop the extremes to be the ones leading the conversation. There is obviously nuance to this argument so the blinkered are shouting the loudest and most of the people I know are staying quiet as they know it’s not a simple debate….

Not via managerial democracy, that’s for sure. It’s proved itself completely incapable of distinguishing ‘shouty’ from ‘correct’, or even from ‘popular’.

Excellent post.

And I quote - “we have no idea who we are letting in - are they a red flag to our security services, drug dealers, murderers, rapists, spy’s for a hostile regime? Importing men with medieval views on womens rights means now our Government are being dragged kicking and screaming to the understanding that they are 4 times more likely to commit sexual assault and rape than British men”. From the Reform Conference I Know - but if this is true statistically then Reform will be the next Government sooner rather than later!

You are correct.

England has a long colonial history, in which we have maintained this national identity of "civility" or being "civilised".

This has been used as both an excuse for our colonial violence (we must bring our ways to "uncivilised" people by colonising them), and reframed our violence as "protection" against fictitious threats (the violence is because of the threat "uncivilised" people post to us and our culture).

This, of course, relies on the othering of groups of people in order to justify English violence towards them.

You'll see some people on Mumsnet referring to themselves as "indigenous English". This is an attempt to completely invert the understanding of our colonial history, in which the English have largely been the aggressor and displacer of other cultures. But that's okay, right? Because we're "protecting" our British values.

Similarly, when England talks about "protecting" women and children, we are talking about continuing the men's role in maintaining hierarchies of oppression. These are the same dynamics through which women are oppressed. Men must "protect" women because we couldn't possibly be people with our own voice and agency.

If this was anything to do with the rights of women and children to live free from violence, women and children's voices would be centred. We know the threat to us is largely in the home, because we, our sisters, our mothers and friends have experienced it.

If it were really about concern for women and children, those same men would show that concern by not committing domestic abuse themselves.

So there are organised ' people traffickers', they get paid a lot for their work. The people they traffic may be wrong 'uns, but they're also often exploitable & exploited. (Anyone remember the Morecambe bay cockle pickers? Their bones are still washing up on the shore I hear).
There are people making a mint by housing these folk (when they're intercepted) in hotels and HMOs. Who are they? Do they have links to people traffickers or the people in power, and who's bright idea was it to do that anyway?
Environmentally there are mountains of lifejackets and RIBs stockpiling on the south coast- the only people who will re-use them are the traffickers.....

Meanwhile, green spaces are being built over, food and house prices are rocketing, the health service is struggling to function, as are many schools and people who seem to be unaffected by this are saying," Nothing to see here, crack on."

The disgruntlement is not confined to what some people would like to consider as dalits, ( and what does that say about you that you think that way?).

I don’t think it is useful to confuse the issues. For adults with mental capacity in violent relationships, the situation is awful but lot of the reason they can’t escape is lack of alternative affordable housing.

There clearly is an issue with men in hotels approaching / attacking women which is also a problem.

Domestic violence is a complex problem. Immigration and asylum is a complex problem.

Ah yes Eurodac - the fingerprinting and biometric system which we lost access to because of Brexit.

Makes the Home Office’s job a lot harder and more time consuming now.

@quantumbutterfly (Anyone remember the Morecambe bay cockle pickers? Their bones are still washing up on the shore I hear)

That's being excessively dramatic.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13270797/Morecambe-Bay-cocklepickers-human-skull-bones-beach-Chinese-workers-drowned.html

..but not wrong.

And not uncommon, especially now they have been doing some remedial work to the groynes at Thornton-Cleveleys.

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/skeleton-found-on-thornton-cleveleys-beach-formally-identified/ar-AA1KXCBU

Not uncommon? To find human remains on a beach. I'm amazed there haven't been more on the south coast with the numbers we're told are pootling overloaded boats through busy shipping lanes.
I think I'd be less blasé about it.
I imagine the emergency services who had to retrieve 23 bodies from Morecambe Bay were somewhat unhappy about it too.