To now be increasingly concerned about illegal boat arrivals

[CalmShaker]

I've kept a level head with boat crossing arrivals but recently I've become concerned that there are some really unpleasant people being let in. This story was hard to watch on the news this evening;

Asylum seeker 'murdered hotel worker Rhiannon Whyte in frenzied attack' - BBC News https://share.google/qxzed2MD19TYPKasQ

I welcome genuine asylum but I don't believe that is what is happening anymore.
The story immediately before the above on national news this evening was the migrant who had threatened Nigel Farrage. I know Nigel is not the most popular of people but the migrant was horrid, clearly dangerous and not safe to be on our streets.
Financial cost and all other factors aside, it's the safety aspect that worry me most.

I know it's not funny are you kidding me? There are very good reasons why we cannot 'make' safe routes for only women and children because someone needs to get here in order to make the initial claim- that is what creates the safe route. If you shut down access to men you will essentially be closing the door to those women and children. There have also been women seeking asylum who have murdered other women here? Should we send the children alone? Oh no wait, children have also been involved in violent crime. This is how trauma works. You cannot take in traumatised and vulnerable people and then not expect traumatised behaviours. What is needed to counteract that is integration into society, access to money and employment or education for routine, stable and safe accommodation, safety in society (acceptance from and connection to society), and access to support services and healthcare. Our government has systematically ruined the provision we have here and instead of holding their hands up it was so much easier at election time to drive the rhetoric of "illegal migrants" which is a nonsense term.

Obviously rape is inherently a male crime, and there needs to be significant work around integration done which isn't being funded or delivered to any real extent like it should be. But you cannot deny one person's human rights just because someone else did a bad thing. If we operated like that all of us would be in prison because that's a global crime that is not unique to any migrant.

You’re asserting that women pose the same level of risk as men?
And you want us to take your opinions seriously?

Men are responsible for 98% of sex crimes.
We don’t need more men. We certainly don’t need more men whose criminal background we have no record of.

We need to CREATE safe routes for women and children. We need an overhaul.

The OP says she votes Conservative. I think that question answers itself.

Interesting argument, what about the 12 yo who's about to be married to a 50 yo who needs to claim asylum to avoid it? Does it only matter to you which 12yo it is or where she lives? She's not going to make that journey alone so will most likely travel with a male for protection. But now you're saying he can't travel so actually now she can't either. It's a race to the bottom to look at it the way you are.

"Difference is UK men get likely will get sentences, the unknown men get away with it." This is absolute nonsense. If you are a migrant and proven to have committed a violent crime or similar you will either be in prison or deported if its deemed safe to do so and your application for asylum potentially denied. Same process applies to local men without the threat of deportation. So why you think migrant men are somehow immune to this is beyond me.

And I'm not sure what your other post is asking- if any woman is being sexually harassed or followed she gets herself to safety if she can and calls police irregardless of who is making her feel unsafe. To me that's entirely separate from denying asylum to an entire group of people and breaching the human rights convention on a global population level to do it.

That 50 year old man you’re talking about who thinks it’s perfectly reasonable to marry and rape and 12 year old girl repeatedly?

They’re the same men you’re trying to convince us to allow to come here in their thousands.

Of course I know women don't pose equal levels of risk as men. I'm just saying that in any other scenario the actions of the few would not dictate loss of liberty for the many and for good reason. That's not how we want our society to operate.

I'm genuinely so curious as to what this mythical safe route for women and children looks like? Can you elaborate on that? Because I'm not seeing anyone come up with any sort of tangible solution and I can't think of one myself if you're taking men out of the equation simply for being male.

So why mention women committing crimes then? To deflect? It didn’t work.

We need to have linked up thinking with other countries in Europe to transport and process women and children safely across our borders.

No... actually that guy is most likely to stay in the country that empowers and emboldens him to do whatever he wants to women. Why would that guy be risking his life on a small, unfit for purpose, overcrowded boat to get here when he's profiting off a misogynistic society where he is? The men who leave those countries to seek asylums are often leaving because this is what they want to protect their female relatives and children from or because they don't agree with the powers that be and that's put them at risk because they won't conform. This is where stereotypes are dangerous.

Okay. So how are those women and children getting safely to Europe? How are they safely getting out of their own countries of origin?

ETA and what about their male children. Given that this journey takes years. What if they are going to turn 18 before they reach Europe but are mid journey?

Has anyone mentioned the men who claimed they didn't know they weren't allowed to rape women and children? The one I'm thinking of (though there are more) got off with it, poor bloke just didn't know! Seems it's allowed and fine and dandy in their culture/motherland/whatever

I'm aware of a couple of high profile cases where this argument has been offered as part of the defence.

Sadeq Nikzad - an asylum seeker from Afghanistan who raped a 15 year old. He was sentenced to 12 years and will be deported immediately upon leaving custody.

There was a high profile case of an 18 year old who had sex with an underage girl he was in an online relationship with. His defence was that he had been raised in a closed-off community at a hardline Islamic school, where he had been taught that women were 'worthless'. He had little contact with the opposite sex and was found to be extremely immature for his age, and particularly naive with regards to sex and consent. He claimed the girl had 'tempted' him, and there was never any question of her not being a willing participant.

The judge found that he must have known that he was doing something wrong, because his school also taught that sex outside of marriage was forbidden, but that he may not have known that what he did constituted statutory rape, or was illegal.

He was sentenced to 9 months, but it was suspended for two years and he was given a supervision order.

I'm not aware of any cases of someone being simply 'let off' because they claimed not to understand that rape was illegal.

“That guy” arrived without a passport. Without a criminal record check. Without any form of ID. You don’t know who they are. They could have an 11 year old wife for all you know.

You’re simultaneously trying to sell us the idea that these men are all great guys with just one or two bad apples and all the bad guys have been left behind with the fact that women and children are raped by these men on their journey to the extent that most would rather stay behind with the “bad guys”

It’s nonsense.

OP, are you as concerned about the Reform Councillor who threatened to kill Keir Starmer as you are about the migrant who threatened Farage? If not, can you explain the difference please?

If there are small boat crossings, then women could be murdered by their brother/husband, or men who have come into the UK by means of a small boat.

If there are no small boat crossings, then women could be murdered by their brother/husband.

So in terms of women's safety, why would it not be safer to not have small boat crossings?

It’s only on these threads that I ever see rape being wafted away with “whatabouts” and the person think they’re actually a liberal feminist.

Out of curiosity how many asylum seekers do you really know personally? I personally know a lot so I'm not just talking out of my arse, I work and do research in this field.

If you really believe that this isn't a case of a few bad apples and that the vast majority men seeking asylum are violent rapists - to the extent that you think it's bad enough to want the UK to go against UNCHR and remove the human rights of vulnerable people (which is what you're suggesting) then that's just pure racism and I can't help you with that.

How many men in the UK exist every day without any implications from their criminal records, never have to disclose it to employers or partners etc? How many men have sealed records from convictions in late teens etc? This is a level of risk that we walk around with every day but we don't assume that it's all men or even the majority of men and remove men's human rights as a collective because of it. And they are the most likely to kill us!

So we're ONLY concerned for the safety of UK based women - screw the rest?

Well tbh .. don't think flood risk amd global warming can be blamed on any immigration policies. Try this for size ' all elephants are grey therefore everything that is grey is an elephant' ...no it doesn't work does it ?!

I appreciate there have been a few days with c1000 / day, and yes we would all like it to be lower, but the average is much much lower than this, about 4% of immigration last year was illegal, about 38k

I think that's because you're missing my point repeatedly if this is in reference to me.

I think and said nothing of the sort. I'm saying that in the case of the 90 charges brought against people housed at the Barbican hotel referenced by the poster I was originally replying to, there is no evidence anything rape-related outside of a single charge and what the DM refer to as 'allegations'. These could be allegations from victims, or gossip from local residents who were interviewed for the piece. It could be fifty allegations, or two. We don't know, and the author chose to leave that information out.

In any case it would be unreasonable to assume that half the charges were for rape or similar, so your question of "Which half would be raping in very short order” in response to my hypothetical scenario doesn't really make sense.

Too many ' borders' we are all human beings on planet earth ...we should be able to live where the f▪︎ck we want. Too much flag waving , not enough empathy in this world .

“That guy” arrived without a passport. Without a criminal record check. Without any form of ID. You don’t know who they are. They could have an 11 year old wife for all you know.

Absolutely, or they might not. Out government needs to develop a more timely and efficient process for dealing with them to ascertain that.

The trouble is, it's not as easy as you or I going to the USA for example, and having our information brought up on a screen at the push of a button.

Many of these countries still have paper systems. People don't have ID or the documentation/means to acquire it. It takes time and we can't just snub our legal obligations around accepting people because some of them might be bad.

I have absolutely no issue with legal migrants.
Unfortunately a few miles from where I live there is a hotel full of illegal immigrants, all male.
One is in jail now for raping a 15yr old girl in broad daylight in the town centre and another 2 are awaiting sentencing for raping a young lad in church grounds near the town centre.
No-one knows anything about these males or who they really are.
It's an absolute sin that you can't let your teenage child go up the town anymore with their friends because you don't know they'll be safe.

The problem is that the country is in need of taxpayers, not benefit takers, to contribute by paying taxes rather than relying on benefits. These individuals are not contributing through paying taxes; instead, they are relying on the system.

I don’t have a problem with them being men. I’m a firm believer that there are monsters among both men and women. I don’t like this constant narrative of seeing men as criminals and women as victims all the time. I don't see the world in black and white like people here do.

The real issue is knowing who these people are. The country is letting people in without official documents, and there’s no way for us to truly know who they are. Not even the countries these people come from know who they are. They come from religions and cultures that don't seem to fit well here. On top of that, they don't try to integrate; instead, they expect us to adapt to them. We're putting in all the effort to please them, yet they don't make any effort to please us. They know they have British citizens eating out of the palms of their hands by portraying themselves as helpless victims.

There are ways to address illegal immigration, like deploying the armed forces and police to stop it or sending migrants back to France and other countries they come from after they arrive. It seems that France and other nations don't want these individuals either, and they likely have their reasons. However, such measures are unlikely to be taken due to humanitarian concerns, political ideologies, and potential financial influence from more powerful entities.

I'm not aware and have not seen the article regarding Starmer, can you post a link please and I will let you know?

This was the person who threatened Nigel:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj97lkmd23po.amp

If you can explain to me how welcoming the above into our country would have any kind of positive (just a single one) I would genuinely be interested to know.