AIBU to think if we need to politely ask men not to rape women (or men), then we don't want such people in the UK?

[bobbyydazzler]

Don't rape, sexually assault or make kissing noises' at people, asylum seekers warned in guidance about living in UK
UK arrivals have been told to treat women equally, not sexually assault partners or have sex with children in a new Home Office pamphlet. As well as the guidebook, a series of posters have also been designed by the government.

https://news.sky.com/story/asylum-seekers-warned-not-to-make-kissing-sounds-at-people-in-new-guidance-about-living-in-uk-13574744

It's staggering that people just refuse to admit there's a problem
Probably if you live in a leafy suburb somewhere it just feels more comfortable to insist there isn't a problem and that anyone who even tries to discuss the issue must be racist.

Absolutely! But one does not cancel the other. We are cunts for our foreign meddling, without a doubt. But I don't believe for a second that we are not receiving Taliban supporters in their droves now. One does not cancel the other.

TBF we could have banned them and allowed free movement from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany. Just an idea

So as I see it:

people are saying:

we don’t want any more rapists here than we have already.

now logically for that statement to be true, given that you cannot determine in advance with 100% certainty whether a man is a rapist or not the only way to do that is to stop all men from entering the country. Because even if you let one in he might rape someone.

now let’s relax that logical thinking a bit and say ok, we’ll let in people(men) from countries where the culture is similar to ours and they are as likely to rape someone as a British man is (somewhere between 6 and 10% of British men have raped some e).

so if you look at rape stats by country, this gets tricky.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/rape-statistics-by-country

so for example Lebanon is recorded as having one rape in 2023. Now I just don’t believe that. But on the face of the stats that is what it says.

if you look at the data in for example this wiki for rape rate then here the uk is actually top country for rapes per 100k of population,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

again, if we’re going to take the view that these stats are not helpful (and the number of countries that have zero recorded rapes suggests this data is not helpful, largely because in many countries reporting a rape is asking for more trouble)

then how do we decide who comes in?

YANBU. We need to stop these men coming and we need to stop it now. We must deport the ones who are here.

Quite. It’s only on Mumsnet where women and their tiny women brains can’t be enraged about more than one issue, at the same time!

I'm not shocked but then I have family members who practice criminal law and say the Rotherham issue was the tip of the iceberg.

You can ban men in from nations where VAWG is atrocious

By rights 89 percent of sexual assaults should be carried out by the British, because they (we) make up 89 percent of the population.

But the data clearly show sexual assaults are carried out at more than twice the rate by non-British, when you take into account that they make up 10.9 percent of the population. Does that not concern you? We let people in who we don’t have to invite to live here, and women are at more than double the risk of being assaulted by these men than by the ones already in the country. Don’t you agree that is a problem?

Do you really think that's a practical suggestion?
It's a bit like the suggestion we allow migrants from Switzerland and Canada.

You can just simply pass a law saying those who hold citizenship of X,Y,Z no longer have right to entry. The USA literally just did this with an executive order.

Switzerland and Canada are good

Foreign nationals men living in the uk based on the 2021 census so number will have changed a little

Born in India: 442,112
Born in Poland: 356,110
Born in Pakistan: 261,310
Born in Romania: 259,400

As you can see there are simply more male born Indian and Polish men living in the UK so the percentage looks like they are a greater risk. However if you look at it per capita things change a bit. The reason to look per capita rather than at percentage or straight numbers is we are looking at the risk some foreign nationals could present in future if immigration isn't controlled correctly.

The proof is clear. The numbers may not represent it as an example, if the person has been granted asylum they're described as Irish in the media until months later you here that an Arabic interpreter was used during the court case.

Yes. You have hit the nail on the head. How do we decide?

Use a system that vets much better.

Unless of course they're bringing wrong message, opposite to the woke BS of be kind.

In January 2026, the UK Home Office revoked the visa-free travel authorization (Electronic Travel Authorisation or ETA) of Dutch conservative political commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek. The UK government canceled her permit after ruling that her presence in the UK was "not considered to be conducive to the public good".

They are frightened her save Europe act campaign may get some attention.

Apologises I misread your post as Can't not can.

They are,of course, just dying to move here to wipe the arses of our elderly.

Canadian citizens feel that their country has changed a lot too.

And the subject of this thread, ie men who receive the guidance, will?

Just reading that the USA has ever deported people back directly to Kabul

One approach would be to use a mix of our own crime stats and those of countries whose data we trust.

Added to that, we could ask our global network of embassies to help make judgments (as they do with other risk ratings like the travel advisory).

Finally we might have a sliding scale of responses (like with visa rules, which also vary between source countries and respond to visa offending rates).

All subject to democratic oversight where people can debate the right thresholds.

Almost no-one is going to argue for a ban at >0 times (your example of ‘no risk at all’). But I think quite a lot of people might think that a >5 or >10 times elevated risk deserves extra controls.

Did I say that?

We could do this to

So it’s not a factor in deciding what to do re the men under discussion.