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? PART 2

[CoventryCity]

'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

Previous thread here:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5568695-aibu-to-think-if-we-need-to-politely-ask-men-not-to-rape-women-or-men-then-we-dont-want-such-people-in-the-uk?page=40&reply=154338993&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

Culture has fuck all to do with it? Christ you're embarrassing yourself.

There is already evidence of sharia law existing in the UK, why this is not being tackled is beyond me

Could you link to this evidence please? Or are you confusing Sharia courts with Sharia law?

all little boys do have the potential to grow up into abusers and as mothers we need to stamp it out

This is unbelievable.

At least the taxes we pay ensure that these undocumented unknown young men have a lovely quality of life. That is the main thing.

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16076797/asylum-centre-holiday-camp-Wethersfield-former-RAF-base.html

Foreign born sex criminals are in prison at a rate of three times higher than that of British people imprisoned for sexual offences.

Experts believe the rise has been linked to record immigration since 2020 and the high number of people in custody on remand awaiting trial.

3x higher. And we've welcomed these men in and paid for them to be here. Why?

An interesting read if you want clarity on Islamic Law in the UK

Sharia councils in the UK arise out of a tradition in several Western secular democracies of allowing members of minority religious communities to be governed under their divine laws and ethical principles in civil matters and family disputes.

https://talkabout.iclrs.org/2025/09/02/islamic-law-in-the-uk/

I would step down if I was you. You’re embarrassing yourself. You are indeed correct, that many social workers want to leave, and quite often do. But that’s not to say that all social workers want to leave. Again, you’re saying 100 percent of social workers pathologise abuse victims, and they all want to leave. I think you’ll find the statistics don’t agree with your view, but we all know you don’t understand what statistics are.

The reality is, many leave to other areas in social work as it’s very diverse. Adults, fostering, hospital discharge, third sector etc.

This is, however, all going off track to the original point of this thread. We will have to agree to disagree. You hate all men, fair enough. I still disagree with the government allowing all of these unvetted men over from other societies that are less progressive than ours.

Yes, holiday camp UK. This stuff gets back to thousands more young males in the ME, Africa etc, and more waves of asylum seekers head to the UK.

It's unbelievable that we treat these freeloaders better than our own people. Healthcare on demand when many people struggle to see a GP. Dental care when parts of the UK have become dental deserts. 17 buses into town when bus services are being cut back.

No wonder so many people have had it with the whole racket.

We are the laughing stock of the world providing this kind of lavish welcome to undocumented military aged males from Afghanistan, Sudan, Eritrea, Iraq etc etc. They must be laughing at us for being such mugs.

No wonder they regard us with such contempt that they think they can abuse our women and children, and even vulnerable men, and we won't do anything about it.

And yet people believe that the explanation for what's happening is a conspiracy theory.

Yes, though thankfully the Overton Window has shifted and it's become more acceptable to criticise what's happening. Even on MN which at one time would have had a liberal-left bias.

The women of Iran have nothing to fear anymore! Unreal.

Do sharia courts just impliment British law then? What's the need for them in that case? Or do they, just maybe, practice sharia law?

If any of these apologists can't say they would happily go and live in Afghanistan amongst these men, they have no credibility. They've been asked the question enough times. They wouldn't feel safe doing that but are happy to have that exact culture forced on the rest of us. Said apologists have even said these men are badly influenced by our own culture. Seems it's not just islamic extremists who are the enemy within. They tell us to read and weep accounts of asylum seekers risking their lives to flee their countries. All the time, conveniently forgetting these men are leaving their women and children to face that danger. How do you even begin to to find any good in that? Feminists? Do me a favour.

The thing that concerns me most about that article is that a number of the migrants in that centre reportedly have TB and scabies! Should we be worried about it potentially spreading into the wider community?

We certainly have every right to ask those kind of practical questions.

Yes, I think we should be worried. Although presumably the govt aren't worried, but they don't seem to think that their primary responsibility is to protect the Brirish people.

They have broadly the same functions as other religious courts such as London Beth Din and Catholic ecclesiastical courts. They don't and can't implement any law.

As the article pp linked to says: "Sharia courts do not have legal standing in the UK, and their recommendations are non-binding. British law always takes precedence over Islamic law in the UK, particularly in matters of equality and human rights. Sharia councils are permitted to offer advice and recommendations to observant Muslims on Sharia-compliant finance, divorce, halal food, inheritance, family disputes, and marriage".

Yes, I'm waiting for certain posters above to put in a claim for asylum in Afghanistan on the grounds that British men are so misogynistic and awful. See how that works out for them.

Yup. It never ends does it. The benefits we're getting from the mass immigration of undocumented unknown young men.

Certainly some people are making a Lot of money. And it makes the smuggling gangs profits look like pennies.

The original 1951 UN Refugee Convention had geographical and time limits. It was written with the post-war problems in mind. Those limits got removed in 1967 - before mass travel took off and smartphones were a thing - and then the ECHR codified the principle of non-refoulment (sending people back to where they came from because of credible torture threats).

In a nutshell, that's our problem. If an Afghani rapist can't be sent back, what do we do with him? And yes, we have our own homegrown rapists (and I have and do campaign for swifter justice, better courts and supporting survivors), but that does not mean we should let anyone in without cvetting. People who come the iregular route know damn well they would not get a visa any other way. The Danish data also shows that men from certain countries do commit rape at a higher per-capita head than the native population. Excluding groups that have incompatible values with ours is not rocket science - we already do it for ISIS supporters.

Ultimately, I think we need to return to a pre-1967 settlement and have geographical/time limits combined with explicit routes for economic migration, faster third country applications/processing/return and more help for the neighbouring counties of war zones. We also need to sort out the problem of visa overstayers - that group is much larger than the boats, but not so photographic, so it gets ignored.

A thread such as this wouldn't have been allowed either. Reminds me of the women's rights issues and the fact we weren't allowed to talk about biological sex being a thing (😶) for years.

That's why they have docs on call, truth be told.

Again - the government know the risks. And they're allowing it - encouraging it - anyway.

Bizarre isn’t it, as the abuse subsides it turns out women do agree on this.

Surely explaining UK law on; consent and rape, domestic abuse, harassment, etc, etc to people who have arrived from a totally different culture is a reasonable thing to do? Would you rather the government didn't tell them? There is the wider question of how they got here, whether they should be allowed to stay, etc, etc, but while here they need to be aware of the law and abide by it.