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

Ik mnhq should just remove the posts.

And I will again mention the German gang rape stats - the raw numbers for 2025 being 505 German (ethnic background unspecified) vs 578 foreign.

There is no adjustment for confounding factors that is going to equalise those numbers down given that currently 15% of German residents are foreign nationals. And that's before we get into the four nationalities that are mainly represented across those 578 men.

So we definitely don't want large groups of men with that current mindset arriving here, right? Whether Russian or Sudanese.

So the boat with the dead man and burned women what's happened to the people on that boat ?

Yes, I agree, otherwise the people who sabotage a thread by insulting other posters get their way. They have succeeded in silencing the debate.

No it doesn’t. You have completely misunderstood.

You can’t combine one population (immigrants) with another population (non immigrants) in order to eliminate the confounding factors of sex and age in the first population. That is so completely out of order for statistics.

Its like looking at DV amongst the armed forces right? Instead of adjusting for age and sex, you can’t just decide to combine the people in the armed forces with their children to address the compounding factors of sex and age.

The poster needs to be banned.
Next time just ignore and report.

Yes exactly.

When not in a war zone, war zone atrocities don’t happen. British men aren’t any different when in a war zone. So it’s not a mindset of an individual, it’s the reality of the situation they are fleeing. Now obviously, I wouldn’t want to let in war criminals, but we can’t assume everyone fleeing a war zone is a war criminal or that the men from those countries are somehow more likely to be violent when in a peaceful, safe country simply because they have fled war.

That’s what I said on a previous thread; just don’t engage.

I didn’t reply to a single one of their posts, even when they tagged me.

The issue is record taking and crime recording breaks down in conflict, so we don’t know which men have done what you listed.

You’re right, we need to do that, plus mnhq might be faster not on a Saturday night.

So explain how you'd do it, then? Specifically, how would you use the raw data to prove that immigrant populations DON'T commit sexual offenses at a higher rate?
In Denmark, these are two populations who are living, marrying and having children, in the same country. All else is equal. What is there to adjust? It's got nothing to do with the armed forces, these are civilian populations and the only differentiating factor is an immigrant background in one of the populations.

But it's individuals who are just out of a war zone, so that's their mindset.

Berlin post 1945 was no longer a war zone either - the women and girls were raped and tormented for years there.

It is quite funny though the sheer contortions, just anything at all to refuse to admit the obvious.

Which one - the 'part deux' one? Where a particular poster had incoherently been posting messages insulting everyone all night?

If so why not just ban the poster delete all their posts and keep the thread? Weird.

Let's hope that is what will happen because the poster was abusive and agressive .

The categories are German and non German, but immigrants are a smaller subset within the non German category. This chart shows for 2025 sex offences, that only around 30.6% of the non German category are actually immigrants.

It should be borne in mind that in the Federal Situation Report, to which the Federal Government’s Press Office also refers, suspects are classified only as ‘German’ or ‘non-German’. The explicit term ‘immigrants’, used by Friedrich Merz, does not appear. It can be assumed that the category ‘non-German’ also includes immigrants as a subgroup, as is the case, for example, in the data collection shown in the chart above.
https://eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/mostly-false-a-significant-part-of-violence-against-women-comes-from-immigrant-communities/

In the 2025 Police Crime Statistics (PKS), immigrants are listed separately and under a different definition from non-Germans. Peglow says that the Police Crime Statistics initially distinguish by nationality, i.e. between German and non-German suspects. “Among the non-German suspects are very diverse groups of people — including those who have lived in Germany for many years or decades but do not hold German nationality. If one narrows the debate to refugees or immigrants in the strict sense, one is therefore talking about a significantly smaller group with a different composition.” He goes on to say: “Tourists may also appear in the PKS as non-German suspects. This shows that this category is very broad and should not automatically be equated with refugees or immigrants.” Without making this distinction, Merz’s argument appears to refer to the group of immigrants, but seems to mean the entire group of non-Germans.

It is important not to overlook the over-representation of immigrants in the statistics at this point. This is particularly relevant in the discussion as to whether this proportion should be regarded as ‘noteworthy’. Also important for a better understanding of the figures: Immigrants, constitute a sub-category within the group of non-German suspects.

The Chancellor claims that the immigrant community accounts for a “significant” proportion of violence in the Federal Republic of Germany. Our fact-check, and an examination of the situation reports and expert statements, do not support this claim. Merz is essentially correct in pointing out that non-Germans also commit a visible proportion of violence against women. However, violence and the breakdown of suspects are complex and multifaceted issues that have been framed too broadly in the debate. By referring to the immigrant community, he is narrowing a problem that affects all groups to a small subgroup within the suspects. The issue is that no classification of the figures recorded – such as the proportion of immigrants in the population or among suspects – was provided. Furthermore, Chancellor Merz provides too little substantive context to give a full picture of the situation. The debate opens up the possibility of future reflection on whether violence can really be linked to a particular culture, or whether violence against women is not rather a cross-group problem amongst men that is relevant to society as a whole. We therefore conclude that Merz’s statement, in the context in which it was made, is largely incorrect.

What’s obvious?

how would you use the raw data to prove that immigrant populations DON'T commit sexual offenses at a higher rate?
That’s not what my aim is. I have no aim to use data to prove a certain outcome. I am interested in the data being properly analysed to show the truth. The charts by smirkley are data being manipulated to fit his own opinion. That’s not how science works or how statistics should be done.

As for how I would process the data, I would use the generally accepted practices used by statisticians for the social sciences which includes adjusting for confounding factors. Failing to do this means skewed and inaccurate data is being presented. It is impossible to draw any conclusion on whether immigrants do offend at a higher rate or not based on raw data. Smirkley and others attempts to do so is not only irresponsible but the spreading of misinformation to scaremonger and push their own xenophobic bias.

these are civilian populations and the only differentiating factor is an immigrant background in one of the populations.
That is not the only differentiating factor. I wish I could condense the entirety of an introduction to statistics uni module into a few posts, but I can’t. I have tried to explain to you the two most common, basic confounding factors between two populations and it has completely eluded you. I am sorry that I am not a good teacher.

The thread was always going to be deleted and she knew it.

Yes that is a risk. However, we can’t bar all male refugees by assuming guilt. We do background checks as best we can. In addition, the bar to claim asylum is pretty high. They must have evidence of torture by the armies that are raping women to be considered a bona fide asylum seeker. The evidence is usually written on their bodies- scars, broken bones, diseases from being kept in horrific prison conditions like TB, scabies, parasites. It is unlikely that a willing participant would have physical evidence of being a victim on their bodies.

It depends on which group of people you prioritise. Asylum favours not checking when there’s no records, it can’t work otherwise.

But you also have women and girls in recipient countries who suffer from crimes. And voters can say no thanks to that.

That when people move elsewhere they take their culture with them. That argument has been used to villify UK expats who behave badly.

If that culture includes fgm, purdah, forced marriage, honour killings which I'd like to think enlightened people frown on, then I echo Kemi B., we don't want a multicultural society. Multiethnic, not multicultural. There are rumblings among my aquaintances with cultural backgrounds different to mine that they would like to stop people bringing the conflicts and problems they escaped from to the UK.
That presupposes that they are escaping, not just drawn to the western structures of healthcare and welfare that created a measure of stability, and consequently destabilising those systems that created them to the point of collapse.

Asylum doesn’t favour no checking. They are all interviewed, given thorough medical examinations for injuries old and recent. Records are searched for.

There is never ever an asylum claim approved with no evidence.

I’ll add some men too, as we had the Belfast attack and rape of the elderly man.