AIBU to think migrant sex crime data should be published? And to wonder why Labour are blocking the release of that data?

[Fabiansrule]

Labour Blocks Release of Migrant Crime Data

'Victims of serious crimes and their families have joined forces to demand that the Labour government publish detailed data on offences committed by foreign nationals, accusing ministers of withholding information that is “clearly and legitimately in the public interest”.

Among the signatories are victims of high-profile sexual offences and families of murder victims. One signatory is a 14-year-old victim of a sexual assault in Epping allegedly committed by an illegal immigrant, in the same Essex town where asylum seekers were housed at the controversial Bell Hotel.
Fiona Goddard, a survivor of rape-gang grooming who has campaigned publicly about her experiences, has also signed the letter.

Eight relatives of Rhiannon Whyte, a hotel worker murdered by a Sudanese national, are also among those backing the demand.'

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news-corner/labour-blocks-release-of-migrant-crime-data/

Of course it’s doable, for a cost. Taxpayers will be paying to collect all this in one system across the UK and someone will have to quality check and analyse it. Transparency costs money.

I think you're addressing the wrong poster, but I advise you to follow NE'S advice and do some basic research into how statistics work. It's not tricky and it would save you continuing to make the most appalling fool of yourself, dropping clangers left right and centre as you are.

It’s costing taxpayer money for Labour to spend time fighting it.

I’ve read the academic social scientist reports on it and most of the conclusions are

• you can’t compare rape stats between European countries because the definitions differ, the conviction rates differ as to the reporting frequency
• that in many countries rise in convictions relate to a rise in reports of historic abuse, not a rise in rapes
• that in many countries certain minor sexual offences are or are not offences depending on the laws so a country that seems unsafe may just have more strict laws- examples given were wolf whistling or upskirting not being an offence in every European country,
• that looking at individual countries after adjusting for confounding factors the large differences either completely or mostly disappear such that there is no significant difference.
• multiple fact checkers have also debunked various home made DIY charts and politician claims as false. Unfortunately, politicians are not bound by any ethical rules regarding speaking the truth. They can lie and not be held accountable for the damage of any lies.

What a disgusting response.

This is not about race. It is about the culture in which people are raised. UK citizens include people of many different races, so the comparison being made here is quite obviously not about anyone’s race and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to portray it as such.

The men who are UK citizens raised here will have a far, far lower offending rate than men raised in violent, misogynistic countries where child abuse, marital rape and violence against women and children is considered acceptable and normal, and not illegal, where children under 10 are sold as “wives” to middle aged men and where women cannot leave the house safely alone because gang rapes are a daily occurrence. Many of them are also traumatised (which we know increases propensity for violent behaviour) and desensitised to violence having lived in barbaric societies or warzones.

This has NOTHING to do with the colour of their skin.

Then, if you take large numbers of young men from such cultures/ backgrounds and suddenly put them in the middle of a civilised society where women and children walk around freely, do you seriously think they will pose no higher risk to those women and children than men who have grown up in the UK?!

If so, you are completely delusional. The data that other European Governments have published proves you are wrong, even adjusting for age etc.

You even admit explicitly that young men pose the highest risk of any demographic of violence and rape so why would we wish to destabilise our society and artificially increase the proportion of our population which is in this demographic? And that is before we even take into account the obvious facts above regarding how the young men from these specific backgrounds obviously pose and even higher risk than those who have been raised in our own society, as the data from other countries has shown beyond doubt.

How dare you accuse people of being racist for pointing out these obvious facts that have absolutely nothing to do with anybody’s race?

I await your apology for your disgusting slur. It’s completely unacceptable to speak to other posters like that and accuse them of racism when they’ve said nothing of the sort. If you do not apologise I shall report your comments.

Costed. And probably less money than the money to have to do this task for decades to come, I’m not defending them btw, I’m just pointing out that this isn’t free. We will have police sitting at desks all around the country doing this paperwork instead of stopping crime.

Oh of course you are going to say they are racist.
How is importing asylum seekers going to help with the birth rate and the need for workers paying tax, if they are not fully up and running and ready to support themselves without being a drain on benefits.

Goodness, what a word salad in your links - our own Full Fact is much better.

In your second link, the fact that over 40% of violent crime suspects in Germany are foreign nationals is hardly reassuring (the Danish politician incorrectly claimed it was 60%).

No it hasn’t happened yet. The appeal has just been lodged, it’ll be decided later in the year. It’s costing money.

men raised in violent, misogynistic countries

No apology is coming because the legal, international definition of racism includes the belief that a person is inferior, immoral, violent based on their nationality.

The data that other European Governments have published proves you are wrong, even adjusting for age etc.

No it doesn’t. Go read some fact checks and the publications by actual social scientists not influencers on X or right wing politicians who have a license to lie.

obvious facts above regarding how the young men from these specific backgrounds obviously pose and even higher risk than those who have been raised in our own society, as the data from other countries has shown beyond doubt.

This is racial discrimination, aka racist

How dare I? By using the Equality Act of 2010
https://www.acas.org.uk/race-discrimination
”The Equality Act 2010 says that people must not be unfairly discriminated against because of:

• colour
• nationality
• ethnic or national origins

Someone's race is made up of a combination of these things. For example:

• white, British, of Polish national origin
• black, British, of African ethnic origin and Nigerian national origin

Colour
This means skin colour.
Hair colour is not covered by the law.

Nationality
This means someone's current nationality or citizenship, for example British. This can change. Someone's nationality might not be the same as where they were born.

Ethnic origin
Someone's ethnic origin is defined by the ethnic group they belong to.
An ethnic group is a group of people with a shared history and culture. The group may also share language, religion or geographical origin. People can belong to more than one ethnic group.
Whether an ethnic group is protected from discrimination can sometimes depend on it being recognised by the courts.

Examples of recognised ethnic groups include:

• Irish Travellers
• Jewish people
• Romany Gypsies

English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh people are all recognised as separate ethnic groups within the UK. Not all ethnic groups have been recognised as protected by the courts, for example some Gypsy and Traveller groups.

National origin
National origin usually means where someone was born or where their parents are from. It can be different from nationality. For example someone could have Chinese national origin and British nationality.

Racial group
This is a term used in the Equality Act 2010 to describe any group of people who share one or more aspects of race.
Discrimination because of more than one aspect of race
Discrimination can happen because of one or more aspects of someone's race.

For example, someone born in the UK with Nigerian parents could be discriminated against because of any combination of:

• their black skin colour
• their British nationality
• their Nigerian national origin

Feel free to report my comments, but according to the UK Equality Act of 2010 on racial discrimination you and other posters are engaging in blatant racism on the basis of national origin/nationality.

I meant the initial case. I realise the appeal will be more.

No, the second link doesn’t say 40% were foreign nationals, it actually states
”Also, the claim is false because there are no crime statistics for people with a migrant background.”

That is why they are letting asylum seekers work as soon as the checks are done. Most asylum seekers don't spend long on benefits. Look at the Ukrainian ones for how it can be done successfully.

What a vile response. I have been clear this is not about nationality. It is about the culture in which these people are raised. It is a fact proven in psychological research for many decades that people raised in violent environments are more violent on average, that people who are raised to believe that it’s acceptable to be violent or to abuse or rape women will be more likely to do so themselves. These are scientifically proven facts. Facts are not racist and your comments are completely unacceptable.

By your logic, it was also discriminatory of you to post that young men pose the highest risk of rape and violence. Aren’t you therefore being sexist and ageist, per the Equality Act 2010, in your imaginary world?

You clearly don’t understand the Equality Act 2010. The legislation is to prevent discrimination against anybody based on protected characteristics. It does not prohibit us from discussing evidenced facts about groups with a particular protected characteristic.

It’s not ageist to state the fact that on average elderly people use more social care and cost the NHS more money per capita.

It’s not sexist to state the fact that men occupy most FTSE 100 directorships, or that women on average do more childcare than men or that women on average earn less money over their lifetimes.

It’s not ageist or sexist to state the fact that young men are the demographic with the highest offending rates for sexual and violent crimes (as you did yourself).

And it’s not racist to state the fact that young men from cultures where they grow up with cultural norms where marital rape or physical abuse is not illegal, child abuse and child “marriage” is not illegal, gang rapes are a common occurrence, and they have been traumatised by living in warzones are more likely to be violent and commit sexual crimes than young men raised in cultures without any of these factors.

Your comments on this thread are absolutely despicable and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Blimey there’s so much different language been thrown around - foreign nationals and illegal immigrants and asylum seekers and it all appears to be used interchangeably when they are not in fact the same thing.

The thing that worries me about the little charts and the “ but look it’s proof” is the fact that people seem to blindly believe them. I’m not a statistician so I don’t have a very sophisticated understanding of it all but I was a police officer so I understand that aspect and I can tell you that “suspected” and “ convicted” are poles apart. How does each country measure “ suspects” in their crime recording because unless you can clearly show they have the same system you cannot compare figures.

The other glaringly obvious problem with the “ look at the proof in this chart” is in the small print. It labels all 4 groups migrants but they are not measuring the same population.
Germany uses non German nationals
Denmark uses non-western immigrants and descendants 🥴
Finland uses foreign background including second generation
Sweden included foreign-born ( so whether that includes Swedish nationals born overseas I have no idea )
The chart is statistically invalid without addressing the issue of adjustments for age or sex composition ( which honestly I would need a lesson on to fully understand)

There may well be a conversation to be had here but I think it’s clear why the government are loathed to release any raw data because this is the dog shit that you produce with it.

Actually reducing entire peoples to a monoculture and ascribing violent tendencies to that supposed culture, completely without context (not sure if it was you who attempted to use Sudan as an example earlier but the point is it could well have been) is racist.

All about “culture”?

No, you’re banging on about nationality and national origin:

The issue isn’t about the proportion of rapes committed by people of each nationality as that would be meaningless unless you assess this data against the proportion of the population with that nationality. I.e. what matters is the relative risk, the likelihood of offending per person of that nationality, to reflect the risk that a specific individual is likely to pose and expose that these risks are far, far higher for people of some nationalities than others..

The men who are UK citizens raised here will have a far, far lower offending rate than men raised in violent, misogynistic countries

men raised in violent, misogynistic countries

young men from these specific backgrounds obviously pose and even higher risk than those who have been raised in our own society, as the data from other countries

these particular young men have come from misogynistic cultures where rape and violence is far more common and frequently normalised or not even considered to be illegal, so quite obviously on average they will pose a higher individual risk than men of the same age who have been raised in the UK.

lived in barbaric societies

if you take large numbers of young men from such cultures/ backgrounds and suddenly put them in the middle of a civilised society

If we change the cultural norms of our society e.g. by importing many high risk individuals from countries….. from cultures where violence and rape of women and children is normalised and seldom punished will obviously make it far less safe for women to go about their daily lives.

It is your comments that are completely unacceptable and you are lucky I haven’t reported you for hate speech. If you could just discuss the issue of data collection and crime reasonably without deciding it’s a good soapbox to air your racist British men are best and men from other countries are violent, misogynists views that would be lovely.

You just won’t stop will you.
You really should be ashamed of yourself.

No, it isn’t. Because nobody is saying “this particular person is a rapist because they are from Sudan!”. What the data that various countries have produced does is analyse the relative offending rates on average per capita, within different categories/ characteristics including nationality. That is not discriminatory or racist, it is statistical data analysis, which is precisely the basis upon which public policy should be based.

Trying to prohibit people from analysing the profile of offenders because some idiot who doesn’t understand statististics is going to scream “racist” and pretend that people are saying everyone from X country is a rapist is absurd, and dangerously undermines our ability to make effective public policy, if people can prohibit us even having access to the data produced by our own authorities at our expense and having transparency so that people can hold politicians to account to ensure evidence-based policies/ laws are put in place. Objective facts exist, and they are not “racist”.

The comments made her are absolutely unacceptable and have been reported.

Nice words but I don’t think the racist token is working any more against the increased threat to women and children

The difference is that while being a young man is an evidenced fact long accepted by social scientists that increases likelihood of perpetrating rape, the same is not true in regards to nationality or national origin.

I note you haven’t accused me of being sexist or ageist because you too know these are proven facts.

Instead you are attempting to argue you cannot be racist because you believe that British men are far less likely than men of other nationalities to commit rape. What is more vile? Me standing up to your racist comments or your comments?

Have you no shame.

As stated, this is about culture. It is an evidenced fact that the environment that somebody is raised in has a very significant impact on their propensity for violent behaviour. This is evidence in peer reviewed psychological of statistically validated data over many decades. You have no basis whatsoever for your disgusting false claims of racism and if you had any decency whatsoever you would apologise and retract them immediately. Otherwise, presumably, one would hope that Mumsnet will ban you entirely for your flagrant and repeated breaches of the Talk Guidelines.

It is absolutely shocking. One can only hope that Mumsnet do something about their disgusting behaviour.