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/

What an arrogant comment to make. You're in the minority on the thread. So no, we don't have racist opinions, we have valid opinions that can be valued or refuted. If you're going to persistently call people you don't even know racist, try backing it up - with evidence.

There is so much data coming from other European countries, why don't we join the club?
We left that club at the end of 2020. That included sharing crime data and the right to return immigrants.

May have is doing a lot of heavy lifting there and violates the centuries old zBritish tradition of the presumption of innocence.

I am all for proper vetting, but when it cannot be achieved the authorities are faced with a dilemma. Do you really suppose that you and your cohorts on this thread are brainstorming ideas they have not thought of?

No they are just asking questions out loud - which people should be doing. Rather than saying passive

Yes to this

Indeed.

Data show that many Reform supporters voted for Brexit. That’s the issue that made Nigel Farage a household name.

Yes 100%

It’s not doing much for those still in it. Look at similar crimes in Italy, Germany and elsewhere.

It’s not a club without similar issues.

Laughable. Nothing about the EU membership pertains to publishing (or not) immigrant sex crime data in news papers. A lot of the work has been summarised by independent journalists. But don't let the truth get in the way of your group think.

Loved his description of the term Islamophobia. A very wise man was Christoper.

Totally agree. He was such an impressive man. Sad loss.

What is your claim? The fact checkers you cite have ruled it mostly false and false respectively that the German statistics show that immigrants commit more sex offences, and I am grateful for your links. Thank you.

I am afraid that this may have been unclear to some on the thread reading quickly.

Likewise Rod Liddle. As a person he seemed someone I might have been rather wary of - but at least he had no fear of speaking the unspeakable. At the moment we are led by mealy-mouthed cowards.

You keep referring to “the data “ but you have shown a chart which is muddling suspected people and convicted people and has no consistent parameters of what a migrant actually is. Do you want to know the figures for foreign nationals or do you want the figures for illegal immigrants. Let me just ask that first.

I heartily agree with the point that yes, most rapists/attackers are known to their victims. BUT that is no reason to let loose thousands of men in society about whom we know nothing except that they need a “behaviour leaflet”.

I can be wary of a man I’ve met online dating, say, AND be very wary of walking past a group of migrant men hanging around.

The op doesn’t actually have to define this, you can look into the detail. It’s an appeal case involving the ICO and Labour trying to avoid releasing information.

It will be known what is wanted, Labour could lose and will have to release it.

Have a look for the more or less Radio 4 programme on this. It explains what statistics are available and why it debunks the myths about non whites being more likely to commit these crimes.

It’s not working anyway. 77% are yanbu.

Women are saying no to the de prioritisation even with the scolding.

Labour actively trying to prevent this data being published, like they’re agreed docs re raise gangs and Islamophobia outcomes too- because they know what the data gold and that civil war will be unleashed once it gets out

No the OP doesn’t have to define this but I’m interested in what the OP believes the data to be. Is OP interested is in data on foreign nationals or illegal immigrants. It’s not a difficult question.

So why are measures being taken to prevent these particular data being published?

How many times do you need to be told? There’s enough xenophobia in this country already.

Using your own arguments, your bestest brown friend shouldn't be in the country because he's inherently a greater risk to women and girls due specifically to his origin.

How do you feel about him being seen by randoms as just another rapist who should be deported back to his country of origin by teatime today? About him and his Mum when they arrived being trapped in a hostel or hotel as a baying mob try to set it on fire? About people thinking 'Oh, he's from there. That means he probably wants to rape little girls because that's the way they're all brought up'?

In any case, one of the huge limitations on data is the nature of what is (or isn't, frequently) collected.

Ethnicity is self described and the categories vary depending upon which measure is being used - somebody could describe themselves as White British, White British and Irish, White Scottish, White Welsh, White Mixed, Irish Traveller, White British and European, Any Other White Background and Prefer Not To Answer and all would be correct. I've not yet seen a dataset that has White African as an option, but there are a lot of people who come under that category. The common UK categories don't tend to include a differentiation for White Scandinavian, White North American, White Australasian or any other particular categories. And somebody could be of mixed heritage but appear to be of one ethnicity - so the person who could describe themselves as all of the first white categories but also be able to accurately use White and Black African/Ghanaian/North African/Asian (and the latter changes for different countries - Asian here is assumed to be South East Asian, not East Asian as it tends to be in other places - and if they wanted to, they could also use Black British as a self description).

Nationality - that can change. There are people who will always declare themselves to be English/Scots/Welsh/Cornish/Irish (just Irish or Northern Irish? It's been a pretty significant thing politically for well over a hundred years) rather than British and some who would say British. And some would say that they are not any of those things, they are a Sovereign Citizen of the Land under Magna Carta and they do not recognise the authority of the State over them. Which is a pretty long description to have on a tick box form. Even a question of 'what does it say in your passport?' is useless because of tens of thousands of people would respond 'I don't have one'.

There's also an issue where sex and gender were conflated in many datasets; when people got all antsy about saying the word Sex and it was switched out to Gender to mean Sex, at some point the self identification of gender means that data is inaccurate as it's not the same thing being collected even before you take into account that some believe that their Sex is determined by their feelings and would always respond that their Sex is Female (or a poorly worded question asks what Gender do they Identify As when the answers selectable are Male, Female, Non-binary, etc).

And fundamentally, all of these depend upon a combination of accuracy of collection, consent to provide information, how these questions are posed or determined, how and if they are recorded at all, how they are stored, whether anything changes and whether the country concerned really wants to go down the road of recording degrees of ethnicity, identity, faith or lack of faith and how they evidence it/determine whether the reported details are accurate, truthful or acceptable to demand in the first place.

Junk data is worse than no data at all.

I thought it was to do with cost and identifying individual groups. That's Labour's excuse for not wanting the data released. What's xenophobic about calling BS on that?