Women's safety in Europe after Cologne

[DavidTCDaviesMP]

I have been invited onto Mumsnet to discuss the situation for women in Europe following the attacks in Cologne, and the challenge we face in Europe in trying to help millions of mainly young men, who are arriving in Europe from cultures which treat women very differently. I believe this is an issue which needs open discussion by political leaders yet is swept under the carpet. David Davies MP

Why do you give yourself labels, Kummerspeck. We must all not ignore what we see before our eyes, or hear from friends. Adhering no matter what is what the UK feminists have done; they threw women under bus in favour of what? ..... liberal and politically correct dogma. They are so dead set on not losing the tag of 'liberal' that they have paralysed themselves.

Kummerspeck - I feel much the same.

On an earlier thread I said that my MP, in response to an email from me, had written to the Secretary of State raising our concerns and would forward any response he got.

Today he sent me a three page response from Karen Bradley, the Home Office Minister for Preventing Abuse, Exploitation and Crime.

Sorry for the length of the following….

It's far too long to quote in full but in answer to my specific concerns that some of those involved in the Cologne and assaults elsewhere could come to the UK if they gain EU citizenship, she states that being an EU citizen "is not sufficient of itself to reside in the UK" and spells out the conditions they need to fulfil and those under which the UK could deport EU citizens.

She said there were separate removal and exclusion powers for cases involving criminality with EU nationals being able to be deported on"grounds of public policy or public security", including those who engage in "serious or persistent criminality". In 2014 the Home Office removed over 3,000 EU nationals for not fulfilling residency requirements or for criminality.

She went on: "We also refuse entry to EU nationals at the UK Border if we consider they pose a threat to public policy or public security. Persons entering the UK are checked against a range of police, security and immigration databases for details of any UK or known overseas criminal record."

Now, that sounds all very well and at least I have the support of my MP and a timely response from a Government minister, but it still seems to me that it would be extremely difficult for the Government to stop similar incidents happening in the UK and I doubt that such incidents as happened in Cologne would be considered serious enough to deport the perpetrators or to refuse entry to those with EU convictions for sexual assaults of the type that happened in Cologne.

I don't believe the law as it stands is sufficient. I think it would take an amendment in legislation under its "public policy" heading or a new law that covers specifically the offence of taharrush gamea type assaults and lays out that it will mean automatic deportation on first conviction to offer even minimal protection to women's safety and rights.

Thanks for that, grimble. I think govt has good intentions.

I believe that the reason so many migrants refused to be fingerprinted is because they either (i) already have a criminal conviction outside of Europe, or (ii) they intend to live under at least two identities in Europe. I would not be surprised if some of the young men have entered twice, into different countries, i.e. Germany and Austria under different names. It's not difficult to join a queue in such a melee.

It's been done before. We have migrants who live in England, but travel by EuroStar to check in for benefits in Holland, for example.

I agree, we probably do need some extra legislation. Afterall, 2 months ago US Congress passed a totally unnecessary resolution called "Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States." The thing is the law regarding freedom of speech and of religion already exists under their First Amendment, which protects all citizens and non-citizens. So why make a special law just for Muslims?

The debate around the cologne attacks reminds me of the controversy over the Kriss Donald murder. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kriss_Donald

He was a white boy murdered by a gang of ethnic Pakistanis. It was the first racially motivated murder conviction in Scotland.

It seems not much has changed in terms of media political correctness since 2004.

I remember the Kriss Donald murder, Lightbulb. I also remember the embarrassment of the Left over it, trying hard to find a reason for it not to have been a racist killing.

Misti
Apparently, people on this thread claim they're interested in the facts but are then found to be attacking Emily for making things up when she was wasn't.

I went and looked for this 'attacking'.
MoreShabby responded to the 'Poles' post by saying:
Can you show some proof of that or is that another of your imaginary slurs?
I thought that was fair enough, myself. Other posters have been asked to provide links and verification. If you have evidence, being asked for it hardly counts as being attacked.

A few posts later MoreShabby added
I can't help it when I see ridiculous comments with no proof to back it up.
That's the nearest she or anyone got to 'attacking' emily. This is the same poor defenceless emily who has called other people racists and Neo-Nazis and accused them of being bigoted and prejudiced - in other words, who has made ad hominem attacks. More's comment was merely having a go at emily's comment. I think that's permissible in open debate.

As it turns out, emily's comment wasn't ridiculous, but on prior form it might well have been. I can see where More was coming from, I really can. It was an irrelevant factoid chucked in out of the blue without any supporting evidence: I looked at it and though, WTF?

And then we had sporting with emily is correct (which I think was extremely fair minded of sporting.)

So, on the basis of ONE poster calling emily's comment 'ridiculous', everyone else who disagrees with her on these threads is accused of not being interested in the facts.

Yes. Well. That sounds logical.

Britt, I meant my story was anecdotal, not yours. All I'm saying is that using language which generalises and refers to whole groups as one thing is dangerous because it means you risk not being taken seriously or heard at all.

Look at it this way - I'm Scottish, I voted no in the referendum for very good reasons. But when I hear things said about the character of Scottish yes voters by MNers from elsewhere my hackles go up because I think this is a diverse community of people you're talking about. They have a belief in common but there are nuances in there. Like my Somali friend would say yes, there are plenty Somali immigrants involved in dangerous behaviour but you saying 'Somalis do this,' 'Somalis are that' makes me not want to engage with you because it sounds like you don't want to engage with me.

Lume

Good call - taking the time to spell that out to Misti.

Today I received a letter from my MP and a letter from Karen Bradley MP.

The letters are too long (like Grimbletart's a few posts above) to post here but the emphasis seems to be i) on the ways the Government is looking to boost integration in specific communities and ii) the rise in successful prosecutions of those committing offences.

In detail, Louise Carey has been appointed to review integration in specific communities and her findings will result in a new Government Cohesive Communities Programme (CCP).

Regarding point ii), Karen Bradley's letter outlines Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which allows restrictions to be placed on offenders or those that pose a threat.

What neither piece of correspondence does is mention the proverbial elephant in the room.

Amouse, my point re Polish immigrants was not because the numbers concern me. I made that point to demonstrate that the anxiety over ME and N African refugees is not rooted in any facts suggesting that they commit large numbers of crime. I have no wish to restrict the numbers of Poles.

Lumela, I think it's far better to acknowledge you know little about something than to claim to be an expert when you're not. I don't believe anyone here is overarching understanding of a religion that spans millions and the myriad ways this shapes and shifts religion and culture.

What I do know is that Muslims generally follow the law of the land where they are. That is good enough for me. Same goes for Poles.

The concerns re being 'sold down the river' in 10 to 15 years are comical. Immigration to UK is pretty low and Cameron is restricting it. Why so scared? Is your own identity so shaky? My self worth doesn't expand by being surrounding by white people.

AgentCooper You seem to be saying that Boroughs should not keep tables showing ethnicity of those who commit crime. However un-PC you think it is, this type of information is important to central Govt, because it shows type of crime, its increase/decrease and which groups favour what type of crime. The Det Sgt who spoke to me simpy gave me information that the prevailing crime-maker in my area is a particular ethnicity. What's wrong with acknowledging reality?

No, Britt, I'm not. Where on earth did I say that?! Quote me, show me where it's said or implied in my words!

I'm talking about use of language and terms which risk undermining the argument for greater recognition of the rights of women to live safely, without having to change our ways so we won't 'get ourselves raped,' and meaningful action. Christ almighty.

Agent Re-read your own words .... "All I'm saying is that using language which generalises and refers to whole groups as one thing is dangerous because it means you risk not being taken seriously or heard at all."

What do you think crime statistics (or any stats) do if not refer to groups?

I didn't say statistics, or data, or numbers, I said your language - 'Somalis are,' 'Somalis do.'

There is a huge difference. Stats show that 'x' is a common problem in 'y' community. Not the same at all.

I am fucking done with this thread. I want my concerns about the safety of women in western Europe, my horror at the prospect of our freedoms being removed or diluted, to be heard. But not like this. I'm not aligning myself with this because it's getting too close to language and a tone that I find really unpleasant.

My language, as you call it, was to repeat what a Policeman told me. Jeeezzzz.

"The Detective Sgt who I met with told me that the predominant ethnicity for crime in my part of London is Somali."

Britt, crime statistics show that SOME people from certain groups committ certain crimes in certain proportions, they don't infer that certain groups have a tendency to do certain crimes, but that certain individuals do.

All I'm saying is that using language which generalises and refers to whole groups as one thing is dangerous because it means you risk not being taken seriously or heard at all.
Indeed. If you generalise wildly - that is, you argue like someone who doesn't know what they're talking about - people will conclude you are a bullshit merchant.

Anna, good to know some MPs are replying even if rather vaguely.

I'd love to know where emily gets her immigration information from. For those who like facts and figures, here are some immigration statistics and, for longer term trends, here are some more.

Somalia is a lawless country, and Somalis do not recognise or care for authority, think women are stupid if they do not have a male protector and will always strike at the most vulnerable

I do not need figures and percentages to tell me what's going on

This is not how I want my voice and fears to be represented.

I'm with you there, Agent.

emilybohemia Don't talk to me as if I am stupid. Of course it's not "all" in anything. You had better hotfoot that astounding piece of information of yours to every official body in every country that keeps statistics! Do not bother me again.

Two more names to perhaps contact? Apologies if they have already been mentioned....

Read two articles in Times today, one by Alice Thomson about Scandi countries, being free, liberal and how they will have to adapt now they have allowed immigration at high levels and another by Sarah Wollaston on staying in the EU ( she is tory mp).

I live in an area that has a lot of Somalis and I am friends with 3 groups of women. You say their country is not lawless. I think you'll find it is. There is a lot of misogyny and the women continue to suffer; they think that women who live alone are taking a risk.

What I do know is that Muslims generally follow the law of the land where they are. That is good enough for me. Same goes for Poles

how do they even know the law?

who issues them with a list of UK laws when they arrive? Who?

Britt, I merely commented, you came up with 'stupid' as a description for yourself.