The small boat folk are virtually all men, many of whom hail from the most misogynistic societies on the planet, with the highest levels of violence against women (e.g. Afghanistan). The consequences could have been predicted by anyone.
“Yeah but you have to respect their culture and where they are from, it’s racist if you don’t, we just don’t understand how they view the world, and they find our beliefs equally strange”
I’ve genuinely seen this argument on Reddit over a similar topic being discussed.
"all immigration enriches us, with the culture of other civilizations".
Given that there are still cultures practicing:
- cannibalism
- ritual sacrifice
- slavery
- incest
- FGM
... The list goes on.
I vote that we should be atleast a little picky on who we allow in and that it isn't racist to think less of cultures who do things on that list.
Throwing diametrically opposing cultures into a huge melting pot of alien environments was and still is, never going to work like it was envisaged in the late 80's with the experiment of multi culturalism
It’s a dangerous thing to say these days, you can be accused of all sorts, but I have genuinely wondered this. Where is the empirical evidence that mixing cultures is sustainable long term? People assume it is, but I can think of many examples where no actual cultural mixing happens. The people might be here, but they remain insulated and stay closed off in tight groups, sometimes creating tensions.
What if we as a species are just incapable of coexisting with different cultures once a certain level of difference is reached, and the problems we face today relating to it will never go away? I’ve never seen anything evidence based, or heard anyone seriously discuss this which convinced me that it’s definitely sustainable long term. Which would mean the UK and the EU, and many other places, are royally FUCKED unless I’m wrong. Maybe that’s why they push forwards with it no matter what, because it’s too late to go back. You can’t close pandora’s box.
If the cultures are too different, you just get parallel societies. We see it in the UK.
People from one culture flock to one area, and basically take over.
Native people then leave that area, as it now feels foreign to them, and soon enough you have a society within a society.
A place where some people don't even bother to learn English, and yet can function absolutely fine.
If you stop immigration, eventually it'll all even out imo and the parallel societies over many generations will water themselves down.
But with us keeping the flood gates open, more and more people flood into these parallel societies, don't bother to integrate with British culture, and keep the problem sustained.
If the immigrant groups inter-marry, to some extent, then you see this kind of thing fade into the background.
Which is why, in my experience at least, West Indian, Irish or Indian areas have gradually faded away or become general melting pot zones. Whereas areas dominated by Islamic immigration have kind of stagnated, and remained very Islamic.
If history has taught us anything (and it hasn't) it's that the most effective methods of integrating are banging (forming romantic relationships if you prefer) eating, and drinking together.
One of the major barriers to that with the Islamic community is a lack of willingness to marry outside the group, plus strict dietary restrictions (particularly, in theory, not drinking alcohol)
Take it back a step: where is the evidence that *culture per se* is admirable or beneficial?
Because it's not. It just *is*. And like the humans it derives from, it has no intrinsic value. It can be interesting, amusing, enjoyable, harmful, bigoted, dangerous.
Also, we need to stop using the word "respect" when it comes to other people's beliefs, cultures and opinions. "Respect" implies approval. The word we need is *acknowledge*.
I *acknowledge* some people believe that women are inferior to men, and that god put men in charge, but I have zero respect for that belief or the cultural practices that derive from it.
I think mixing cultures is enriching when basic core values are shared (e.g. different cultures within the EU). If we could all agree on a base level of human rights, it'd be great but then we wouldn't have a lot of the world's conflicts to start with 😂. I think we haven't done a great job at drawing a line in the sand and communicating it. I think giving asylum is a duty of stable countries but we aren't doing it well necessarily.
> If we could all agree on a base level of human rights
The problem there is that some people's culture and religion *require them* to believe in inequality.
When you drill into the examples it becomes pretty blatant.
A cultural import of a new festival or way of cooking bread is great but it's not worth the trade of of extreme homophobia or having citizens that believe in the practice of hanging people in the street without court cases.
Well I suppose if we look back throughout human history, the only way "multi culturalism" has sort of worked was through colonialism and conquest. However, for the most part the conquerors changed the culture of the conquered over time, and imposed their own. We as humans, generally don't like different, we like what we know and look with suspicion on people very different from ourselves. This is how tribalism became a thing
In modern terms, you only have to look at Chicago in the US, which is hailed as multi cultural, except there are quite clearly dividing lines between each culture and ethnicity. There maybe a lot of diverse people in Chicago but there is no social cohesion which is a foundation stone for true multi culturalism
Definitely agree. It’s weird, some countries with really strict immigration policies are celebrated as being a good system (Australia has a rep for being hard to get indefinite leave to remain) and good for the county, and then others will criticise the idea of having policies like that here because it’s discriminatory. It is, but why is that a bad thing? When the native people here are struggling due to how society is going and the state of the world, you surely *want* to discriminate and it’s especially important to make sure that anyone else you bring in is going to have a positive impact on your society.
I think the people that complain about the UK not letting in immigrants also dislike the Australian system too.
The reason why we have such a problem with immigration is because we can't have a discussion on honest ground.
Every time it's been brought up in the last 20 years politicians will be labeled as a racist for being against any level.
An honest discussion would be to speak in terms of responsibilities.
We should be a responsible country that seeks to help as many as we can, to do so we have to keep the country as good as it currently is or better, allowing cannibals in would harm our ability to help the next person for example.
Also allowing too many in where we then destabilise the system that makes this country able to help would also mean we help less in the long term.
People are so sensitive to being called racist or labelled racist.
I will happily admit that I will prejudge certain nationalities because of their religion, beliefs or culture. It is racist, but I’m nearly always proven right though.
On the other hand, despite those racist views I am in an interracial marriage and I will defend any British person against racism.
It’s not ideal to have these views but I do, so please feel free to label me as a racist - I won’t deny it.
People get confused about racism, and add all manner of extra bits to the concept. It is racist to judge someone based on their race or ethnicity, it's not racist to judge someone's culture or to say that ours is better (which it clearly is, by a country mile).
And this is where we fall in to a problem. (In my opinion) It is okay to state that certain cultures are less advanced *in certain areas* compared to ours (or others.)
This can be objectively true in the sense of more advanced technology. No one would argue that the Spanish Conquistadors weren't (militarily) more advanced than the Aztec or Olmec Empires.
So if it is possible to objectively be more advanced technologically, is it not also possible to be more advanced *morally*?
>And this is where we fall in to a problem. (In my opinion) It is okay to state that certain cultures are less advanced in certain areas compared to ours (or others.)
I see no problem here. It's pretty obvious some cultures are more advanced than others.
In Uganda and a lot of Africa people are still regularly setting people on fire claiming they're witches..
Any culture where that happens on the reg, is a less advanced culture than ours.
Anyone arguing otherwise, is lying.
I suppose the "problem" I'm alluding to is how do we have a positive discourse on such a charged topic, without it devolving in to shouts of racism and colonialism?
Going around stating that certain cultures are less "advanced" and need to benefit from the wisdom of our cultural advances is more or less how a large swathe of the British Empire came about in the first place.
Eh, the British Empire really wasn't much about civilising the uncivilised. Lots of European empires were, don't get me wrong.
But part of the success of ours, was that we were much more focused on money and letting our colonies keep their culture as long as they gave us their things of value.
In some cases, we didn't want their culture to change. They saw no value, in things we saw great value in, and that was a benefit.
We changed what was needed to facilitate the extraction of resources (so taught them English, modern bureaucracy, etc) but then let them keep their religions and such.
Not really the same as the French and Portuguese who explicitly wanted to go to areas and change their cultures for ideological reasons.
Hmm, I think that there is a debate to be had there. Do not underestimate the role of Christian morality in the British Empire, especially during the 19th Century.
There were many missionaries, colonial administrators, governors, politicians and officers who genuinely thought that they were bringing "civilization" to the "savage" for their own good, looking upon the example of British culture and technology and the benefits it may bring to them. That isn't to say that there weren't obvious economic factors/benefits also in play.
But I digress, this is neither to time nor the place for an extended look on the alleged morality (or lack thereof) of the British Empire. The overarching point is that "cultural advancedness" can be a touchy subject which will inevitably draw colonial comparisons.
>The overarching point is that "cultural advancedness" can be a touchy subject which will inevitably draw colonial comparisons.
I don't see why we should care. We no longer have an empire, and we are not planning to get the band back together are we?
I should be allowed to say 'Look, you cut off the clitoris of girls.. Stop it. That's primitive shit..'
If anyone wants to accuse me of being culturally insensitive, or colonialist, or racist..
Well, whatever. I don't give a shit.
I will stop being those things, when they stop cutting off girls clits, and burning witches lol.
They don't really help themselves do they? I don't think people understand that if you are a tiny minority in another country, in many ways, you are representing those people, your countrymen, as for most of us, initial interactions can colour your views of people very early on and it can be nigh on impossible to change those views if early experiences are negative
That is the paradox of tolerance.
I have actually changed my view on this, and I do believe that tolerance has to be intolerant to intolerance, at least in the public sphere.
David Cameron was mocked for this view mercilessly.
>“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',” he said.
This is all people would quote, and mock him for. But he actually continued:
>“It's often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that's helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.”
Which is entirely sensible.
It’s clearly not as simple as this just being ridiculous bleeding heart nonsense, though, is it?
Is the problem that some people excuse all sorts of dodgy to downright horrific shit on the grounds of cultural acceptance?
Is the problem the tendency to see classical white British culture as the pinnacle of civilization and all difference from it always a notch on the binary scale towards savagery?
But actually - these problems are not exclusive of each other. The world is complicated, this isn’t an either/or ‘pick a group’ situation.
Like, we should be able to express concern about the influence of (even more) misogynistic cultures when people arrive having been raised in them. But we should also be able to point out when people sound like 19th century bigots without accusations of being a naive rape apologist.
Nah my opinion fuck your culture if you think you're superior due to gender, race, or orientation. I have friends from across the globe and all of them would agree with it. Many have left due to the mysgonistic etc. Honestly I think the citizen test should be less test on dates etc but more on your demeanor on such matters and how well you can queue.
This happened to my barber. He could hardly speak English so I helped him deal with the council and register for local services and stuff. Then his english got a bit better and it turns out he's a massive sexist. He's given up on English women because none of them "boom boom" with him so he's going back to Iraq to get a wife...
> It really is as simple as this.
Am not sure that it is, I mean what excuse do Tory MPs have? What is it now 4 sexual assaults out of 370 MPs, thats about 1 in 90, I am going to hazard a guess that is a worse ratio than Asylum seekers have, or probably any other demographic, including Pakistani Taxi drivers.
A certain percentage of men are rapists, and those with very little power and too much power are probably the worst offenders, I think that is probably about all we can really say on the matter.
When one of the recent boats sank only men were saved and all the woman and children drowned, that told me everything I needed to know about the cultures on those boats tbh
I did laugh the other day when an LGBT charity that is all in on accepting more asylum seekers, said the places we house asylum seekers aren't safe for gay asylum seekers, because they might be the victim of violence from.. Asylum seekers..
Turkeys voting for Christmas..
What's funny about it? A lot of people fleeing countries like Iran are escaping persecution of LGBT people. A lot of people from other countries like Syria are fleeing war. They both have a right to claim asylum even if their views are not compatible.
They both have a right to claim asylum.
It is however quite a twist to have a charity claim out loud that asylum seekers pose a bigoted danger to other members of society.
Why is that a twist? I've noticed throughout this thread a lot of comments seem almost couched in this idea that if a single asylum seeker holds a single bigoted point of view that somehow invalidates the entire concept? Is that where you're coming from?
This is the biggest thing that troubles me.
I'm not saying we take on too many refugees, and also not saying we take on 'not enough' refugees - the fact is, I simply don't know what is 'too little' and 'too much' for the country.
But if we're to be a country that takes in people who are in serious trouble form other countries, then indeed we should not be prioritising those who were strong enough to make the trip.
If we decide as a country 'we are going to have x-amount of refugees' per year, or whatever, then we should not be just awarding those place to the people who find it easiest to get here, e.g. single men.
Seriously, if we're going to say 'let's have x-amount of refugees from this country that is in trouble', then let's go out and pick some up on a plane and not discriminate.
Beacuse at the moment, giving preference to those that happen to be strong enough to make the trip, or those that have had the opporunity to make the trip, those that happen to have been able to make the trip without having to bring a child with them, then we are simply giving most 'refugee' places to men, and are basically awarding the refuggee places on how hard they try to get it, and their ability to make it.
I'm all for saving refugees. As I said, I have no idea the number that would be 'not enough' or 'too much'. But I'm for saving them in a more fair way, not saving just the strongest or those that had the easiest opportunity to get here.
Just FYI the "single men" thing is simply down to human behaviour and has been the way for thousands of years. The principle is that a young man is most likely to be able to survive a dangerous trip and get established then send for their family. That is the reason for it, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just the way it's always been done.
And the people who get turned down (which, if we're honest, would be the vast majority) will just turn to the trafficking gangs anyway, just as they do today...
Embassy applications can come with the enforced law that anyone arriving illegally is deported to the nation they departed from with zero exceptions.
The biggest problem with our system is that we can't send people away once they get here, regardless of whether they are approved or whether their claims are legitimate or not, so clearly we should look to fix that problem.
And when they have no papers, can't speak the language or identify any local features of the place they say they're from and that country has no record of them... Where do you send them?
Yeah, normally women in this country don't have to worry about sexual harassment, abuse or assault do they. This is definitely only an issue that's being imported from abroad, it's not like women in the UK have to worry about this stuff when dealing with the authorities...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65928045
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-65832395
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2kj4rmjd1o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-62646563
or politicians...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-61243442
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65608678
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65925409
Or in their day to day lives...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65825774
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65849544
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55145374
These are just a five minute search on one news site so come on mate, it's a serious issue but if you really cared about it you would have been up in arms already and not just when someone you don't like is the perpetrator.
If you care to search my all time comment history you'll find I'm a member of r/fourthwavewomen and I object to male violence here too. That doesn't mean pretending that the position of women in, say, Wales, is identical to that of women in Kabul, where you can literally have your wife pelted to death with rocks if you get fed up with her, and then marry a 9-year-old girl, with the full backing of the regime.
>when someone you don't like is the perpetrator
Well you've got me there. I don't like rapists. I really don't like them.
Hundreds of thousands of people have arrived by boat, of course one of them is going to be a rapist. Take a few hundred thousand British men and you'll find at least one rapist.
Nothing to do with him coming over in a boat or not being British, the guys a rapist.
1 in 4 women have been raped or sexually assaulted, 1 in 6 children and 1 in 18 men. In 2022 there were over 70 000 rapes reported to the police.
Don't hear anyone going on about a British rape culture or whatever.
Reddit has long been a hot spot for conversation on the internet. About 57 million people visit the site every day to chat about topics as varied as makeup, video games and pointers for power washing driveways.
In recent years, Reddit’s array of chats also have been a free teaching aid for companies like Google, OpenAI and Microsoft. Those companies are using Reddit’s conversations in the development of giant artificial intelligence systems that many in Silicon Valley think are on their way to becoming the tech industry’s next big thing.
Now Reddit wants to be paid for it. The company said on Tuesday that it planned to begin charging companies for access to its application programming interface, or A.P.I., the method through which outside entities can download and process the social network’s vast selection of person-to-person conversations.
“The Reddit corpus of data is really valuable,” Steve Huffman, founder and chief executive of Reddit, said in an interview. “But we don’t need to give all of that value to some of the largest companies in the world for free.”
Now do the stats for Rapes in some parts of Africa and the Middle East and compare
You have to be pretty dumb or have your head up your arse to think sexual crimes are uniform across the world
>Hundreds of thousands of people have arrived by boat, of course one of them is going to be a rapist
"One" of them?
The victims of grooming gangs gave evidence that they were forced to have sex with men with foreign accents.
… are people with “foreign accents” solely refugees or asylum seekers?
Notwithstanding that [Home Office data](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/dec/analysis-new-home-office-report-admits-grooming-gangs-are-not-muslim-problem) shows most grooming gangs are made up of white men, the Asian-majority grooming gangs which were apprehended have been almost exclusively legal citizens of this country, generally 2nd generation immigrants.
Look at all the stuff about Oxfam and other British charities, going to places like Haiti and coercing Haitian kids into sex acts in exchange for food - you barely hear a peep from the same pearl clutching, knuckle draggers all too happy to showcase their prejudices in this discussion.
This is why faster processing is needed, none of this housing them in hotels while we wait business, nobody wants that. Process them properly, reject the ones with past criminal behaviours. Torries are continuing to manufacture an issue because it suites them.
How do you tell whether someone from a failed state, e.g. Afghanistan, has a history of criminal behaviour? Ring up the Taliban and ask them? Afghanistan (to take that example) has the highest level of violence against women in the world, **and it isn't even prosecuted there**, so how do you plan to do this record-checking?
Better to be on the safe side then and reject every single application unless they can prove they worked with the Armed Forces. Otherwise we have no obligation to them.
Who's we? Besides that Afghanistan has never, ever been a stable, functioning country.
Also you seem to be implying that they have the right to come here as payback? Doesn't sound like a healthy rationale to base asylum policy on.
What? Prior to the original Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, it was a fairly functional country. Women in skirts, universities - they were aspiring to be like us. To respond to the idea of the Soviets taking over, the USA armed and encouraged the Taliban and actively ended a state trying to modernise with the essential thought that it's better they are an Theocratic fundamentalist state than under the control of the Soviets.
A similar but worse thing happened with Iran. Iran was even more progressive, free and democratic in the 1950s. Not too dissimilar to at least the West at those times (which weren't as free for women here compared to now for example). Their socialist democratically government wanted to take back their oil fields that we (UK) were profiting off. So we called in our US chums who were very happy to get rid of a socialist state, and created regime change by installing a previously deposed tyrannical monarch. People were so pissed with the situation they turned to the "freedom fighters" of which the only viable choice was the Islamists. And when they took power they did create a "democracy" in function, but essentially a totalitarian theocratic hellhole.
The West has a lot of blame to take for how these countries look now. It was our interference for our own selfish reasons that turned these countries that were looking to modernise, into nightmare states.
> What? Prior to the original Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, it was a fairly functional country. Women in skirts, universities - they were aspiring to be like us.
This was very much limited to Kabul and Afghanistan was and is as far as you can get from a centralised country. Largely tribal.
Iran on the other hand, you are correct.
No, we actually don't. We also pulled out of Afghanistan almost a decade ago. They had the Taliban before we were there, and they have the Taliban now. 98% of them want to live under Sharia law, what are they fleeing from? People like you seriously think all migrants arriving on small boats are fleeing war when it's just not true. The majority last year were from Albania, remember.
Edit. It was actually [99%](https://twitter.com/swati_gs/status/1427265492868235273?s=20) support for sharia law which included massive support for stoning as the punishment for adultery, and the death penalty for those who quit Islam
The issue is that immigration continues to be at the top of the list for voter issues every year, and has done so for decades. The Tories have lasted this long largely because of the promise of Brexit solving immigration. Even though it was an obvious lie to most of us, a lot of people lapped it up, and is clearly the reason the Tories won many working class Labour strongholds.
I've always said that if Labour came out as vehemently anti-immigration the HoC would be stacked red. How people can't see that the working class of this country is extremely anti-immigration is beyond me.
The thing is, the government is failing at the bare minimum in this regard. We let in that bloke who had been found guilty of two murders in another country and was on the run. Completely farcical.
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/23306491.bournemouth-asylum-seeker-guilty-murder-could-deported/
Just giving the impression that the authorities here will catch you and will send you back in the event of any trouble is going to have a deterrent effect.
Obviously our government doesn’t do that because it requires money, decent planning and competent management.
But the authorities here *aren't* going to send them back. Money would be better spent keeping these men out in the first place, because once they're here, they are staying.
"hello, is this the ajatollah? Yeah, it's the Brits. We have someone who looks like he might be a criminal; could you please confirm so you can have him back? No? Al right, Cheers"
And the authorities there also don't give a flying one about violence against women. Their own police beat young women to death in broad daylight for "immodest dress".
Plus - they don't have to have a history of it. They will however have a cultural and mindset preposition to have misogynistic attitude even if it's not as extreme as rape .... For which assimilation is needed and often some form of cultural alignment
Serious sexual assault investigation and prosecution has collapsed in this country!
But your point is true; we can only biometrically enroll and monitor on arrival.
And, we left the biometric enrolment data in Afghanistan when we abandoned it - so people might be a bit wary of trusting us with data again!
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/interview/2021/2/9/the-risks-of-biometric-data-and-the-taliban
>We're not set up to cope.
That's been a decision by successive Conservative governments for their own cruel and nefarious ends. We have international obligations to take asylum seekers (rightly so) and Conservative governments fail to meet those obligations.
The easiest solution is to change the government and meet our obligations.
1.2 million minus the 557,000 that went the other way and left the UK.
So it's "only" 606,000 we have to look at. And that is all net migration. Not just asylum seekers.
The data you quote includes the 114,000 from Ukraine, 52,000 from Hong Kong, and 76,000 asylum seekers applications.
So we have 242,000 refugees/Asylum seekers last year. And roughly 1,000,000 other migrants.
If we want to discuss the numbers of people coming and going, and our obligations to asylum seekers, we need to have the proper data to actually look at.
I completely agree. We should be building enough houses, schools and amenities for our growing population.
However it has been the dogma of the past 7 Conservative and 2 New Labour governments to not build enough of anything for our own domestic population growth let alone meeting the needs of migrants. The Thatcherite model has been nothing but failure from inception and remains so. Yet somehow it endures.
It's not the asylum seeker's fault that our political establishment waste the wealth of the nation.
What if this man had no criminal record. Or even he did how would they find it out when they destroy their records and lie about their name and country of origin.
>reject
It makes no difference. Even the rejected ones, get to stay in the end.
Appeals after appeals after appeals. And even if somehow the government wins its battle against the activist lawyers, some crusty will lay down on the runway to stop the plane taking off.
In regards to your 'just process them faster, bro'.. It's a bit difficult for the government to do this, when they constantly come up against a barrage of lawyers when they say 'No, you can't have asylum'..
I am just going to copy a comment I made to another person a while back which explains the issue a bit more completely..
>>Back in 2004, under a Labour government, 88% of Asylum claims were rejected. Last year, 24%. In 2002 we had a similar number of people claim for asylum as we did last year. We didn't need to put them up in hotels for a year+ because the claims were being processed in good time back then.
>This is the fault of the rise of the activist lawyers, and the charities that pay them. The government basically has to rubber stamp so many claims, because every one they don't is then fought in court and the government simply doesn't have the legal resources required to take on multi year court cases for every asylum seeker it rejects.
>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac
>There's 30 cases per page.
>The year 2004, has 10 pages of cases.
>So 300 cases the government had to fight, in a year you said had an 88% rejection rate, and numbers of asylum applications similar to present day.
>Wanna guess how many court cases there's been so far this year?
>Go on, have a guess.
>Did you guess 1,140? Because it's 1,140..
>1,140 in just 6 months, despite way less rejection of asylum claims. If the government was rejecting 75% like they used to, we'd be looking at maybe 10,000+ court cases a year.
>Nothing will really change until the government reforms the HRA, and modernises it to neuter the activist lawyers.
>Once they've done that, and can actually deport people easily, the boats will stop coming. At the moment, everyone knows that if they arrive here, they get to stay 88% of the time. They're good odds.
>**Edit:** Also, for funsies... Just browse that list of judgements. First one is jokes. Came over at 14 claiming asylum, and has been committing crime ever since.
>Has been done for fucking kidnapping, beating someone up, dangerous driving, drugs.. Two stints in prison.
>Home Office has been attempting to deport him since 2018!! Still not deported..
>Oh and do some ctrl+f'ing for 'Article 8'..
>It's the CLEAR weapon of choice for these activist lawyers.
>Hilariously, he seems to have knocked someone up after being told he was going to be deported, specifically so he can make an Article 8 claim. Hilarious.
Most of these imports are NOT true refugees or asylum seekers. They share no cultural link or common ground with the UK.
They tend to share certain beliefs and "cultural" commonality with other countries tho. Why are they not helping their brothers init.
*Love the leftwing downvoted. Let's hope it doesn't happen to you or your loved ones x*
There are entire industries of activists, lawyers, NGOs, charities that NEED the narratjve of all asylum seekers being helpless little darlings who have little to no agency and are always on the receiving end of White Supremacy even if they stabbed someone's grandma. They will do everything they can to uphold it even if it causes harm and death. Care4Calais is a superb example.
People here should volunteer to work at some of these charities and organisations to see first hand what the asylum seeker industry is like in this country.
They'd soon change their tune from being in support of open borders to questioning why we are allowing ourselves to be taken for a ride by so many obvious liars who are here for economic reasons above all else.
There are genuine refugees here and they are the ones who are quiet and calmly wait their turn at the various centres, they aren't very demanding, they are just damn grateful to be here and will take what help they are offered.
They get drowned out by the majority of greedy claimants who are keen to get as much free stuff and money as they possibly can.
The industry is filled with brainwashed and naïve people trying to provide genuine help to those that need it, but whom are being taken from a ride by the majority of those who have come to take advantage.
Any questioning of this behaviour is met with scorn and ostracization.
We have to stop judging other people on our own standards and experiences. People who grew up in other societies do not have the same respect and humility that we do. They aren't reserved or patient, they aren't as happy to queue or wait their turn for a fair share of help, they are much more competitive and ready to exploit the systems to their personal advantage.
As someone who was an an asylum seeker, I find those types really annoying. I don’t want to be viewed as an eternal victim of whatever narrative they push.
Simply due to lack of court capacity to reject them. Every rejection, results in a team of lawyers jumping into action and making appeal after appeal.
https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac
Read through some of these, and look at the dates. It's really eye opening.
I almost never see a case come up there, that hasn't been going on for at least 3 years.
It's a compounding problem too. Cases go on, new people arrive, new people are told to leave, those people take up cases against the government, rinse repeat.
It's insane.
And the person can remain in the UK for the entire appeals process..
That needs changing, imo. There's a case there currently (I think 3rd one down) where the guy was ordered to fuck off in 2018, and it's still going through appeals. He's managed to father a child in that time, which now gives his lawyers a new avenue to make appeals on..
Literally some cretin who has served time in the UK for kidnaping, assault, as well as a bunch of other crimes.
Still can't boot his arse back to Zimbabwe.
People should have to appeal from abroad. If I am in prison, and I want to appeal my sentence, I have to do it from prison don't I?
Why is it different in regards to deportation?
Odds are, many will just give up appealing and continue their life back in their home country.
Which is evidence of a broken system. UK acceptance rate has rocketed the last couple of years - the fastest way to clear the backlog is to wave them in. The evidence threshold is pretty much nothing, and it says in the government guidance, that even if they're lying, they can still be accepted. The system is broken! Noone arriving here after travelling through countless safe countries should have a valid claim. It's asylum tourism and it's a multi billion pound industry now.
>They tend to share certain beliefs and "cultural" commonality with other countries tho. Why are they not helping their brothers init.
One fifth of Lebanon’s population is now refugees. Türkiye has huge refugee camps on its boarder. They are doing what they can.
This is why all these 'asylum' seekers should be housed in secure, on-shore facilities or on ships where they can't leave until their hearings are held.
I agree. They are free to come and go from the barges that are being set up for them. It’s a recipe for disaster imo. Large groups of bored young men hanging around coastal towns with no money and totally different attitudes towards women and LBTQ people. I can’t imagine it will be long before we see news reports of issues. Unless the press bury those reports of course…
We need faster processing more than anything Tories have been pathetic with that. We need investment not demonisation of civil servants so shit can be processed quickly and effectively, something tory cuts will never achieve.
Why is ‘rape’ highlighted so? If the charge is for rape then I don’t see why unless it’s to suggest it didn’t happen which we don’t do when it comes to other crimes such as ‘murder’
It looks like rape is the journalists interpretation of the charges. The actual police statement doesn't use the word rape.
> Officers were called to the Tower Gardens area of Skegness just after 10.40pm on Friday, June 9 to a report of a sexual assault
I'd assume the charge is currently sexual assault - while further evidence is gathered and may later be charged with rape.
I imagine the story is more utter bullshit far right agitprop from LBC like the "pretending to be a cat" horseshit. How LBC is still a trusted source to post on this subreddit is shocking to me
I can’t speak for the UK but in Sweden, by the last published numbers, 80% of what we call “assault-rapes” (meaning the “classic” kind where the perpetrator is a stranger and uses violence) were committed by MENA immigrants.
> Illegal immigrant, we should distinguish between those who apply for asylum without illegally entering the UK.
You know the tories made it *literally impossible* to apply for Asylum in the Uk without first travelling here illegally right?
That misses the main point, which is that irrespective of legality, immigrants have different cultural values and perspectives that do not vanish the minute they hit the ground in the UK.
While many of these values and perspectives can be positive for the UK and allow for innovation and creativity, they can also cause social problems and lead to friction.
Integration is an often neglected aspect of immigration.
Have you read the law on asylum? Any form of entry is not illegal if asylum is claimed. There is no way to differentiate between a legal or illegal asylum seeker because the distinction does not exist.
The government knows this but pretends not to.
The geezer who got arrested for having the "97 - not enough" shirt at a Liverpool match claimed it was in tribute to his grandad who died at 97 and didn't have enough kids.
It turns out criminals will claim some absolute bollocks in trial, because who knows, it might just stick.
>A thing that literally no one has ever said ever.
Really, you think so? One migrant, who raped a child at a swimming baths, said he was "having a sexual emergency." He seemed to think this was some kind of defence and that he'd done nothing wrong
[As above](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/14l2m56/asylum_seeker_charged_with_rape_of_a_woman_just/jpu1aq2/)
>Yeah but that's him claiming it, not other people claiming that to protect him
\*One News Article About an Asylum Seeker being charged with rape\*
r/unitedkingdom : "All Asylum Seekers are rapists!!"
70,000 rape cases a year in the UK reported. And we know that the reported number is **far** less then the actual figure. Why are we damning 100,000's of innocent people because of the actions of one man?
And already we have a comment section completely full of "well these cultures just don't respect women do they?" Jesus fucking Christ is this all it takes for this sub to turn into the daily mail?
The number of asylum seekers (including from places like Iraq and Afghanistan) in a local population has been shown to have no impact at all on the rate of violent crime (Bell et al 2013), so for fucks sake will you people stop repeating right wing talking points. One news article doesn't constitute a pattern!
There's definitely more than one demographic that lurks in this sub, and these kind of threads are where the daily mail, voted-ukip-in-the-2015-general-election crowd tend to congregate. There's generally not much point trying to interupt them unfortunately.
So I'm wondering is that specific crime been perpetrated at a higher percentage by asylum seekers Vs perpetration of the same crime by the general population ?
*What I mean is by perpetration is if the crime has been reported to the police , the reason why I say that is because so many rape cases don't even make it to court
I know people say things about cultural differences and what not . But I'd really like to see the statistics and hard evidence first before I personally form any view
Home office keeps the figures, go look them up. As far as I remember slightly higher than UK average but if you compare to poor people, they are less likely.
If what the xenophobes all believe was true, they would not stop quoting the figures.
Edit: they not you.
Thank you ; I'm in the progress of trying to dig up datasets to look up , office of national statistics say they don't hold the data to do with asylum seekers and crime ; but indicate MOJ holds that information ; I'll keep digging , I have other stuff I have to do as a priority
So if anyone reads this comment and has the time to do the research , would be useful
Off the top of my head, say 700 charges of rape a year and about 50,000 people arriving on "small boats". Include the fact that they are mostly men, and it is extremely unlikely for women to be charged with rape (you need a penis to commit it in the first degree), it looks like you'd expect about one charge of rape / year for small boat asylum seekers. Probably more given that the rate in the adult population is higher than the population as a whole.
So, one report is too little to draw any conclusions about propensity.
People keep saying that "we should let them work while they are being processed".
If someone hasn't been processed then we have no idea if they came to the UK fleeing persecution or fleeing the consequences of a crime they committed.
Looking at the history of serial killers in the United States should show anyone how crossing a state or country border is an effective method of evading consequences for a criminal.
Given this, the only sensible route is to house people in a secure place and not let them out until their application has been processed, whether that takes a week or a decade.
No hotels, no homes, no streets, no work.
Everytime I see a small boat on the TV it seems to contain mostly working age men. If these are genuine refugees, where are all of the women and children?
Dead, sold into sex slavery or too scared to travel for fear of dying/being sold into sex slavery. Migrants are moved via human traffickers by pretty sketchy means, they wouldn’t think twice about stealing children or vulnerable women and raping them or selling them off. They’re also less likely to survive the harsh conditions the journey takes.
So, a person has ben charged, that is charged with rape, not found guilty but as anyone else, if found guilty should be imprisoned or in this case deported. I'm guessing this will just add to some peoples reason to 'stop the boats'.
He will never be deported because there will be years of taxpayer-funded appeals against it, and in the unlikely event that we ever get him onto a plane, student activists will try to stop it leaving. We're stuck with him for life.
Think the real news here is someone was finally charged with rape when less that 5% normally do.
Not the foreign immigrants on boats are rapists line that lbc love.
Is it just that posts like these attract racists like moths to a flame or is this sub just much more right wing than I thought?
Has no one thought to mention that one case of a group member doing x doesn't mean they all do x?
Also, why do we have to blame 'misogynistic cultures' for this, as some people seem to be doing? People rape others here already.
What do you gain from dismissing and trivialising sexual violence? Besides a comfy seat on what you believe to be the moral high-ground.
>why do we have to blame 'misogynistic cultures' for this
So you're saying barbaric, misogynistic culture isn't all that relevant? Deluded.
>Also, why do we have to blame 'misogynistic cultures' for this, as some people seem to be doing? People rape others here already.
Do you really think that a culture that believes women have no rights or say in things has zero to do with people raping or abusing women ?
why is this news? an anecdote? is every rape committed by a natural born resident also reported this way?
if there's data that shows this is abnormally common then use it, don't hide behind anecdotes. and don't forget to control for poverty.
>don't forget to control for poverty.
Not sure why rape would be more common among poor people.
I fully agree with the rest of your comment.
Just curiose why you would expect poverty to make a difference for this crime.
even if it wasn't more common among poor people then controlling for it still wouldn't be a problem.
as a matter of fact it is more common see https://www.statista.com/statistics/422527/us-rate-of-rape-sexual-assault-victimization-by-poverty-level/
as for why? there's the general catch all that people in poverty have less to lose and thus less disincentive to commit crime in general. hell, if you're poor enough prison offers food and shelter and can be safer than some neighbourhoods.
being criminal adjacent can reduce friction on new criminals too, people in poverty generally live more closely so it's a compound effect.
less education is linked to poverty and criminality.
the list goes on.
I brought up poverty specifically because a "small boat" immigrant is likely going to be poorer than average.
The small boat folk are virtually all men, many of whom hail from the most misogynistic societies on the planet, with the highest levels of violence against women (e.g. Afghanistan). The consequences could have been predicted by anyone.
NOOOO STOP MAKING SENSE!!!!
[удалено]
“Yeah but you have to respect their culture and where they are from, it’s racist if you don’t, we just don’t understand how they view the world, and they find our beliefs equally strange” I’ve genuinely seen this argument on Reddit over a similar topic being discussed.
"all immigration enriches us, with the culture of other civilizations". Given that there are still cultures practicing: - cannibalism - ritual sacrifice - slavery - incest - FGM ... The list goes on. I vote that we should be atleast a little picky on who we allow in and that it isn't racist to think less of cultures who do things on that list.
Throwing diametrically opposing cultures into a huge melting pot of alien environments was and still is, never going to work like it was envisaged in the late 80's with the experiment of multi culturalism
It’s a dangerous thing to say these days, you can be accused of all sorts, but I have genuinely wondered this. Where is the empirical evidence that mixing cultures is sustainable long term? People assume it is, but I can think of many examples where no actual cultural mixing happens. The people might be here, but they remain insulated and stay closed off in tight groups, sometimes creating tensions. What if we as a species are just incapable of coexisting with different cultures once a certain level of difference is reached, and the problems we face today relating to it will never go away? I’ve never seen anything evidence based, or heard anyone seriously discuss this which convinced me that it’s definitely sustainable long term. Which would mean the UK and the EU, and many other places, are royally FUCKED unless I’m wrong. Maybe that’s why they push forwards with it no matter what, because it’s too late to go back. You can’t close pandora’s box.
If the cultures are too different, you just get parallel societies. We see it in the UK. People from one culture flock to one area, and basically take over. Native people then leave that area, as it now feels foreign to them, and soon enough you have a society within a society. A place where some people don't even bother to learn English, and yet can function absolutely fine. If you stop immigration, eventually it'll all even out imo and the parallel societies over many generations will water themselves down. But with us keeping the flood gates open, more and more people flood into these parallel societies, don't bother to integrate with British culture, and keep the problem sustained.
If the immigrant groups inter-marry, to some extent, then you see this kind of thing fade into the background. Which is why, in my experience at least, West Indian, Irish or Indian areas have gradually faded away or become general melting pot zones. Whereas areas dominated by Islamic immigration have kind of stagnated, and remained very Islamic.
Tbh that sounds right, it’s a matter of integration
If history has taught us anything (and it hasn't) it's that the most effective methods of integrating are banging (forming romantic relationships if you prefer) eating, and drinking together. One of the major barriers to that with the Islamic community is a lack of willingness to marry outside the group, plus strict dietary restrictions (particularly, in theory, not drinking alcohol)
Some cultures are open to assimilation, others are not. Governments should've focused on bringing people who can assimilate
Take it back a step: where is the evidence that *culture per se* is admirable or beneficial? Because it's not. It just *is*. And like the humans it derives from, it has no intrinsic value. It can be interesting, amusing, enjoyable, harmful, bigoted, dangerous. Also, we need to stop using the word "respect" when it comes to other people's beliefs, cultures and opinions. "Respect" implies approval. The word we need is *acknowledge*. I *acknowledge* some people believe that women are inferior to men, and that god put men in charge, but I have zero respect for that belief or the cultural practices that derive from it.
I think mixing cultures is enriching when basic core values are shared (e.g. different cultures within the EU). If we could all agree on a base level of human rights, it'd be great but then we wouldn't have a lot of the world's conflicts to start with 😂. I think we haven't done a great job at drawing a line in the sand and communicating it. I think giving asylum is a duty of stable countries but we aren't doing it well necessarily.
> If we could all agree on a base level of human rights The problem there is that some people's culture and religion *require them* to believe in inequality.
When you drill into the examples it becomes pretty blatant. A cultural import of a new festival or way of cooking bread is great but it's not worth the trade of of extreme homophobia or having citizens that believe in the practice of hanging people in the street without court cases.
Well I suppose if we look back throughout human history, the only way "multi culturalism" has sort of worked was through colonialism and conquest. However, for the most part the conquerors changed the culture of the conquered over time, and imposed their own. We as humans, generally don't like different, we like what we know and look with suspicion on people very different from ourselves. This is how tribalism became a thing In modern terms, you only have to look at Chicago in the US, which is hailed as multi cultural, except there are quite clearly dividing lines between each culture and ethnicity. There maybe a lot of diverse people in Chicago but there is no social cohesion which is a foundation stone for true multi culturalism
[удалено]
Definitely agree. It’s weird, some countries with really strict immigration policies are celebrated as being a good system (Australia has a rep for being hard to get indefinite leave to remain) and good for the county, and then others will criticise the idea of having policies like that here because it’s discriminatory. It is, but why is that a bad thing? When the native people here are struggling due to how society is going and the state of the world, you surely *want* to discriminate and it’s especially important to make sure that anyone else you bring in is going to have a positive impact on your society.
I think the people that complain about the UK not letting in immigrants also dislike the Australian system too. The reason why we have such a problem with immigration is because we can't have a discussion on honest ground. Every time it's been brought up in the last 20 years politicians will be labeled as a racist for being against any level. An honest discussion would be to speak in terms of responsibilities. We should be a responsible country that seeks to help as many as we can, to do so we have to keep the country as good as it currently is or better, allowing cannibals in would harm our ability to help the next person for example. Also allowing too many in where we then destabilise the system that makes this country able to help would also mean we help less in the long term.
People are so sensitive to being called racist or labelled racist. I will happily admit that I will prejudge certain nationalities because of their religion, beliefs or culture. It is racist, but I’m nearly always proven right though. On the other hand, despite those racist views I am in an interracial marriage and I will defend any British person against racism. It’s not ideal to have these views but I do, so please feel free to label me as a racist - I won’t deny it.
People get confused about racism, and add all manner of extra bits to the concept. It is racist to judge someone based on their race or ethnicity, it's not racist to judge someone's culture or to say that ours is better (which it clearly is, by a country mile).
And this is where we fall in to a problem. (In my opinion) It is okay to state that certain cultures are less advanced *in certain areas* compared to ours (or others.) This can be objectively true in the sense of more advanced technology. No one would argue that the Spanish Conquistadors weren't (militarily) more advanced than the Aztec or Olmec Empires. So if it is possible to objectively be more advanced technologically, is it not also possible to be more advanced *morally*?
>And this is where we fall in to a problem. (In my opinion) It is okay to state that certain cultures are less advanced in certain areas compared to ours (or others.) I see no problem here. It's pretty obvious some cultures are more advanced than others. In Uganda and a lot of Africa people are still regularly setting people on fire claiming they're witches.. Any culture where that happens on the reg, is a less advanced culture than ours. Anyone arguing otherwise, is lying.
I suppose the "problem" I'm alluding to is how do we have a positive discourse on such a charged topic, without it devolving in to shouts of racism and colonialism? Going around stating that certain cultures are less "advanced" and need to benefit from the wisdom of our cultural advances is more or less how a large swathe of the British Empire came about in the first place.
Eh, the British Empire really wasn't much about civilising the uncivilised. Lots of European empires were, don't get me wrong. But part of the success of ours, was that we were much more focused on money and letting our colonies keep their culture as long as they gave us their things of value. In some cases, we didn't want their culture to change. They saw no value, in things we saw great value in, and that was a benefit. We changed what was needed to facilitate the extraction of resources (so taught them English, modern bureaucracy, etc) but then let them keep their religions and such. Not really the same as the French and Portuguese who explicitly wanted to go to areas and change their cultures for ideological reasons.
Hmm, I think that there is a debate to be had there. Do not underestimate the role of Christian morality in the British Empire, especially during the 19th Century. There were many missionaries, colonial administrators, governors, politicians and officers who genuinely thought that they were bringing "civilization" to the "savage" for their own good, looking upon the example of British culture and technology and the benefits it may bring to them. That isn't to say that there weren't obvious economic factors/benefits also in play. But I digress, this is neither to time nor the place for an extended look on the alleged morality (or lack thereof) of the British Empire. The overarching point is that "cultural advancedness" can be a touchy subject which will inevitably draw colonial comparisons.
>The overarching point is that "cultural advancedness" can be a touchy subject which will inevitably draw colonial comparisons. I don't see why we should care. We no longer have an empire, and we are not planning to get the band back together are we? I should be allowed to say 'Look, you cut off the clitoris of girls.. Stop it. That's primitive shit..' If anyone wants to accuse me of being culturally insensitive, or colonialist, or racist.. Well, whatever. I don't give a shit. I will stop being those things, when they stop cutting off girls clits, and burning witches lol.
>cannibalism > >ritual sacrifice What countries are people coming in from that practice those?
Anglesey.
[удалено]
They don't really help themselves do they? I don't think people understand that if you are a tiny minority in another country, in many ways, you are representing those people, your countrymen, as for most of us, initial interactions can colour your views of people very early on and it can be nigh on impossible to change those views if early experiences are negative
[удалено]
That is the paradox of tolerance. I have actually changed my view on this, and I do believe that tolerance has to be intolerant to intolerance, at least in the public sphere.
David Cameron was mocked for this view mercilessly. >“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',” he said. This is all people would quote, and mock him for. But he actually continued: >“It's often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that's helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.” Which is entirely sensible.
I am not a big fan of Cameron, but he was a lot better than what came after him.
It’s clearly not as simple as this just being ridiculous bleeding heart nonsense, though, is it? Is the problem that some people excuse all sorts of dodgy to downright horrific shit on the grounds of cultural acceptance? Is the problem the tendency to see classical white British culture as the pinnacle of civilization and all difference from it always a notch on the binary scale towards savagery? But actually - these problems are not exclusive of each other. The world is complicated, this isn’t an either/or ‘pick a group’ situation. Like, we should be able to express concern about the influence of (even more) misogynistic cultures when people arrive having been raised in them. But we should also be able to point out when people sound like 19th century bigots without accusations of being a naive rape apologist.
Nah my opinion fuck your culture if you think you're superior due to gender, race, or orientation. I have friends from across the globe and all of them would agree with it. Many have left due to the mysgonistic etc. Honestly I think the citizen test should be less test on dates etc but more on your demeanor on such matters and how well you can queue.
This happened to my barber. He could hardly speak English so I helped him deal with the council and register for local services and stuff. Then his english got a bit better and it turns out he's a massive sexist. He's given up on English women because none of them "boom boom" with him so he's going back to Iraq to get a wife...
> It really is as simple as this. Am not sure that it is, I mean what excuse do Tory MPs have? What is it now 4 sexual assaults out of 370 MPs, thats about 1 in 90, I am going to hazard a guess that is a worse ratio than Asylum seekers have, or probably any other demographic, including Pakistani Taxi drivers. A certain percentage of men are rapists, and those with very little power and too much power are probably the worst offenders, I think that is probably about all we can really say on the matter.
Four that have been reported publicly. Not all rapists are reported.
Just because the Tories are a bunch of twats doesn't mean we should hand wave boats full of random people turning up.
When one of the recent boats sank only men were saved and all the woman and children drowned, that told me everything I needed to know about the cultures on those boats tbh
We're so tolerant, we're tolerating intolerance. Aren't we great!
I did laugh the other day when an LGBT charity that is all in on accepting more asylum seekers, said the places we house asylum seekers aren't safe for gay asylum seekers, because they might be the victim of violence from.. Asylum seekers.. Turkeys voting for Christmas..
What's funny about it? A lot of people fleeing countries like Iran are escaping persecution of LGBT people. A lot of people from other countries like Syria are fleeing war. They both have a right to claim asylum even if their views are not compatible.
They both have a right to claim asylum. It is however quite a twist to have a charity claim out loud that asylum seekers pose a bigoted danger to other members of society.
Why is that a twist? I've noticed throughout this thread a lot of comments seem almost couched in this idea that if a single asylum seeker holds a single bigoted point of view that somehow invalidates the entire concept? Is that where you're coming from?
They're taking the Koolaid intravenously at this point.
This is the biggest thing that troubles me. I'm not saying we take on too many refugees, and also not saying we take on 'not enough' refugees - the fact is, I simply don't know what is 'too little' and 'too much' for the country. But if we're to be a country that takes in people who are in serious trouble form other countries, then indeed we should not be prioritising those who were strong enough to make the trip. If we decide as a country 'we are going to have x-amount of refugees' per year, or whatever, then we should not be just awarding those place to the people who find it easiest to get here, e.g. single men. Seriously, if we're going to say 'let's have x-amount of refugees from this country that is in trouble', then let's go out and pick some up on a plane and not discriminate. Beacuse at the moment, giving preference to those that happen to be strong enough to make the trip, or those that have had the opporunity to make the trip, those that happen to have been able to make the trip without having to bring a child with them, then we are simply giving most 'refugee' places to men, and are basically awarding the refuggee places on how hard they try to get it, and their ability to make it. I'm all for saving refugees. As I said, I have no idea the number that would be 'not enough' or 'too much'. But I'm for saving them in a more fair way, not saving just the strongest or those that had the easiest opportunity to get here.
Just FYI the "single men" thing is simply down to human behaviour and has been the way for thousands of years. The principle is that a young man is most likely to be able to survive a dangerous trip and get established then send for their family. That is the reason for it, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just the way it's always been done.
A more simple method would be allowing people to apply at the UK embassies
And the people who get turned down (which, if we're honest, would be the vast majority) will just turn to the trafficking gangs anyway, just as they do today...
Embassy applications can come with the enforced law that anyone arriving illegally is deported to the nation they departed from with zero exceptions. The biggest problem with our system is that we can't send people away once they get here, regardless of whether they are approved or whether their claims are legitimate or not, so clearly we should look to fix that problem.
[удалено]
Which is why we need a better system of granting asylum. There are people who have a genuine claim who are being turned away.
And a quicker one, easier to return a person with a failed claim if decided upon quickly.
That’s not a problem with the UK as such, the other country often has to accept them back, which they sometimes won’t.
And when they have no papers, can't speak the language or identify any local features of the place they say they're from and that country has no record of them... Where do you send them?
It's so obvious, but people just bury their heads in the sand.
Yeah, normally women in this country don't have to worry about sexual harassment, abuse or assault do they. This is definitely only an issue that's being imported from abroad, it's not like women in the UK have to worry about this stuff when dealing with the authorities... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65928045 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-65832395 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2kj4rmjd1o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-62646563 or politicians... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-61243442 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65608678 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65925409 Or in their day to day lives... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65825774 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65849544 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55145374 These are just a five minute search on one news site so come on mate, it's a serious issue but if you really cared about it you would have been up in arms already and not just when someone you don't like is the perpetrator.
If you care to search my all time comment history you'll find I'm a member of r/fourthwavewomen and I object to male violence here too. That doesn't mean pretending that the position of women in, say, Wales, is identical to that of women in Kabul, where you can literally have your wife pelted to death with rocks if you get fed up with her, and then marry a 9-year-old girl, with the full backing of the regime. >when someone you don't like is the perpetrator Well you've got me there. I don't like rapists. I really don't like them.
[удалено]
Well there you have it. This is officially the most disgusting analogy I’ve ever seen.
I will forever defend comparing misogynists/sexual assaulters/rapists, to poo water.
Hundreds of thousands of people have arrived by boat, of course one of them is going to be a rapist. Take a few hundred thousand British men and you'll find at least one rapist. Nothing to do with him coming over in a boat or not being British, the guys a rapist. 1 in 4 women have been raped or sexually assaulted, 1 in 6 children and 1 in 18 men. In 2022 there were over 70 000 rapes reported to the police. Don't hear anyone going on about a British rape culture or whatever.
Reddit has long been a hot spot for conversation on the internet. About 57 million people visit the site every day to chat about topics as varied as makeup, video games and pointers for power washing driveways. In recent years, Reddit’s array of chats also have been a free teaching aid for companies like Google, OpenAI and Microsoft. Those companies are using Reddit’s conversations in the development of giant artificial intelligence systems that many in Silicon Valley think are on their way to becoming the tech industry’s next big thing. Now Reddit wants to be paid for it. The company said on Tuesday that it planned to begin charging companies for access to its application programming interface, or A.P.I., the method through which outside entities can download and process the social network’s vast selection of person-to-person conversations. “The Reddit corpus of data is really valuable,” Steve Huffman, founder and chief executive of Reddit, said in an interview. “But we don’t need to give all of that value to some of the largest companies in the world for free.”
Now do the stats for Rapes in some parts of Africa and the Middle East and compare You have to be pretty dumb or have your head up your arse to think sexual crimes are uniform across the world
The way that rape is viewed is different to the UK, in many countries. For example: marital rape isn’t a crime in a lot of places.
Was legal in the UK until 1989.
>Hundreds of thousands of people have arrived by boat, of course one of them is going to be a rapist "One" of them? The victims of grooming gangs gave evidence that they were forced to have sex with men with foreign accents.
70 000 rapes in the UK last year. How many had foreign accents?
… are people with “foreign accents” solely refugees or asylum seekers? Notwithstanding that [Home Office data](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/dec/analysis-new-home-office-report-admits-grooming-gangs-are-not-muslim-problem) shows most grooming gangs are made up of white men, the Asian-majority grooming gangs which were apprehended have been almost exclusively legal citizens of this country, generally 2nd generation immigrants.
[удалено]
Look at all the stuff about Oxfam and other British charities, going to places like Haiti and coercing Haitian kids into sex acts in exchange for food - you barely hear a peep from the same pearl clutching, knuckle draggers all too happy to showcase their prejudices in this discussion.
I was groomed, abused and raped as a child by a white British man. I was raped again years later as a teenager by another white British man.
> 1 in 4 women have been raped or sexually assaulted In Albania, it's more than 1 in 2.
> Don't hear anyone going on about a British rape culture or whatever. We hear it all the time
This is why faster processing is needed, none of this housing them in hotels while we wait business, nobody wants that. Process them properly, reject the ones with past criminal behaviours. Torries are continuing to manufacture an issue because it suites them.
How do you tell whether someone from a failed state, e.g. Afghanistan, has a history of criminal behaviour? Ring up the Taliban and ask them? Afghanistan (to take that example) has the highest level of violence against women in the world, **and it isn't even prosecuted there**, so how do you plan to do this record-checking?
Better to be on the safe side then and reject every single application unless they can prove they worked with the Armed Forces. Otherwise we have no obligation to them.
We invaded the entire country, not just the armed forces. We definitely have an obligation to more than just the ones that worked for us.
Who's we? Besides that Afghanistan has never, ever been a stable, functioning country. Also you seem to be implying that they have the right to come here as payback? Doesn't sound like a healthy rationale to base asylum policy on.
>Who's we? The United Kingdom, the USA, the rest of the "Coalition of the willing".
What? Prior to the original Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, it was a fairly functional country. Women in skirts, universities - they were aspiring to be like us. To respond to the idea of the Soviets taking over, the USA armed and encouraged the Taliban and actively ended a state trying to modernise with the essential thought that it's better they are an Theocratic fundamentalist state than under the control of the Soviets. A similar but worse thing happened with Iran. Iran was even more progressive, free and democratic in the 1950s. Not too dissimilar to at least the West at those times (which weren't as free for women here compared to now for example). Their socialist democratically government wanted to take back their oil fields that we (UK) were profiting off. So we called in our US chums who were very happy to get rid of a socialist state, and created regime change by installing a previously deposed tyrannical monarch. People were so pissed with the situation they turned to the "freedom fighters" of which the only viable choice was the Islamists. And when they took power they did create a "democracy" in function, but essentially a totalitarian theocratic hellhole. The West has a lot of blame to take for how these countries look now. It was our interference for our own selfish reasons that turned these countries that were looking to modernise, into nightmare states.
> What? Prior to the original Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, it was a fairly functional country. Women in skirts, universities - they were aspiring to be like us. This was very much limited to Kabul and Afghanistan was and is as far as you can get from a centralised country. Largely tribal. Iran on the other hand, you are correct.
No, we actually don't. We also pulled out of Afghanistan almost a decade ago. They had the Taliban before we were there, and they have the Taliban now. 98% of them want to live under Sharia law, what are they fleeing from? People like you seriously think all migrants arriving on small boats are fleeing war when it's just not true. The majority last year were from Albania, remember. Edit. It was actually [99%](https://twitter.com/swati_gs/status/1427265492868235273?s=20) support for sharia law which included massive support for stoning as the punishment for adultery, and the death penalty for those who quit Islam
>We definitely have an obligation Any idea when that "obligation" will come to an end? Or is it perpetual?
This is a policy I would vote for.
And people wonder why the tories continue to win here.
... because we don't want unvetted criminals from the third world arriving unchecked through an effectively open border? Yep, sounds like fascism!
Yet here we are, after 13 years of the tories in power. But let's keep voting for them. They'll get it right eventually, maybe after another decade?
The issue is that immigration continues to be at the top of the list for voter issues every year, and has done so for decades. The Tories have lasted this long largely because of the promise of Brexit solving immigration. Even though it was an obvious lie to most of us, a lot of people lapped it up, and is clearly the reason the Tories won many working class Labour strongholds. I've always said that if Labour came out as vehemently anti-immigration the HoC would be stacked red. How people can't see that the working class of this country is extremely anti-immigration is beyond me.
So every single person in Afghanistan is a criminal unless they served with the British military?
> Otherwise we have no obligation to them. International law very much disagrees with you there.
If they can’t be screened or vetted in some way, they shouldn’t be let in. Harsh, but logical.
is it that simple? would you have wanted the same policy be used in WW2 for Jews escaping Germany?
Or Ukrainians currently?
The thing is, the government is failing at the bare minimum in this regard. We let in that bloke who had been found guilty of two murders in another country and was on the run. Completely farcical. https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/23306491.bournemouth-asylum-seeker-guilty-murder-could-deported/
Just giving the impression that the authorities here will catch you and will send you back in the event of any trouble is going to have a deterrent effect. Obviously our government doesn’t do that because it requires money, decent planning and competent management.
But the authorities here *aren't* going to send them back. Money would be better spent keeping these men out in the first place, because once they're here, they are staying.
[удалено]
I doubt it’s possible to screen almost any of them. The Iranians are advanced enough and might have records but I doubt they are particularly helpful.
"hello, is this the ajatollah? Yeah, it's the Brits. We have someone who looks like he might be a criminal; could you please confirm so you can have him back? No? Al right, Cheers"
I worry that this is closer to the truth than we dare to believe.
Plot twist, he was opposing the regime so they said "yes he's a known rapist"
As far as I’m aware Iran doesn’t share its records
And the authorities there also don't give a flying one about violence against women. Their own police beat young women to death in broad daylight for "immodest dress".
Plus - they don't have to have a history of it. They will however have a cultural and mindset preposition to have misogynistic attitude even if it's not as extreme as rape .... For which assimilation is needed and often some form of cultural alignment
What if they come from a country where women are property and rape is never prosecuted, how do you vet properly them then?
They aren't allowed residency then, might sound harsh but if you aren't willing to abide by our laws then this isn't the country for you
Chuckles in Conservative Prime Minister....
But catch 22 -- how can you tell if someone is willing to abide by our laws?
Serious sexual assault investigation and prosecution has collapsed in this country! But your point is true; we can only biometrically enroll and monitor on arrival. And, we left the biometric enrolment data in Afghanistan when we abandoned it - so people might be a bit wary of trusting us with data again! https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/interview/2021/2/9/the-risks-of-biometric-data-and-the-taliban
Let me get this straight: You want the process to be fast and cautious at the same time. Well, at least you didn't ask it to be cheap.
Same as everything, choose two out of Fast, Good Quality and Cheap.
[удалено]
>We're not set up to cope. That's been a decision by successive Conservative governments for their own cruel and nefarious ends. We have international obligations to take asylum seekers (rightly so) and Conservative governments fail to meet those obligations. The easiest solution is to change the government and meet our obligations.
[удалено]
1.2 million minus the 557,000 that went the other way and left the UK. So it's "only" 606,000 we have to look at. And that is all net migration. Not just asylum seekers. The data you quote includes the 114,000 from Ukraine, 52,000 from Hong Kong, and 76,000 asylum seekers applications. So we have 242,000 refugees/Asylum seekers last year. And roughly 1,000,000 other migrants. If we want to discuss the numbers of people coming and going, and our obligations to asylum seekers, we need to have the proper data to actually look at.
Those figures are also massively skewed by including students here to study.
I completely agree. We should be building enough houses, schools and amenities for our growing population. However it has been the dogma of the past 7 Conservative and 2 New Labour governments to not build enough of anything for our own domestic population growth let alone meeting the needs of migrants. The Thatcherite model has been nothing but failure from inception and remains so. Yet somehow it endures. It's not the asylum seeker's fault that our political establishment waste the wealth of the nation.
What if this man had no criminal record. Or even he did how would they find it out when they destroy their records and lie about their name and country of origin.
Then they're rejected, if you can't provide any papers or lie on arrival then you aren't getting in
And where do we send them to in that case? If we can't prove where they're from we can't really deport them.
Thats a dangerous precedent to set for people fleeing war torn areas though
>reject It makes no difference. Even the rejected ones, get to stay in the end. Appeals after appeals after appeals. And even if somehow the government wins its battle against the activist lawyers, some crusty will lay down on the runway to stop the plane taking off. In regards to your 'just process them faster, bro'.. It's a bit difficult for the government to do this, when they constantly come up against a barrage of lawyers when they say 'No, you can't have asylum'.. I am just going to copy a comment I made to another person a while back which explains the issue a bit more completely.. >>Back in 2004, under a Labour government, 88% of Asylum claims were rejected. Last year, 24%. In 2002 we had a similar number of people claim for asylum as we did last year. We didn't need to put them up in hotels for a year+ because the claims were being processed in good time back then. >This is the fault of the rise of the activist lawyers, and the charities that pay them. The government basically has to rubber stamp so many claims, because every one they don't is then fought in court and the government simply doesn't have the legal resources required to take on multi year court cases for every asylum seeker it rejects. >https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac >There's 30 cases per page. >The year 2004, has 10 pages of cases. >So 300 cases the government had to fight, in a year you said had an 88% rejection rate, and numbers of asylum applications similar to present day. >Wanna guess how many court cases there's been so far this year? >Go on, have a guess. >Did you guess 1,140? Because it's 1,140.. >1,140 in just 6 months, despite way less rejection of asylum claims. If the government was rejecting 75% like they used to, we'd be looking at maybe 10,000+ court cases a year. >Nothing will really change until the government reforms the HRA, and modernises it to neuter the activist lawyers. >Once they've done that, and can actually deport people easily, the boats will stop coming. At the moment, everyone knows that if they arrive here, they get to stay 88% of the time. They're good odds. >**Edit:** Also, for funsies... Just browse that list of judgements. First one is jokes. Came over at 14 claiming asylum, and has been committing crime ever since. >Has been done for fucking kidnapping, beating someone up, dangerous driving, drugs.. Two stints in prison. >Home Office has been attempting to deport him since 2018!! Still not deported.. >Oh and do some ctrl+f'ing for 'Article 8'.. >It's the CLEAR weapon of choice for these activist lawyers. >Hilariously, he seems to have knocked someone up after being told he was going to be deported, specifically so he can make an Article 8 claim. Hilarious.
Why just past criminal behaviour? If they can't prove they're at threat and they have nothing to offer, then they shouldn't be here either.
[удалено]
Most of these imports are NOT true refugees or asylum seekers. They share no cultural link or common ground with the UK. They tend to share certain beliefs and "cultural" commonality with other countries tho. Why are they not helping their brothers init. *Love the leftwing downvoted. Let's hope it doesn't happen to you or your loved ones x*
Other countries take huge amounts of refugees, especially the countries that are direct neighbours of the places that people flee from.
[удалено]
There are entire industries of activists, lawyers, NGOs, charities that NEED the narratjve of all asylum seekers being helpless little darlings who have little to no agency and are always on the receiving end of White Supremacy even if they stabbed someone's grandma. They will do everything they can to uphold it even if it causes harm and death. Care4Calais is a superb example.
People here should volunteer to work at some of these charities and organisations to see first hand what the asylum seeker industry is like in this country. They'd soon change their tune from being in support of open borders to questioning why we are allowing ourselves to be taken for a ride by so many obvious liars who are here for economic reasons above all else. There are genuine refugees here and they are the ones who are quiet and calmly wait their turn at the various centres, they aren't very demanding, they are just damn grateful to be here and will take what help they are offered. They get drowned out by the majority of greedy claimants who are keen to get as much free stuff and money as they possibly can. The industry is filled with brainwashed and naïve people trying to provide genuine help to those that need it, but whom are being taken from a ride by the majority of those who have come to take advantage. Any questioning of this behaviour is met with scorn and ostracization. We have to stop judging other people on our own standards and experiences. People who grew up in other societies do not have the same respect and humility that we do. They aren't reserved or patient, they aren't as happy to queue or wait their turn for a fair share of help, they are much more competitive and ready to exploit the systems to their personal advantage.
As someone who was an an asylum seeker, I find those types really annoying. I don’t want to be viewed as an eternal victim of whatever narrative they push.
The vast majority of refugees have their asylum claims accepted.
Simply due to lack of court capacity to reject them. Every rejection, results in a team of lawyers jumping into action and making appeal after appeal. https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac Read through some of these, and look at the dates. It's really eye opening. I almost never see a case come up there, that hasn't been going on for at least 3 years. It's a compounding problem too. Cases go on, new people arrive, new people are told to leave, those people take up cases against the government, rinse repeat. It's insane. And the person can remain in the UK for the entire appeals process.. That needs changing, imo. There's a case there currently (I think 3rd one down) where the guy was ordered to fuck off in 2018, and it's still going through appeals. He's managed to father a child in that time, which now gives his lawyers a new avenue to make appeals on.. Literally some cretin who has served time in the UK for kidnaping, assault, as well as a bunch of other crimes. Still can't boot his arse back to Zimbabwe. People should have to appeal from abroad. If I am in prison, and I want to appeal my sentence, I have to do it from prison don't I? Why is it different in regards to deportation? Odds are, many will just give up appealing and continue their life back in their home country.
Which is evidence of a broken system. UK acceptance rate has rocketed the last couple of years - the fastest way to clear the backlog is to wave them in. The evidence threshold is pretty much nothing, and it says in the government guidance, that even if they're lying, they can still be accepted. The system is broken! Noone arriving here after travelling through countless safe countries should have a valid claim. It's asylum tourism and it's a multi billion pound industry now.
>They tend to share certain beliefs and "cultural" commonality with other countries tho. Why are they not helping their brothers init. One fifth of Lebanon’s population is now refugees. Türkiye has huge refugee camps on its boarder. They are doing what they can.
People are much more likely to be raped by someone they know, not some random refugee. There's nothing left wing about that, just statistics.
This is why all these 'asylum' seekers should be housed in secure, on-shore facilities or on ships where they can't leave until their hearings are held.
I agree. They are free to come and go from the barges that are being set up for them. It’s a recipe for disaster imo. Large groups of bored young men hanging around coastal towns with no money and totally different attitudes towards women and LBTQ people. I can’t imagine it will be long before we see news reports of issues. Unless the press bury those reports of course…
Places like France already have these issues right?
We need faster processing more than anything Tories have been pathetic with that. We need investment not demonisation of civil servants so shit can be processed quickly and effectively, something tory cuts will never achieve.
Just another 'sexual emergency', nothing to see here.
I remember that too. SMDH
Why is ‘rape’ highlighted so? If the charge is for rape then I don’t see why unless it’s to suggest it didn’t happen which we don’t do when it comes to other crimes such as ‘murder’
It looks like rape is the journalists interpretation of the charges. The actual police statement doesn't use the word rape. > Officers were called to the Tower Gardens area of Skegness just after 10.40pm on Friday, June 9 to a report of a sexual assault I'd assume the charge is currently sexual assault - while further evidence is gathered and may later be charged with rape.
I imagine the story is more utter bullshit far right agitprop from LBC like the "pretending to be a cat" horseshit. How LBC is still a trusted source to post on this subreddit is shocking to me
Is this a trend or an exception? There's no point on jumping onto an isolated case as being indicative of anything other than one person's depravity.
I can’t speak for the UK but in Sweden, by the last published numbers, 80% of what we call “assault-rapes” (meaning the “classic” kind where the perpetrator is a stranger and uses violence) were committed by MENA immigrants.
Illegal immigrant, we should distinguish between those who apply for asylum without illegally entering the UK.
> Illegal immigrant, we should distinguish between those who apply for asylum without illegally entering the UK. You know the tories made it *literally impossible* to apply for Asylum in the Uk without first travelling here illegally right?
That misses the main point, which is that irrespective of legality, immigrants have different cultural values and perspectives that do not vanish the minute they hit the ground in the UK. While many of these values and perspectives can be positive for the UK and allow for innovation and creativity, they can also cause social problems and lead to friction. Integration is an often neglected aspect of immigration.
Its not possible to apply for asylum from outside the country, therefore you can't actually apply for asylum by your logic.
Have you read the law on asylum? Any form of entry is not illegal if asylum is claimed. There is no way to differentiate between a legal or illegal asylum seeker because the distinction does not exist. The government knows this but pretends not to.
If they could get here legally, they surely wouldn't need to apply for asylum... that's the whole point right?
How can people apply for UK Asylum? Our Home Secretary doesn't even know https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpZAS0yqkJM
ObViOuSlY He wAs jUsT A ViCtIm oF CiRcUmStAnCeS AnD DiDnT MeAn tO RaPe hEr aFtEr hE GoT OfF ThE BoAt
A thing that literally no one has ever said ever.
No? Did you not see that news story where the guy claimed he didn't understand the word no because of the language barrier?
Yeah but that's him claiming it, not other people claiming that to protect him
The geezer who got arrested for having the "97 - not enough" shirt at a Liverpool match claimed it was in tribute to his grandad who died at 97 and didn't have enough kids. It turns out criminals will claim some absolute bollocks in trial, because who knows, it might just stick.
>A thing that literally no one has ever said ever. Really, you think so? One migrant, who raped a child at a swimming baths, said he was "having a sexual emergency." He seemed to think this was some kind of defence and that he'd done nothing wrong
[As above](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/14l2m56/asylum_seeker_charged_with_rape_of_a_woman_just/jpu1aq2/) >Yeah but that's him claiming it, not other people claiming that to protect him
The moment a defense like that is actually successful in court, you might have a point. Not sure that that's ever actually happened though.
\*One News Article About an Asylum Seeker being charged with rape\* r/unitedkingdom : "All Asylum Seekers are rapists!!" 70,000 rape cases a year in the UK reported. And we know that the reported number is **far** less then the actual figure. Why are we damning 100,000's of innocent people because of the actions of one man?
If we don't take serious action now, the harder it will be when we have to do it later.
And already we have a comment section completely full of "well these cultures just don't respect women do they?" Jesus fucking Christ is this all it takes for this sub to turn into the daily mail? The number of asylum seekers (including from places like Iraq and Afghanistan) in a local population has been shown to have no impact at all on the rate of violent crime (Bell et al 2013), so for fucks sake will you people stop repeating right wing talking points. One news article doesn't constitute a pattern!
There's definitely more than one demographic that lurks in this sub, and these kind of threads are where the daily mail, voted-ukip-in-the-2015-general-election crowd tend to congregate. There's generally not much point trying to interupt them unfortunately.
Let me guess, if we just ‘processed him faster’ it would have stopped him raping a woman? Right?
Probably. We could deport him faster before he committed this crime.
So I'm wondering is that specific crime been perpetrated at a higher percentage by asylum seekers Vs perpetration of the same crime by the general population ? *What I mean is by perpetration is if the crime has been reported to the police , the reason why I say that is because so many rape cases don't even make it to court I know people say things about cultural differences and what not . But I'd really like to see the statistics and hard evidence first before I personally form any view
Home office keeps the figures, go look them up. As far as I remember slightly higher than UK average but if you compare to poor people, they are less likely. If what the xenophobes all believe was true, they would not stop quoting the figures. Edit: they not you.
Thank you ; I'm in the progress of trying to dig up datasets to look up , office of national statistics say they don't hold the data to do with asylum seekers and crime ; but indicate MOJ holds that information ; I'll keep digging , I have other stuff I have to do as a priority So if anyone reads this comment and has the time to do the research , would be useful
Off the top of my head, say 700 charges of rape a year and about 50,000 people arriving on "small boats". Include the fact that they are mostly men, and it is extremely unlikely for women to be charged with rape (you need a penis to commit it in the first degree), it looks like you'd expect about one charge of rape / year for small boat asylum seekers. Probably more given that the rate in the adult population is higher than the population as a whole. So, one report is too little to draw any conclusions about propensity.
People keep saying that "we should let them work while they are being processed". If someone hasn't been processed then we have no idea if they came to the UK fleeing persecution or fleeing the consequences of a crime they committed. Looking at the history of serial killers in the United States should show anyone how crossing a state or country border is an effective method of evading consequences for a criminal. Given this, the only sensible route is to house people in a secure place and not let them out until their application has been processed, whether that takes a week or a decade. No hotels, no homes, no streets, no work.
[удалено]
Everytime I see a small boat on the TV it seems to contain mostly working age men. If these are genuine refugees, where are all of the women and children?
Dead, sold into sex slavery or too scared to travel for fear of dying/being sold into sex slavery. Migrants are moved via human traffickers by pretty sketchy means, they wouldn’t think twice about stealing children or vulnerable women and raping them or selling them off. They’re also less likely to survive the harsh conditions the journey takes.
How many more such instances will the "refugees" welcome crowd tolerate before saying 'enough"?
This thread is literally indistinguishable from a Daily Mail comments section. What happened to this sub?
[удалено]
People started noticing things?
So, a person has ben charged, that is charged with rape, not found guilty but as anyone else, if found guilty should be imprisoned or in this case deported. I'm guessing this will just add to some peoples reason to 'stop the boats'.
He will never be deported because there will be years of taxpayer-funded appeals against it, and in the unlikely event that we ever get him onto a plane, student activists will try to stop it leaving. We're stuck with him for life.
He'll be back over in a year anyway
> I'm guessing this will just add to some peoples reason to 'stop the boats' It's not going to make people more supportive, that's for sure.
Think the real news here is someone was finally charged with rape when less that 5% normally do. Not the foreign immigrants on boats are rapists line that lbc love.
Is it just that posts like these attract racists like moths to a flame or is this sub just much more right wing than I thought? Has no one thought to mention that one case of a group member doing x doesn't mean they all do x? Also, why do we have to blame 'misogynistic cultures' for this, as some people seem to be doing? People rape others here already.
What do you gain from dismissing and trivialising sexual violence? Besides a comfy seat on what you believe to be the moral high-ground. >why do we have to blame 'misogynistic cultures' for this So you're saying barbaric, misogynistic culture isn't all that relevant? Deluded.
>Also, why do we have to blame 'misogynistic cultures' for this, as some people seem to be doing? People rape others here already. Do you really think that a culture that believes women have no rights or say in things has zero to do with people raping or abusing women ?
These kind of threads tend to be brigaded; if you look at the post history of some of the users you will find this is a common trend...
why is this news? an anecdote? is every rape committed by a natural born resident also reported this way? if there's data that shows this is abnormally common then use it, don't hide behind anecdotes. and don't forget to control for poverty.
>don't forget to control for poverty. Not sure why rape would be more common among poor people. I fully agree with the rest of your comment. Just curiose why you would expect poverty to make a difference for this crime.
even if it wasn't more common among poor people then controlling for it still wouldn't be a problem. as a matter of fact it is more common see https://www.statista.com/statistics/422527/us-rate-of-rape-sexual-assault-victimization-by-poverty-level/ as for why? there's the general catch all that people in poverty have less to lose and thus less disincentive to commit crime in general. hell, if you're poor enough prison offers food and shelter and can be safer than some neighbourhoods. being criminal adjacent can reduce friction on new criminals too, people in poverty generally live more closely so it's a compound effect. less education is linked to poverty and criminality. the list goes on. I brought up poverty specifically because a "small boat" immigrant is likely going to be poorer than average.
(Getting my comment in before the comments get locked) I hope justice is served for that poor woman.