12 year old raped in nuneaton (6 Viewers)

[chiefdave]

By definition, enforcing your borders and being selective with who you admit will be exclusionary to some degree.

There are national/ethnic groups of migrants where, frankly, they’re economically a net drain and/or overrepresented in crime statistics. As general principle, these people shouldn’t be granted entry/residency in our country. For example, 40% of Congolese migrants were on some form of benefit, that is not a typo.

To generalise, the basic economic model for Europe over the last 20-30 years is ‘more migrants = more people = more taxes = more growth’. The OBR has begun to cotton on that this isn’t the case because lower skilled and income workers will be a net drain on the treasury and unsurprisingly, the migrants who are most likely to be a ‘net drain’ are people from economically undeveloped and/or violent countries.

What the electorate has wanted for some time is an immigration policy that is highly selective for people who are going to contribute economically.

We already have a selective process for legal migration, a process which some would argue is too tight. The care system, as an example, nearly collapsed when the rules were tightened. As one example I have a friend who works in the banking sector in London, her husband is a skilled worker, a decent human being, yet isn't allowed to join her in the country.

So who is left? Asylum seekers for a start. I don't think anyone would argue that processing people more quickly and preventing offenders entering or staying in the country isn't a good thing but steps are being taken to do that. Are we placing a cap on genuine asylum cases? Important to remember that relatively speaking we take a small number. 17th per head of population in Europe and way behind the neighbouring countries of conflict zones. Of course many of those conflicts we are either directly or indirectly involved with.

That leaves you with illegal immigrants, who are by definition illegal and I don't think anyone would argue against removing them but its something many governments have struggled to do, not least the issue of where to send them.

I think the reason the likes of Farage gain traction is because its easy to shout stop the boats or don't let rapists in. Its much harder to come up with a workable, and legal, way of enforcing those promises.

 

---

[chiefdave]

The middle class ‘liberal lefties’ on this thread just don’t really get that this mantra of ‘British jobs for British workers’ cuts through.

We have thousands of vacancies in the health and social care sector. I think pretty much everyone in the country would be happy if the currently unemployed Brits took up those roles but that never seems to happen.

If you have essential roles that you can't fill what other option is there than importing labour?

 

[SBT]

The judges have ruled!

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk...ction-remove-asylum-seekers-hotel-2025-08-29/

Well that settles that then

 

[shmmeee]

The middle class ‘liberal lefties’ on this thread just don’t really get that this mantra of ‘British jobs for British workers’ cuts through.

If there’s a housing crisis, importing 400-500k people per year doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. Quick side note on that, Labour are currently tracking behind the Tories miserable record on house building.

I’ll give you one guess as to one of the major bottlenecks to a mass house building campaign.

Unemployment is less than 5% - that meets many definitions of full employment, what jobs? What workers?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

We have thousands of vacancies in the health and social care sector. I think pretty much everyone in the country would be happy if the currently unemployed Brits took up those roles but that never seems to happen.

If you have essential roles that you can't fill what other option is there than importing labour?

This is true but the visas granted outnumbered the vacancies which tells you there’s abuse in the system that’s not being policed. What to do with people who were granted entry for a health and social care visa and are not in that field? If they’re in violation of their visa, deportation proceedings need to be kicked off. This isn’t happening as regularly as it should.

This also ignores that places for doctors have been systematically cut so we’re training less and less doctors and have manufactured a shortage of healthcare professionals because it’s cheaper.

As your population grows, imported or not, you need an entire infrastructure to support that, such as more doctors, nurses and teachers (you get the jist).

We already have a selective process for legal migration, a process which some would argue is too tight. The care system, as an example, nearly collapsed when the rules were tightened. As one example I have a friend who works in the banking sector in London, her husband is a skilled worker, a decent human being, yet isn't allowed to join her in the country.

So who is left? Asylum seekers for a start. I don't think anyone would argue that processing people more quickly and preventing offenders entering or staying in the country isn't a good thing but steps are being taken to do that. Are we placing a cap on genuine asylum cases? Important to remember that relatively speaking we take a small number. 17th per head of population in Europe and way behind the neighbouring countries of conflict zones. Of course many of those conflicts we are either directly or indirectly involved with.

That leaves you with illegal immigrants, who are by definition illegal and I don't think anyone would argue against removing them but its something many governments have struggled to do, not least the issue of where to send them.

I think the reason the likes of Farage gain traction is because it’s easy to shout stop the boats or don't let rapists in. It’s much harder to come up with a workable, and legal, way of enforcing those promises.

When your net migration is 792k per year, to claim the system is too tight is just ridiculous. Ironically, the system makes it difficult for genuinely skilled people (and net contributors) to come and settle in the UK.

People want sub-100k migration, give it to them and if things go to pot, we can change our minds. The bottom line is, voters aren’t getting what they voted for.

If Labour said they think migration is great and want to increase numbers and they win an election, they have a mandate for this. This is what Pedro Sanchez did in Spain. Their mandate is to stop the boats and ‘smash the gangs’ and this issue has got worse. This and other things is driving voters to Reform because voters have lost trust in the Labour and Conservatives.

Even today’s ruling on Epping is just bad politics as the optics are terrible.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The judges have ruled!

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk...ction-remove-asylum-seekers-hotel-2025-08-29/

Well that settles that then

It’s another own goal for the ECHR. Another nail in the coffin.

 

[chiefdave]

This is true but the visas granted outnumbered the vacancies which tells you there’s abuse in the system that’s not being policed. What to do with people who were granted entry for a health and social care visa and are not in that field? If they’re in violation of their visa, deportation proceedings need to be kicked off. This isn’t happening as regularly as it should.

This also ignores that places for doctors have been systematically cut so we’re training less and less doctors and have manufactured a shortage of healthcare professionals because it’s cheaper.

As your population grows, imported or not, you need an entire infrastructure to support that, such as more doctors, nurses and teachers (you get the jist).

When your net migration is 792k per year, to claim the system is too tight is just ridiculous. Ironically, the system makes it difficult for genuinely skilled people (and net contributors) to come and settle in the UK.

People want sub-100k migration, give it to them and if things go to pot, we can change our minds. The bottom line is, voters aren’t getting what they voted for.

If Labour said they think migration is great and want to increase numbers and they win an election, they have a mandate for this. This is what Pedro Sanchez did in Spain. Their mandate is to stop the boats and ‘smash the gangs’ and this issue has got worse. This and other things is driving voters to Reform because voters have lost trust in the Labour and Conservatives.

Even today’s ruling on Epping is just bad politics as the optics are terrible.

My personal experience of care homes is pretty much limited to the one my Dad is in. I know that in the years he has been in it has never once been fully staffed, as one point (when the visa rules were temporarily tightened) they had so much trouble finding staff they got put into special measures. The migrants they do recruit tend to stay there several years and when they move it is normally to a more senior position elsewhere.

If there's abuse happening then address that issue. Cutting off the supply of workers doesn't solve the issue. I wonder if there's 'fake' care companies offering visas, has that replaced the anyone can get them student visa issue we had. Maybe require all visas to be sponsored by an employer and come with a, for example, 2 year job guarantee and if you leave the job the visa goes.

The problem with all these things is enforcement. We can all name places that employ illegal immigrants cash in hand. I suspect the vast majority of people on here use those services (car washes, parcel delivery, food delivery etc). It doesn't matter how much you change the rules if we can't enforce them.

Even if we stopped ever single person crossing in a boat what can we do? We can't just dump them in the sea or row them back to France. So 'stop the boats' remains a great catchphrase that nobody is really offering a solution to.

 

[SBT]

It’s another own goal for the ECHR. Another nail in the coffin.

I’m sorry, what does this decision have to do with the ECHR?

 

[SBAndy]

People want sub-100k migration, give it to them and if things go to pot, we can change our minds.

Thick as fuck.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

My personal experience of care homes is pretty much limited to the one my Dad is in. I know that in the years he has been in it has never once been fully staffed, as one point (when the visa rules were temporarily tightened) they had so much trouble finding staff they got put into special measures. The migrants they do recruit tend to stay there several years and when they move it is normally to a more senior position elsewhere.

If there's abuse happening then address that issue. Cutting off the supply of workers doesn't solve the issue. I wonder if there's 'fake' care companies offering visas, has that replaced the anyone can get them student visa issue we had. Maybe require all visas to be sponsored by an employer and come with a, for example, 2 year job guarantee and if you leave the job the visa goes.

The problem with all these things is enforcement. We can all name places that employ illegal immigrants cash in hand. I suspect the vast majority of people on here use those services (car washes, parcel delivery, food delivery etc). It doesn't matter how much you change the rules if we can't enforce them.

Even if we stopped ever single person crossing in a boat what can we do? We can't just dump them in the sea or row them back to France. So 'stop the boats' remains a great catchphrase that nobody is really offering a solution to.

Actually, turning boats back to France is practical and you also need third country processing. The point here is you can’t let people come to the UK and remain. The system needs deterrence and as soon as people realise there’s a low % chance you’ll make it to UK territory, the boats will stop.

Again, Australia had this issue and dealt with this. It was a huge diplomatic event when they turned boats back to Indonesia and processed people in Papua New Guinea.

This is why people are arguing to leave the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act. Even senior Labour politicians who introduced it to the statute books think it should be partly suspended as they mulled over several times in government.

Australia’s legal system is based on English common law so we’re not at risk of becoming North Korea, Russia or Nazi Germany by reverting back to our legal frameworks pre-1997.

 

[chiefdave]

I’m sorry, what does this decision have to do with the ECHR?

Looking at what the judges said its common sense tbh, although it won't be taken like that.

The thing I hadn't realised from the way it was originally reported is that it was only to leave the hotel temporarily for a few weeks, which does seem a waste of time & money.

Interesting that the hotel owner has previously tried to speak with the local council to see if a change in planning was required and they couldn't be bothered to respond.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I’m sorry, what does this decision have to do with the ECHR?

Lol - is this a serious question?

It was cited in the Home Office’s appeal and in the judgement. It’s a pyrrhic victory because it further confirms what many people are already thinking; it’s no longer fit for purpose and needs to be scrapped.

 

[chiefdave]

Actually, turning boats back to France is practical and you also need third country processing. The point here is you can’t let people come to the UK and remain. The system needs deterrence and as soon as people realise there’s a low % chance you’ll make it to UK territory, the boats will stop.

Again, Australia had this issue and dealt with this. It was a huge diplomatic event when they turned boats back to Indonesia and processed people in Papua New Guinea.

This is why people are arguing to leave the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act. Even senior Labour politicians who introduced it to the statute books think it should be partly suspended as they mulled over several times in government.

Australia’s legal system is based on English common law so we’re not at risk of becoming North Korea, Russia or Nazi Germany by reverting back to our legal frameworks pre-1997.

Turning the boats round would be great, how are we going to do that? How many boats are Australia turning round, the numbers I can find are miniscule and would make little dent into the problem here. We also don't have conveniently located third country to send the boats to so where would they even go?

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention) states are allowed to pick people up from boats if they are "found at sea in danger of being lost".

But these laws do not allow them to be taken to another state without that country agreeing.

In fact, Article 19 of UNCLOS says that if a "foreign ship" enters another country's territorial waters it will "be considered to be prejudicial to the peace" if "it engages in the loading or unloading of any... person contrary to the immigration laws" of that country.

BBC Verify spoke to two experts in maritime law.

James M. Turner KC, a shipping lawyer at Quadrant Chambers, told us: "The French would have to grant express permission for UK vessels to carry rescued people through their territorial waters and to leave them ashore in France".

Ainhoa Campàs Velasco, a maritime law expert from the University of Southampton, said migrants could not be returned to French shores, "unilaterally, and without prior agreement with France".

 

[shmmeee]

Thick as fuck.

It’s Brexit all over again. Same people. Same hare-brained ideas. “Just leave one more treaty bro I swear this time I’ve got it bro” suddenly up in arms about things they didn’t know existed five minutes ago but happen to align with the interests of the people feeding them their media diet. Same co opting of public sentiment on a general issue to grant legitimacy to their fringe nonsense.

I don’t blame the people pushing it, fool me once and all that.

 

[SBAndy]

It’s Brexit all over again. Same people. Same hare-brained ideas. “Just leave one more treaty bro I swear this time I’ve got it bro” suddenly up in arms about things they didn’t know existed five minutes ago but happen to align with the interests of the people feeding them their media diet. Same co opting of public sentiment on a general issue to grant legitimacy to their fringe nonsense.

I don’t blame the people pushing it, fool me once and all that.

If I use the logic applied in the segment I quoted, I should just feed my 1 year old chocolate all the time. After all, that’s what he wants, and I as parent should not seek to influence this decision in any way. When he changes his mind, we can stop. But until then, everything is chocolate.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Turning the boats round would be great, how are we going to do that? How many boats are Australia turning round, the numbers I can find are miniscule and would make little dent into the problem here. We also don't have conveniently located third country to send the boats to so where would they even go?

The navy patrolling the English Channel and physically turning the boats around. If they scuttle the boats, send them back in lifeboats.

Again, as soon as it becomes apparent that boats will be turned around and one will set foot in the UK… the market for crossing disappears. Hence the numbers Australia turn around are ‘minuscule’.

Especially when there is 27 EU nations for them to disperse to.

https://osb.homeaffairs.gov.au/Pages/TurnBack.aspx#

If I use the logic applied in the segment I quoted, I should just feed my 1 year old chocolate all the time. After all, that’s what he wants, and I as parent should not seek to influence this decision in any way. When he changes his mind, we can stop. But until then, everything is chocolate.

There’s a small difference here. You elect a government to deliver a policy programme. Your child didn’t elect you as a parent.

A stupid analogy.

 

[rob9872]

Turning the boats round would be great, how are we going to do that? How many boats are Australia turning round, the numbers I can find are miniscule and would make little dent into the problem here. We also don't have conveniently located third country to send the boats to so where would they even go?

Well everyone suddenly sees the idea that we should blame the rich for all the misgivings in the country. It's the new emperor's clothes. On that basis we should send them all to Jersey ... 'nearer to France, but closer to home'

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

It’s Brexit all over again. Same people. Same hare-brained ideas. “Just leave one more treaty bro I swear this time I’ve got it bro” suddenly up in arms about things they didn’t know existed five minutes ago but happen to align with the interests of the people feeding them their media diet. Same co opting of public sentiment on a general issue to grant legitimacy to their fringe nonsense.

I don’t blame the people pushing it, fool me once and all that.

You’ve got the wrong end of the stick here actually.

If the HRA and ECHR regime can be used to stop the boats, deport failed asylum seekers and so on, I’m all for remaining.

These two pieces of legislation/conventions have caused problems for government policy back when Blair was PM. Who he himself considered suspending parts of the ECHR and this was before illegal crossings were at present volumes.

The Tories tried Rwanda but were frustrated in the courts and unable to deliver policy priorities.

So by all means, we can continue to try the same things but if it’s not working, at what point do you turn around consider alternatives?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

By definition, enforcing your borders and being selective with who you admit will be exclusionary to some degree.

There are national/ethnic groups of migrants where, frankly, they’re economically a net drain and/or overrepresented in crime statistics. As general principle, these people shouldn’t be granted entry/residency in our country. For example, 40% of Congolese migrants were on some form of benefit, that is not a typo.

To generalise, the basic economic model for Europe over the last 20-30 years is ‘more migrants = more people = more taxes = more growth’. The OBR has begun to cotton on that this isn’t the case because lower skilled and income workers will be a net drain on the treasury and unsurprisingly, the migrants who are most likely to be a ‘net drain’ are people from economically undeveloped and/or violent countries.

What the electorate has wanted for some time is an immigration policy that is highly selective for people who are going to contribute economically.

Indeed, but the reality is how do you achieve that?

If we added in something along the lines of not being accepted unless you have a job guarantee from an employer for x period of time then that itself is open to abuse. It's little better than a slave contract The migrants are then at the mercy of those employers who can impose poor working conditions and long hours on them and the migrants can do nothing. If they look to leave or complain the employer terminates their employment and that person loses the right to stay. And why would employers do it unless it was economically beneficial to them?

This even goes as far as less scrupulous or even criminal enterprises setting up companies to employ these people and then using them in criminal enterprise. Women with care work visas ending up as sex workers. And given the ease with which you can set up companies chasing them down would be like tracking a fart in a hurricane.

Plus you then have to deal with the human side. What if a person wants to bring their family? Kids aren't economically productive so should they be refused? And if you make the initial migrant responsible for their keeping you're back into how do they guarantee they can do that in an economy that mainly provides short-term contracts and gig work at the low, unskilled level.

And that doesn't even start to cover the biggest problems of student and tourist visa overstays.

 

[rob9872]

chasing them down would be like tracking a fart in a hurricane.

Never heard that before, but I'll be stealing it from now on!

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Actually, turning boats back to France is practical and you also need third country processing. The point here is you can’t let people come to the UK and remain. The system needs deterrence and as soon as people realise there’s a low % chance you’ll make it to UK territory, the boats will stop.

Again, Australia had this issue and dealt with this. It was a huge diplomatic event when they turned boats back to Indonesia and processed people in Papua New Guinea.

This is why people are arguing to leave the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act. Even senior Labour politicians who introduced it to the statute books think it should be partly suspended as they mulled over several times in government.

Australia’s legal system is based on English common law so we’re not at risk of becoming North Korea, Russia or Nazi Germany by reverting back to our legal frameworks pre-1997.

If we turn the boats back to France what's to stop France turning the boats back towards us? They could just as legitimately claim that the boats didn't originate from there so why should they take them? Do we just end up with a mass of boats roaming around the English Channel forever unable to land anywhere?

Now I'm sure your argument would be that by doing so it makes the journey unappetising and so less crossings happen, but they are still human beings. You can't just let them drown or starve.

 

[Sick Boy]

Farage, Cummings....it won't be long until there are calls for Johnson to return as PM.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

In truth we do not have to take more whatever the state of the planet

So not our job to try to stop/fix the damage our greed and consumption is causing, nor is it our job to help those that are being negatively impacted by it.

You don't want to make any efforts towards altering the climate change, but that is leading to more and more areas becoming uninhabitable and therefore more and more people being displaced but don't see it as our problem that those people are being displaced.

The only way this ends if we don't sort out the state of the planet (if that can even realistically be done anymore) is huge conflict between those that are displaced and those who refuse them.

 

[chiefdave]

The navy patrolling the English Channel and physically turning the boats around. If they scuttle the boats, send them back in lifeboats.

Again, as soon as it becomes apparent that boats will be turned around and one will set foot in the UK… the market for crossing disappears. Hence the numbers Australia turn around are ‘minuscule’.

Especially when there is 27 EU nations for them to disperse to.

https://osb.homeaffairs.gov.au/Pages/TurnBack.aspx#

There’s a small difference here. You elect a government to deliver a policy programme. Your child didn’t elect you as a parent.

A stupid analogy.

When I refer to miniscule numbers I'm referring to the fact that when Australia first implemented this it was after a peak in boats of 278 back in 2012. The policy was introduced in 2013 and up to 2021 a grand total of 38 boats had been stopped. From 2000 to 2019 1,720 asylum seekers bound for Australia died, including 189 in Australian waters.

We would need a huge operation multiple times the size of Australia's. It would cost a huge amount. Many of those 'turned back to where they came from' actually get sent to third party countries leaving Australia carry the costs for years of them being in limbo.

"will be dropped on an island somewhere" seems a fairly major detail he's missed there. You've got to send them somewhere.

When Australia turned boats back to Indonesia international relations between the two countries collapsed. Do we want to do that with Europe? Remember we rank pretty low on the list of European countries for the number of people we take.

If you just make it the wild west and allow every country to do whatever they want and send people to any third country they decide what's to stop countries in Europe sending everyone here, after all you're suggesting we do this with no agreement from the other countries involved.

 

[shmmeee]

When I refer to miniscule numbers I'm referring to the fact that when Australia first implemented this it was after a peak in boats of 278 back in 2012. The policy was introduced in 2013 and up to 2021 a grand total of 38 boats had been stopped. From 2000 to 2019 1,720 asylum seekers bound for Australia died, including 189 in Australian waters.

We would need a huge operation multiple times the size of Australia's. It would cost a huge amount. Many of those 'turned back to where they came from' actually get sent to third party countries leaving Australia carry the costs for years of them being in limbo.

"will be dropped on an island somewhere" seems a fairly major detail he's missed there. You've got to send them somewhere.

When Australia turned boats back to Indonesia international relations between the two countries collapsed. Do we want to do that with Europe? Remember we rank pretty low on the list of European countries for the number of people we take.

If you just make it the wild west and allow every country to do whatever they want and send people to any third country they decide what's to stop countries in Europe sending everyone here, after all you're suggesting we do this with no agreement from the other countries involved.

Australia’s geography is entirely different. They’re surrounded by international waters and the boats that come are seaworthy.

 

[chiefdave]

If we added in something along the lines of not being accepted unless you have a job guarantee from an employer for x period of time then that itself is open to abuse. It's little better than a slave contract The migrants are then at the mercy of those employers who can impose poor working conditions and long hours on them and the migrants can do nothing. If they look to leave or complain the employer terminates their employment and that person loses the right to stay. And why would employers do it unless it was economically beneficial to them?

Sure I've mentioned it before but one of our clients at the last company was a chain of luxury hotels, think £400+ a night. The majority of their staff were immigrants.

They were paid minimum wage, they had to live on site in appalling conditions for which rent was deducted. Their 'meals' for which another deduction was made consisted of whatever was left over. The hotels were in the middle of nowhere (country retreat type places) and they had no transport so were on site 24/7. No phone signal, no landline, patchy at best internet.

The hotels would employ them for random hours, like a couple of hours for breakfast then a few hours off, then 3 or 4 hours on etc. So you were working random hours between 6am and 2am.

These are the sort of jobs being filled. Making money for multi millionaires. If you're son or daughter got a job there you'd take one look when you went to drop them off and turn round and drive them home.

 

[SBT]

Lol - is this a serious question?

It was cited in the Home Office’s appeal and in the judgement. It’s a pyrrhic victory because it further confirms what many people are already thinking; it’s no longer fit for purpose and needs to be scrapped.

So the government wouldn’t have been able to challenge and overturn this decision if we left the ECHR?

 

[shmmeee]

So the government wouldn’t have been able to challenge and overturn this decision if we left the ECHR?

Brexit again. Leave the EHCR and planning law no longer applies! Leave the EHCR and the British public will develop a bloodlust for drowning migrants! Leave the EHCR and the trade with Russia and North Korea will far outweigh the lost EU trade deal

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Brexit again. Leave the EHCR and planning law no longer applies! Leave the EHCR and the British public will develop a bloodlust for drowning migrants! Leave the EHCR and the trade with Russia and North Korea will far outweigh the lost EU trade deal

Why do this stupid routine continually?

Repealing the HRA brings us back to the state of Britain in 1997. The USA, Canada, Australia, NZ aren’t signed up to the ECHR.

It’s not a problem that you disagree on policy. You’re a bad faith actor.

If you think leaving the ECHR and repealing the HRA doesn’t solve the small boat crisis, then outline why you think that.

Alternatively, if the ECHR and HRA has a legal framework to prevent small boat crossings and other issues around illegal migration, then we’re all ears. As far as I can see, it’s not possible. Hence, this issue has proliferated and accelerated since these were implemented into UK law. It’s demonstrably not an issue of party politics either.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

So the government wouldn’t have been able to challenge and overturn this decision if we left the ECHR?

You’d fall back on English common law which has a much richer tradition of safeguarded civil liberties centuries before the ECHR was dreamt up.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Anyone surprised, I'm not.View attachment 45575

I’ve reviewed the image you shared—it appears to be a chart from the Centre for Migration Control (CMC), as circulated by Restore Britain, showing “Sexual Offences in London by Nationality” expressed as charges per 10,000 people.








Quick verdict








This chart is misleading and lacks full credibility. It is based on charges, not convictions, and originates from a think tank with a known anti-immigration stance. Independent outlets and fact-checkers have raised concerns about both its methodology and context.














What’s problematic about it?











1.


Charges vs. Convictions

• The chart uses data on charges (proceeded against), rather than convictions. A charge does not necessarily mean guilt, and the legal outcomes remain unaccounted for. The Centre for Migration Control’s own Freedom of Information (FOI) data show this distinction—but it’s often overlooked or ignored.
• The Guardian notes that referring to this data as convictions is misleading.

2.


Lack of Wider Context and Data Limitations

• The data used by CMC may be based on outdated or underestimated population figures. For example, claims that Afghans or Eritreans are “20 times more likely to be convicted” are inflated due to outdated population denominators—since migration from these countries has increased significantly.
• Sky News offers revised analysis suggesting that Afghans are about three times more likely to be convicted of sexual offences relative to UK-born individuals—not 20 times—as claimed by some CMC-derived statements. Even that may overestimate due to data limitations.

3.


Bias of the Source

• The CMC is affiliated with Reform UK, a political party, and has no academic credibility. It often publishes content focusing on restricting migration and has been criticized for ethnonationalist leanings.
• Foil researchers and fact-checkers, including The Guardian, have debunked several of their claims as misleading or politically motivated.

4.


Independent Data Paint a Different Picture

• Wikipedia and others, referencing MOJ and Police National Computer data, show foreign nationals account for roughly 26% of sexual assault convictions on women in 2024 (plus an 8% category “unknown”), not the higher numbers implied by the chart.
• Similarly, a breakdown of convictions across England and Wales indicates that foreign nationals accounted for 15% to 22% of all sexual offence convictions, depending on how “unknown” categories are treated.
• The disproportionate representation in charges does not necessarily equate to disproportionate convictions—nor does it account for population structure differences (many foreign nationals are younger and male, demographics typically linked to higher crime rates across all backgrounds).

 

[chiefdave]

The USA, Canada, Australia, NZ aren’t signed up to the ECHR.

Why would any of those countries be in the European Convention on Human Rights?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I’ve reviewed the image you shared—it appears to be a chart from the Centre for Migration Control (CMC), as circulated by Restore Britain, showing “Sexual Offences in London by Nationality” expressed as charges per 10,000 people.








Quick verdict








This chart is misleading and lacks full credibility. It is based on charges, not convictions, and originates from a think tank with a known anti-immigration stance. Independent outlets and fact-checkers have raised concerns about both its methodology and context.














What’s problematic about it?











1.


Charges vs. Convictions

• The chart uses data on charges (proceeded against), rather than convictions. A charge does not necessarily mean guilt, and the legal outcomes remain unaccounted for. The Centre for Migration Control’s own Freedom of Information (FOI) data show this distinction—but it’s often overlooked or ignored.
• The Guardian notes that referring to this data as convictions is misleading.

2.


Lack of Wider Context and Data Limitations

• The data used by CMC may be based on outdated or underestimated population figures. For example, claims that Afghans or Eritreans are “20 times more likely to be convicted” are inflated due to outdated population denominators—since migration from these countries has increased significantly.
• Sky News offers revised analysis suggesting that Afghans are about three times more likely to be convicted of sexual offences relative to UK-born individuals—not 20 times—as claimed by some CMC-derived statements. Even that may overestimate due to data limitations.

3.


Bias of the Source

• The CMC is affiliated with Reform UK, a political party, and has no academic credibility. It often publishes content focusing on restricting migration and has been criticized for ethnonationalist leanings.
• Foil researchers and fact-checkers, including The Guardian, have debunked several of their claims as misleading or politically motivated.

4.


Independent Data Paint a Different Picture

• Wikipedia and others, referencing MOJ and Police National Computer data, show foreign nationals account for roughly 26% of sexual assault convictions on women in 2024 (plus an 8% category “unknown”), not the higher numbers implied by the chart.
• Similarly, a breakdown of convictions across England and Wales indicates that foreign nationals accounted for 15% to 22% of all sexual offence convictions, depending on how “unknown” categories are treated.
• The disproportionate representation in charges does not necessarily equate to disproportionate convictions—nor does it account for population structure differences (many foreign nationals are younger and male, demographics typically linked to higher crime rates across all backgrounds).

In summary

laim in Image	Reality / Context
Charges per nationality (e.g., Afghans 74.17/10k)	Based on charges, not convictions; doesn’t reflect guilt
Foreign nationals overrepresented in sexual offences	Charges data shows some overrepresentation, but the conviction rate is lower and more moderate when properly analyzed
Afghans/Eritreans 20× more likely	Based on flawed population data; more nuanced analysis suggests much lower disparities (~3×) and still uncertain due to data limits

laim in Image	Reality / Context
Charges per nationality (e.g., Afghans 74.17/10k)	Based on charges, not convictions; doesn’t reflect guilt
Foreign nationals overrepresented in sexual offences	Charges data shows some overrepresentation, but the conviction rate is lower and more moderate when properly analyzed
Afghans/Eritreans 20× more likely	Based on flawed population data; more nuanced analysis suggests much lower disparities (~3×) and still uncertain due to data limits

 

[Grendel]

Why would any of those countries be in the European Convention on Human Rights?

The point is that they operate perfectly well as a country without a further tier of court from a central bloc.

 

[Grendel]

There is of course the small matter of countries just telling the ECHR to fuck their judgements and deport people anyway