You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what ever common people do
Never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
And then dance, and drink, and screw
Because there's nothing else to dooo
Why is Burnam so into making his Smiths obsession everyone else's problem? I really do not get it. Like an autistic teenager who thinks everyone else is going to find his hyper obsessions just as interesting as he does if he's able to expose them to enough of it.
>>2906946He thinks it makes him look like a 'normal person', to be fair it probably does work on people that aren't as staunchly left wing as us to some extent, like "wow, he likes Britpop like I do, I feel soo seen"
>>2906977Smiths isnt britpop you mong.
At least it's not fucking Oasis
>>2907274you take that back immediately
wonderwall is the greatest song to have ever been made
>>2907275Be quiet Anthony
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us-if at all-not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men
>>2907269well what is it then. same difference anyways.
Appears to be a Chud-out in Dover as masked "Patriots" lead by Danny Tommo block the port.
Is it reactionary to want the police to beat up right wing protestors using miners strike style tactics as punishment for disrupting public order
(It's not the beating I'm attracted to, it's the appearance of an orderly and genial society. Leftie protestors are usually just harmless softies going for a civilised walk, so they can be left to it.)
>>2906946Wasn't Cameron talking about his love of indie rock while he fucked over all the students?
>>2907303I'd say more like power-pop or proto-twee. There's a huge fan overlap but the Smiths sound are not exactly what comes to mind when you think post punk.
https://unrollnow.com/status/2096181509803712621Yep, in-between this and that video of gammons celebrating a thug doing a near-fatal head kick on a black man lying on the grass after baselessly accusing him of staring at kids, I think the UK will devolve into a more degenerate and wigger version of Jim Crow South.
https://unrollnow.com/status/2092888134342037707Good time for the British rightoids to rehabilitate Jimmy Saville?
https://x.com/mrtibblesnewera/status/2095415233091100797Context: Tommy Robinson and British right-wing Twitter have circulated with adulation a video of a white lumpen thug kicking a black man who was resting on the grass in his face after baselessly accusing the latter of being a pedophile and staring at kids.
Leftist and liberal cowardice has led to a situation where pre-emptively accusing someone of being a pedo is seen as a reasonable excuse for violent and potentially fatal acts.
>>2907305>>2907344https://unrollnow.com/status/2096193772900041023https://unrollnow.com/status/2096246218334605648So, PA can be labelled as a terrorist org in the name of Jewish feelings, but somehow the state can’t be bothered with investigating and surveillance right-wing and far-right paramilitaries?
Peak 🤡🌍
You wonder if the British establishment wants the fascists to take over after finding out that appealing to base wignat sentiments is all they have to do to maintain their power. Dark times ahead across the west, and this time I doubt retreating to the third or second world will be an option for us.
https://searchlightmagazine.com/2026/09/phony-patriots-turn-the-poppy-into-far-rights-latest-culture-war-weapon/Have the British isles suffered a centuries-long brain drain, or is it “white British” reverting back to their animalistic state as material conditions decline, shifting from a civilised people into total deracinated goyslave status that are giving burgers a run for their money in terms of uncivilised behavior? In that sense, they’re very much like the Russian people in the aftermath of the fall of the USSR.
Russia might be a good example. Like, there was a talk show in the USSR featuring both American and Soviet citizens, and an American presenter asked a Soviet woman where would she want to go, and she answered that she would like to visit the hometown of William Faulkner since she read The Sound and the Fury.
Contrast that impression with Stephen Hitchens recounting his visit to the newly-formed Russian federation and discussing with dismay how modern Russian was nothing like that of Pushkin and other great Russian novelists, instead being slang-filled and bureaucratic in a vulgar manner. So ofc the modern Russian now is very open to conspiracy theories. Indeed, it’s not uncommon for the average Russian to hear conspiratard slop at least once in their life.
Because of these gammons did the same in Germany, they would be looked down for ruining public property. Like, once some German copycat attempt to paint a benchmark with German flag was posted on X’itter, and even the chuds there were like “this is property damage tho”
Anyway, don’t wanna sound like a glowie, but yall should at the very least get yourselves prepared, because it’ll be Weimar all over again.
>>2907372
Don't care, total dolphin death now
>>2906999Damn, a fellow Coil fan, though I'm on the other side of the channel. Sean Booth of Autechre mentioned once John Balance introduced him to Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle. Funny how some of the best British musicians cannot be co-opted in any way, Mark E. Smith is a very good example of that, despite his erratic politics.
Not too mention all the songs criticizing Maggie-era unemployment in the 1980s, from XTC's Leisure (predicted the AI-driven unemployment crisis, though it's a recurring phenomenon due to technology) to Katrina and the Waves' Going Down to Liverpool. All better than the anti-Reagan American punk if I'm being honest here.
Some thoughts on the Patriot Platform/Danny Tommo blackshirt March.
First, the pessimistic. This goes to show how well funded and mobile the far-right have become. Some blackshirts on youtube described it as "disciplined", I wouldn't say that considering the far-right are playing on easy mode, they weren't actually going to suffer any consequences. Most of them are power tripping cowards. It is worrying they were able to mobilise 1000 (paid) dimwits and took the police off guard. If that had been a march to occupy a council office, or they can do this at a large scale, they could make some serious headway.
The more optimistic side is that the police are now tipped off to patriot platform and it will more difficult for them going forward. The left, weak as we are, now also know to keep an eye on them and the public generally despise this type of shit. Its worth noting Patriot Platform practices registration of its members, which means all those masked morons identities are in Danny Tommo's database, so if the police seize or its hacked, we'll know who these muppets are. We might also be able to find out some of them by watching recent videos where Danny Tommo is addressing a crowd.
Either way, if you're part of any organisation like a party or union, give a speech, get on the phone or send an email about to them about this shitr. We need to stop taking the far-right so likely. Hopefully these guys blunder and fuck it all up like the UK far-right usually does because most of them are druggy football hooligans, but lets not give them a chance.
>>2907581These are real opportunities to stick it to these nonces. I think these guys are receiving compensation for this, if we can get them on video or take photos, that would be good. I'm not advocating violence, but obviously that is always an option for self defense. But I also think we should whatever we can to increase the cost of hiring these guys. The more miserable we make it to be a Blackshirt, the more Elon or whatever will have to pay to encourage these guys. Lets make hiring them as expensive as possible. If they lose their jobs, these billionaires will have to compensate them for that.
To be honest, I'm less concerned about the events where they announce things like this because if we've seen it, the police have, which means not much will probably come of it. I'm more worried about the rapid, targeted deployment of these guys.
If there was a leftist march to shut down a port, they would give everyone one warning and then arrest them all.
I'd like to be a photographer but I don't want to photograph Britain
I wish I were American. A Portland furry transsexual. Hell I'm not picky, I'll take anything. But I don't get a choice. British in Britain, grim grim grim. Bucolic farms, mismatched Betfred high streets, and damp council flats. Fuck that, send me to that highway services hellscape photo people like and let me live in it, get it from every angle, capture the capital of the world in it's death throws rather than another has been European empire.
But here I am. Even if I left this bastard place has already made its mark.
>>2907818retarded boomerslop, but im glad i guess the white-british guy can have solidarity with the asian-british guy over the fact nobody cares enough to fight for this country? really jumped the shark with the random bearded lady though
>>2907839oh relax. there's plenty of gay furry shit to photograph in this country, and some other nice things too.
>>2907866I thought it was endearing.
Two people on the island of strangers having a laugh.
>>2907869i kinda would feel that way if they hadn't thrown in the random trans shit. it just reveals they're total retards who think you can't shoot a gun if you're not tradmasc (not like the white british guy is some super buff guy either).
also it's just general war fever propaganda which I don't approve of
Had anyone worked out how NHS Wales cancelled all those transgender surgeries yet?
(What I'm actually asking is whether I should hate the NHS, or Plaid Cymru.)
>>2907877Based on prior behaviour it seems much more likely to be something the NHS decided to do or was ordered to do by Whitehall than something PC would order them to do.
>>2907867There are good things you could do (I actually quite like damp tower blocks tbh) but they're not what I want to do. Ordinarily I'd make virtue of necessity but aesthetically and culturally this place just isn't what I'm after.
>>2907900
They're sky high
>post about how health boards in Scotland are pointless because they're not democratically accountable to councils
>SNP announce they're cutting the number of mainland health boards from 11 to 2
I can't keep getting away with this!!
This is actually probably a bad thing since they'll definitely use it as an excuse to merge all the gender clinics so you have two broken ones instead of like 4 mediocre ones and 1 totally fucked one
>>2907994
But the Rothschilds only get power around the Napoleonic Wars. The fascination clearly begins earlier.
>>2908020
Trot to labour neo-con pipeline is well understood, the same can be said of Blair
>>2908022
Kek. Wiley always strikes me as so autistic. Feels like they were targeting a vulnerable adult. cruel.
Life death does end and each day dies with sleep
wild how GB news is allowed to just give Farage constant party political broadcasts without ofcom doing anything about it.
but then this is a country where the electoral commission allows "independent green voice" as a brand for far right weirdoes who openly admit they're using it to cost the scottish greens votes, where the water and electricity regulators exist to mediate between the public and rent-seeking firms on behalf of the firms, and so on.
if you were writing a textbook on regulatory capture, the UK is the nightmare society you'd use to illustrate what would happen if there were no countervailing forces in a hypothetical scenario, to drive home the importance of creating such forces to economists.
>>2908054
what the fuck even are you on about?
Richard's speech to the peasants revolt should be at the masthead of every newspaper, the front page of every manifesto, the opening and sign off of every BBC broadcast, and a mandatory sign in popup on every computer with the locale set to en-GB.
If Britain has a constitution it is not found in parliamentary sovereignty or in magna carta, it is found in Walsingham's St. Alban's Chronicle
In bondage, not as before, but incomparably harsher! that is the "thousand years of history" this nation would give up were it to be amalgamated with all the other offcuts of this peripheral continent.
>>2908061
I mean ok, thats sad they retreated, idk whats your point though? they basically believed the king was ordained by god. that's why they blame evil ministers etc.
>>2908054It wasn't a revolt; it was a riot - a creatute of passion, not reason.
Like all movements, it hard sparks of radicalism. John Ball (1381):
<When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men.https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cast_off_the_Yoke_of_BondageMy favourite detail of the Peasant Riot is the Englishman coming into London to genocide the Flemish. Reeks of the same thing today, where racial violence overshadows the entire affair.
>>2908058It would have been lovely if the crowd took turns raping young Richard while cleaving off his flesh, but alas, Wat Tyler wanted to be Billy Big Bollocks and ended his leadership in drunken pride rather than strategy. Funniest thing is that Richard looks like bloody Genghis Khan. Is this our English royalty?
>>2908076Don't look up what Harry wore that one Halloween, either!
Just like al' Liz and her Uncle Georgie.
Penny for the guy
>>2908301Racist british propaganda, every copy should be burned
>>2908301Good Gothic novel although some of the racial stereotypes about Eastern Euros, Gypsies, and the attitudes towards women are dated.
Also some of the dates and little details weren't quite correct or consistent throughout.
The impact it's had on the Horror and Gothic genres is legendary, worth reading if you care about classic literature at all.
>>2908302>Racist british propagandaHe was Irish actually.
>>2908162Burnham will do nothing as an openly hostile anti-British fifth column pledges their allegiance to a foreign country, even advocating for an invasion by said foreign country.
>>2908592Wiley was a retarded anti-palestinian black ethnonat.
>“I can see and feel the Arab control presence around Africa and I don’t like it…Looks like a big ol set up…infact I know the set up Europeans and Arabs have got Africa in a headlock”. >>2908607That's not what we were talking about tho.
69th reply: Another chimpout, this time at Portsmouth, Hampshire
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cm5y7rw74n09t>>2908592Dunno, it was my posts they deleted. Probably randomly decided to enforce some "off-topic" or "not politics" rule when this website is dead and most every thread is 90% off-topic, usually shit-flinging. I think they just are mad if it seems like anybody is actually enjoying a discussion on this godforsaken shithole.
>>2908607What does that quote have to do with Palestine and where is he wrong(within that quote, maybe there is something else I'm not aware of)
>>2908620>What does that quote have to do with Palestine and where is he wrong(within that quote, maybe there is something else I'm not aware of)The quote was in the context of talking about Palestine that his anti-jewish comments also were. He is saying Palestine is rightful we wuz territory that is occupied by Ay-rabs.
>>2908620I mean, it's about politics. It's more on-topic than a lot of the nonsense schizobable and blog posting that gets posted here.
Ed Miliband is banning settlement goods tomorrow. In response the Israelis are threatening to support the Argentine claim to the Falklands. What weird times we live in.
>>2908620I deleted all your posts because you went fucking insane and started saying "I'm going to crush every Britons skulls" or whatever and filling the thread with complete inanity, currently you're ban evading but I'll let it slide if you be chill
TL;DR:
Stats for Lefties (SfL) on Twitter got suspended from the Green Party literally just for being trans.
You can add Greens to the list of anti-trans parties now.
———————————–
Super Long In-Depth Version:
The Green Party has an internal structure called the Green Party Council (GPC).
It is a group of 36 elected party members who manage internal party operations, party policy, party culture.
The election of members to the GPC includes an all-woman shortlist to ensure a certain percentage of elected members are women.
Historically this shortlist has always been open to trans women and non-binary people too.
SfL was on the womens' shortlist, won 1 of 36 seats in the election, receiving over 800 votes from party members, and was therefore appointed to the GPC.
The Daily Mail found out that that SfL was a trans woman with pro-Palestine and Socialist views, and then wrote a hit piece about how an EVIL MARXIST HAMAS TRANSGENDER was on a WOMEN ONLY shortlist and even worse, WON.
As a result of the Daily Mail article, 13 of the 36 GPC members with "gender critical" views made their own private group chat, using the right wing outrage over the Daily Mail article to try pushing Green Party policy change on trans issues, and to expel SfL from the GPC and Green Party.
These 13 Green TERFs used their secret group chat to create a literally 100 page long Microsoft Word document of what basically amounted to a Gender Critical manifesto + a list of tweets SfL had made saying rude things about right-wingers and transphobes.
They then submitted their TERF manifesto to the Green Party Disputes and Complaints Department demanding she be expelled from the party.
The Green Party responded to this by immediately suspending her from the Party (but not from the GPC?), just 8 days after being elected.
The reason given was "bringing the party into disrepute."
In the email to SfL announcing her suspension the Green Party also included a link to a suicide prevention hotline.
On further clarification it was specified that the sole reason for this "disrepute" was being a trans woman on the womans' shortlist, and that the Daily Mail wrote an anti-trans hit piece about this. They didn't care about any of the the twitter posts.
In the Green Party is no mechanism for suspended members to present their side, or submit evidence in their defence.
The only "appeal" is to write to the Party, to beg them to reconsider, and for other Green Party members to write to the Party to beg on behalf of the suspended member too.
———————————–
Personally I have never once trusted the Greens, who are just the "least worst" of the major socdem / liberal parties, and don't think infiltrating their ranks is a worthwhile endeavour.
I am not at all remotely surprised all it took was a single Daily Mail article to decide being trans was valid reason for suspension.
>>2909077>feminists being a subvertsive 5th column and wrecking yet another polical movement once againI am glad women's right will go down the drain in this century thanks to no one but themselves, but what can be done in the meantime? The left do not deserves to fail because of these infiltrators, they are worse than zionists at that point, at least zios knows the party's cohesion comes first and they put their own body on line for their ideology.
Also what kind of absurdity is that rule about about doing DEI for women? DEI is already stupid enough most of the time but doing DEI for politics? Doing preferential treatment for people of very dubious talent instead of the most qualified natural leader? Madness.
To think that the "anti-woke" (self identified) left spent a decade railing against trans by accusing them of doing the things anti-trans feminists were the one doing the whole time with their ideological subvertion, idpozz and party wrecking. Trans success are purely meritocratic.
>>2909077lol
TERF island strikes again
>>2909131They aren't feminists in any meaningful sense. A feminist would not support policies that hurt women on the basis that they hurt transgender people more, but TERFs always focus their policies on hurting trans people no matter the cost.
(It's also just not true that zionists are similarly unwilling to wreck, did you sleep through the Corbyn years?)
>>2909133>>2909134All women shortlists made more sense back when they were introduced, when the number of female MPs was comically low. Given the succession of terrible incompetent male leaders we've had, there's no real merit-based argument against it.
Though i'd still scrap them if we take the tenditious TERFy interpretation of the supreme court ruling (e.g. that you can't have a women-or-transgender shortlist and are only allowed shortlists by assigned sex at birth…) in which case the woke option is no shortlists for anybody.
what's funny is the Scottish Greens, who used to require a male and a female co-convener… with the result that the man was obviously the leader and a succession of women were his deputy, even though both were nominally equal. they had 2 males and 5 females! 6 if you include that the second male leader stayed on under the new system! >>2909139>they aren't feministsAccording to whom? Feminism has always been a fringe ideology for deranged women; let's not pretend it is in anyway compatible with common sense egalitarianism.
>>2909143A basic understanding of demographics and dispositions. Feminists skew young and woke, TERFs skew old and conservative. You don't have to like feminism to recognise that. (Though I do like it, because young woke feminists have the right disposition - high openness and high agreeableness.)
Imagine that tomorrow, a new "leftist" party appeared. They claim to be the one true revolutionary org (don't they all?) but only thing they seem to actually
do is campaign for more restrictions on trade unions, sometimes arguing that they are counter-revolutionary instruments of the labour aristocracy, but also regularly throwing out the standard bourgeois arguments about inefficiency, high costs being passed on to consumers, union fees, higher unemployment through elevated wages, and so on.
Now imagine that all the members of this party are old men, that almost all of them voted Tory at every election between 1974 and 2024, that they've got sympathisers across all of the reactionary British newspapers, and that most of their keynote speakers and allies are Tories and former CIA people who openly brag about how many revolutions they've subverted.
Now imagine that they all congregate on /r/smallbusinessUK, nominally a boring place but notorious worldwide for the insane levels of anti-union posting there. Now draw a further inference: most small businesses go bankrupt quite quickly, so most of the posters there are people who
used to have a business but now have a lot of empty time on their hands and a lot of pent up resentment…
Would you accept at face value that such a party was left-wing, simply because they went by the monicker Union-Exclusionary-Radical-Leftists? (Actually that's a slur, they prefer union-critical…)
>>2909159>feminist>TERFTERFs are feminists.
That's what the F stands for.
It's annoying when people think TERF simply means "transphobe", when gender-critical feminism is an ideology of the second wave.
>>2909160>leftist>UERLUERLs are leftists.
That's what the L stands for.
It's annoying when people think UERL simply means "Tory", when union-critical leftism has been part of Marxism from the start.
>>2909161A gender-critical feminist IS a feminist
I'm sorry that you can't cope with the long-standing reality that feminists are actually fringe cultists, not wholesome egalitarians.
>>2909164Please don't respect their preferred title, it's unbecoming. Having had my fun:
I do not deny that there are a small number of second wave trans-exclusionary radfems. They are "real feminists", just like useless little freaks like the CPB are technically part of the left.
But they are all but irrelevant to the wider anti-transgender movement, which is casually called TERFism because TERF flows off the tongue better than any of the alternatives. (This is the only flaw in my UERL analogy, because that's almost unpronounceable while "Tory" is easy) It takes a certain derangement to imagine Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, Donald Trump and JK Rowling are all radical feminist figures. (Perhaps we should go further: Thatcher was a radical feminist, Hitler was a radical feminist, the devil… he gave the apple to
Eve after all… and God, that bastard, why the fuck did he nick that bloke's rib? That's hardly fair! What did Adam get in return, eh? Cast out of Eden!)
More than that, they are irrelevant to the wider feminist movement. Who are the most pro-feminist demographic? Women 18-29 (66% self-identified feminists.) Who are the most pro-Trans demographic? 18-24 year olds! (60 for / 20 against letting people change gender, only demographic more than 50% in favour of the statement "increased recognition and rights for transgender people does not pose any genuine risk to women's rights", only demographic who think you should legally be able to change gender, only demographic in favour of HRT on the NHS…) This is an age thing! Middle aged mums with empty nest syndrome do not magically become feminists when they start posting beautiful lady😍🥰jaks.
It is not necessary for feminists to be wholesome egalitarians for these points to stand. I have nothing good to say about the British left, but I would still recognise that UERLs
aren't part of it. You are allowed to dislike more than one thing.
>>2909174All of this confusion stems from your primary presumption of feminism being a good thing, and so gatekeeping its meaning. If someone identifies with being a leftist, they are a leftist, as well. If not, what constitutes the true faith? The true inwardness of belief? You will notice that people call themselves "Communists" without ever doing anything besides having a Marx pfp. You are accepting protestant terms of sola fide, but denying the truth of a confession of faith.
>>2909176I do not think feminism is a good thing, I (glibly) think feminism is a young thing, a female thing, and a childless thing.
The beauty of looking at things on the demographic level is that we do not need to know what constitutes true faith. If it doesn't walk like a duck, and it doesn't quack like a duck, then bugger the tiny chance of a misplaced Muscovy, odds are it's
not a duck. The people who call themselves communists without doing anything will share demographic and dispositional traits with others who self-identify as communists. My contention is that if you were to have one of those big cluster-diagrams, you would find that quite limited overlap between an obvious feminist circle, and an obvious TERF circle.
It is not even necessary for the feminist circle to be transphobe free: there is plenty of transphobia even in nominally pro-trans circles, but it takes a different form to TERFism as a movement.
Just today I was amused to watch some poor bugger being dogpiled for saying that you're taking the piss calling yourself non-binary and then listing the binary sex you were assigned at birth in your bio (so people know you're a cis woman and not a cowardly transwoman in a holding pattern.) for reasons which are unstated but obvious to a cynic like myself. This is, subtly and directionally, trans exclusionary but not TERFy. You would find the same thing in my UERL example: all the little left-sect freaks on one side, even the anti-union ones, and then the UERLs all clustered over with the right-wingers.
In terms of a faith analogy, I offer this: Christians are not Jews.
do not try a cheap "ah but they're both abrahamic and abrahamism is feminism" gotcha, that would be stupid. It does not matter how we slice it or how you try to frame the god fearers who nevertheless liked their foreskin,
demographically speaking Christians are not Jews.
(Helpfully, the census makes this distinction for us…)
>>2909187>demographic and dispositional traitsRight, so if we begin with these essential features, "Communist" is a misnomer of a more fundamental human type. Physiognomy as a classical pseudo-science is a good analog, and has practical results.
>an obvious feminist circle, and an obvious TERF circle. My criticism is not in the delineation, but only separating the noun "feminist" from TERF. Why not say instead, "third-wave" and "second-wave", or something to this effect, since these terms are also historicised?
>Christians are not JewsThis is less clean as it may appear.
As we read in the Book of Hebrews, and Revelation; Christians are known to be Spiritual Israel, as opposed to the child of the flesh. This is also why Paul says circumcision is of the heart, not the body. The Jewish and Islamic perspective is that Muslims are Ishmael, and Jews are Israel - with Christians being Esau. Christians would see Jews as Ishmael, and Christians as Israel - with Edomites in later Protestant theology referring to Roman Catholics, in particular. So, Christians transubstantiate themselves as the true Jews.
>>2909176They completely cooked your points and you shoildnjust admit you're wrong.
Or that thatcher and trump are feminists by your definition.
The movement doesn't belong to the feinge weirdos who hijack it to push reactionary sentiments nor to the papers who idolise the most controversial elements of society and portray them as the average in order to distort perception and undermine.
No the movement belongs to the young masses.
>>2909193Where does the "movement" begin and end?
You see that I am not excluding anyone from being a feminist, while you are - the question then is, what makes a true feminist? If once more we appeal to "belief" (e.g. faith), how does one determine it? Is the kid who has never read Marx a Marxist? Yes, if he says so.
>>2909194Are you a feminist? If not, how do we demarcate the boundary between you and them?
>>2909196It's quite clear that I'm not a feminist.
This is known because I do not identify as one.
>>2909143Thing is, even i wouldnt say they were particularly deranged prior to their legal victories like owning a bank account and such, because it's normal to behave like a lunatic when faced with such unjustice. But everything after those were acquired have been insanity.
And the problem with trans right people and general egalitarians is they seem to think feminists are only bad in because they're transphobic and not because they are weird misandrist cultural movement that also happen to wreck any left of center movement it touches. If radfem wreckers said trans women are women they'd be fine with it.
They wouldnt even be hard to crush because the only leg they have is by parasiting left politics and parties. If leftist men stopped being simp it wouldnt cause much problem.
>>2909198Who will the zio choose in the final battle involving Argentine and the UK?
>>2909077SfL was so adamantly pro-greens and critical of any other movement, especially Your Party. Makes sense she was gearing up for a position in the party.
Still an awful reason for her to be expelled if your post is the truth of it - especially gender critical members having such a large influence.
But with how inflammatory her twitter posts are, I'd surprised they had nothing to do with it.
>>2909199We all grew up being told that feminism is when gender equality, so most people don't understand the misandrist and lesbian overtones.
>>2909139>Given the succession of terrible incompetent male leaders we've had, there's no real merit-based argument against it.There was a period around 2018-19 where every leader of a major political party, except Corbyn, was a woman. Does that seem like a time of high competence to you?
>>2909203Huh… Exception that proves the rules ?
>>2909198Argentina claims the Falklands because ~god~ Spain promised it to them 300 years ago…
>>2909200They are tying themselves in knots right now. Some of them are just saying "Britain is already invaded by Muslims give it to the Argentines".
>>2909199i think a big part of the problem is that leftists in most vvestern countries have taken a pan-progressive approach to social issues, and obviously that's going to run into problems because if you smash a bunch of particularisms together, you're gonna run into contradictions, especially a chimera like feminism, which splits between a universalist, egalitarian approach, and evil shitlib opportunism which is definitely a bigger part of the chimera at least in britain.
>>2909216>China claims Taiwan because ~god~ Japan promised it to them 300 years ago…yes thats how it works faggot
>>2909077>>2909118>>2909136>>2909139Welcome to the British caste system, bros. Picrel is a massive truthnuke y’all ain’t ready to handle, capisce?🤌
P.S.: I think the graph is somewhat incorrect since below the landlords it should be the white British lumpenprole, who are above BAME lumpenprole, who are above the various British working class, and followed by the rest.
>>2909203Compared to now? Definitely. Theresa May is far and away the best prime minister of the last 16 years and I'd have her back in a heartbeat
which is to say she was still abysmal compared even to say, fucking Heath.. Nicola Sturgeon was a useless crook who cocked up almost everything she touched, bankrupted her party, and hastily departed at the worst possible time because she'd got 24 hours notice that the police would be knocking, but she's still the go-to example of how, presentationally, even a cretinous centre-left leader should conduct themselves. (e.g. do whatever the fuck you want policy wise, but at least
talk and
gesture left to keep your base happy. Starmer would still be PM and the Greens would be polling half of what they are if he'd done that instead of leaping right.)
Jo Swinson is, admittedly, irredeemable, but 2/3 ain't bad.
>>2909221>muh journalists picI hate reatrds
>>2909218>you're gonna run into contradictionsThe contradiction is in pluralism itself, which fails to hold ground of a neutral public space. This is why freedom of expression, as granted in the English Bill of Rights (1689) makes it exclusive to Parliament:
<That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introductionThe same as what is written in the Articles of Confederation (1777):
<Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any Court, or place out of Congress, and the members of congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/articles-of-confederationWe can see the conditions of our freedom of expression given from the same standards highlighted in the Human Rights Act (1998):
<Everyone has the right to freedom of expression […] The exercise of these freedoms […] carries with it duties and responsibilities […] in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or moralshttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9As it ought to be known, libel laws have always existed (all the way back with the Law of Hammurabi, 1750 BCE), so bearing false witness is part of the danger of allowing an unconditional public liberty. To lie is to betray the safety of the public sphere, which is why it is punished. Early on in America's foundation is even the "The Alien and Sedition Acts" (1798) which penalised criticism against the US government. So, the public space itself is the primary contradiction, it seems.
>>2909200argentina, since the UK is pushing ahead with sanctions on west bank settlers
>>2909223Anon would a retard believe that the most menial job you can have is graphic designer?!?
>>2909201It’s extraordinary how transphobic the UK is regardless of which party/ies are incumbent, considering how Mileian Argentina still keeps quotas for trans people implemented by past leftist governments.
Methinks it has to do with how the satanic panic and “ritual child abuse” panic was essentially a power grab by sex-negative and reactionary radfems who effectively turned into part of Britain’s power structure alongside its cosmopolitan financial rentier class, to the point that TERFism is effectively entrenched in British mainstream politics. People forget how there was much cross-ideological support between radfems and conservative Christians during the “ritual child sexual abuse” panic and satanic scare, to the point that the NSPCC took claims of satanic ritualistic child abuse at face value throughout the 1990s.
It doesn’t help that there’s this Germanic obsession with the girlboss fantasy to the point that nobody questions gynocracy. I remember that there’s this British feminist who had death threats sent against her simply for speaking up about DV against males and how women aren’t always the victim in this case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_PizzeyThe UK is truly no country for males, regardless of their age, class, race/ethnicity, height, and religion.
In fact, that’s part of the reason why I don’t think Trump could have never risen in the UK: Because he would be aggressively hounded for his crassness directed at women and for sexual abuse allegations against him.
>>2909227>>2909218Just to make if clearer, he is John Adams (1798):
<Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/john-adams-religion-constitutionHere is the Naturalization Act of 1790:
<any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereofhttps://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/naturalization-acts-of-1790-and-1795So, the freedom of the United States is made inherently particular.
The myth of Liberalism in practice is this explicit exclusion. So then, when we run into issues of pluralism, it's because it was always a lie.
>>2909194By the masses.
You are being very stupid if you take the minority fringe elements of feminism (TERFism) and then try to suggest they represent the wider movement when they obviously dont.
Realize you've been psyopped by the media into reacting against progress.
>>2909239>progressWhat "progress"?
You appear to be an empty sloganeer.
>>2909244>Staniland QuestionWell firstly the framing of the question is some dogwhistle shit to begin with ('Male-sexed' out of the mouth of a TERF is coded) but yeah trans women should have the rights to use womens bathrooms unless we're doing that nazi shit of assuming an entire demographic is composed of rapists.
>>2909245The progress of womens & trans peoples rights
The Didopeninsula question:
If you were in the changing room trying to catch a glimpse of the hot guys there because you're a big poof but some woman-bodied female came in and started treating you like Smithers in a strip club, would that be okay because of woke?
>France and Canada will join the U.K. in imposing new trade sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements Tuesday in a major diplomatic coup for Britain as it resets its relationship with Israel.
>In the House of Commons, British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband confirmed Britain, France and Canada will impose a ban on the trade of goods and some services from Israeli settlements, having last month condemned Israel’s plans for 1,200 new homes in the E1 area east of Jerusalem.when did the junior imperialists grow a spine?
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-canada-uk-trade-sanctions-israel-settlements/ >>2909253I have bad news for you about the Nazis if you think they had much of an issue with gender ideology. But you already knew that. What’s next, Nazis we’re also furryphobic so we need to allow bestiality?!
>>2909249>the progress of women's and trans people's rightsWhich is what?
Isn't it the feminists in advocacy for gender protections who excluded transgender women from their spaces under the EA2010 ruling? In all this are the rights of private property; e.g. freedom of association, which therefore supersedes all so-called "protected characteristics" in their various contradictions. All rights are "human rights", are they not? Thus, the slogan of "women's rights" or "trans rights" mean nothing in themselves. Rights to what? Rights from what? Nothing is dispensed.
>>2909255famously the nazis didnt burn down the gender studies clinic
>>2909256the progress is learning to stop fracturing the movement over inane bullshit
>>2909257You are clearly too dense to even know what you're arguing for.
The appeal of "women's rights" comes into contradiction with "trans rights", since they both operate on a fallacious legal system, which doesn't recognise that the only universal protection is for individuals and their freedom to associate upon a voluntary basis. There are no "protected characteristics" to actually consider.
>>2909256They weren't feminists, they were anti-trans conservatives cosplaying as feminists in a way that only a total rube or willing dupe would fall for. "For Women Scotland", the group that sued the Scottish government to get the EA2010 ruling, does basically zero campaigning on anything except opposition to trans rights. The same is true of "Sex Matters", the "LGB Alliance", and so on. Not one real feminist charity actually gives a damn!
It must be remembered that the question in FWS V. Scottish Ministers wasn't about any sort of important women's spaces, but about whether transgender women counted as women for the purposes of gender balance on public boards, something which the EA2010 doesn't mandate. (e.g. the SG could continue appointing exactly the same people by simply dropping this commitment.) This was purely for the case of obtaining a judgement like this so that all sorts of bad-faith guidance could then be rolled out by their sympathisers in the reactionary-captured EHRC.
>>2909262>real feministThis hasn't yet been answered; what makes a "real feminist"?
>>2909244
Fine, I’ll take the obvious bait…
Before giving my answer, let's deconstruct the premise. So the premise itself is already a straw man, since most teenage girls rarely share changing rooms with adults nowadays, meaning that the premise itself is unlikely to occur, especially as "male" in such questions are taken up to be adults as opposed to young boys.
And second, it's clear that this loaded question essentially plays on protectionist hysteria and both transphobic and misandrist fears of the "male sexual super predator" common in English yellow press alongside general sex-negative hysteria. The question's premise also plays into sex-negative tropes such as sexual anxiety and questions of selective privacy that only preoccupy Anglo countries relative to the western world.
There's also the fact that the premise itself ignores the fact that a number of countries, like Japan and France and Germany, used to or still have traditions of unisex bathrooms, changing rooms, communal space-sharing unbounded by sex, and most of all gender-mixed bathing. Indeed, the OG proponent of the question never made a hiss over nudist beaches where both sexes share nudity. Second, we have to ask ourselves if either mothers or boys feel traumatised when they are naked to each other during bathing or changing time, because that's the crux of the matter: The question takes for granted a number of non-universal mores and customs that supposedly can never be changed or challenged.
And now, here's my answer to the question: It's a resounding yes. For once, social disgust shouldn't be a deciding factor for exclusionary politics, and here dispassionate logic shouldn't be hampered. Could you imagine if disgust and vibes is all it took to exclude women from professional roles at the military and the police forever?
Second, most statistics show that trans people are more likely to be victims of SA than victimisers, especially in bathrooms and changing rooms, on the top of the fact that so-called "teenage girls" are more likely to be victimised by their peers or relatives in personal homes, as opposed to being SA'ed by strangers. As for disgust: Again, policy should be based on ethics and reason, not on moralisms, especially if these morals are baseless.
>>2909265I think my OG answer sucks, so I remade it with AI:
[I hear the question:
>“Do you believe that male-sexed people have the right to undress and shower in a communal changing room with teenage girls?”Yes—but the way the question is framed already smuggles in several assumptions that need to be examined.
First, this is an unusually loaded formulation. It presents an abstract category—“male-sexed people”—as though it necessarily means adult men deliberately entering a communal shower full of teenage girls. In reality, changing-room policies concern particular institutions, particular age groups, particular facilities, and particular individuals. A sensible safeguarding policy should therefore distinguish between adults and minors, supervised and unsupervised settings, communal showers and private cubicles, and ordinary use of a facility versus voyeurism, harassment or sexual misconduct.
More importantly, being male-sexed is not itself evidence of dangerousness. If the argument is that somebody should be excluded from a communal facility because they pose a safeguarding risk, that risk should be established by their conduct or by a genuinely evidence-based safeguarding rule—not simply inferred from their sex. Otherwise, sex is being used as a proxy for criminality.
That principle matters particularly in discussions of transgender people. Transgender people should not be treated as presumptive sexual predators merely because somebody regards them as belonging to the sex they were assigned at birth. Evidence that a group experiences elevated rates of sexual violence as victims does not mean that every individual member is harmless, but it does demonstrate why victimisation and perpetration must not simply be conflated. The appropriate response to sexual misconduct is to address the misconduct, regardless of who commits it.
Nor does the fact that teenage girls are vulnerable to sexual abuse establish that every male person in their vicinity constitutes an unacceptable risk. Children and adolescents can be abused by strangers, acquaintances, peers and family members, and safeguarding policy already has to deal with numerous sources of risk. The existence of a potential risk does not automatically justify the broadest possible restriction on an entire category of people.
The same applies to privacy. A desire for privacy is legitimate; it does not follow that one person's preferred arrangement gives them an unrestricted right to exclude another category of people. There are many ways of protecting privacy—individual cubicles, private changing areas, appropriate supervision, facility design and rules against recording, harassment and voyeurism—without treating an entire sex as inherently inappropriate to share physical space with.
Nor is the assumption that mixed-sex nudity is inherently intolerable a universal human norm. Different societies and historical periods have had very different attitudes toward communal bathing, changing and nudity. Mixed-sex bathing has existed in a variety of contexts, while sex-segregated facilities have also been common. This variation doesn't prove that either arrangement is universally preferable, but it does establish an important point: our current conventions about nudity and sex segregation are social arrangements, not self-evident laws of human nature.
Consequently, I reject the premise that the mere presence of a male-sexed person in a changing or showering environment with girls is inherently a violation of their rights or inherently dangerous.
And I reject the idea that disgust, embarrassment, sexual anxiety or an intuition that something “feels wrong” is sufficient by itself to establish a prohibition. Those feelings may be real and deserve to be treated respectfully, but public policy requires more than subjective revulsion. Otherwise, historical prejudices could always be converted into exclusionary rules simply by describing the excluded group as uniquely uncomfortable or threatening.
This does not mean that there should be no safeguarding rules. Obviously, institutions can and should prohibit sexual harassment, voyeurism, exposure, sexual activity, recording, intimidation and other misconduct. They can also provide private facilities where people want greater privacy. Age-appropriate safeguarding remains entirely legitimate.
But those rules should be directed at conduct and demonstrable safeguarding needs, rather than treating someone's sex or transgender status as evidence that they are a sexual threat.
So, to answer the question directly:
Yes. I believe that male-sexed people can have the right to undress and shower in a communal changing facility used by teenage girls.
That does not mean that every facility must adopt mixed-sex communal showers, that every individual must be comfortable with them, or that safeguarding considerations are irrelevant. It means that the mere fact that someone is male-sexed is not, by itself, a sufficient moral or evidential basis for denying them access.
If someone wants to argue for exclusion, the burden is therefore to establish a concrete and proportionate justification for that exclusion—not merely to invoke the words “teenage girls,” “male,” “nudity,” and “safety” and assume that the conclusion follows automatically.
The question should not be:
>“Would you allow males to shower with teenage girls?”It should be:
>“What evidence demonstrates that excluding this particular category of people is necessary, proportionate and more effective for safeguarding and privacy than the available alternatives?”That is a question I am prepared to answer with evidence rather than fear, disgust or assumptions about male sexuality.]
>>2909264You’ll never get a real answer because nowadays feminism only exists as a vibes-based platform that includes various things, but whose ultimate premise is that women should have as much, if not more, privileges than men. Hence why Hannah Spencer is as much of a feminist as Kathleen Stock is, for the simple fact that both are for gynocracy, even if they take away different meanings from it.
Any actual answer that doesn’t acknowledge this risks into falling towards no-true Scotsman fallacy. Same goes with anyone trying to define what a “liberal” is without engaging with Losurdo’s “Liberalism: A Counter-History”.
>>2909139Quotas are bullshit, they have the effect of putting untalented, dim, careerist women in positions of authority. Yes of course there's plenty of men like that too but at least the men had to fight against 20 other candidates instead of fighting against 2 others.
Abolish all quotas, they're a load of shit.
>>2909277Without the quotas, the men have to fight against 20 people, the women against 23 because they get dismissed at the start
>>2909262Since it's a bit of a hangnail: the point to be made here is that by ruling that trans women can't be on all women shortlists for scottish government board purposes, the FWS judgement actually
weakens the position of feminists in progressive organisations, since any progressive org subject to the new conditions would simply stop using all female shortlists entirely. given how few trans women actually exist - the FWS judgement wasn't even based on a transgender woman actually being appointed to a board, but just on pedantry around legislation and administrative guidance.
(With a repeated pattern as well: FWS sues, court decides in favour of Scotgov, FWS appeals, higher court backs FWS, ScotGov appeals, court decides in favour of ScotGov, FWS appeals, the deeply unconstitutional supreme court decides to piss all over parliamentary sovereignty… )
I very much regret making this post, reading about that judgement still makes me apoplectic. Woke reasons aside it's an utter travesty of law. In any just world everyone responsible would be sentenced to transportation to Pitcairn Island and refused all outside communication. I suppose Orwell was right that there is a certain English delusion that the law itself is, or ought to be just. That only an Englishman could seriously live under the illusion that "you can't do that to me, I've done nothing wrong!">>2909264In terms of an organisation:
campaigning on any kind of women's issue, even ineffectively, without reference or relevance to transgender people. You may protest that this is very "I know it when I see it", but you have to be an idiot to think otherwise.
We can take as read that you are against feminism, you should consider the point as relates to the LGB alliance: what good is an LGB Alliance composed mostly of straight people, focused mostly on attacking trans people, with ties to anti-LGB conservatives, and with no interest in any form of LGB activism except anti-trans activism?
>>2909270It is not a No-true-Scotsman fallacy to say that English residents campaigning against giving Holyrood the power to hold a referendum on Scottish Independence are not Scottish Nationalists, even if they call themselves the Wallace Society.
>>2909278If the women are good they should be able to compete with the men. Are women actually as good as men or are they children that need special privileges?
>>2909280You wilfully misunderstand the social dynamics at play, so let's invert them. Did you know that the number of male vets has crashed in the US over the last few decades? Do you know why? It isn't because of woke quotas (that could only explain a sudden
recent drop), it's because more and more women have become vets over time. Once something becomes majority female, men often stop wanting to take part because they're afraid of looking feminine.
It is not that men suddenly lost their aptitude for caring for sick animals. It is not that women are inherently better suited to caring for sick animals. It is a purely social phenomenon. Now, in conditions such as these, if our aim was gender parity, would it not make sense to create a quota for men to keep the numbers up? Would it not be absolute nonsense to just go "Well, if the men were any good…"?
In politics the situation historically has been the inverse: women did not generally want to go into a field that is too male-dominated, and in politics unlike in veterinary care it actually matters if 50% of the population are basically locked out of the room. Not because they're incapable of it (women can be just as corrupt and useless and mediocre as anyone else) but because the status-quo ante was too dominated by one side for the other to be interested.
>>2909279>being a real feminist means not even acknowledging the existence of trans people in a political senseRight, so a markedly pro-trans movement cannot be feminist, then?
>LGBI'm not supportive of the internally-contradictory "LGBT Movement" either. The LGB Alliance has a better clue that the "queer" amalgam cannot hold, but they don't self-criticise either, so fail on that point. All identity politics is a lost cause to any serious person.
>>2909304
What do you mean?
They would surely be admitted as a member.
>>2909290No, being a real feminist means being something other than an anti-trans obsessive. You can be a trans-exclusionary feminist, but it requires doing some feminism. If you're out writing about how we should cut up all men, including trans women, that is of a manifestly different character to campaigning exclusively on points of law that ensure trans exclusion, even to the detriment of cisgendered women.
A kiwi does not become a duck simply because taxonomy is inherently arbitrary.
>>2909310
Comparing trans people to Nazis. Most normal gender critical behaviour.
>>2909308>noOkay, so you've immediately contradicted yourself.
Here's you:
>>2909279<campaigning on any kind of women's issue, even ineffectively, WITHOUT reference or relevance to transgender people. Bit now you say that you can bring political relevance to transgender people and an organisation still be feminist. Feminism appears to just be whatever you want it to be - thus as I repeat; your issue is that you are beginning with the presumption that feminism must be defended.
>You can be a trans-exclusionary feminist>requires some feminismHave we even defined what "feminism" is? I've been patient with this.
You can't even define it without falling into immediate contradiction.
>manifestly different characterWhy can't DIFFERENT types of feminism exist?
>>2909319Im not clicking that. TLDR?
>>2909321Refer to
>>2909270But your exchange with that individual already prove my point: Namely, that feminism isn’t really a coherent ideology as much as a vibe.
After all, NOW would say that white American suffragettes were feminists whilst not supporting with the white suffragettes’ not-so feminist policy of opposing suffrage for black women in order to gain the favor of white southern suffragettes.
“No true Scotsman” fallacy might as well be re-named as “no true feminist” or “no true liberal” given how this fallacy is most commonly deployed within feminist and liberal circles during intra-quarrels.
>>2909289If you don't want to be a vet because you think it's "too girly" then you obviously didn't want to be one that much in the first place. I would rather have the most skilled and motivated person looking after my pets, not a diversity hire who only got in because of a quota. I don't mind a campaign saying "boys can do it too!" and saying how actually being a vet is based and masculine, but quotas? No.
Same with women in politics, the most dedicated communist I know personally is a woman and she's not in favour of quotas. She doesn't need them because everyone can see how effective she is. That's the kind of people I want in politics.
>>2909328Btw, that reply is to
>>2909325>>2909321 >>2909325It's not a contradiction, you're just parsing it wrong. It is not that feminism must not include any trans-adjacent content (pro-or-anti), but that it must have some content which is not trans-adjacent to be meaningfully distinct from transphobia or pro-trans activism.
e.g. a feminist who spends 50% of her time campaigning against forced marriage in india by tweeting about it may spend the other 50% of her time engaged in transphobia and still fairly be called a feminist, but a "feminist" who spends 100% of her time engaging in transphobia is definitionally a full time transphobe with no time for feminism. it is this need for some sort of separate content which defines it.
I have already emphasised that we do not need a strong definition of what feminism is. How would you, personally, separate out the Kiwis from the ducks? Should we just accept that because taxonomy is arbitrary, that Kiwis are in fact ducks - why can't DIFFERENT types of duck exist? Perhaps the full stop at the end of this very sentence is a form of feminism.
>>2909326Social fascism in action.
Establishment hypocrisy in how it treats the far-right vs the far-left.
BBC Newsroom turning into a more posh version of the average Tory rag mag
>>2909328The no-true Scotsman fallacy is universal of all groups.
We see sectarianism in religion, particularly, with politics most often being a substitute for this office of civic life. Part of the strife is a primary division between the Letter and Spirit of the Law, where the dogma, or canon of thought is impressed upon by heresy, and so defended against by orthodoxy, and so on. Claiming to be a "real (x)" thus means adhering most loyally to a set of principles or beliefs, and so on. If one professes faith yet fails in his practice, we say that he is not a "real (x)", and so qualifying faith in these terms. The issue of this particular topic is that it's purely theoretical. The true believer of a political ideology is most often just an uneducated person with some opinions, not an activist. Thus, you can be a Marxist without reading Marx, because the Signifier is decoupled from the signified. The domain of reality thus concerns the object of belief itself. Having a doctrinal script becomes more important than honesty, and certainly more than critical reasoning; since all religions detest self-criticism.
So, I see how purely theoretical identities fall into perplexity.
"Is Zack Polanski Scottish?", the longest argument in the history of leftybritpol, ended only by leftypol.org balkanising yet again.
>>2909333Whoever calls themself a feminist is a feminist.
Why is this position so unreasonable?
Differences exist in all doctrines, so let it all be.
>>2909341I mean no, you can't just use that standard for everything or words have no meaning. If someone's actions and views conflict with the basic ideas of feminism then they aren't one
>>2909341Because people act in bad faith.
Imagine that I am a very obvious Christian preacher seeking to free people from their lives of atheistic sin. Would you allow me to self-define as an atheist, unchallenged, even when I am clearly only doing it for the purpose of proselyting? Am I really innovating a new kind of atheist spiritualism, or am I just a lying cunt?
The only practical end of allowing such a definition is to end this tedious discussion, or perhaps to head off the moment where someone thinks they're being clever by going "ah, so you won't allow conservatives to call themselves feminists, but you think men should be able to call themselves women and vice-versa. owned with facts and logic!!" and i'm obliged to look up their address so i can sign them up to volunteer for the labour party.
>>2909343>the basic ideas of feminismAh, finally, we get to the meat of the matter.
What are the basic ideas of feminism which apply reality to the name?
>>2909349I already began with this "conclusion":
>>2909176And the fact that no one can actually say what a "real feminist" is, is telling. You use the example of atheism, but there is no practical atheism, it seems; only an inward belief - faith. What is feminist faith? I say that it's approximate to the Marxist confession, which doesn't require "substance", but only identity. Identity is largely insubstantial. If you say "(x) isn't a real (y)", but they say they are, how do we know? And since you are bringing up transgender people, let's go there: if a person claims to be transgender, how do you tell if they're telling the truth?
>>2909352I do not feel the need to answer any of these questions, fundamentally. In each individual case it is sufficient to reach an ad-hoc probability based judgement. Elon Musk once called himself a socialist - are you telling me they're going to have to add another notch to
>>2909341 to account for this, or are you going to join me in saying that he's a gobshite and that doing so would be a waste of time?
If you want to get really into it, who says you can ever really know anything? Who says you're not actually James Bond being waterboarded in North Korea c. 2001 as a convenient excuse for why you couldn't stop 9/11, and this entire conversation is just something you hallucinated because you're secretly gay and not enjoying the montage of weird burning naked women on-screen? Who says you're not one level higher than that, a simulation of Mr. Bond being tortured by an AI because by not preventing 9/11 you allowed the post-9/11 stock market crash and therefore slowed the arrival of Roko's Basilisk by 15 minutes? Or perhaps one level further still, some kind of abstract hell-construct simulation within the Basilisk simulation conjured up automatically by these very words I write now, manifested accidentally by an even bigger, badder AI that accidentally scraped a leftypol archive in the databanks of the Starship Israel Epstein orbiting SWEEPS-11?
How, I demand you answer,
do you know?Wake up, we're here. Why are you shaking? Are you ok? Wake up. Stand up… there you go. You were dreaming. What's your name?Well, not even last night's storm could wake you. I heard them say we've reached Morrowind, I'm sure they'll let us go. >>2909354>enters discussion>doesn't want to answer questionsClassic. Keep languishing in your solipsism, anon.
>Elon Musk once called himself a socialistThen he's a socialist.
Presumably you call yourself a socialist - where's the real difference?
If you are both just using adjectives for various political opinions, where does practice contradict theory?
>who says you can ever really know anything?We can't know anything, except that all transgender people are actually transgender, I suppose, lest you would have a smart arse reply about that.
>>2909261Then my suggestion is simple, TERFs should get separate bathrooms so normal people can continue to co-exist without issue, we can call the separate TERF bathroom 'the bin around the back next to the dogs'
>>2909360Toilets aren't separated by political opinion.
>>2909363Yes, the Third Reich was Socialist.
We can compare it to Marx's description of "True Socialism" (1848):
<the Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality […] While this “True” Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German Philistines […] And on its part German Socialism recognised, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgeois Philistine […] It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty Philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man, it gave a hidden, higher, Socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the “brutally destructive” tendency of Communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htmTrotsky similarly saw the petit-bourgeoisie as the basis of Hitler's National Socialism. The philistinism is the overt antisemitism.
>countries that put 'democratic' in the name are democraticHere's a trick question; is the UK democratic? Is the US democratic?
>no one lies everSo I will ask you plainly, how do you know when someone is falsely claiming to be transgender? What makes a "real" transgender person?
>>2909356I'd like to give you a smart arsed reply but you've fouled up the raw material. All transgender people are tautologically transgender (without even doing your stupid "everyone is what they say they are at face value, no matter how obviously they're having you on."), you'd have to say something like "All self-proclaimed transgender people are transgender" to set me up, and that's something I've already said I don't believe ages ago.
>>2909187 (Note my cynicism at non-binary people - a form of transgenderism - who nevertheless share their assigned sex at birth in their profiles.)
Other than that, I'm content to let the other children see that the end of your way of thinking is "Elon Musk is a socialist" while the end of mine is "Elon Musk is a gobshite, TERFs are reactionary liabilities, trans women are women, Roko's Basilisk is silly, and you cannot have a supreme court in a country with a sovereign parliament."
>>2909376So… you haven't actually explained anything.
(x) says they're a socialist/feminist/atheist, you may disagree
(x) says they're transgender, you must agree
So, it's impossible to ever lie about one's gender identity, apparently, making it a purely nominal affair. If one says it, it must be true. In this example, we come to the limits of your reason. How do we tell is a person is truly transgender or not? You say that "trans women are women"; how do we know? Because… they merely profess an identity. Why does this apply in the transgender case, but not the political case? Becauese… you want to irrationally defend "feminism" from the people who you disagree with, who claim to be feminists. That's it.
Read:
>>2909176<All of this confusion stems from your primary presumption of feminism being a good thing, and so gatekeeping its meaning.Why do I have to keep repeating myself?
>>2909379No, you simply haven't read everything. Do you really need your hand held every step of the way?
Someone says they are non-binary, a transgender identity.
They then list their assigned sex at birth.
I, cynic, conclude that they're (glibly) "not really transgender", they're just trying to look cool and woke without any downside risk.
I am the one who has to keep repeating myself. You have already pulled this stunt of not reading things correctly and then getting up on your high horse about what you'd rather I had said.
>>2909333 >>2909389You do realise that a transgender woman also requires demonstrating their assigned gender so as to receive a transgender status, right? Being transgender is in all senses listing one's assigned sex, so as to bring incongruity from it in being transgender. But if you are not just a hypocrite out of a politically correct pity, can someone falsely claim to be a transgender woman, or are all of these claims inherently valid?
>>2909388dont look up which groups the Freikorps targeted first retard
>>2909393Your point is that (x) isn't socialist because it had capitalism - the USSR also had capitalism, so were they not actually socialist? Many leftists claim the USSR was never "real socialism", so its up to you.
>freikorpsRight, which is why I quote Marx, who says that the "True" or "German" Socialists had Communists as their main enemy, and class struggle:
<It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty Philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man, it gave a hidden, higher, Socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the “brutally destructive” tendency of Communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htmYou can read Hitler's notion of Socialism contra Communism (1932):
<‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/hitler-nazi-form-of-socialism-1932/Indeed, we may read Engels on this point (1888):
<when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto […] in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm"Socialism" is a catch-all term, which is why it deserves no reverance.
Today, Tlthe UK, Canada, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Portugal and Spain have all placed a total ban on all West Bank illegal settlement goods.
In response Israel is closing the British consulate, expelling British aid workers from Palestine, and banning 12 Brits - 11 of them MPs - from entering Israel.
The Brits banned from entering Israel are the MPs Jeremy Corbyn, Zarah Sultana, Hannah Spencer, Carla Denyer, Ellie Chowns, Siân Berry, Adrian Ramsay, Diane Abbott, John McDonnell, Richard Burgon, Naz Shah, and lastly Fahad Ansari who is not an MP but provides legal training and advocacy for pro-Palestine groups.
>>2909415>Jeremy Corbyn, Zarah Sultana, Hannah Spencer, Carla Denyer, Ellie Chowns, Siân Berry, Adrian Ramsay, Diane Abbott, John McDonnell, Richard Burgon, Naz Shah, and lastly Fahad AnsariRemember these names.
These are the good guys.
This is what we could have had in 2019 btw:
Corbyn quoting Marx:
https://youtu.be/iwcw0sPgw7UMcdonnell's Little Red Book:
https://youtu.be/9hjH-DUaACMDianne Abott praising Mao:
https://youtu.be/uB4o5n2EGyAFollowing the defeat of Labour, we have had the blackest reaction.
The bastard Fabians have swallowed up all radicalism in the party.
BBC East Midlands News just did a totally one-sided anti-LGBT propaganda segment about how evil wokies got a poor conservative priest fired from a private school for toffs since he got fired for saying you don't have to tolerate homos and trans people existing in society.
Just totally whitewashed and one sided coverage where they interview him and down play the actual events, then the segment ends with the BBC interviewer and priest glazing JK Rowling as a hero fighting for justice.
Thank fuck I don't pay a licence fee for this shit. What a shit hole country.
>>2909424Maybe they should have actually fought back against the Blairite wreckers.
>>2909462Calvin Robinson moved to the USA, Graham Linehan moved to the USA, Milo Yiannopoulos moved to the USA (until ICE deported him LOL)
For some reason British rightoids love fleeing to the US.
>>2909430It's another one of those little reasons we need woke neoliberalism. Reform won't actually kill off the BBC or the licence fee for all their posturing, but a government seriously committed to market principles would. Keep a publicly owned vehicle for licensing BBC properties to foreigners, and make the lot public domain in the UK itself. Throw the complete archives on archive.org and call it quits.
If there's to be public TV, let it be owned and operated by local authorities. (Hell, why waste time pissing about with TV when they could just give grants to youtubers directly. If one hits it big with yanks they'll make their money back.)
>>2909462I just hope this doesn't end up like another "leopards eating face" moment. Or A Russell Bentley moment.
>>2909587he subscribes to a political ideology? called elite theory. He has also been publishing small explainers on politics, he also has done right wing ones
Is anyone else finding it hard to not give in to abject doomerism? Especially given the last week of news, it really feels bleak for anyone that isn't a spiteful, vitriolic pensioner or coked up football hooligan. Do I just need to touch grass?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nv11dYMsXQ&list=RD_Nv11dYMsXQ&start_radio=1>>2909616Just checked out the YT channel, very interesting.
Based on titles alone, he seems to actually be at least somewhat sympathetic to Restore Britain/other far right parties, as well as people on the other extreme like Lenin, simply due to his disbelief in the viability of the centre-left/liberal system.
I'm going to watch his video on Lenin, you've gotten me genuinely curious.
>>2909637 (me)
Just finished watching it, some pretty fascinating stuff. Elite theory seems reasonable, although I think he underestimates how many "elites" exist in the world today, at least education-wise.
Regarding the meat and potatoes of the video, however, I can 100% agree with him that damn near no one on YouTube, this website, or even the internet at large, has the iron will and discipline that the Bolsheviks had. You have to give up essentially everything in your life so that the State has nothing to hold over your head.
You see people like Haz claiming their party is the "real movement" because they're not afraid to offend. That helps, but that is nowhere near enough. There's no way in hell the people a part of that party are anywhere near as organized as the professional revolutionaries the Bolsheviks employed.
>>2909713>Among the businesses represented were Vodafone, EE, Heathrow and JCB, the latter chaired by Lord Bamford who has given Reform £200,000. Meta’s public policy director spoke alongside Reform MP Danny Kruger, head of the party’s “preparation for government” unit, and Google and TikTok ran sessions. Fuels Industry UK, whose members include BP, Shell and ExxonMobil, hosted an energy reception. Since 2019, Reform UK has received more than £24 million from donors with financial interests in fossil fuels—67 percent of its funding, according to DeSmog. >>2909623Yeah, I definitely feel this way, this country is an absolute shit hole and everything is just getting worse
>>2909737Not only that, but Reform has the support of the current US government + almost the entirety of the British establishment down to the fossil fuel industry and the overseas oligarchic Dubai class + Silicon Valley + the world’s richest man who is also a Nazi trillionaire that deliberately pushes constant chudslop and agitprop to the British public on his social media giant, Twitter.
It’s over mates. Time to get yourself a lifeboat and jump the sinking ship. If the kind of violence seen in Northern Ireland and Middlesbrough becomes normative across the UK and even Ireland, then shit will get much worse than America under Trump. Because, short of Jan 6th, you barely saw any MAGA rioting of the kind that rivals the Ulster Scots loyalist riots of Northern Ireland.
>>2909714It's disappointing that liberals are such cowards because, in my heart of hearts, I would support a liberal government that used authoritarian measures against the right and their support base.
e.g. firms that are giving money to Reform should be punished by having government contracts withheld, figures who associate with or aid Reform shouldn't be appointed to administrative positions, resources legally obliged to be given to Reform like public funding should arrive late and piecemeal, and so on. It goes without saying that the police should go above and beyond in tackling far-right protestors and other wronguns. You can always find a pretext to arrest somebody who makes a nuisance of themselves. That's a bare minimum, really what I want is an eastern-Euro style "liberal government forces the BBC to go on air and apologise for promoting Nigel Farage for the last decade before taking all their political coverage off the air until it can be re-biased in the correct direction"
But, as Adam Curtis put it,
this was a fantasy. There are no liberals in Britain, and Labour and Reform are two puppets of the same underlying ruling caste. Of course they're not going to freeze out their own, that's not how it's done. Yanks can hold out a tiny hope that the Democrats would do something like this - their is, at least, a system with different factions in its ruling class - Australians are too chicken but maybe they're second best, and in New Zealand unfortunately it would look like a bit of an overreaction. Canada, eh, I suppose if America invades they can finally lock up their Tory fifth column.
>>2909750By what law? The party operates according to parliamentary and above all political practice
The over encumbering error of bourgeois democracy is not its faults but its successes. To expect a class of dilettantes to outlaw their own existences is pure folly
>>2909484They're the new Puritan Pilgrims.
>>2909587He says in the videos that he doesn't care about their Marxism, but only the practical politics of conserving power. As some commenters said; whether it's Communism or Fascism, politics has mechanics.
>>2909677An issue with any pure elite theory is that it's descriptive, not prescriptive. Power cannot be an end in itself, but only a means to an end. Hence, the post-ideological analysis fails to make normative judgements upon what ought to be accomplished by powerful men.
>>2909750A "liberal" government cannot be partisan.
Many people don't actually read Popper's footnote on the Paradox of Tolerance. It only applies in the Schmittian case of Civil War, where the differences become expressed by irrational loyalties, making debate an impossibility. Liberalism seeks to conserve parliament - which is where the spirit of free expression lives. Read:
>>2909227The Social Contract entails mediating the contradiction of publicity.
>>2909767>PopperLaughed and laughed and laughing still
>>2909753By whatever law those in power choose to use. By what law were trans people stripped of their rights?
the very law intended to protect them!>>2909767Why not mediate said contradiction by means of riot police charging balaclava clad hoodlums into the English channel?
>>2909771Bills have no purpose in outlawing the operation of their own passing you dunce
>>2909772And yet, and yet, and yet!
>>2909776You are standing in it.
>>2909771A liberal government also allows for the freedom of assembly. The public space can be shared, but not monopolised, which is why when demonstrations march, the police makes sure to separate them, so as to not incite a riot. So, every lawful group has a right to protest. You seem to be a partisan, and thus illiberal. The rule of law administers the same standards for everybody else.
>>2909769Liberalism is a work in progress.
The unfinished bourgeois revolution.
>>2909768Does a lion care when monkeys laugh from their trees?
>>2909777Faustus be damned
But what a joke this end is…
>>2909780>Does a lion care when monkeys laugh from their trees?Hyenas do
Is, to dispute well, logic’s chiefest end?
Affords this art no greater miracle?
>>2909780I am not partisan so much as antipartisan, in the sense that I will humour anything that might remove one specific set of ugly, illiberal partisans from public life. (Beautiful illberal partisans are mostly harmless losers, present company included).
The lawful part, however, is the exploitable part. If you can ban pro-palestine protests because they may cause distress, you can certainly ban far right thugs. In US terms the situation is even more stark: do you deny that Trump leads a lawless and corrupt administration, even by US standards? Would it really be so excessive for liberals to respond by enforcing public norms circa 2012 and jailing the lot of them?
They won't, of course, but humour me: let's say they do, then why shouldn't our liberals strike preemptively against our own domestic Trump cultists?
Except as previously mentioned because our liberals do not exist >>2909786>If you can ban pro-palestine protests because they may cause distress, you can certainly ban far right thugs>why shouldn't our liberals strike preemptively against our own domestic Trump cultists? You are thinking of things backwards.
Banning Palestine Action can be seen as an illiberal motion, which is thus sought be rectified by repealment of the statute of their proscription. Adding people to a proscribed organisation list is tit-for-tat. It's unserious and hypocritical. To put most basically, you have to be the bigger person. You have to be the "adult in the room"; mature.
>>2909789And when your bigger man playing ends in a Trump presidency or Farage premiership, what do you do then? Do you think they'll be the bigger man, or do you think they'll fuck with you each opportunity they get - perhaps even quite legally and constitutionally, like by legislating to end public subsidy of parties… To the benefit of parties already in the pocket of the biggest bastards in the world, of course, but parliament is after all sovereign and they do, after all, command a majority…
(Even on a small scale: was Thatcher the bigger man when she permanently broke the political economy of this country by handing state assets over to Tory voters so there'd be a long term majority of Spivs and rent seekers behind the forces of reaction?)
>>2909789It isn't about adultility but the apparatus and legal constitution of bourgeois society?
Why can none of you see this?
>>2909791Just to get it in here: my comparator here would not be Hitler, but an Erdogan or Orban, or indeed Trump 2.0
Liberals already recognise the threat, they're just too cowardly to do anything about it except appeasement.
>>2909793within bourgeois societies*
>>2909791>Trump presidency or Farage premiershipHow do you think they get into power? By democratic instruments.
It is the masses; the demos, who decide all this, not me.
And if you get a bad government, you can hopefully leave the country.
>>2909793What exactly are you asking for?
The imprisonment of Nigel Farage? If so, on what criminal grounds?
>>2909797The masses do not really decide, mediators between the masses and power decide. You cannot for one moment seriously believe that Keir Starmer is a product of mass demand.
>>2909799Keir Starmer was the head of the Labour Party, and people voted for Labour - largely as a protest vote (e.g. "zero seats"). Most elections are not an affirnative demanfd for anyone, but a vote against someone else. And yes, it is the masses who decide. Voting is not mandatory, and so people put in the personal effort to go out and make a ballot.
>>2909803And you think their decision is really their own, rather than quite trivially manipulable?
The 2024 Tory campaign was no worse than any other, while Labours 2024 campaign was dire. Yet the Tories couldn't cut through and nobody asked Labour hard questions. Yet you seriously think the voting public made an independent decision to vote for Labour, rather than one entirely dependent on outside factors.
e.g. the press could've saved the Tories and doomed Labour simply by reversing their sympathies. This is, after all, what they did between 2019 and 2024: switch the machine from suck to blow, with the opinion polls moving appropriately.
>>2909806Anon, the multitude is always driven by passion over reason (elsewise we would have deposed our current leaders by revolution), but their decisions are still their own. You are attributing agency to the press, but the media class aren't the millions choosing to cast a vote. The act of voting requires the Willfulness to make a political decision. Just accept that we get the leaders we deserve, from a democratic stock.
>>2909797How have you arrived at that conclusion? The point is the opposite
The inevitable passage of history within bourgeois democratic society precludes the possibility of the outlawing of the own instruments of its rule. You cannot, lest in the extreme through extrajudicial charges in the interests of the security of the nation, outlaw its own institution of rule. That this means change decays I TO fascist rule is inevitable beneath capitalism.
Hence, the saying: Fascism is capitalism in decay
>>2909812change decays into*
>>2909812>The inevitable passage of history within bourgeois democratic society precludes the possibility of the outlawing of the own instruments of its rule.Well, it depends on your constitution.
In the UK, we don't have the tripartite division of powers like in the US or France, since the legislative and executive branch are combined, although Blair introduced the Supreme Court in 1997 as Judiciary. So, the PM can override existing legal codes and abolish various houses of state, such as the ceremonial Monarchy and House of Lords without the mandate of Revolution (or at least, of a peaceful action).
>Fascism is capitalism in decayI think this has always been an oversimplifaction of the case. Fascism understood by Dutt largely concerns warfare as a means to destroy productive forces; but the so-called "neoliberal" powers have spent trillions on wars without any allusion to the same strain. Fascism in people's minds is a muddling of aesthetics; style over substance.
>>2909815The development of Fascism begins with the preclusion of the rule of law due to the underlying changes inherent within the contradictions of bourgeois society
This shift is reflective of Dutt but carries that capacity whereby it must be understood that Fascism does not just arise through the necromantic fault-lines of tensions within the international economic base but their integration as a unified structure manifest in the political order
>>2909817>>2909815Hence you cannot just outlaw conditional parties as an attempt to curb the collapse of the state into Fascism, as it is systematically a step in that direction by necessity
>>2909818Constitutional parties*
Flood post
Anons how do i ask my doctor about a potential rash on my bell end? Will they have to look at it?
Sorry for off topic but i wanted to ask this Anon.
>>2909818This just turns on what constitutes constitutionality, unless you want to argue the Germans were back to fascism the moment they proscribed their first far right nugger org.
But proscription isn't necessary in any case. Was it fascism when TV stations refused to let the SNP join TV debates? If not, why should it be fascism to exclude reform on similar handwaving grounds?
>>2909822Personally, I'd take it as the institution of a one party state, even with preliminary social conditions mitigating the underlying definition
Fundamentally it isn't hand waving. Again, it's an inevitable structural change; each step by the ruling class towards either the outright latent development of reactionary oversight or its attempt at proscription further alters this towards that conclusion.
The question this poses is thus: is Fascism an inevitable development within capitalist society?
>>2909825The issue is that Fascism is not neatly defined.
I attribute warfare, anti-Communism, nationalism, etc.
But these things are also not unique to Fascist regimes.
Interestingly, ᴉuᴉlossnW called both Stalin and Roosevelt Fascists.
>>2909817>>2909818>>2909819Historically, Fascism in Italy began with the aristocracy appointing ᴉuᴉlossnW as Prime Minister after the March on Rome (1922). The Fascist ideology had development from at least 1919, bringing momentum to the Blackshirt movement, which largely attacked the trade unionists. In Germany, National Socialism was outlined in a doctrinal form by Rudolf Jung in 1919, with Hitler being arrested after an attempted coup, writing Mein Kampf in 1924. In the book, he targets the trade unionists as well, claiming that they cause economic problems in Germany, and are infected by Communist sympathies. Hitler comes into power in 1933 by appointment and begins his reign of terror against the Communists, using the Brownshirts, who are then purged in 1934. Franco came to power in 1936 by military coup, after opposition parties were elected. The ideology of the regime is seen as being brought out of Falangism, which developed from 1933; being extremely nationalist and anti-communist, the same as the other Fascist tendencies. Like Hitler, Franco purged out the anti-capitalist elements of this right-wing radicalism, heeding to industrialists. ᴉuᴉlossnW famously saw that the era of Free Trade was over, and now we are in a period of Corporatism, or large-scale production; the same as the Leninist understanding of Monopoly Capitalism, or Imperialism. My question would then be, why is Fascism so reviled whilst so-called Liberalism is celebrated, if they both operate in imperialist regimes? I don't see the teleology of Fascism as a terminus of Capitalism in the same way that Communists do; it seems like a lazy analysis, since it attributes something entirely particular to its development.
>>2909825Nothing is inevitable and everything is right so long as it is willed
>>2909826It isn't really lazy analysis, it's just question of the underlying fundamental contradiction inherent within bourgeois society?
Namely, how does the profit structure and capitalism's internal revolutions manifest within the productive forces themselves as determinate material conditions.
It isn't a teleology nor a terminus. If you pose the question you have (what is the difference between Fascist and Liberal rule) it is one of a political and surface social reordering. Why do we take bourgeois democratic models as the standard for nationalist capitalism when they themselves develop from mercantilist system of wealth? Is Fascism the new norm?
>>2909829a question*
Flood post again
>>2909829The tension of profiteering manifests in rent-seeking and warfare, as a means to monopolise trade, but I don't see this as Fascism per se. I think that if people stopped using this misnomer, we'd be better off.
>>2909832That's just too simple an explanation
They are mere moments dominating the overall incipient motion of capitalism, held in an impermanent stasis and overcome by the monopolisation of force. Warfare being a natural condition only in so far as class conflict fails to resolve its antagonism.
How does profit itself manifest? Not in rent seeking or we but the order of structural relations (reproducing the class relation)
These are just questions to consider
>>2909842in rent seeking or war*
Apologies this phone is shit
>>2909257>famously the nazis didnt burn down the gender studies clinicNot to hand it to the local mindbroken schyzo but Magnus Hirschfeld's institute dealt more with homosexuality and various paraphilias than with transgender identity. It was a reaction against the field of sexology itself and modernity.
>>2909842>>2909844Warfare can be seen as a means to expand access to markets, which is why free trade as a policy broaches international conflict, beginning with empires, whose internal policy of free trade allowed for colonies to expand, while other nations had to pay tariffs. Free trade operates in a type of imperial hegemony, since in this case, competition allows for the reduction of foreign reserves for domestic gain, as we see in the trade deficits of the UK and US. The sensible mercantilist policy was the "balance of trade", carried on into the liberals like Smith and Ricardo; whose theories of comparative advantage were conditional upon a certain amount of fixed capital facilitating sustainable growth. The neoliberal policy is often seen as one of trade deficiency, or of an imbalance between exports and imports, which in accounting terms, leads to the loss of wealth over time. As wealth declines by the non-competitive sectors, war is suggested as a means to increase fixed capital investment and so to have leverage in the global market. So, war can be seen as the imperial hegemon seeking to have access to larger markets, and also, as the tendency of "trade wars" to develop schemes for national development, which disrupts free trade policies. So, war has this economic aspect, which is offensive and defensive, under the common conditions of competition. Trade networks create peace where countries have comparative advantage through reserves of fixed capital, but where a country imports more than exports, it is the sinking fund of prosperity, which leads to eventual ruin and war. As Friedrich List thus suggests, free trade can only be secured by the development of national industry, which if it is without, becomes a slave by dependence. Thomas Jefferson in 1816 also suggested that the US could not preseve independence without competitive industry. Without the export of goods comes the demand for tourism, in which services are traded - ultimately ending in the prostitution of women and children, as we see in the most dependent tourist destinations.
>>2909780>A liberal government also allows for the freedom of assembly.Hey buddy, what do you think of Palestine Action?
>>2909853A good explanation but it fails to account for the underlying changes to a Fascist economy.
Your question then I expect is are Fascist economies essentially war economies or unions of corporatism, and then, a) why should Fascism be a twice present threat in the liberal order and b) should one succeed, why?
>>2909862Right - so you would call this proscription "illiberal".
>>2909864I see Fascism as historically particular to the anti-Communism of the early 20th century; not a "tendency" of bourgeois disintegration, so I don't find interest in it as an explanatory phenomenon. From its common qualities, Fascism must demand war as its basis, and as I see with today's so-called Liberalism, it also thrives on war - and perhaps even moreso. If Liberals out-fash the Fascists, where does that leave us? For example, it is an anecdotal account of Jesse Owens that the US was more racist than the Third Reich. If Fascism is all of these apparent civil restrictions, then the Fascists are moderate Liberals. Hitler actually makes a curious comment upon this (1932):
<We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/hitler-nazi-form-of-socialism-1932/There is probably tongue-in-cheek here, but we do know that Hitler based many of his policies on the UK and US (concentration camps being a British invention during the Boer War). My complaint about isolating Fascism is that it is wrapped up in a post-war mythos, rather than viewed objectively within its historical conditions. I would not thus condemn "Fascism", but its diabolical means; of "war", generally:
<Two years ago, in August 1935, the Seventh Congress of the Communist International, in analyzing the international Situation and seeking ways and means whereby the working class could carry on the struggle against the offensive of fascism, pointed to the indissoluble connection between the struggle against fascism and the struggle for peace. Fascism is war, declared the Congress.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1937/war.htmIs the UK a Fascist country? Maybe.
Is it a warmongering country? Certainly.
>>2909869>Fascism must demand war as its basisThen what of Palestine?
>>2909851Transphobia today is the same thing. The fundamental cause of increased awareness of and presence of transgender people lies in modern material conditions.
(In particular, frictionless trade and communication have made it impossible not to know you can be trans, trivial to find out what to do to transition, possible to obtain the necessary resources for doing so, and viable to do so even in the face of ostracism from your immediate local social circle. All this from two basic changes in infrastructure that would persist under any seriously likely ideological regime.)
Transphobes cannot close this Pandora's box, but they're determined to make the death wail of the old world as unpleasant as possible.
>>2909876I don't know what you mean.
>>2909877It was the British who castrated Alan Turing.
>>2909879What of the perpetual condition of unrestrained imperial hegemony?
What is the differentiation between the drive for the domination beneath Liberal democracy through war and fascist rule?
>whats the difference between a war of colonial exploitation and a war of extermination
moron
>>2909881>>2909884It is class domination. Why can you not explain this?
Again, you are failing to see the underlying patterns at play. A commodity for a commodity. A play for a play.
>>2909880>unrestrained imperial hegemonyI know you're not supposed to say this, but a one-world empire is the utopian ideal of most people; a la the science fiction of a militarised humanity against aliens. Hobson in his work on Imperialism (1902) sees that the ancient Roman imperialism was good and beneficial, since the citizens wanted to improve colonies by choosing to live there, while today's capitalist imperialism (according to Lenin and Hobson, beginning in the 1870s) is simply too competitive to allow for proper development. Kant in the late 18th century saw an international government as ideal, since thus, local powers will have been dissolved into larger empires - Engels makes the same point about certain local nations, particularly the Slavs - here, he saw independence as a "reactionary" force. Marx had a bit more nuance, but based it in the material conditions. As he saw, British colonisation in Ireland had not improved industry, but had exported it to London, leaving Ireland worse off than before. The British policy over America was identical, where no industry was permitted to be developed in the colonies, but only agricultural raw material, like cotton. Here, imperialism serves a core, at the expense of a periphery. Unfortunately, no anti-imperialist has an actual answer to this besides "multi-polarity", but this is the exact definition of "the final stage of capitalism", which as we saw, lead to WW2. Conflict with Eurasia would obviously lead to WW3. So, there are international benefits of colonisation, but also drawbacks. A truly global empire has never been achieved, but maybe it will happen.
>the drive for the domination beneath Liberal democracy through war and fascist rule?Is there much difference? It's all about economics at the end of the day. On the face of it, the Iraq War was a Fascist Holy War, but it was actually about obtaining control of natural resources. Base and Superstructure, as the Marxists say. When Hitler "invaded" the Rhineland, was this about "lebensraum" or about re-industrialisation?
>>2909890>Base and Superstructure, as the Marxists say. When Hitler "invaded" the Rhineland, was this about "lebensraum" or about re-industrialisation?My final point, if I may make one, is that the explanation has begun to elide. We move from academic historicism and into the realm of abstract motive forces, into the realm of the real. Here, in this cactus land, what is Fascism? How do differentiate between it and the liberal democratic order.
Best of luck.
>>2909895>How do differentiate between it and the liberal democratic order. Exactly.
But then again, in the "real", Communism is also just Capitalism.
The "mode of production" is a tricky thing which has many faces.
Fare thee well at once.
The glowworm shows the matin to be near
And ’gins to pale his uneffectual fire.
Adieu, adieu, adieu. Remember me!
We are the hollow men.
We are the stuffed men!
https://xcancel.com/bodysatnav/status/2096950331980599805What’s the point of funding the BBC if all you get from it is the same shit as the Telegraph and other Tory rag mags?
https://xcancel.com/wokeratimarty/status/2097290944424910927https://xcancel.com/wokeratimarty/status/2097280335201386718https://xcancel.com/wokeratimarty/status/2097286234762588274Revealing info about Portsmouth
https://xcancel.com/wokeratimarty/status/2097666930626773243Danny Tommo just told the police he can probably get better access to internal information from Twitter than they can, because of “Tommy Robinson’s connections to Elon Musk.”
https://xcancel.com/wokeratimarty/status/2096985844871549159https://xcancel.com/wokeratimarty/status/2096931015302279339Could all the rape talk from the gammons be projection of their own sexual complexes? Because it’s all too common for them to hand out rape threats to others like candy.
https://xcancel.com/lil_doza/status/2097557241544998960For those that think Ireland is somehow any better than the UK. People need to wake up to the fact that the British isles are basically just wigger twin islands of Yurop.
>>2909767And in the process, society becomes intolerant. The paradox of tolerance is that it cannot exist because either somebody replaces it and you are a principled loser, or you defend tolerance but become an unprincipled winner as you are not tolerant enough. Popper was truly a midwit at least on this point.
>>2909900I want to remind people that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are reeincarnated.
They are now Whitkoff and Kushner.
>>2909879Is Britain not one long walking case study in a nation refusing to adapt itself to modern conditions?
Country is shit
>>2909941Yep. Getting worse every day.
met a furry irl and idk whether to give them my contact information because i don't want other furries knowing i'm bri'ish but i don't want this furry not to know i'm a furry
this is what they've reduced us to.
>>2909944Just give the details, meds now, UK is hardly despised in the furry community, not like you're Israeli
>>2909947it's not that the UK is despised, it's just grim and downmarket. i'd rather not be associated with it.
i will probably give details anyway. >>2909960Why does it sound like a stand up show joke
>>2909919Tolerance is a matter of parliamentary openness.
Once debate becomes impossible due to a denial of reality and reason (as we see daily in all internet arguments), then you have the condition of intolerable intolerance; it's not simply a matter of taste (e.g. bigotry), but a transcendental clause of free expression. If for example, an opposition party threatened to attack you for mocking them, you have intolerance. This is often the way it is in public life, so only the enlightened are able to respect the public square as open.
>>2909939What country is more "modern" in the world than the UK?
There is this ideal modernity which must have a corresponding example.
>>2910014>tfw Reform is more Zionist than ConservativesCan't say I'm surprised.
>>2910014Fundamentally it must be understood that Reform voters are just the most malignant people in these isles. They are right-wingers, not poor working class souls abandoned by woke transgender-loving socialists, not people you'll win over with miners in blackface, they're just bastards who think Thatcher didn't go far enough. Polling shows it again and again. Anything else is a media trap.
>>2910027Restore is even worse in its overt middle class vanguardism.
As I have shown in their tax policy, they are specifically seeking to represent people in the £50,000–£100,000 range. Farage himself is not even a politician, but is a con man always caught in bribery scandals. He is the political equivalent of Richard Dickinson. A miser.
>>2910040>>2910027David* Dickinson, sorry.
Too many dicks.
>>2910096The AfD win has the establishment spooked. Whatever it takes to continue the genocide of Russians…
In the beginning was the word
And Faust knows things
>>2910141And what does Faust know?
>>2910148Faust knoweth the word.
>What country is more "modern" in the world than the UK?
any country without a monarchy
Bydd Reform yn cael amser drwg ar ôl mae Byddin Coch ni yn bod gorffen gyda nhw.
>>2910225Wrong. It's bird.
An open secret now to someone:
Bourgeois society reproduces itself in its own image!
Adieu
>>2910230You, probably.
Flood post!
>>2910232Everybody knows that bird is the word.
i wish there were some decent resources to learn cornish
>>2910280My friend actually has a bunch of Cornish language books, but she wouldn't share since she's trying to learn. But she is also very dismissive about the Cornish. I will say, from what I gather, Cornish is about as different from Welsh as Croatian is to Serbian. There are just as great dialectical differences within Welsh (North and South have very different dialects). One of the biggest differences is spelling, or pronunciation which is kind of modern. That doesn't mean it isn't a language tho. It's the same with Breton, which hearing it is kind of just Welsh with French words. They would probably say Welsh is just Breton with English words though lol. Don't listen to anyone who says there aren't many English words in Welsh, there are tons in common usage (also Winglish) it's just Cymdeithas yr Iaeth Gymraeg polices the language a lot in official contexts.
>TERF sets out to do 100 portraits of detransitoners
>4 years pass with her constantly looking for people to paint
>To this day she still hasn't found 100 detransitoners to paint, while several who volunteered have dropped out.
But remember, we have to treat trans people like shit and deny them care because they might regret it!! Don't you know it's PERMANENT? What if you PERMANENTLY altered your life in a way that you almost certainly wanted?
>>2910457This, fuck tattoos
>>2910457You're talking to yourself out loud
>>2910014Pleasantly surprised by the LibDem number tbh
>>2910469He's right doe
>>2910469Have you never seen someone performatively talk to themselves because they've got an audience? Never been to Edinburgh in the summer?
>>2910470The foyim have gone insane
>>2910477Never underestimate the pick me girl
Just remembered we unironically started doing DEI for stereotypical working class occupations. dad's a plumber or a well paid train driver? get in. minimum wage data entry, etc? fuck off you middle class ponce.
This country should be dissected and studied.
A kingdom for a stage, princes to act / And monarchs to behold the swelling scene!
RS21 can't even get anyone to stand for their vacant steering group position. It's so fucking over
You may stage a play
👋
>>2910477100% real look up Kemi Badenoch twitter
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0klnjmgpm6o
>Racist thugs hunting sportsmen for the colour of their skin, mistakenly believing them to be refugees/migrants
>BBC whitewashes them by vaguely referring to ‘em as “group”The BBC is basically a Tory mag but worst, since it’s state-funded rather than privately owned. ATP it should be dismantled or at the very least have its news service be slashed to oblivion and focus on entertainment and providing free primary and secondary education materials, with the only politics being an actually fair forum.
Because there’s no point for taxpayers to fund their own propaganda machine when it’s the same shit they hear in most Tory newspapers.
>>2910516Ironic considering their membership has like tripled since Yorp's implosion.
>>2910756>>2910756>What did one clown say to the other?ur mum?
Loving husband: I'd love to go there for a holiday (Mars)
Loyal wife(?): I expect you'll be paying for it
I can ruin things, fantastic.
No wonder I work in politics!
There’s only one move left to do, nationalize Gorillaz now that Albarn is leaving, it’s the last vestige of Cool Britain, might as well make it a public institution, have it be “Britain’s Band” but still keep up the general aesthetic.
>>2910990Protomartyr are good, them, Squid, and Young Fathers are the best thing the island has going musically at the moment.
In the room where women come and go, talking of Michaelangelo
Untrue by Burial might be one of the best albums this country has ever cooked up tbqh.
The guy behind it also did an interview with Mark Fisher iirc.
Anyone looking forward to the new Godflesh?
>>2911284His self titled and all the EPs are really good too, nice and consistent
>>2911285>Anyone looking forward to the new Godflesh?Yeah me
Average rape case be like:
https://xcancel.com/lil_doza/status/2098403506914795729Or more like…
Class war!: Brown prole vs Karen bourgeoisie landlord
Anyway, Channel 4’s investigative documentary on Mossad/big tech/CIA/MI6 asset Tommy 10 names just dropped:
https://youtu.be/7wvdzAco-Y4>>2911316HOw do you guys still watch this guy?
>>2911340Not much else on telly, is there?
>>2911527wouldnt go if I was paid £3
Jac Glyn Edwards (Jac Cymro), a senior member and tik tok maker of the fascist LARP group Mudiad Eryr Wen, is being charged with terrorism for having an "IRA manual". He is on bail and probably has been made an informant. Also I think there was something to do with firearms. This probably means MEW will collapse because it is a top down group with zero internal democracy and a secret "war council" which runs everything. Mudiad Eryr Wen is a FWA re-enactment group so it is funny they are going to end the same way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62mj6gyylno>>2911284I listened to the album on this recommendation and I have to say…
It was shite, mate. Get better taste in music, please.
I don't understand why we can't have assisted dying in this country.
I remember Angela Rayner being hysterical, claiming that it is in no way comparable to suicide - why is suicide an illegal offence in the minds of many? David Hume argued for its legality centuries ago. It is no shameful thing to choose death on one's own terms, and moreso, it is humiliating to extend life beyond what is desirable. Let the dead die.
>>2911692muh slippery slope I suppose.
>>2911692Because it becomes a legal nightmare for inheritance and life insurance companies, who both wish killing yourself would forfeit all your possessions.
>>2911711Could you elaborate on this, please?
>>2911692because of coercion
>>2910990great song. was literally just listening to that the other day
>>2911620Nahhh I fpllow that guy on twitter. MEW aren't fascist tho they are just left-wing in the way the provos were.
>>2911692The people pushing it are neoliberal ghouls who think the disabled should be AktionT4'd.
Did anything happen in Portsmouth in the end or nah?
Got jumped by three fascists walking home from a counter protest today, be careful out there comrades.
>>2911692two fundamental factors, one good, one evil
- your body isn't your own. you can't even transition and you think you should be able to end it all? no. (the bad reason)
- because we don't want to support people in a decent standard of living or provide appropriate care, so any legalisation of medically assisted dying will invariably lead to people who wouldn't otherwise want to die choosing to do so to avoid suffering caused by sources external to themselves. (e.g. killing yourself not because of the disease, but because the NHS is fucking useless and your council laughed in your face when you asked for a carer)
>>2911990you alright? what they do?
>>2912118Fractured my rib, they spotted me a few hours after leaving the protest and jumped me from behind then kicked/punched me for 2-3 minutes before running away.
>>29121223 bally cunts with flags on sticks
>>2912122shit, sorry man, sounds like you'll be right as rain in no time though
>>2912124my only takeaway from this is dont go home alone if you're protesting, thank you for the kind words.
>>2912308Werent a lot made smaller under the pretext of health regulation? Think that's why you get two little mars bars.
Pretty sure Bounties have always been two little ones though.
>>2912310>health regulationIt's funny that when Cameron brought in the sugar tax, this was just a way to put sweetners into fizzy drinks. The full fat is better for us.
It havent been talked enough how Corbyn decided to suicide his party in the womb by enroling reactionary muslim landlords who don't care for anything left besides their ethnonarcist grievances that crashed everything. This is why i believe he would have made a very mediocre Labour PM, possibly as bad as Keir Starmer. I can't belive leftists were placing their faith in that guy just because he's got an irish last name and make strongly worded letters.
>>2912316With Corbyn it was mostly because the guy wasnt a complete ghoul in regards to the middle east that made him appealing relative to the other zio-bots that make up UKpol.
I agree with your take though what came after has shown hes just a right wing liberal at heart, he just happens to adopt leftist aesthetics because he really wants to shag Dianne Abbot.
>>2912316I wish he was PM so that we could know that he was shit.
>>2912317According to the artocle, the SNP has said that Burnham will be the last PM of the UK - so the split is deemed to be soon. We'll see.
Tomorrow, NI, Wales and Scotland will petition to have a referendum to join the EU and exit the UK:
<For the first time ever, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are led by pro-independence first ministers. There could be no clearer sign that the status quo is not sustainable – and that Westminster must prepare for a post-UK futurehttps://www.jpost.com/international/article-908447>>2912316You're giving him both too much and too little credit. The most fundamental thing to understand about "Your Party" is that he doesn't want to lead a party. He brought them in not because he made a mistaken tactical move about forming a real party, but because all he wants is a shared banner for a bunch of independent MPs. It's everyone else who projected their wish for a new left party on to him because, put simply, even though the Greens do everything such a party would do, their branding is wrong.
(They are after all The Greens, not The Left Party.)
It's like if they bottled pre-sugar-tax Irn Bru and sold it as Englishaide. Doesn't matter that the product is fine, no self respecting Scotsman would drink it on branding grounds. Similarly, leftists are squeamish about drinking Green brand radical-flavoured reformism because it's not a brand congruent with their political identity.
On the other hand, it is absolute insanity that Corbyn's handlers and manipulators let it all play out the way they did. "If you must do this damn silly thing, please don't do it in this damn silly way"…
>>2912317>>2912321It would be fun but this is almost certainly nothing. Burnham will say no, only he won't even say no, he'll vaguepost to the effect of no. "Now is not the time", "people want us to get on with the real work", all that slop.
The real hint is the internal state of the SNP, if there was a second independence referendum they would probably lose it. Not because people don't want independence (the basic public feeling is definitely "yes i want it, but i'm scared") but because the SNP itself simply does not have the logistical capacity to do the basic campaigning work to win it. They're broke and have no activists, and while a referendum might galvanise donors and activists to a Yes campaign, they'd have an uphill battle because there's really been no serious work done since 2014. The basic prospectus for independence is worse than back then - in terms of "you'll have to tell people this will hurt" - because there's nothing but painful options ahead, but the UK media and institutions are far better equipped to highlight the worst-case independence scenarios while pretending the UK isn't post-iceberg post-bulkheads flooding post electrical failure RMS titanic.
and, god bless them, independence activists don't have the guts or the disposition or the persona to just lie barefacedly and get away with it. >>2912380Just let protestants have dual citizenship and keep the NHS running in their neighborhoods
>>2912431I have some unflushed business in my toilet id be happy to donate to them
>>2912431I'd sooner donate to reform
>>2912431they can't get the arms manufacturers to stump up a bit of the billions in handouts they're giving them?
>>2912317This is like when the different Soviet republics started leaving all at once with just leaving England a rump state. After that, Northumbria becomes England's Chechen wars and Northern Ireland becomes a future SMO for England in the future
>>2912691They don’t have any formal power to secede and England can just say “no lol”
>>2912696Right and if they try it then it’s bombs on Edinburgh with the world’s support? The power of sovereignty depends entirely on foreign recognition, if Scotland, Wales and NI declare independence, chances are that will be recognised particularly if their first order of business is rejoining the EU.
>>2911728They flooded hotels and hostels with migrants and bums (who already had social housing but prefer to use it only as a crack den than a sleeping area) during Covid and for a while afterwards and the price never came down.
Pre-Covid I would travel every weekend and stay in Hostels for around 10-15 quid, now it's mostly around 30-50 for even a 12-20 bed dorm and you have the pleasure of sleeping with migrants who never shut the fuck up and blast their tiktoks until 6am or homeless crackheads who try steal your shit.
>>2912317Bullshit and Scotland would be forced to go through austerity to the likes that makes Thatcher seen like a Bennite.
UK shitlib Left should be pushing for Federalisation of the UK and in particular England and other modernising structural reforms like getting rid of the House of Lords and replacing it with a proportional senate, not stupid LARP bullshit like this that just makes everyone's life worse.
>>2912808London is consistently ranked as the best city on earth next to New York in terms of things to do, culture, food, etc and I've never, EVER understood it. People on Reddit and in the media rant about how awesome it is, but ffs, nightlife in this city basically ends at 11pm, it's a bitch to get anywhere, people are indifferent and cold and basically you can hang with someone all day then you will never see them again etc. Also just in general it's very run down, and I'm not a fan of the ethnic enclave nature of how boroughs work. It's pretty clear swaths of certain demographics in London don't give a single fucking shit about upkeep or civic norms or values. (and this isn't just ethnic based btw, some of the shittiest, trashiest (literally) areas of London are very white)
Good parts of the England are in the West and North. Bath, Cornwall, Cotswalds, Peak District, Lake District, York etc and the North is in general just far more picturesque than the south.
Best city in the UK is Edinburgh in terms of Tourism and it isn't even close. It's one of the most beautiful cities of Europe and looks like something out of a fantasy anime.
>>2912812>London is consistently ranked as the best city on earth next to New York in terms of things to do, culture, food, etc and I've never, EVER understood it. New York is shit too so that makes sense.
>Best city in the UK is Edinburgh in terms of Tourism and it isn't even close. It's one of the most beautiful cities of Europe and looks like something out of a fantasy anime.It does look nice. Another argument for Scottish Independence.
>>2912317This isn't real, it's just the torygraph wildly exaggerating in the title and lying. Scotland, Wales and occupied Ireland are meeting in Cardiff to pursue devolution together (it's really funny that the DUP woman is coming to this). Andy Burnham is not involved at all despite a photo of him being attached lmao. The government is still against things like a second referendum for Scotland. This is a complete nothingburger. Westminster won't ever let the British Empire dissolve.
>>2912815It is a nothingburger this time, but not for the reason people online seem to be holding on to, I.e “there’s low public support for independence/dissolving the UK”. The USSR had pretty low support for its own dissolution and yet it happened anyway. It only really takes a faction in London that thinks everything outside of London is dead weight to take charge and we could see the end of the UK, but it’s not like there’s anyone currently in Westminster who thinks everything outside of the M25 is an irrelevant pain in the arse to govern? Right?
In the room where women come and go, talking of Michaelangelo
>>2912834Cornwall is not included. Sad!
>>2911728>what is actually true is that it's cheaper to fly abroad and stay in a foreign hotel than it is for a UK resident to rent a cottageThat is also the case for most of France.
>>2912849While i could understand anti-normand sentiment given their descendents are still uber rich and own all the land this celtic & anglo-saxon identity thing is really gay. It makes me think of bretons in France but unlike anglos & celts Bretons actually got fucked over pretty recently in the early 1900s and didnt benefit much from France's wealth until the 1960s or so.
>>2912852Wales and Cornwall are the poorest countries in Western Europe apart from Portugal (which has a similar literacy rate to Syria).
?
>>2912874I can't tell if it's AI or not.
>>2912880ive seen this before its old and pre-AI, and also happens to be one of the funniest things to ever happen
>>2912884the alba guy is right make it BRICS (S for SCOTLAND, I for IRELAND)
Faust? Play along.
>>2912874Seen basically this at parties a dozen times with lads off of their head on coke egging eachother on.
Ugly as sin? You'll see.
>>2912874this is russia, why do we have it in here
BRICS
Breizh, Rheged, Ireland, Cymru, Scotland
For those not in the know Rheged was the name of the most significant Kingdom of the Hen Ogledd, the Old North, roughly located around modern day Cumbria and Galloway.
>>2912812>this isn't just ethnic based btw, some of the shittiest, trashiest (literally) areas of London are very white)In other words, the UK is turning into the American south before desegregation. People forget how, despite Jim Crow, the US south used to be really poor, to the point that it took a century after the American civil war for the region to catch up to the north.
And, “coincidentally”, the ancestral stock of the average white American southerner are the British. I’ll admit that I, a non-Brit European, am taken aback by how thuggish and impulsive the British “gammon” (as you call them) can be, reminds me of the sectarian violence from third world countries.
Not sure if it’s the Anglo vs Norman divide, or that the British isles are the wigger-Stan of North-western Europe, but I don’t think things will get better for you comrades as the competency crisis and the lumpenisation of even middle-class white Brits contributes to a further decline of Britain.
>>2911990Sadly, looks like the days of Weimar-era street fighting will commence as the current Labour government has chosen to deputise these fascist turds by default. I don’t expect things to get better as the latest rounds of explosion in the Arabian peninsula will hike inflation in a major creep, and Britain will be more severely affected than America since the UK practically imports everything.
>>2913318It is in some ways a very inegalitarian thought, but I sincerely believe Britain has been subject to negative selection effects.
That is: all the good Britons emigrated. The open-minded ones, the ones who had it in them to hope for a better life, the ones who'd take a risk on making things better rather than just wallowing in their misery. That leaves behind born-to-rule twats and born-to-suffer serfs.
(The catch here is it wouldn't explain American southerners being crazy - it only explains why Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of America are better or at least less bleak. It can explain Americans being crazy - all the crazy people of the world who'd gamble on a better life emigrated there. - but that can't explain why CANZ are so normal. Australia also complicates things because we sent criminals there… But perhaps the selection effect is through the mere act of having things changed, rather than anything genetic.)
a funny one: the "LGB Alliance" astroTERF charity has a PDF report about how LGB people hate being called queer, with massive numbers (70-90%) saying it makes them uncomfortable. wow, those faggots really are annoying the silent majority of normal gay people!
the methodology? a google forms survey e-mailed to the LGB Alliance mailing list…
sometimes it's painful how obvious people make it that they're acting in bad faith. like, it wouldn't be hard to do a YouGov survey with skewed questions to get the answers you want, but no. we asked Labour party members who they'd like to win the next election, and you won't believe this but 95% said Labour… Burnham is so back.
>>2913290English, or Jewish?
This is not even passive-aggression, like we'd normally expect.
>>2913486>It’s clearly moralistic, this framing, despite the evidence for a link between asylum seekers and sex crimes being pretty tenuous and inconclusive.You seem to be spindling apologetic conjecture. Read:
<Data from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), obtained by the the Centre for Migration Control think tank under freedom of information laws, has revealed that 26% of 1,453 sex assault convictions on women last year [2024] were foreign nationals […] While accounting for 26% of sexual assault convictions last year, foreign nationals make up 10.9% of the population. More than a fifth of all rape convictions last year were also foreign nationals.https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/foreign-nationals-quarter-sexual-assault-convictions-rpXpd_2/So, foreign nationals are overrepresented in sexual crimes.
The concerns are thus validated by empirical evidence.
>>2913491Bold of you to accuse someone else of engaging in apologia, then spuriously cite information against foreigners to justify a prejudice against asylum seekers specifically.
Purely to annoy you: even if this information was true, it would not on the face of it strictly constitute empirical evidence. Sexual assault is notoriously a "he said, she said" crime, so we cannot rule out the possibility that all this reflects is a massive under-conviction of native Britons (who get away with it because juries prefer "he said") while foreigners are convicted more frequently. We also cannot rule out the possibility that foreigners primarily assault other foreigners, which would similarly invalidate native "concerns." Finally: when you look into the actual numbers they are almost comically paltry. No foreign nationality committed more than 38 assaults or 10 rapes, in a country of nearly 70 million people. The percentages are scary but the actual chances are laughable: you're as likely to die from being stung by a bee as you are to be raped by a Romanian and you're as likely to die of Carbon Monoxide poisoning as you are to be assaulted by an Indian - but we've not brought the whole country to a screeching halt while we install detectors in every home and we've not issued everyone with EpiPens just in case.
For those who want something closer to my actual gut view: this - and any other stats showing disproportionate migrant crime - is almost purely a function of age. Less than half of the UK-born population is between 25 and 64, while 72% of immigrants are 20-64. It's far easier for a 30 year old bloke to assault someone than a 90 year old. >>2913533You wrote this:
>the evidence for a link between asylum seekers and sex crimes being pretty tenuous and inconclusive.You are wrong. That is all that's been proven.
Thus, local concerns have an actual foundation.
>>2913537>information against foreignersIf it's a fact, then it has no further value than to counter false claims.
Anon made false claims, and I corrected them. That's all.
>if this information was trueBut it is true. If you deny it, you are choosing to lie to yourself.
Is it me or are there a lot more young lads fishing? Especially from Canals? Saw a fella on the way home with a yankee brim and a set of headphones just doing it at 5pm in the middle of Manchester. Fair play to him just feels new.
Conservatism is a mental illness that is a co-morbidity with old age and dementia.
>>2913626Extremely idealist analysis.
You are treating politics as ideology and not as class interest.
Older people are typically wealthier, so seek to preserve it.
>>2913627Yes I do know this and I agree, I just wanted to post my disdain for conservatives who I do think should be barred from things like being around children.
>>2913630But you are again assigning primacy to ideas, not circumstance.
>>2913635omfg what is this retarded semantics shit you know what I mean. Would you rather I say "I hate the reactionary portion of the petit-bourgeois"
>>2913646Interesting.
As soon as you deny aesthetic sublimity, you lose your morale.
Cosplay is the only effective form of politics.
>>2913605It's not a false claim. If I say that people on student visas are all rapists, I cannot cite data about foreigners in general to prove that point without enumeration. Most of these foreigners - and you know this without citation - are
not on student visas. Why, then, should we take for granted that this data tells us anything about asylum seekers, especially when the countries with the highest ranking for rape and assault are not those we generally issue asylum from?
It is in a tautological sense true that the information itself is truly what the information is, but that is different to it reflecting material reality. As I pointed out: if it simply reflects a higher conviction rate for foreigners, then it does nothing to justify a fear of foreigners over natives.
>>2913626Fact
>>2913627Polling is pretty clear it correlates much more strongly with age and undesirable personality traits than with material interest.
And in any case, every bourgeois party governs in the bourgeois interest. The rest is flavouring.
>>2913635No, primacy is to personal traits and conditions, of which class is only one. Scots drinking Irn Bru is not a class issue, nor is scum voting Reform.
>>2913646Which side do I back if I want all the reactionary ones locked up in prison for being cringe?
>>2913661
So this article is slightly BS. Deansgate and Castlefield is not an "LGBT and migrant neighbourhood" it is where all the Deanos go clubbing. There is like one LGBT club and it is mostly full of straight women. It is kinda telling they went there tbh.
>>2913695Not very. Ireland is in no state to Unify (even if the political will is there in the North), the SNP are bitchmade and couldn't push independence if there was a 70-30 majority for it, and Plaid got into government less than 6 months ago and are more focused on proving themselves than a separation they know they aren't ready for.
>>2913690>the countries with the highest ranking for rape and assault are not those we generally issue asylum from?Says who? The data contradicts what you are claiming. Read:
The highest per capita recordings of ethnicities are given from the countries which we have the most asylum seekers from. But since you are making the claim, what nationality commits the most rapes per capita?
>a fear of foreigners over natives.A fear of illegal immigrants*
No one would panic at 1,000 foreign students to the same degree.
>>2913653>They do not establish that asylum seekers are responsible for that overrepresentationWould you at least say there's a statistical correlation?
For example, we may compare the majority ethnicities of asylum seeking from 2022-2024, with ethnic breakdowns in sexual assault:
Here, Indians, Iranians, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Eritreans, Bangladeshis and so on comprise both the majority of asylum seekers, as well as the most proportioned sexual assaulters in the UK. There is a certain statistical correlation, but is there causation? You presumably say no. So, what would actually confirm that unauthorised entries into the UK who apply for asylum have at least an overrepresentation in sexual assault? I'm not saying asylum seekers cause all rape, but that per capita, they are more likely to be rapists than say, naturalised citizens of the same ethnicity. 1,000 foreigners and 1,000 citizens is itself an uncomfortable culture shock which is unwelcome, but the question is whether or not it is more sexually dangerous. I say yes - you hopefully at least say "maybe", no?
>sexual assaults committed by asylum seekersUnfortunately, our government doesn't collect this data, directly.
It would save a lot of people a lot of time if they did.
>anti-immigrationThis is not about immigration in particular, but illegal immigration.
These boat crossings are unauthorised entries. I hope you know that.
If 1,000 students moved in, do you think the reaction would be the same? No.
>>2913690Both tbh. Rumours are the Scottish Branch are trying to take over because they are the only ones that fucking do anything and exist beyond a committee and an instagram page. But that would be a shift back to the 2020 era of red snoods and flares which the communist party don't want. Both are transphobic btw.
>>2913706Yes, I would say there can be a random statistical correlation between nationality composition among asylum applicants and nationality composition among people arrested for sexual offences. But that is a much weaker claim than the one you’re trying to establish. Overlap/Correlation does not establish a causal link.
And your West Yorkshire FOI actually illustrates the problem rather well. It doesn’t show “sexual assaulters”; it shows arrests. West Yorkshire Police explicitly says the figures are the number of arrests, not individuals, and that other offences may also be linked to the arrest. So we’re not even comparing asylum applicants with convicted sexual offenders here.
Likewise, the Home Office data tell us which nationalities make up asylum claims. They don’t tell us how many asylum seekers from each nationality are currently present in the UK, how long they’ve been here, their age/sex distribution, or how many subsequently commit or are convicted of sexual offences. In fact, the Home Office says 59% of people claiming asylum in 2024 were adult males, which is already highly relevant to the denominator when discussing sexual offending.
So I’d distinguish three propositions:
- Certain nationalities are disproportionately represented among asylum applicants.
- Some of those same nationalities are disproportionately represented in a particular sexual-offence dataset.
- Therefore asylum seekers from those nationalities have a higher per-capita propensity to commit sexual offences.
(1) and (2) can be true without (3) following.
The fact that Pakistanis, Iranians, Iraqis, etc. appear in both datasets is therefore suggestive of a possible relationship worth investigating, but it doesn’t establish the relationship you’re proposing. That’s what I mean by correlation not being enough.
And there’s another problem with your proposed comparison with naturalised citizens of the same ethnicity. You’d need to actually construct that comparison. Ideally we’d want something like:
sexual-offence offending/conviction rate among asylum seekers of nationality X, per 100,000 asylum seekers of nationality X, compared with the corresponding rate among naturalised British citizens of nationality X, matched for age, sex, time in the UK and ideally other relevant characteristics.
Then we’d have something much closer to the claim you’re making.
At present, we don’t have that denominator. We have asylum applications on one side and police arrests on the other.
So do I say “maybe”? Of course. It’s an empirical hypothesis. It is entirely possible that asylum seekers are overrepresented in sexual offending, and I’d have no problem acknowledging that if good evidence demonstrated it.
But “maybe” is precisely not the same thing as “yes, they are more sexually dangerous.”
And I think that’s an important distinction because you’re now making a substantially narrower and more testable claim than your original one. If you can produce evidence that asylum seekers themselves, rather than foreign nationals generally, have a higher age- and sex-adjusted rate of sexual offending than comparable populations, I’ll happily accept that evidence.
But until then, we’re still looking at nationality correlations between two datasets that measure different populations and different stages of the criminal-justice process.
As for the “illegal immigration” distinction: I understand that you’re specifically talking about unauthorised Channel crossings rather than immigration generally. But that actually makes the evidential problem harder, not easier. Almost all small-boat arrivals claimed asylum in 2024, according to the Home Office, but the asylum population also includes people who entered through other routes, including people who previously held valid visas:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2024/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-ukSo if the claim is specifically:
“People who enter the UK irregularly by small boat and subsequently claim asylum have a higher rate of sexual offending than comparable groups,”
then that’s the claim that needs to be demonstrated.
I’m not saying it is false. I’m saying the evidence you’ve produced so far doesn’t demonstrate it.
Afaik, The UK literature already suggests that the relationship between migration and crime is heterogeneous rather than simply ‘more immigration = more crime.’” And just to be clear, I acknowledge that you make a distinction between illegal and legal immigration, but my point still stands. You need stronger evidence to prove your claim.
>>2913721If the government doesn't list immigration status in the criminal database, then how can you ever prove anything with certainty? This is the issue. And as far as nationality is concerned, it can fail to be recorded:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/foi/2025/number-individuals-prosecuted-and-convicted-rape-offences-england-wales-2024-2025-brokenIn this document, over a third of offenders don't give a nationality.
So, our incompetent state fails to have proper statistical infrastructure.
Perhaps I spoke too zealously upon "proof" then, since I am presenting many correlations, without direct causation. Nonetheless, I see the matter deductively and inductively in the following terms, that 1,000 Indian citizens versus 1,000 Indian non-citizens necessarily presents a disparity over sexual security, even if by a single case. It is entirely expected that a citizen will be more lawful than a foreigner. And I should add that this is regardless of the concerns of the town, since I think 1,000 strangers put anywhere is concerning, but as it is particular to sexual assault, I think they are validated, by intuition. I might ask you the same thing to make the point.
Who is presumably most unlawful per capita?
- (i) Indian-British citizens
- (ii) Naturalised Indian citizens
- (iii) Non-naturalised Indians
- (iv) Unauthorised Indian asylum seekers
By the terms of common sense, the answer is clear, and gradual.
And wouldn't you agree that the more (i) legal, (ii) naturalised and/or (iii) integrated and immigrant is, the less people are fearful of them? So, I see universal validity of the communities' fears, and support them - even if for the plainer problems you admit to, like economics.
>>2913746You still haven't engaged with an earlier point about age. If all nationalities share identical propensities to crime, but immigrants are disproportionately young, then anti-immigrant prejudice on the grounds of criminality is irrational even though immigrants have a higher crime rate by virtue of their relative youth.
>>2913746I actually agree with one part of what you’re saying: the lack of reliable immigration-status data makes it harder to answer these questions confidently. But that cuts against your argument as much as mine. If the state doesn’t record asylum status in the relevant criminal-justice datasets, then you can’t use nationality correlations to fill that gap and treat the resulting inference as established.
And yes, the CPS data show that nationality can be missing. But “the data are incomplete” doesn’t mean “therefore my prior belief about foreigners being more criminal is probably correct.” It means we have less certainty.
More importantly, I think your latest argument reveals the actual disagreement between us. You say:
“It is entirely expected that a citizen will be more lawful than a foreigner.”
Why?
That’s not a deduction. You’re assuming the conclusion.
Your proposed ranking—
Indian-British citizen → naturalised Indian → non-naturalised Indian → unauthorised Indian asylum seeker
—is not something that follows from citizenship status. It’s a hypothesis about offending rates. If you want to say that each successive category is necessarily more unlawful than the previous one, you need evidence showing that pattern. “Common sense” doesn’t establish it.
In fact, I’d be very careful about treating citizenship as a measure of lawfulness. A naturalised citizen and a non-naturalised immigrant can be the same age, sex, ethnicity, education, income, neighbourhood, occupation and length of residence in Britain, while having different passports. Why should the passport itself make one more likely to commit a sexual offence?
And the asylum-seeker category is even less straightforward. You’re comparing a highly selected population of people who have undergone a particular migration process, overwhelmingly composed of adults and disproportionately men, with much broader populations. If you want to know whether they are more likely to commit sexual offences, you need to compare their offending rate against an appropriate population—not simply infer it from their legal status.
I also don’t think your “1,000 citizens versus 1,000 non-citizens” example establishes a disparity. Suppose both groups contain exactly one sexual offender. Then there is no disparity at all. Suppose the citizen group contains 2 and the non-citizen group contains 1,000. Then there is a huge disparity. The number 1,000 tells us nothing without actually observing the outcomes.
And even if we did establish that 1,000 non-citizens had a higher sexual-offending rate than 1,000 citizens, we’d still have to ask why. Age? Sex? Poverty? Housing conditions? Employment? Length of residence? Social isolation? Selection effects? Differences in reporting, policing or detection? Cultural factors? Something else? That’s where the causal analysis begins.
Your point about people becoming less fearful as immigrants become more integrated is also interesting, but again, it doesn’t demonstrate your causal claim. People can become less fearful because they have more familiarity and social contact with a group, because they have better socioeconomic circumstances, because the group has been resident longer, or because stereotypes weaken through contact. None of that establishes that foreign status itself causes greater criminality.
And I wouldn’t describe communities’ fears as “universally valid” simply because they have an intuitive basis. A fear can be psychologically understandable without the factual proposition underlying it being true.
If a community is worried about sexual assault, I absolutely think that concern should be taken seriously. But taking the concern seriously means asking what actually predicts sexual offending and what policies reduce victimisation. It doesn’t mean assuming that the least integrated or least legally secure people must necessarily be the most sexually dangerous.
So I think we’ve reached a fairly clear point of agreement:
* the existing data are inadequate;
* nationality can be missing from criminal-justice data;
* there are some correlations worth investigating;
* it’s possible that asylum seekers could be overrepresented in sexual offending.
But your proposed hierarchy of “lawfulness” is not something you’ve demonstrated. It’s a prior assumption that you’re using to interpret the incomplete data.
If you want to defend the claim that unauthorised asylum seekers are more likely to commit sexual offences than comparable Indian citizens, I’m happy to discuss the evidence for that specific proposition. But I don’t think we should substitute intuition for the missing data and then call the result deduction.
>>2913690Wrong this is anti-marxist drivel
Leader of Reform UK in Wales, Dan Thomas has resigned after being arrested for assault and controlling and coercive behaviour.
This comes after a previous Reform MP, James McMurdock, also left the party after it became public he had convictions for being a wife-beating scum bag.
Why can't the "protect women and children" crowd stop beating up the women in their own homes???
>>2913845Lol, lmao even
Jokes aside, he seems a decent fellow, willing to work with other left leaning parties, and thinks that pic related was fucking stupid
It's happening? Ed Sheeran actually getting cancelled?
I thought that these articles might be useful to learn our current predicament and see what works, that is until we run out of options and are forced to retreat elsewhere like the Spanish republicans after the Spanish civil war.
https://socialistworker.co.uk/anti-racism/how-did-we-beat-the-national-front/https://socialistworker.co.uk/in-depth/the-men-in-black-british-fascisms-new-outfit/>>2913766I can imagine nothing more anti-Marxist than pretending that Marxism is defeated by being unable to explain the output of a simple Yougov poll.
>>2913865>Macklemore was opening for Ed Sheeran >Mack shouted out Free Palestine during his sets and performed his song Hind's Hall which is about the genocide>Jewish American singer Pink then had a mental breakdown on social media over this, saying it was antisemitic to support a Palestinian state and how Macklemore was an evil antisemitic Nazi for not supporting Israel blah blah blah>The Yanks who were managing Ed Sheeran's gigs then said they would cancel his upcoming performances if he didn't drop Macklemore as his opener>Ed Sheeran instantly drops Macklemore as his opening act>Fans call him out as being zogged and a Zionist and not sticking up for any principles >He responds with a Contrapoints tier response about woe is me, waaah it's a complicated situation, I'm just an apolitical guy, the fans don't know if I support good causes privately but no I won't disclose if I actually doHonestly annoyed the algorithm forced me to see all this shitty popstar drama. Also I think Ed's music is pretty trash.
Also ED Sheeran LARPs as being working class despite the exact opposite being true.
He sings about being a working class youth hanging out on the streets, how he would smoke roll ups and get chased by cops.
In reality he lived in a large posh cunt house in a leafy posh southern suburbia, went to private school, had pricey private piano and violin tutors who would visit his house, etc.
>>2913843This is so hilarious, and really not surprising at all. He is a Freemason. There has also been a defection from Reform to PLAID CYMRU by the MS Sarah Lesadd who said she didn't like how they were targetting minorities. Really weird and funny day.
>>2913878Ed Sheeran was always overrated. Never understood the appeal of his songs, which to my ears sound like any other generic pop song sang by a male.
>>2913882Hey S poster what are we wearing tonight?
>>2913889Basically he was around the right people.
>>2913890Army trousers and nothing else
I wonder if Llyr Powell gets to be the leader of Reform now. Apparently everyone hates him though.
>>2913751>If all nationalities share identical propensities to crime…But they don't, so it's a non-starter.
Nationalities associated with unauthorised channel crossings have a higher chance of sexual assaulting British citizens, per capita.
>>2913754>you can’t use nationality correlations to fill that gapYes I can. It's a statistical correlation.
>my prior belief about foreigners being more criminal is probably correctYou invoke probability.
I say that there is a greater probability of rapists being amongst unauthorised asylum seekers than citizens of the same ethnicity.
>Why?Because as you have agreed to, foreign nationals in Britain are overrepresented in sexual assault charges… So, a citizen of the UK is statistically less likely to commot rape than a non-citizen. Read again:
<Data from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), obtained by the the Centre for Migration Control think tank under freedom of information laws, has revealed that 26% of 1,453 sex assault convictions on women last year [2024] were foreign nationals […] While accounting for 26% of sexual assault convictions last year, foreign nationals make up 10.9% of the population. More than a fifth of all rape convictions last year were also foreign nationals.https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/foreign-nationals-quarter-sexual-assault-convictions-rpXpd_2/>Why should the passport itself make one more likely to commit a sexual offence?Because a naturalised citizen must have a term of stay in the UK for 5 years, so are literally tested in their lawful residence. The passport is itself a test of civility - or at least it ought to be, which it could be, if we rightfully deported foreign criminals, but alas, 12% of our prisons are filled with foreigners. We are safekeepers of the world's problems:
<There were 10,737 (3,719 remand, 6,691 sentenced and 327 non-criminal) foreign nationals held in custody on 30 September 2025; representing 12% of the total prison population. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2025/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2025>Suppose both groups contain exactly one sexual offenderI cannot imagine falsehoods.
If 1,000 females and 1,000 males were imported, could you suppose that both could have the same rates of sexual assault against citizens?
>we’d still have to ask why.Because they're opportunists who come from safe countries like France, and because they have no respect for British law or custom. It's a cultural incompatibility, as the government has accepted. That's why they are handing out leaflets to tell the new arrivals not to rape:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/understanding-behaviours-and-expectations-in-the-uk-a-guide-for-asylum-seekersAnd poverty? Does being poor make you more likely to rape? Stop the claptrap. I have hardly anything, yet I have no potential for such evil. With every less £ in your bank account, are you more likely to rape? No. It's a lack of morals which causes rape, whether white or brown.
>None of that establishes that foreign status itself causes greater criminality.Anon, you have already agreed thar foreigners are more likely to rape - this specific question is whether or not asylum seekers are included.
>what actually predicts sexual offending Being foreign predicts being a rapist more than a citizen.
>But your proposed hierarchy of “lawfulness” is not something you’ve demonstratedIt's common sense, as I have explained. You already have an answer who you THINK is most lawful, but you decline to share this judgement with me. That's fine, but you know in your heart what's true.
>>2913871Are you unironically posting the Socialist Worker??
Swappies tryna sell newspapers on Chinese cartoon boards now.
>>2914016I think we’re now getting to the actual disagreement, because you’re moving between three different claims:
- foreign nationals are overrepresented in some British sexual-offence conviction statistics;
- therefore foreign nationality predicts sexual offending;
- therefore unauthorised asylum seekers are particularly likely to be sexual offenders.
I accept (1), subject to the qualifications we’ve already discussed. I don’t think (2) follows automatically from it, and (3) certainly doesn’t follow from it without additional evidence.
You keep saying that I’ve “agreed foreigners are more likely to rape.” That’s not quite what I’ve agreed to.
What the MoJ figure establishes is that foreign nationals constituted a disproportionate share of convictions in a particular statutory sexual-offence category relative to their share of the population. That’s an observed disparity.
But “foreign nationals constitute a disproportionate share of convictions” is not identical to “being foreign predicts being a rapist.”
The latter is an individual-level risk claim. To establish it properly, you need an appropriate denominator and comparison group. You also need to account for the composition of the populations being compared.
And this matters particularly here because asylum seekers aren’t synonymous with foreign nationals. They’re a selected subgroup of foreign nationals, and asylum seekers themselves aren’t demographically equivalent to the general foreign-national population. For example, 59% of people claiming asylum in the UK in 2024 were adult males, while irregular arrivals have also been disproportionately adult male. That’s highly relevant when discussing sexual offending, because you’re comparing populations with very different age/sex compositions:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2024/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-ukSo your inference:
> foreign nationals are overrepresented → therefore asylum seekers probably inherit that propensityis a hypothesis. It isn’t something contained in the original statistic.
And that’s why I don’t think the fact that the government fails to collect the exact asylum-status data solves your problem. You’re right that inadequate data make the question difficult to answer. But uncertainty in the data doesn’t give us permission to replace the missing information with our preferred assumption.
If the state doesn’t record asylum status in the relevant criminal dataset, then the intellectually honest conclusion is:
“We don’t currently know whether asylum seekers have a higher sexual-offending rate.”
It isn’t:
“We don’t know, therefore my assumption that they do is probably correct.”
You can certainly have a prior belief. What you can’t do is present that prior belief as though it were the empirical result.
The citizenship argument has the same problem
You say that a naturalised citizen has lived here for five years and passed a good-character requirement, so citizenship is effectively a “test of civility.”
But that’s an argument about selection, not proof that citizenship itself reduces criminal propensity.
Yes, ordinary naturalisation has residence and good-character requirements. But that doesn’t mean that changing someone’s passport causes them to become less likely to commit rape. Nor does it establish that every non-naturalised person is morally less trustworthy than a naturalised citizen.
Imagine two people who are both Indian, both 30-year-old men, both living in the same neighbourhood, both earning the same income, both employed, both fluent in English and both having lived here for ten years. One has naturalised and the other hasn’t.
What exactly about the passport tells us that the first is less likely to commit a sexual offence?
If your answer is “the naturalised person has demonstrated integration,” then fine—that becomes an empirical hypothesis. We can investigate whether length of residence, employment, social integration, citizenship and so forth are associated with lower offending.
But you’ve moved away from “foreigners are inherently more unlawful” and towards a much more interesting hypothesis about integration and offending.
That’s something I would actually be interested in investigating.
Your prison statistic doesn’t establish the stronger claim either. The latest government figures put foreign nationals at about 12% of the prison population, but that figure includes prisoners on remand, sentenced prisoners and non-criminal prisoners, and covers all offence types. It isn’t a measure of sexual offending, and it isn’t an offending rate:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2025/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2025So again:
foreign nationals are 12% of prisoners
doesn’t establish:
foreign nationals are 12% of crime
and certainly doesn’t establish:
asylum seekers are disproportionately likely to rape.
Those are different propositions.
Your 1,000-person example doesn’t establish the conclusion either
You say that if we put 1,000 Indian citizens and 1,000 Indian non-citizens next to each other, there must be a disparity in sexual security.
But no, there doesn’t necessarily have to be.
Suppose each group contains exactly one person convicted of rape.
Their rates are identical.
Suppose one group contains two and the other contains one.
Then there is a disparity.
Suppose one contains ten and the other one.
Then there is a much larger disparity.
The hypothetical doesn’t tell us which of those worlds we’re actually living in.
And this is precisely why I object to calling the hierarchy
British citizen → naturalised citizen → non-naturalised immigrant → unauthorised asylum seeker
>“common sense.”You’re assuming that the categories form a descending scale of lawfulness and then using that assumption to interpret the empirical evidence.
That’s not deduction. It’s a prior.
You may have good reasons for holding that prior, but those reasons themselves need to be examined.
And I think your “culture” explanation is another hypothesis, not an established fact
You say:
“They’re opportunists who come from safe countries like France, and because they have no respect for British law or custom. It’s a cultural incompatibility.”
That’s a causal explanation.
What evidence establishes that this is the mechanism producing the observed disparity?
The Home Office giving asylum seekers information about consent doesn’t establish it. The Home Office has published guidance explaining British rules around sex, consent, domestic abuse and related behaviour. But the existence of educational material doesn’t demonstrate that the people receiving it are unusually prone to rape.
At most, it demonstrates that the government thinks it is useful to explain British legal and social expectations to people arriving from different backgrounds.
And I don’t actually find that surprising.
Of course cultural clashes can happen.
Marital rape is an obvious example. Britain has criminalised rape within marriage relatively recently; many societies historically did not, and many still don’t recognise marital rape in the same way. That is a genuine difference in sexual norms, and someone arriving from a society with radically different assumptions about marital consent may require education about British law.
But notice what follows from that:
there can be genuine cultural differences in sexual norms.
It does not follow that:
people from those cultures are therefore inherently more likely to rape.
Those are very different claims.
Someone can hold a morally objectionable belief without acting on it. Someone can come from a society with different sexual norms and nevertheless obey British law perfectly. Conversely, someone raised entirely within British culture can commit rape.
So if you want to investigate whether particular cultural norms predict particular forms of offending, I’m completely happy to do that.
But again, that’s an empirical research question.
I also think your dismissal of socioeconomic factors misses the point
Nobody is saying:
“Every £1 poorer someone is, the more likely they are to rape.”
That’s obviously absurd.
The question is whether socioeconomic circumstances are confounding variables when comparing populations.
If one population is disproportionately young, male, economically marginalised, socially isolated, living in insecure accommodation and excluded from the labour market, while another population isn’t, then you cannot simply observe a difference in offending and attribute the entire difference to nationality or culture.
That doesn’t mean poverty mechanically causes rape.
It means you have to distinguish:
“Group A has a higher offending rate”
from:
“The defining characteristic of Group A causes the higher offending rate.”
That’s basic causal inference.
And the same principle applies to your argument about integration. If crime declines as immigrants become more integrated, that would be interesting evidence. But then the relevant question becomes what aspects of integration matter: employment, income, language proficiency, social networks, length of residence, age, family formation, neighbourhood, legal status, etc.
That’s much more informative than simply assigning people a moral ranking according to their passport.
There’s also a separate issue with the word “rape”
This is where your use of the LBC statistic becomes especially problematic.
The statistic you originally cited concerns convictions for a particular statutory sexual-assault category. It isn’t a statistic saying:
“26% of rapists in Britain are foreigners.”
And “sexual offence” isn’t a single homogeneous behaviour.
That brings me to the Home Office poster you just posted.
>“They agreed once, but changed their mind.”This is actually a much more interesting example than you probably intended, because it demonstrates that consent is itself a juridical concept with rules.
Consent isn’t a physical substance that the state discovers existing independently of law and society. There are socially and legally defined questions about when consent exists, what constitutes freedom and capacity to choose, whether it can be withdrawn, what conditions attach to it, and what forms of deception invalidate it.
That doesn’t mean sexual coercion is imaginary.
That’s an important distinction.
A person can experience very real coercion, violation and suffering while the legal category used to describe and punish that conduct remains historically contingent.
That’s where I think a Foucauldian analysis of sexuality is useful.
Foucault’s point wasn’t that sexual violence doesn’t exist. It was that sexuality becomes an object of knowledge, classification, regulation and power through institutions such as medicine, psychiatry, law and the state.
“Normal sexuality”, “deviance”, “perversion”, “rape”, “sexual assault” and “consent” aren’t simply timeless natural categories waiting to be discovered. Their boundaries have been historically produced and repeatedly revised.
And British law itself demonstrates this.
The legal treatment of marital rape is one obvious example. So is the law surrounding deception and consent. The CPS currently recognises that certain forms of deception can vitiate consent under section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, while other forms of deception do not necessarily do so. The Law Commission has explicitly noted that courts have struggled with unusual deception cases and currently describes the law of consent as “unsettled, incoherent, and unpredictable.”:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-prosecution-guidance-full-page-versionSo I wouldn’t make the crude claim that “sex by deception isn’t rape.” The actual law is more complicated than that.
But that complication proves my broader point.
The boundary between consensual sex and criminal sexual conduct is not self-evident. It is constructed through legal rules, judicial interpretation and social norms.
And those rules change.
That doesn’t make sexual violence unreal.
It means we shouldn’t confuse:
“British law classifies this conduct as offence X”
with:
“This is a universally recognised and objectively identical form of sexual behaviour whose seriousness is independent of historical and cultural context.”
And this matters directly to the immigration argument
You can’t take a heterogeneous category of convictions produced by the British criminal-justice system and rhetorically transform the whole category into:
“foreign rapists”
and then transform “foreign nationals” into:
“asylum seekers”
and then transform that into:
“people who don’t respect British women.”
There are multiple inferential steps there.
The original dataset is one thing.
Your conclusion is several additional claims layered on top of it.
And the more layers you add, the more evidence you need.
That’s why I keep returning to the same question:
What exactly is the offending rate among asylum seekers, compared with an appropriate comparison population, after accounting for age, sex and other relevant differences?
If the answer turns out to be that asylum seekers really are substantially overrepresented in sexual offending, I’ll accept that.
If it turns out that the disparity disappears after controlling for demographic and socioeconomic composition, I’ll accept that too.
If it remains after those controls, then we can investigate why.
Perhaps cultural norms matter.
Perhaps selection effects matter.
Perhaps social isolation matters.
Perhaps legal status matters.
Perhaps something else does.
But we shouldn’t decide the mechanism before we’ve established the phenomenon we’re trying to explain.
Finally, I think you’re asking the wrong question about “whose fears are valid”
You say you support communities’ fears because you think they’re intuitively justified.
I think we should distinguish taking a fear seriously from validating the factual proposition underlying the fear.
If people are worried about sexual violence, I take that concern seriously.
If they’re worried about rapid demographic change, I take that concern seriously.
If they’re worried about housing, infrastructure, employment, policing or social cohesion, those are legitimate empirical questions.
But “people are afraid of group X” doesn’t itself tell us whether group X is unusually dangerous.
Otherwise any sufficiently widespread fear would validate itself.
And I don’t think your intuition that “1,000 strangers are inherently concerning” can establish the specific proposition that those strangers are more sexually dangerous.
Strangers may create uncertainty. They may create genuine logistical or social pressures. But “stranger” isn’t a criminological variable.
So I think we actually agree on more than you think
I agree that:
* foreign nationals are overrepresented in some British sexual-offence conviction datasets;
* the data on immigration status are inadequate;
* asylum seekers may potentially turn out to be overrepresented in some forms of offending;
* cultural differences in sexual norms exist;
* cultural clashes can occur;
* integration may matter;
* British sexual norms are not beyond criticism;
* and sexual violence is a real material harm that deserves serious attention.
What I don’t agree with is taking those propositions and adding:
therefore foreign status itself predicts rape;
therefore asylum seekers probably have the same propensity;
therefore the hierarchy of citizen → immigrant → asylum seeker is a hierarchy of moral lawfulness;
therefore the cultural explanation is already established;
and finally:
therefore the community’s fear is empirically validated.
Those are additional propositions.
And I don’t think “common sense” can substitute for evidence when the whole argument is about whether one population has a different rate of offending from another.
So no, I don’t have a secret answer that I’m “declining to share” because I supposedly know in my heart that your hierarchy is true.
My answer is simpler:
I don’t think we should rank populations by sexual dangerousness before we’ve actually measured their comparable offending rates.
If the evidence establishes the hierarchy you’re proposing, then I’ll accept the hierarchy.
If it doesn’t, then we shouldn’t manufacture it out of intuition.
That’s not denying the possibility of a problem.
It’s asking what the problem actually is before deciding who is responsible for it.
>>2914039Not really, I just thought those articles were informative enough to be posted here, particularly on how the NF was defeated and whether the same tactics can be applied in face of the US-Israeli supported reactionary street hooligans plaguing British streets and rural areas.
>>2914055So, you accept that per capita foreign nationals are more likely to rape than citizens - yet you don't accept that being foreign makes you more likely to rape than a citizen? You have presented a tautology yet deny the second part of the equation. This is contradictory. Looking at the slippery way you formulate it however, you act dishonestly. Nowhere have I written that "being foreign makes you a rapist", or "being an asylum seeker makes you a rapist", yet you project this onto me.
So, let's start again:
Do you accept that (i) PER CAPITA, foreign nationals in the UK are more likely to be rapists than citizens? If so, then (to speak tautologically), (ii) being foreign makes you MORE LIKELY to be a rapist than a citizen. Finally, (iii) unauthorised asylum seekers are foreign nationals, and are therefore more likely to be rapists than citizens. This is a perfectly sound syllogism granted by the validity of the original premise. You accept the premise, so accept the conclusion.
>You keep saying that I’ve “agreed foreigners are more likely to rape.” That’s not quite what I’ve agreed to.But that's what the statistics you accepted demonstrate.
If 10% commit 25% of a crime, the 10% is more likely than the 90%.
>being foreign predicts being a rapistNotice how you have cut the relative clause of my statement?
Read my post very carefully:
>>2914016<Being foreign predicts being a rapist more than a citizen.See how I make it relative and you make it absolute? Deception!
>asylum seekerAgain, I have always added the clause "unauthorised" asylum seeker.
You either lack reading comprehension or you are malicious.
>our preferred assumptionIt's entirely deductive.
But let's go through the syllogism again, in formal terms:
- (i) IF foreign nationals are overrepresented in rape statistics,
- (ii) AND unauthorised asylum seekers are foreign nationals,
- (iii) THEN unauthorised asylum seekers will be overrepresented
So then, if unauthorised entries are not overrepresented, this would be a statistical aberration, or anomaly - a break in the pattern, you agree?
>We don’t currently knowRight, which is why I asked for your opinion, but you have declined it.
Tell me, what do you THINK is the case?
>Yes, ordinary naturalisation has residence and good-character requirements. But that doesn’t mean that changing someone’s passport causes them to become less likely to commit rapeIt's not about individuals, it's about groups.
>Suppose each group contains exactly one person convicted of rape.Notice how you fail to entertain my gendered hypothetical.
If I asked you to imagine males and females having the same rate of sexual assault, could you? No - because you're not a fool, are you?
>the existence of educational material doesn’t demonstrate that the people receiving it are unusually prone to rape.I'm sorry anon, but you are either lying to me, or lying to yourself.
>assigning people a moral ranking according to their passport.The statistics tell us that non-citizens are less moral than citizens.
>I think we should distinguish taking a fear seriously from validating the factual proposition underlying the fear.Sure. As I have said, I don't even care if they're factually wrong; I still support them - I happen to think they're factuall correct, however.
>therefore foreign status itself predicts rapeI never wrote this though, did I? Check yourself.
>asylum seekers probably have the same propensityAsylum seekers are foreign nationals. Patterns are predictable.
>I don’t have a secret answerYou are a man without opinions? Tell me your opinion, please.
>>2913855What's the deal with the UK and all those irrelevant far-left micro parties that are all single issue anti-trans feminists and also larp as 1970 coal miners while half their membership of 30 people are salafi muslim service workers who hates anything leftist beside welfare politics?
It really makes a mango insane trying to get it as someone who wasnt born and raised there, no other western countries left are like this.
From Steve Hall:
“A couple of months ago I also resigned from the Workers Party. I ran the Economics Forum, but despite writing long documents on the modern heterodox economics we need if we are to finance the rebuilding of the British economy, the Political Committee opted to stick with a traditional Marxist approach. Fair enough, different strokes, no hard feelings.
I support @DerbyChrisW's (Chris Williamson’s) stance regarding his recent resignation. It's straightforward tactical voting to beat the horrendous, terminally compromised Labour Party with a view to forging some degree of unity around the crucial issue of domestic economic policy. Like Chris, I disagree with the Greens' position on a number of issues, especially NATO, but it's the only party with the courage to support the public investment strategies we need to reboot the British economy. I have no intention of joining, but I would like to see a more strategic, unifying approach amongst the broad left.
This link leftcheatsheet.co.uk shows the British left's current situation - split into no less than 78 factional parties and movements. Each one is fixated on its own purist dogma, mostly hammered out in the back room of the local boozer. Completely useless. If the broad left can't find common ground on the crucial issue of domestic economic policy we are finished for the foreseeable future. A spent force. @winlow_s (Simon Winlow) have outlined the history of our decline in the book The Death of the Left.
Failure to bring the economy under democratic control will leave us prey to the extractive asset-stripping and fiscal discipline of global financiers. This will see whole regions sink into further decline and drift to the 'far right', perhaps even seeing through Reform's fake nationalism and demanding the real thing. We might even get a 'revolution', but quite probably not the one we want. This is the future we face if we fail to find unity on this crucial issue.”
https://unrollnow.com/status/2100138716035523036I do agree tbh: As much as none of us like the mainstream parties and don’t want to work with transphobes like the ones from the WPB, it’s just a fact that a pan-leftist electoral alliance is the only path to defeat the Labour-Tory axis (of which Reform and Restore are part of) dominating Westminster.
Because, now that the biggest antifa branch has been extinguished following a 2018 police arrest while environmentalists like Extinction Rebellion and those adjacent to them have either been assimilated to the establishment or are in jail, I don’t think street brawling will be an answer for us. Sooner or later we’ll have to reckon with an oncoming Weimar situation.
>>2914062No, there isn’t a contradiction. I think you’ve finally isolated the point we actually disagree about, and it’s a much narrower statistical issue than the argument you’ve been making.
I’ll state my position as precisely as possible.
Yes: if foreign nationals constitute 10.9% of the relevant population but 26% of convictions in a particular offence category, then, assuming those denominators are appropriate and comparable, foreign nationals have a higher observed conviction rate for that category than the remainder of the population.
I have never denied that.
But your next step is invalid:
foreign nationals have a higher rate
therefore unauthorised asylum seekers have a higher rate.
That does not follow merely because unauthorised asylum seekers are a subset of foreign nationals.
That’s a straightforward subset problem.
Imagine:
* Foreign nationals = 10% of the population
* Foreign nationals = 25% of convictions
* Asylum seekers = 1% of the population
There are several possibilities.
Asylum seekers could account for 0.1% of convictions.
They could account for 1%.
They could account for 10%.
They could account for 30%.
They could account for 50%.
All of those are compatible with foreign nationals as a whole accounting for 25% of convictions.
You need data on the subgroup to know which world we’re actually in.
That’s why your formal syllogism:
(i) Foreign nationals are overrepresented.
(ii) Unauthorised asylum seekers are foreign nationals.
(iii) Therefore unauthorised asylum seekers are overrepresented.
is invalid.
The fact that B is a subset of A does not mean B has A’s statistical properties.
For an extremely simple analogy: men are a subset of human beings. If human beings have an average height of 5’6”, it doesn’t follow that men have an average height of 5’6”. The subgroup has to be measured.
Or, more relevantly: if foreign nationals as a whole have a higher conviction rate, that tells you nothing by itself about whether Indian foreign nationals, Indian asylum seekers, Indian small-boat arrivals, or Indian naturalised citizens have the same rate.
You have to measure the subgroup.
And there’s another problem: you’re still saying “rape” when your main statistic isn’t rape
The LBC/MoJ figure you’ve repeatedly cited concerns 1,453 convictions for “sexual assault on a female”, of which 380 involved foreign nationals. That’s a particular statutory category. It isn’t 1,453 rape convictions. The same FOI material has separate figures for rape.
So if we’re being precise, the conclusion supported by that particular 1,453 figure is something like:
“Foreign nationals had a disproportionate share of convictions for sexual assault on a female in this dataset.”
It isn’t:
“Foreign nationals are more likely to be rapists.”
And it certainly isn’t:
“Unauthorised asylum seekers are more likely to be rapists.”
You can make the latter arguments if you want, but you need additional evidence for each additional step.
Your “relative clause” objection doesn’t change this
I understand that you wrote:
“Being foreign predicts being a rapist more than a citizen.”
rather than:
“Being foreign makes someone a rapist.”
I’m not accusing you of claiming that every foreigner is a rapist.
The distinction you’re making is valid linguistically, but it doesn’t rescue the statistical argument.
There are three different propositions here:
A. Foreign nationals have a higher observed conviction rate for a particular sexual offence than citizens.
B. Foreign nationality is statistically associated with a higher individual risk of committing/being convicted of rape.
C. Being foreign causes that increased risk.
A does not automatically establish B because your offence category, denominator, missing data and unit of analysis matter.
And B does not establish C.
So when I object to the phrase “being foreign predicts being a rapist”, I’m not claiming you mean “every foreigner is a rapist.” I’m saying that prediction and causation are different concepts, and you’re sliding between them.
If by “predicts” you merely mean “is associated with a higher observed conviction rate in this particular dataset”, then fine. That’s a much more modest statement, and I can accept it subject to the caveats above.
But then we’re back to the original question:
Does that association hold specifically for unauthorised asylum seekers?
We don’t know from this dataset.
And “unauthorised asylum seeker” makes the subgroup problem even more obvious
You keep emphasising “unauthorised”, and that’s fair—I understand that you’re specifically interested in people who enter irregularly and then claim asylum, particularly small-boat arrivals.
But the Home Office’s own data show why “asylum seeker” isn’t interchangeable with “small-boat arrival”.
In 2024, 108,138 people claimed asylum. About 35,000—32%—had arrived by small boat. Almost all small-boat arrivals claimed asylum, but the majority of asylum claimants came through other routes. The Home Office says some claimants entered on visas or other regular routes before claiming asylum.
So even if we accept your narrower target population, you still need to measure that population.
And interestingly, the Home Office’s latest statistics show that asylum claimants are demographically very different from the general population: in the year ending June 2026, 60% of people claiming asylum were adult males.
That’s exactly why I keep saying that the comparison needs an appropriate denominator.
If you’re comparing a population that is disproportionately young and male with the entire British population, you’re not comparing like with like.
Yes, age is a major confounder here. You’re comparing a relatively old British population with a much younger, disproportionately male asylum population, while sexual offending is itself heavily concentrated among young men. Therefore the crude foreign-national conviction share cannot tell us how much of the disparity is attributable to nationality itself.
To establish that being foreign independently predicts sexual offending, you’d need age- and sex-standardised rates, ideally with further adjustment for socioeconomic circumstances, length of residence and immigration status. And to establish your specific claim about unauthorised asylum seekers, you’d need data on unauthorised asylum seekers themselves — not aggregate data on all foreign nationals.
So age adjustment doesn’t prove your hypothesis false. It shows that your crude statistic doesn’t establish it.
>It’s a tautologyNo.
The tautology is only this:
If A has a higher rate than B, then A has a higher rate than B.
I don’t dispute that.
What isn’t tautological is:
A has a higher rate than B, therefore subgroup C of A has a higher rate than B.
That’s an empirical proposition.
Your entire argument about asylum seekers depends on that proposition.
And no, I don’t think an anomaly is required if asylum seekers aren’t overrepresented
You asked whether, if unauthorised entrants weren’t overrepresented, that would constitute a statistical anomaly or “break in the pattern.”
No.
It would simply demonstrate that the subgroup differs from the broader category.
That’s completely normal.
Suppose foreign nationals collectively have a high rate of some offence, but one particular nationality has a low rate. We wouldn’t call that a statistical anomaly. We’d ask why the subgroup differs.
The same applies to asylum seekers.
The whole point of subgroup analysis is discovering that broad population averages don’t necessarily apply uniformly to every subgroup.
As for what I personally think
You keep interpreting my refusal to guess as evidence that I secretly have an opinion and won’t admit it.
So I’ll give you one.
I think it is plausible that unauthorised asylum seekers could be overrepresented in some forms of offending, including potentially sexual offending. I don’t think the evidence you’ve presented is sufficient to establish that they are more likely to commit rape than citizens of the same ethnicity.
That’s my actual position.
It’s not “I have no opinion.”
It’s “the evidence currently supports a narrower proposition than the one you’re asking me to accept.”
And if better data showed otherwise, I’d change my view.
Your “gendered hypothetical” doesn’t alter that either
You’re right that sex is obviously relevant to sexual offending. I’m not disputing that.
In fact, that’s exactly why I keep asking for demographic adjustment.
The fact that males have reportedly higher rates of sexual offending than females demonstrates the importance of population composition. If one group contains substantially more males, comparing its crude rate against a population with a different sex distribution can exaggerate or obscure differences attributable to whatever variable you’re actually interested in.
Your asylum statistics themselves demonstrate this: the Home Office reports that the majority of asylum claimants are adult males.
So if your question is:
“Are asylum seekers more likely to commit sexual offences because they are asylum seekers?”
then comparing their crude rate with the entire citizen population doesn’t answer that.
You need something closer to:
“Among comparable males of comparable ages, does asylum status independently predict sexual offending?”
That’s a much more meaningful question.
And the leaflet still doesn’t prove what you think it proves
You accuse me of lying because I say the Home Office consent leaflet doesn’t demonstrate that asylum seekers have an unusually high propensity to rape.
But that’s simply a non sequitur.
The government teaching a population about British sexual law can mean several things:
* the population comes from countries with different legal norms;
* the government wants to prevent misunderstandings;
* the government is responding to public concerns;
* the government thinks education is a useful preventive measure;
* or some combination of these.
The existence of the leaflet does not tell us which explanation is correct.
And even if the government produced it because it believed asylum seekers were unusually likely to commit sexual offences, that would establish the government’s belief, not the underlying causal proposition.
You need evidence about behaviour, not merely evidence that the government is distributing an educational document.
Finally, the “moral ranking” point
You say:
“The statistics tell us that non-citizens are less moral than citizens.”
No. The statistics don’t measure morality.
They measure convictions.
That’s a very important distinction.
A conviction tells us that the criminal-justice system found a person guilty of an offence under British law. It doesn’t give us a numerical measurement of their moral character.
And this connects to the broader point I made about the legal category itself.
“Rape” and “sexual assault” are legal categories concerning real human conduct and real harms, but the boundaries of those categories are established through legislation, judicial interpretation and social norms.
British society has made particular judgments about consent and sexual autonomy.
Some of those judgments I agree with.
But the fact that Britain has criminalised a particular form of sexual conduct doesn’t make the resulting category a timeless, culturally neutral measurement of “sexual dangerousness”.
That’s especially relevant when you’re comparing people from different societies.
There really can be cultural differences over sexual norms. Marital rape is a good example. British law recognises that marriage does not constitute permanent sexual consent. Other societies have historically rejected that proposition, and some still don’t recognise marital rape in the same way.
That is a genuine cultural difference.
But it doesn’t follow that someone raised under a different norm is inherently more likely to rape.
It means that cultural norms can affect people’s understanding of what is permissible—and that is precisely something that can be studied empirically.
So I think the disagreement is now quite simple
I’ll grant you this:
Foreign nationals appear to have a higher observed conviction rate in the particular sexual-offence category we’re discussing.
I won’t pretend otherwise.
But your argument requires several additional propositions:
Foreign nationals as a whole → unauthorised asylum seekers specifically → same rate or higher → rape specifically rather than the broader sexual-assault category → difference caused by foreign/asylum status rather than demographic or other factors.
None of those transitions is supplied automatically by the first statistic.
And the crucial logical error is the second step:
B is a subset of A, therefore B inherits A’s rate.
It doesn’t.
If you can produce a dataset showing that unauthorised asylum seekers themselves have a higher age- and sex-adjusted rate of rape or sexual offending than an appropriate comparison group, then we have something substantive to discuss.
Until then, I think your claim should be stated as a hypothesis:
“Given the observed overrepresentation of foreign nationals in some sexual-offence conviction data, I hypothesise that unauthorised asylum seekers may also be overrepresented.”
That’s perfectly legitimate.
What isn’t legitimate is presenting that hypothesis as the deductive consequence of the foreign-national statistic.
The broader group can have property X while a subgroup does not. That’s not an anomaly. That’s why we measure subgroups.
Sources:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/692f07d9ce50d215cae96385/Crime_and_Policing_Bill_EIA_-_Child_Sexual_Abuse_and_Violence_Against_Women_and_Girls.pdfhttps://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-crime-in-the-uk/ >>2914055holy fucking shit make your points more concisely no ones reading all that
>>2914016>Nationalities associated with unauthorised channel crossings have a higher chance of sexual assaulting British citizens, per capita.Are you actually fucking briandead? How the fuck is that a response to my point?
Do you seriously imagine
25% of the people crossing the channel on a small boat are over the age of 60? If you do, you're a retard. If you
don't, and you've read what I said, and
that is your response, then you are also a retard.
Nationalities associated with unauthorised channel crossings are also younger on average. Now do us all a favour and top yourself younger than average, you cretin.
>>2914062Your claim that one claim follows the other as a "tautology" doesn't hold at all. If one person from Aston Sandford (population 41) were a rapist, it would surely have the most rapists per-capita in the UK. But you know for a fact you're no more likely to be raped in Aston Sandford than in any other randomly chosen location in the UK and this per-capita statistic would be an artefact of data selection.
Your logic here is also fundamentally flawed
> (ii) being foreign makes you MORE LIKELY to be a rapist than a citizen. Finally, (iii) unauthorised asylum seekers are foreign nationals, and are therefore more likely to be rapists than citizens.Dogs have 4 legs. Tables have 4 legs. Thus, dogs are tables by virtue of this shared trait!
The group "foreigners" is arbitrary. You know for a fact that you've next to no chance of being raped by an Australian or a Canadian despite their foreign national status. You cannot make any inference about a sub-group of foreigners from the behaviour of the whole, since such behaviours are not randomly distributed.
Go off and have a play with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middleFor those only half paying attention: I am not necessarily disputing the idea that asylum seekers commit crimes at a higher rate than the UK born population - this is precisely what I would predict by virtue of them being younger, on average, than the UK born population. The conclusion isn't important, but this anon's underlying bad reasoning should be attacked. >>2914126>The group "foreigners" is arbitraryIt's an official designation of non-citizens in the UK.
>You cannot make any inference about a sub-group of foreigners from the behaviour of the whole, since such behaviours are not randomly distributed.I have already showed that per capita, some ethnicities are more likely to sexually offend than others. You simply switched ethnicity to age, but both are relevant.
>>2914081>The fact that B is a subset of A does not mean B has A’s statistical properties.It is an aggregate. For deeper results, we need to divide further.
We read from this that foreigners reside in the UK by (i) work visas (29%), (ii) family visas (43%), (iii) student visas (15%), and (iv) other (13%)
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/We thus say that at least 87% of migrants are legal.
Around 10% are illegal if we go by given estimates:
<The two most recent estimates are for 2017 […] The Pew study originally suggested a range of 800,000 to 1.2 million unauthorised residents in the UK, but this was retracted in March 2025 and revised down to between 700,000 and 900,000.https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/unauthorised-migration-in-the-uk/We are currently discussing unauthorised asylum seekers, which are themselves divided from asylum seekers in general. Let's look at boat crossing in the UK:
<Numbers rose sharply, reaching a peak of around 46,000 in 2022. Arrivals then fell in 2023, before rising again to 41,000 in 2025.https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10590/So, let's say that unauthorised entries are 40,000, which itself is 5% of illegal immigrants in the UK, and 0.3% of all foreign nationals. 1/350 foreigners are from boats.
To break it down, let's simplify:
- 90% foreigners are legal (9/10)
- 10% are illegal (1/10)
- 0.3% are unauthorised asylum seekers (1/350)
So, for crime to be proportional, 1/350 convictions have to be from unauthorised asylum seekers per year. There were 1,453 convictions by foreigners in 2025, so if we have the sum (1450/350) we get 4.1. So, there can't be more than 4 convictions in 2025. Here are 8 convictions:
What we see is that 0.3% of the foreign population is committing more than 0.3% of sexual assaults. I would therefore say that the overrepresentation of sexual assault by asylum seekers adds to overrepresentation of foreigners in general. Unauthorised asylum seekers are giving other foreigners a bad name. A case in point must unfortunately once more appeal to our common sense. You have confirmed that disparities in the statistical subgroup is probably due to factors like age and gender (don't repeat the "poverty" bollocks). We see from previous data that foreigners in general are basically even in terms of gendered representation, and you have said that boat crossings are majority young men. Young men are the most prone to sexual assault:
<sexual offences (for which 99% of the sentenced admissions were for ‘Males’)https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2024/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2024Male majorities on small boats (72%):
<Adult men aged 18 and over accounted for 72% of people detected arriving on small boats https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10590/ So, let's divide the statistics even further:
- (i) 99% of all sexual offenders in the UK are male
- (ii) 26% of sexual offenders charged are foreign
- (iii) 72% of unauthorised asylum seekers are male
Therefore, foreign males are easily overrepresented.
Here is the syllogism:
- (i) males are more likely to rape people than women
- (ii) foreigners are more likely to rape than citizens
- (iii) foreign men are most likely to rape people in the UK
We can add to it:
- (i) foreign men are most likely to rape people in the UK
- (ii) majority of unauthorised asylum seekers are foreign men
- (iii) unauthorised asylum seekers are most likely to rape
This is indestructible logic, and can only be denied by denying the original premises. So, what would you deny? That men are 99% of rapists, that foreigners are 26% of sexual offenders in the UK, or 72% of boat crossings are male? All of these are factual, so you must apply reason.
>if foreign nationals as a whole have a higher conviction rate, that tells you nothing by itself about whether Indian foreign nationals, Indian asylum seekers, Indian small-boat arrivals, or Indian naturalised citizens have the same rate.As you have already said, boat crossings are majority young men - and as statistics show, foreign nationals in general are evenly gendered. If unauthorised asylum seekers are mostly men, they are more likely offenders.
>sexual assault isn't rapePedantry.
>the Home Office’s own data show why “asylum seeker” isn’t interchangeable with “small-boat arrival”.I never claimed it was.
The communities' fear is that the "new arrivals" will be moved from hotels to military barracks. Their concerns directly relate to boat crossings, not asylum in general, which itself is more evenly balanced by gender. Again, if 1,000 females were being moved in, nobody would fuss.
>You’re comparing a relatively old British population with a much younger, disproportionately male asylum population, while sexual offending is itself heavily concentrated among young men. Therefore the crude foreign-national conviction share cannot tell us how much of the disparity is attributable to nationality itself.You are confused. We are first discussing foreigners in relation to the UK. By age and gender, they are matched relatively equally - so, overrepresentation is entirely due to national status, since, as I have explained, a citizen is more lawful than a non-citizen. Secondly, we are then discussing unauthorised asylum seekers in relation to foreigners in general, who are mostly young men. Thus, two factors compound: (i) foreignness, and (ii) being a young man. Being a young foreign man relates mostly to boat crossings in proportion, so patterns are predicted.
>That’s an empirical proposition.No, it's deductive of the first premise.
I have since provided empirical evidence to the logic.
>I don’t think an anomaly is required if asylum seekers aren’t overrepresentedIf unauthorised asylum seekers are part of a larger group, and the larger group has a pattern, it would be anomalous for the smaller group to not follow the trend.
>the subgroup differs from the broader category.That's definitionally anomalous.
>I don’t think the evidence you’ve presented is sufficient to establish that they are more likely to commit rape than citizens of the same ethnicity.Do you find my arithmetic covincing?
- (i) 1,453 sexual offences by foreigners in 2025
- (ii) 0.3% (1/350) of foreigners are unauthorised asylum seekers
- (iii) proportionally, this should be 4 offenses per seeker
- (iv) 2025 convictions by seekers is over 4
- (v) therefore, seekers have greater potential to rape than foreigners in general
>Are asylum seekers more likely to commit sexual offences because they are asylum seekers?Foreignness is compounded by maleness.
>Among comparable males of comparable ages, does asylum status independently predict sexual offendingForeignness is a positive variable of greater offending rates.
>The statistics don’t measure morality. They measure convictions.If a population is more likely to rape, it is less moral.
>That is a genuine cultural difference.I am not tolerant of these cultural differences.
>>2914129Far be it from me to suggest that an
official designation from the British government might be arbitrary!
Beyond that, and having made my point: pulling out
8 examples really reveals the inanity of the whole discussion. 8-10 people drown in the bath annually (surely also disproportionately white Britons, and in a death trap made by foreigners…), but you don't see far-right thugs protesting B&Q and Wickes.
>>2914129You’re now making several different statistical errors, and the arithmetic makes the problem particularly clear.
First, 1,453 is not “1,453 foreign convictions”. It is the total number of convictions in the particular sexual-assault category. The foreign-national figure was 380. So your calculation of 1,453/350 is not even using the numerator you claim to be using.
Second, you’re mixing a population stock with an annual flow. Your 700–900k figure is an estimate of the unauthorised migrant population, and those estimates relate to 2017; the Migration Observatory explicitly says they are highly uncertain and that the government does not have an official estimate of the current unauthorised population. Your ~40k figure is an annual number of arrivals. You cannot divide an annual flow by a population stock and call the result “the proportion of foreigners who are boat arrivals”. People who arrived in previous years don’t cease to be part of the relevant population after one year.
Third, your eight cases don’t establish an offending rate. They establish that at least eight such cases exist. To establish overrepresentation you need both a numerator and a denominator: convictions among small-boat arrivals divided by the relevant small-boat population, compared with the corresponding rate in an appropriate comparison group. News reports cannot supply the denominator, and selecting cases that happened to receive media coverage introduces obvious selection bias.
Fourth, your 99% male + 26% foreign + 72% male-on-boats argument doesn’t establish the joint probability you’re claiming. Marginal probabilities don’t tell you the intersection. You need P(sexual offender | foreign male), and then P(sexual offender | small-boat arrival), not P(male), P(foreign), and P(male | small boat). Those percentages cannot simply be combined into the conclusion you want.
In fact, your own argument demonstrates why subgroup analysis matters. You say foreign nationals overall are roughly gender-balanced while small-boat arrivals are predominantly male. Fine. That means the two populations have different demographic compositions. It does not mean the small-boat subgroup inherits the aggregate foreign-national conviction rate, nor does it establish an independent effect of nationality.
The same applies to age. The Migration Observatory notes that non-citizens are younger on average and that the share of non-citizens among convictions/incarceration falls when age is taken into account. That doesn’t prove that every disparity disappears after adjustment, but it does demonstrate that the crude nationality comparison cannot simply be interpreted as an independent “foreignness” effect.
And “citizenship is more lawful than non-citizenship” isn’t a causal explanation. Citizenship is a legal status. If you want to claim that being a non-citizen causes higher sexual offending, you need evidence of that causal effect. Otherwise you’re just restating the fact that the groups have different legal statuses.
I won’t be drawn by your moralism. “If a person commits rape, I regard the act as seriously wrong. But a conviction statistic doesn’t establish that a demographic category is inherently less moral. It establishes something about observed criminal-justice outcomes.
The Home Office’s latest data show that in the year ending June 2026, 41% of asylum seekers had previously entered with a visa or other leave and 40% arrived by small boat. So even within asylum seekers, the route-of-entry composition is substantial and changing; “asylum seeker” isn’t a single homogeneous population.
Finally, your claim that it would be “anomalous” for a subgroup not to follow the aggregate is mathematically false. If a population has a 10% rate, its subgroups can have 2%, 10%, 20%, or any number compatible with the weighted aggregate. That’s exactly why we examine subgroups.
So I will concede the narrow point: if the foreign-national share of convictions exceeds the foreign-national share of the relevant population, that is an observed disparity worth investigating.
What you have not demonstrated is the next step:
foreign nationals → foreign men → young foreign men → small-boat arrivals → unauthorised asylum seekers → higher individual propensity to rape.
Each arrow requires evidence about that specific subgroup. You cannot obtain the final conclusion by repeatedly carrying an aggregate statistic down a chain of increasingly specific subsets.
And there is an additional problem: the 1,453 figure you began with is for “sexual assault on a female”, not rape. The Ministry of Justice’s category therefore cannot simply be relabelled as “rapists”. That’s not pedantry; it changes what proposition the statistic actually measures.
Since you’ve asked me questions, I’ll ask you one: Define rape without resorting to legalisms.
>>2914155Maybe, since glowies seem to be everywhere, at least in western politics.
Honestly though? It’s so frustrating how social media boosts any kind of engagement bait (particularly ragebait and racebaiting) at the expense of rational debates and actual educational content that isn’t politically loaded, and most likely big tech Silicon Valley tycoon (which own the top social media platforms in Britain and across much of the world) know that such content only leads to the dumbing down of the goyim in constant siege mentality, and I think that’s the intended consequence.
Almost as if “normal men” as a species are a dying breed. Useful video on this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pFdO8jYWOeY >>2914143Please refrain from entering discussions you have no place in.
>>2914175>1,453 is not “1,453 foreign convictions”. It is the total number of convictions in the particular sexual-assault category. The foreign-national figure was 380.You're perfectly correct; I do apologise.
For corrected figures, we can have even more damning evidence therefore: (380/350) = 1.1, so the accounts of unauthorised asylum seeker assaults is even worse. Rather than being 200%, its an 800% overrepresentation from the basic examples I provided. Or in other terms, (380/8) = 2. So, 0.3% of foreigners provide 2% of cases.
>People who arrived in previous years don’t cease to be part of the relevant population after one year.I never claimed they did, which is why I am limiting my account of asylum seeker offences to a single year, to control for the median of 40,000 unauthorised arrivals. The estimates of the total illegal population range from 700,000 to 1,200,000, so if you want to overestimate, that's up to you, but that makes unauthorised asylum seekers an even more exceptionally criminal minority.
>don’t establish an offending rateRead above. Unauthorised asylum seekers over-offend. In 2025, we can estimate boat crossers to be 0.3% of the foreign population, also controlling for an 800,000 background figure of illegal immigrants. According to a standard rate of foreign sexual assault, they exceed it. If not, then how many sexual assaults would exceed the predicted rate of irregular asylum seeker offenses?
>Those percentages cannot simply be combined into the conclusion you want.You are rather obtuse on this. Do you imagine that I am saying that 99% of males are rapists? No; I am saying that in the general foreign population, as well as the general asylum seeker population, gender is more equal; while with illegal immigrants, they are more male - so, if we have predictors for assault, they will correspondent to the greater (i) foreign, (ii) male group, and the young.
>It does not mean the small-boat subgroup inherits the aggregate foreign-national conviction rateCorrect, which is why I have made the argument that in general, foreigners become overrepresented by the case of overrepresentation in illegal immigrants. I am coming to the defense of legal (i) workers and (ii) students against a very bad apple, which is spoiling the bunch.
>crude nationality comparisonIf as you say, foreigners are younger and more male, then it shouldn't be controversial to infer from the data. Still, as I have shown, certain ethnicities are per capita more likely to be charged than not, such as Afghanis. I originally linked ethnic charges and boat crossing data to show correlation. This has seemed to be forgotten.
>causal effectYou're very dense on this topic.
I am not saying that having a physical item called a passport causes anything; but contrarily, that the cause of having a passport is based in being a certain type of person. A naturalised citizen is more lawful by definition.
>a demographic category is inherently less moralA rapist is less sexually moral than a non-rapist.
If a group is more prone to rape, they are less sexually moral.
>asylum seekers I have never engaged with "asylum seekers" in general, but only illegal immigrants. Please stop the comparison.
>"anomalous” for a subgroup not to follow the aggregatePlease define what an "anomaly" is, and what would actually count as an anomalous data point in the given set. In other words, what ought we expect the offending rate to be based on broader patterns?
>define rapeNon-consensual sexual intercourse.
>>2914241
>muh original sin
these are the seeds of xtianity
>>2914245
If you hate the English, stop speaking their language. 🙏
>>2914192>The trans family under the umbrella looks like a skullI genuinely don't understand what the artist was trying to say with this one.
>>2914258We're not speaking English though, we're speaking globish, a.k.a the corpse of Shakespeare's tongue eaten and shat by neoliberal globalization after being raped by the USA.
>>2914304
Whatever helps you sleep at night, has-been.
>>2914283I don't see a skull even when i squit really hard though
>>2913709>>2913690>>2913649>>2913646Update: apparently the scottish/pro-snood faction are going to move forward with the special congress regardless of what the central committee say.
“Migrants rape waah” as your own native political and media establishment let Saville and the Royal Family touch thousands of children.
Because the anger about rape doesn't come from concerns for the victims but from misgeneation spookery. in other words, it's okay if the perpetrator belong to the right ethnicity and hold the correct opinion…
>>2914739>>2914755Talking to yourself?
Once you understand that there really is a supermarket of ideology and people really are choosing products within it, you'll get it.
You don't evaluate why people buy Dr. Pepper by looking at its nutritional qualities, and you shouldn't evaluate people's politics by their "legitimate concerns". This is true even for those with good politics, who are correct about the issues. The reason for their involvement is still, for the most part, secondary. (Just as one may drink nice healthy water because a guy on /leftypol/ told you to, rather than because water is nice and healthy. You should go and get a glass of water, by the way.) The main indicator of this is that 99.999% of political involvement amounts to less than nothing. The problems remain whether or not you go to the supermarket of ideology and buy the product.
>>2914788>post-modern warbling with nothing actionable to sayhello zizek
>>2915354
>>2915353
Peer inside, this is the mind of someone who voted for Keir Starmer - a race fetishist
>>2915356
> >if you don't want this poor little innocent refugee living with his aunty and uncle in bell air you are LIB REEEEEE!!!!!111
>>2915359
I hope your fantasy becomes true
>>2915350Advice that helps you avoid wasting your time is actionable advice: Don't fall into the trap of imagining people get their political views from real problems. That's not the role politics actually serves. Nobody does anything actionable, yet everyone takes politics very seriously. The purpose of a system is what it does, and our political realm - considered broadly, everything from the lib-dems to those fascist LARPers to leftypol.org - is doing something very different to what it purports to be doing.
(In the main, political alignments meet or justify some psychological need. e.g. angry nasty people pretend they're angry and nasty because of mass immigration, because mass immigration justifies what they'd do anyway. neurotics get really into climate change because it means they're not mad, we really are all doomed, pseuds get into pretending to heave read Marx, and so on. I am a contrarian with an addiction to novelty, thus, obviously, I believe what I'm typing now because it runs counter to everyone else and isn't that common a theory.)
Sinn Fein, SNP, and Plaid aren’t anti imperialist at all, the EU is the bigger imperial bloc and the UK needs to stay together to counteract that.
>>2915374The entire world is just racist against WASPs
>>2915378Hello Jordan Peterson remember to take your meds.
>>2915378Anglicans aren’t protestant but that’s another can of worms
>>2915382Anglicans could hardly call themselves Catholic, either.
And Puritanism/Quakerism which created mainline protestantism in America is not really Anglican, either - hence the Episcopalians. The US also has the Southern Baptists. Methodists also make up a large part of both US and UK protestantism. Anglicanism is mostly African:
<Africa is home to around 63 million baptized Anglicans compared to approximately 23 million in Europehttps://newlinesmag.com/reportage/africa-is-redefining-anglican-power/ >>2915389It’s more like Anglo Orthodoxy
>>2915374retarded LARPer + Trump stooge.
>>2915405Trump literally endorsed Irish unification, Sinn Fein are and always have been Yank stooges
>>2908036 (me)
>Kek. Wiley always strikes me as so autistic. Feels like they were targeting a vulnerable adult. cruel.I was joking but no. This man is clearly high levels of Autism Points. Can't even into eye contact to an uncomfortably visible degree.
>>2915419That makes Wiley Flow by Stormzy way funnier
>>2915366I do lot of things actively, you are wrong. Liberal status quo defenders use this post-modern bullshit to try and act like they are above the ideologies that challenge there social class, it is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears, just dressed up in academic language.
>>2915479The people who post this stuff are self-described neoliberals.
It's best not to take them too seriously.
>>2915479What do you do, and what practical results does it have? Even if we grant that it has some practical result, why should we connect that to the grand goals of some purported ideology?
>>2915493Even the self-described neoliberalism can't be taken too seriously. Does one really advance the cause of free markets and competition by posting on leftypol.org, or does the original explanation - contrarianism and novelty - hold more water than any nonsense about real material conditions or class interests serving as the primary factor motivating such a position.
You'd belly laugh if you knew what my day job is. >>2915550Posting on /leftypol/ is equivilant to Marx sending a letter calling his house guest a jewish nigger, its function is to shitpost and let off steam, not change material conditions.
>>2915558That’s the entire internet’s function, which is why proletarian revolution is impossible since the advent of mass media, there’s always thousands of hours of distraction to drown yourself in instead of organizing
>>2915558Shitheads like you ruined leftypol
>>2915568the constant CP on the front page ruined leftypol, dont get it twisted.
>>2915567plenty of revolutions since they invented the TV
>>2915569Stupid asshole dipshits like you ruined leftypol
>>2915569The only revolutions since the invention of the television have been CIA backed color revolutions
>>2915558Yet some people here seriously believe that the security services are paying people to badmouth Stalin here, as though posting is praxis.
In a certain sense I think posting elsewhere can be. See the massive plunge in Israel's status since all the cool people have felt compelled to disavow it… answers on a postcard whether we credit the cool people running what is effectively a big fat anti-Israel ad campaign, or credit Israel for showing the world their true colours as an unforced error.>>2915569/leftypol/ was ruined by (a) all the people with interesting ideologies being run off the board and (b) insular chan culture retardation preventing us from bringing in any new people for fear that they'll badmouth Stalin and gamergate.
>>2915582Not hearing anything in particular other than spite, whatever bro
>>2915603t. ultra
>>2915614yep, if you're anon you have no stake in the game, best we can do is a penis graffiti'd on the wall
>>2915625I have no stake in the game because it's a game.
(Actually I have a stake because it's easy to tell who is a cunt and who isn't by what team they support)
Ask yourself sincerely: is the average self proclaimed communist a member of the real movement that abolishes the present state of things, or a kindly over-intellectualising neurotic? Is the average white nationalist anything more than a pathetic voting loser with daddy issues?
This does not mean neoliberals or status quo mongers are correct: everyone, even those with the correct conclusions, is really working from personal premises. This is why centrists are usually insane: the self perception as sensible and moderate is more important than actually adopting sensible and moderate ideas. Neoliberals are usually sociopaths at best, and so on. But personal sociopathy doesn't mean airline deregulation failed at it's intended goals, centrists being insane doesn't undermine meliorism in theory, white nationalists are admittedly irredeemable and communists are usually the best of people even if almost none of them have read their pretended sacred texts and those who have imagine themselves everyone's superior for having read some magic words.
All of this can be worked with, but it's helpful to understand. It is easier to correct errors when you understand their actual roots. (E.g. if you want me to shut up about this, give me a new better theory rather than simply expressing disapproval of this one.)
Politics is real and it's out there, but what most people are engaged in is fandom and religion. Even and especially those in actual frontline politics, who barely seem to realise they're actually running things. (As you'd expect, because our parties select for these defective NPCs)
>>2915815>a member of the real movement that abolishes the present state of thingsYou criticize over-intellectualizing neurotics but the fact that you began a sentence with this nonsense to begin with is proof that you are what you hate.
>>2915815More warbling blah blah blah everyone is a sociopath but me.
No not everyone is as cynical as you and plenty of people are part of the movement of change, we are just oppressed by a repressive state apparatus. Most of the movers and shakers are in prison right now for going to Palestine demos
>>2915834There's not a lot of algerians larping as white supremacist though
>>2915846I wouldnt be surprised as they are extremely racists towards black former slaves living there.
>>2915852usually black people in africa shit on mixed or "chocolate" afro americans.
mostly because they're mixed
>>2915816I don't hate! I love everyone except rightists. People being politically ineffective but well meaning is profoundly sympathetic. I have little time for arrogance, and I am arrogant, I will grant, but only because I like to commit to an idea.
>>2915833I don't think people are cynical. In fact I think most cynicism, even my own, is performative. (Hence why those addicted to cynicism as e-atheists became anti-woke debate bros rather than sensible fiscal policy analysts. The arguing and the performance of intellectual behaviour was the draw, not the underlying "facts and logic")
I think Palestine activists are on the more effective end of people doing things today (any survey of public opinion towards Israel can tell you that) but it would be silly to pretend that a generalised need to engage in such activism (e.g. high empathy or need to be part of a cause or whatever) formed part of their underlying motivation. If the Palestine movement had the vibe of the CPGB-ML, such people would be repulsed. If it attracted balaclava clad antisemites, such people would be repulsed.
The flip side is also true and easier to illustrate: note how most far right types are pro Israel because Israel is repulsive and thus appeals to their disposition despite their ostensible ideological antisemitism.
(And a practical lesson would be: don't try to bring /pol/ types into your antizionist coalition - by posting online, of course - because they'll drive off good people while still siding with Israel when they remember Palestinians aren't white.)
>>2915903Why would you "love" strangers?
Christian nonsense.
>rightistsWhat exactly is a "rightist"?
>>2915903>high empathy/low empathy discoursewhere the fuck do all of you weirdos get your shit from, where is the class analysis, this isnt it.
just some fucking dunce who thinks pop-psychology can be grafted onto political reality, go back to buzzfeed top 10 reasons why dark empaths make for great lovers articles alrerady.
>>2915907>Why would you "love" strangers? Christian nonsense.Because it's the right thing to do :D.
>>2915913How is it right?
You don't deserve my love.
Agape is intoxication, which is why it attaches to drunkards, who when they return to sobriety always feel humiliated by their indignity of declaring themselves lovers of mankind. No one really believes this. As it is written by both Dostoevsky and Freud (1880/1929):
<The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular.https://www.ccel.org/ccel/dostoevsky/karamozov/files/book02/chapter04.html<From one ethical standpoint, the deeper motivation of which will later become clear to us, this inclination towards an all-embracing love of others and of the world at large is regarded as the highest state of mind of which man is capable. Even at this early stage in the discussion I will not withhold the two principal objections we have to raise against this view. A love that does not discriminate seems to us to lose some of its own value, since it does an injustice to its object. And secondly, not all men are worthy of love.https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/78221/pg78221-images.htmlTherefore, Agape is the lowest form of love; below Eros and Philia.
The destiny of Britain is to declare war on the EU and force its breakup
>>2915910Class analysis will give you gibberish when it comes to a question like "why so some proles vote Reform/Tory?"
"Because the bourgeoisie shill them" will get you closer but that can't explain why the shilling works on some but not others.
>>2915960because the upper class back both, its not complicated
some people see through it, most dont.
>>2915922that's just "don't tolerate the intolerant"
>>2915962and the upper class backed the SNP and Plaid and the Greens and Corbyn and so on too? then we arrive at meaninglessness again. (except on the simple level of ignoring bourgeois politics entirely, which some will pretend to do but most clearly have their preferences. e.g. the enthusiasm for peak era Corbyn or Sanders even from those who'd pretend to be above it)
>>2915968>SNPliberal nationalist party that the upper class prevented from accomplishing its goals, only seeks to become leaders of the bougie society
>Plaidsame
>Greensdem-soc to liberals, will never get power as the upper class media rally around them and keep them around as the barely tolerable left while it arrests most of its activists
>Corbynlabour member, enough said
>>2915963What?
Love is not a political maxim, but is a real feeling.
>>2915969And yet despite being no real threat they're all treated as basically illegitimate. In explaining what draws people to those parties, something other than "upper class puppet mastery" is useful.
My model can also explain joke parties like the CPB
>>2915976can your model explain the cpgb-ml
>>2915976>CPBIrrelevant party of boomers who want to return to when they had some legitimacy as part of the dem-soc era of UK-pol, will not survive more than 2 decades.
'Upper class puppet mastery' is the ideological state apparatus, it is a full theory, if you have a competing model show your work.
>>2915960>Class analysis will give you gibberish when it comes to a question like "why so some proles vote Reform/Tory?" The working class has opposed mass immigration ever since it has been an intelligible electorate, because mass immigration suppresses wages, raises house prices and extends NHS queues. Now that there is a basic consensus on things like benefits, Labour or the Greens have no unique platform, so the working class have become one-issue voters. The red wall was broken with the local elections, with the major swing being former Labour constituencies become Reform councils - so, it's the working class which is particularly subject to this transformation. What is ironic of course is that Labour has been more effectively anti-immigration than the Conservatives, over the past 14 years (lowering net migration to 2012 levels), but they don't lead with this, so lose the propaganda arms race by feigning a distanced neutrality. Of course, the working class will always still vote Labour over Conservatives, so the Tories have no chance except to position themselves as the counter-Reform for the middle class voters (of which a large amount of Reform voters are represented by). This was shown in the local elections, where it was the Tories who really lost the most, continuous of the General Election in 2024. How did Labour lower immigration? A big step was raising minimum visa salaries. Johnson after Brexit lowered the minimum and Starmer raised it:
<Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are expected to outline immigration changes at a cabinet meeting on Friday […] As the legislation stands, skilled migrants from outside the EU must have a job offer with a minimum salary of £30,000. It is understood that this threshold will be lowered to £25,600.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/09/boris-johnson-to-lower-30000-wage-threshold-for-immigrants<your salary will be at least £33,400 per year.https://www.gov.uk/skilled-worker-visa/your-jobThis is basic material analysis, which intends to filter out immigration for entry-level positions and provide employment to higher-level ones. The £33,000 figure is for non-skilled work visas, but the skilled visas require £41,000 minimum salary. Labour have also restricted certain conditions of eligibility foe family visas. It's rather pathetic how it is Starmer that is blamed for everything, when it was Johnson's Brexit. One actual failure of Labour however was abandoning the Rwanda Plan and hosting asylum seekers in subsidised hotels for processing.
https://x.com/operasocialist/status/2101316659935920395Ngl, I would have pepper sprayed that angry gammon is she ever came close to my face and shout like a feral dog.
>>2914239Your issue is that you have moved from an aggregate disparity to a very specific subgroup claim without ever obtaining the specific subgroup’s denominator.
>Non-consensual sexual intercourse“I asked you to define rape without simply importing the current statutory definition. ‘Non-consensual sexual intercourse’ still depends on a prior concept of consent, and the boundaries of legally valid consent are themselves historically and institutionally determined. Age-of-consent laws are an obvious example: the state determines circumstances in which apparent agreement does or does not constitute legally valid consent. I’ll return to that later, but moving on…
Your correction actually makes the central problem clearer rather than solving it.
If the relevant foreign-national figure is 380, then yes, 0.3% of 380 is about 1.1. So, if you had a valid population denominator, a clean one-year numerator, and exactly the relevant cases, two cases would already exceed the crude proportional expectation of 1.1.
But that is not what you have demonstrated.
You’re still treating “about 40,000 people arrived by small boat in 2025” as though it were “0.3% of the foreign-national population consists of small-boat people who are at risk of conviction during 2025.” Those are not the same thing.
The 40,000 figure is an annual FLOW. The 700–900k or 700k–1.2m figures you are invoking are estimates of a STOCK of unauthorised migrants. You cannot use one year’s flow as the numerator of a population proportion and then use that proportion as the expected share of that year’s convictions.
The problem becomes obvious if we extend your own method over several years. If 40,000 arrivals represented a new 0.3% of the foreign population every year, your method would effectively treat each year’s arrivals as a fresh population fraction while ignoring previous cohorts. But previous arrivals remain in the population. The official data record roughly 264,000 detected unauthorised arrivals between 2018 and 2025, of whom 73% arrived by small boat. So your “1 in 350 foreigners” is not an established population statistic. It is a ratio you have constructed by dividing an annual flow by an unrelated population stock.
There is another problem with your eight cases: they are not a random sample of convictions. They are cases you found in news reports. That gives you a numerator of “eight reported cases I can find”, not a measured number of convictions among all 2025 small-boat arrivals. Some of the links you supplied also concern events/convictions outside the period you are treating as 2025. You therefore cannot put those eight cases over a 2025 denominator and call the result a 2025 conviction rate.
And even if I grant your hypothetical for the sake of argument — suppose all eight were 2025 convictions, all involved small-boat arrivals, and your 0.3% denominator were valid — what would that establish?
It would establish that eight is greater than the roughly 1.1 cases expected under that particular proportional model.
It would NOT establish that asylum/irregular status causes sexual offending.
It would establish an observed disparity requiring investigation.
That’s an important distinction.
You keep asking me what number of cases would “exceed the predicted rate”. Under your own hypothetical, the answer is straightforward: anything above about 1.1 would exceed the proportional expectation of 0.3% of 380. But exceeding a crude expected count is not the same thing as establishing the correct rate, because your 0.3% is not a valid person-at-risk denominator in the first place.
There is also a basic issue with the “99% male + 26% foreign + 72% male among small boats” argument.
I am not saying that you think 99% of men are rapists. I understand perfectly well what you’re trying to say.
The problem is that these are marginal distributions. They do not give you the joint rate you want.
You need:
P(sexual offence | small-boat arrival)
or, if you want to make the foreign-male argument:
P(sexual offence | foreign male, age X)
You have instead supplied:
P(male | sexual-offence admission),
P(foreign | relevant conviction), and
P(male | small-boat arrival).
Those quantities do not mathematically entail the first one.
Your observation that small-boat arrivals are disproportionately young men is relevant. The current Commons Library figures put adult men at 72% of small-boat arrivals in the year ending June 2026. That absolutely means sex and age should be incorporated into a comparison. (House of Commons Library)
But that cuts against your argument as much as it supports it: it demonstrates that the small-boat population has a different demographic composition from the general foreign-national population. Therefore we need to measure the offending rate of that specific population rather than infer it from the aggregate.
The same applies to your claim that foreigners are younger and more male. If demographic composition explains some of the crude disparity, then you cannot simultaneously use the crude disparity as evidence that “foreignness” itself is the explanatory variable.
You also say:
“A naturalised citizen is more lawful by definition.”
That is simply a change of terminology.
A person who satisfies the legal requirements for naturalisation is legally entitled to citizenship. That does not demonstrate that citizenship itself causes lower offending.
Indeed, naturalisation creates an obvious classification problem for your argument: the same individual can move from the “foreign national” category to the “British national” category without their underlying behaviour suddenly changing. If the conviction disparity is genuinely caused by citizenship status itself, you need evidence for that mechanism. Saying that one status is legally more secure or lawful than another doesn’t provide it.
And I think you’ve now clarified the “anomaly” issue yourself.
An anomaly, statistically, is not simply “a subgroup differs from the aggregate”. Subgroups are expected to differ. An anomaly is a sufficiently unusual observation relative to a specified model or reference distribution.
So if your null hypothesis is:
“small-boat arrivals have the same sexual-offence conviction rate as foreign nationals generally”
then you can test that hypothesis once you have:
* a valid small-boat population at risk,
* a valid number of convictions among that population,
* the same time period,
* consistent definitions,
* and ideally uncertainty intervals.
If the observed number is sufficiently above the expected number to be statistically distinguishable from the null model, then you have evidence against that null hypothesis.
But that is precisely the analysis you have not performed. You have supplied selected news cases and constructed a denominator from an annual flow divided by a stock.
Finally, your definition of rape:
“Non-consensual sexual intercourse.”
Fine. That is sufficiently clear for the conceptual discussion, and I don’t need to hide behind legal terminology.
But that actually makes your original statistical claim harder, not easier.
“There is also a person-time problem you’re ignoring. A person arriving by boat in December 2025 has almost an entire year less exposure to the UK criminal-justice system in 2025 than someone who arrived in January 2025. Conversely, someone who arrived in 2020 can produce a conviction in 2025. A conviction rate therefore cannot simply divide convictions recorded in a calendar year by everyone who entered through a particular route during that calendar year.
You originally began with a statistic concerning convictions for “sexual assault on a female”. That statistic does not measure your definition of rape. So if your claim is now specifically:
“Unauthorised small-boat arrivals have a higher propensity to commit non-consensual sexual intercourse than citizens”
then we need data measuring that proposition.
You cannot establish it by starting with convictions for one broader statutory sexual-offence category and then substituting your own definition of rape for what the dataset actually measured.
So my position remains quite simple:
I accept that the cited data show an observed disparity in the particular foreign-national conviction category.
I accept that sex and age are important predictors and that small-boat arrivals are disproportionately young men.
I accept that it is therefore empirically reasonable to investigate whether small-boat arrivals are disproportionately represented among sexual offenders.
What I reject is the claim that your present evidence establishes that conclusion. You have not produced a valid conviction rate for small-boat arrivals, and you have not shown that the observed foreign-national disparity persists after appropriate demographic adjustment.
And you certainly haven’t demonstrated the causal proposition that being an unauthorised migrant, rather than the associated demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, independently increases an individual’s propensity to commit rape.
That’s not denying your premises. It’s refusing to manufacture a joint probability from statistics that don’t measure the joint probability.
>>2915989Speaking of hotels, the Rwanda plan sucked since it would be more costly than processing the m in Great Britain. Still, why didn’t the British government do it on some of their crown dependencies like any of the smaller islands around Great Britain?
Plus, it seems like NIMYism plays a huge role in immigration, for better or worse. But yeah, the UK has gone down the gutters ever since Brexit
Hey guys, just a reminder that right wingers DGAF about free speech and freedom of assembly anymore than Starmer and Burnham do:
https://twstalker.com/cfdownes_/status/2101259916153344170Sorks are the biggest of all time cucks:
https://unrollnow.com/status/2101203753340706926Do you think the so-called “patriots” will riot over this?:
https://unrollnow.com/status/2101290269064728882So-called “woman’s safety group” Pink Ladies doxx an innocent mom for merely disagreeing with them. Made worst by how the mom lives in Piddington:
https://unrollnow.com/status/2101253167438532852I’m surprised by how no one here has talked about the temporary shut down of the RNLI station in Portsmouth and the closure of their museum at Poole following threats and a doxxing campaign by the blackshirts. It’s clear that Britain’s lumpen are fully propagandised into agitprop. Otherwise they’d know that most sea boarding of asylum seekers are done by the national coast guard:
https://unrollnow.com/status/2101329620276584693Ladies and gentlemen, the people with “legitimate concerns”:
https://x.com/thelefttake/status/2101257835862475181Tbh it’s true. Even the white US southeast is more violent than anyone in Europe and east Asia are used to:
https://x.com/thelefttake/status/2100861819329839543Remainder that, at the end of the day, Rupert Lowe is as much of a Tory as Farage and Boris are:
https://x.com/thelefttake/status/2100589890454888449>>2916127Restore’s ex-Marine election candidate slams party’s ‘overt antisemitism, racism and misogyny’
https://searchlightmagazine.com/2026/09/restores-ex-marine-election-candidate-slams-partys-overt-antisemitism-racism-and-misogyny/90 years on: the volunteers who went to Spain to fight fascism:
https://searchlightmagazine.com/2026/09/90-years-on-the-volunteers-who-went-to-spain-to-fight-fascism/Another Patriotic Alternative member jailed for terror offences – it’s time for a ban:
https://searchlightmagazine.com/2026/09/another-patriotic-alternative-member-jailed-for-terror-offences-its-time-for-a-ban/Wanna bet that Patriotic Alternative/National Action goon eventually gets released in exchange for acting as an informant for the state?
But yh, recently I’ve been thinking on why the British left ain’t as strong as the German, Spanish and Greek antifas, and I think it all boils down to:
- Lack of alternative subcultural structural organising in the way cultivated in countries like Germany where Antifa wasn’t just randos against fascism but a direct descendant of Antifaschistische Aktion and cultivated this alternative structure and maintained it far better than in Britain, where anti-fascism is much less salient and, short of the outbursts against the BNP and NF in London and elsewhere, it quickly evaporated as many turned to electoralism and even Toryism in Spiked’s case
- The British political system for a long while managed to absorb radical movements into the establishment for a long time. Even with the riots, Westminster still lives on. For perspective, France had faced riots far longer than Britain, and the Lib dems in France are still in power without little change to the actual status quo. In fact, it wouldn’t be too far to say that rioting in liberal democracies are just ways to express discontent as opposed to being actual attempts to overthrow the government, which is why I think it’s likely that Labour will end less via civil war and more via a Tory takeover and with the future rule being far more totalitarian than anything Starmer’s critics dreamt up of.
Is it too late for the British left to organise? Not yet and, while I do think it’s a shame the OG modern antifa in the UK got decimated via arrests in 2018, I do think that if all leftists in the UK actually organise as one cohesive movement (not organisation, movement) capable of mass mobilisation of the kind the German and Greek antifas can, then maybe British leftists will have a better chance to survive. But the window is closing in, especially as Trump’s and Israel’s wars against Yemen and Iran are threatening to plunge the world into a new Great Depression, with import-dependent economies like the British and Irish ones being the most affected.
i don't care about immigration and i think those who do have a personality disorder
“Sensitive UK police data vulnerable to ‘compromise’ by US government and foreign actors”:
https://archive.ph/L2M2K
>Vast troves of highly sensitive police data are lying on Microsoft cloud platforms which an official UK security assessment deemed to be vulnerable to “compromise” by foreign actors and the US government, a Guardian investigation can reveal.
>The files include criminal records, victim statements, internal emails and sensitive information held by more than 40 police forces across the UK.
>Some files exceed “official” classification, according to a police document seen by the Guardian, raising the possibility the information could be classed as “secret” or “top secret”.
>The cloud platform is Microsoft Azure, one of the main commercial offerings of the US tech company. It is used by businesses and governments globally and rests on a web of IT infrastructure – datacentres, networking gear, fibre optic cables – that spans more than 100 countries.
>In recent years, doubts have surfaced about how cloud platforms store data and whether they are truly secure.
>British police decided to put some of their most sensitive data on the Microsoft platform in a 2017 meeting, a record of which was examined by the Guardian.
>In doing so, officers accepted that “US government insiders” would be able to see the data, and that it could be “transmitted worldwide”, with “the extent of this … unknown”.
>According to five specialists who reviewed the Guardian’s findings, the risks identified in that document persist today. Almost every UK police force now depends on Microsoft Azure, and the UK government spends at least £1.9bn on Microsoft software each year.
>“There’s no evidence that this has been properly understood,” said one source who has held senior roles in UK policing. The data is “some of the most sensitive that exists”, he added. “You’re talking about information that, if it gets into the wrong hands, or if the information is incorrect, [means] people can get hurt or may die.”
>When the Guardian approached the police about the possibility that sensitive information was not secure, they appeared to wave aside these risks, saying Britain’s contracts with Microsoft meant US authorities could not view data without express permission and that the data it stored on Microsoft remained in the UK.
>These statements appeared to contradict public admissions by Microsoft, which said in a disclosure to Police Scotland in 2023 that data “can go outside the UK” and that it “cannot guarantee data sovereignty”.
>Microsoft said it “does not provide any government with direct or unfettered access to customer data”, and that it had not provided UK data in response to a US government request. It added that, like all US-based tech companies, it responded to US government requests made through valid legal processes.
>[…]Honestly, the biggest mistake of the UK and Europe in general is failing to exploit its tech potential to create its own tech infrastructure.
But nope, they just HAD TO use Silicon Valley and Israeli spyware, and now Europe is discovering how deep into shit they are. This also ties back to how “Intellectual Property” and “Patents” are a bourgeoisie tool to keep the prole down, since a lot of tech in the third world are mostly IP-violating stolen MS tech and software.
>>2916142>>2916134>>2916127>>2916078More news.
UK should brace for ‘another brutal Budget’, SNP warns:
https://archive.ph/r3C0ZDrones targeting UK military sites nearly every day as threat from Putin grows:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/drones-uk-military-bases-russia-putin-iran-b3051804.htmlBillionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe insists he's 'lost confidence in UK' amid super-rich exodus:
https://archive.ph/nAfTRNote that Sir Jim paid zero quid in income tax.
UK weather: Britain to be hotter than Athens next week as temperatures soar to 26C:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/weather-uk-met-office-forecast-today-b3052833.htmlAll but four constituencies would support reversing Brexit and rejoining the EU, major poll shows:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-uk-brexit-poll-rejoin-europe-b3052436.htmlReform vows to beat benefit cheats with AI to save taxpayers billions and use tech to help cut doc and nurses’ admin:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/40432697/ai-wage-war-benefit-cheats-reform-uk/ >>2916153How deep do the Russian tentacles go?
While I do think shitlibs blaming Russia, China and/or Iran/Qatar for grievances in the west is a cope, that doesn’t mean that countries like Russia don’t go around interfering with other countries’ domestic affairs, especially ones like the UK where many Russian oligarchs and Putin’s allies like Roman Abramovich have deep stakes in the UK’s political development in the form of owning real estate and stocks in the City of London.
>>2916141>anyone who disagrees with me is mentally illvery intellectual of you.
>>2916414*forgets to gigapost
>>2916414no, lots of people disagree with me. only one sub-set of obsessives is mentally ill.
30 arrested in continuing police probe into Glasgow far-right violence:
https://searchlightmagazine.com/2026/09/30-arrested-in-continuing-police-probe-into-glasgow-far-right-violence/Exposed: fascists and antisemites helped nominate and campaign for Restore Britain in Holborn parliamentary by-election:
https://standuptoracism.org.uk/2026/09/17/exposed-fascists-and-antisemites-helped-nominate-and-campaign-for-restore-britain-in-holborn/Restore Britain’s fascist campaigners chased out of Holborn and St Pancras:
https://socialistworker.co.uk/anti-racism/restore-britains-fascist-campaigners-chased-out-of-holborn-and-st-pancras/The last story is developing news since the ChudIntern’s British chapter is tweeting out full day about “ebil lefties” supposedly scalding Restore Britain’s canvasser in Pancreas with coffee. According to latest police investigations, the canvasser owned the coffee mug, but it’s unclear if the coffee slipped from him during the rush or if someone else caused the cup to slip either accidentally or intentionally.
>>2916065>an aggregate disparity to a very specific subgroupWhich as we have discussed, either distributes a per capita rate of 1.1 sexual assaults per 0.3% of foreigners, or the results are anomalous of predicted trends. I have further correlated data for a disproportionate ethnic register in these cases, which align with the ethnicities of boat crossers; showing how the whole is a sum of its parts. Thus, I say that there are exceptionally criminal minorities - of minorities, who affect foreign statistics.
>You cannot use one year’s flow as the numerator of a population proportion and then use that proportion as the expected share of that year’s convictions.You are seemingly disagreeing with my numbers, but not actually presenting an alternative. I am estimating the number of illegal immigrants in the UK, supposing a controlled statistic of 800,000. Do you think I am over-estimating or under-estimating? You have to tell me.
>40,000 figure is an annual FLOWYes… What in my arithmetic violates this?
>You cannot use one year’s flowI'm not; I'm drawing an average from the last few years.
>ignoring previous cohortsOkay, so you think that I am under-estimating how many illegal immigrants are in the UK? If it happens to be the case that boat crossers (e.g. illegal asylum seekers) are an even smaller minority then, then they're even worse.
>They are cases you found in news reports. That gives you a numerator of “eight reported cases I can find”, not a measured number of convictions among all 2025 small-boat arrivals. Right… So again, you are implying that there are even more cases which I can't find, making a disparity worse.
>concern events/convictions outside the period you are treating as 2025They are all 2025 convictions. You can check it again.
>eight is greater than the roughly 1.1 cases expectedYes… which makes them more likely to sexually assault than (i) legal immigrants, and (ii) citizens.
>asylum/irregular status causes sexual offending.No, I am suggesting that potential rapists are more likely to be boat crossers, not that boat crossing itself makes you more likely to rape. Your irritating obtuseness is on display once more. Just like how a passport doesn't transfer qualities onto people, a boat doesn't do the same. It is opposite; being generally lawful grants you citizenship, and unlawfulness causes illegal immigration.
>it demonstrates that the small-boat population has a different demographic composition from the general foreign-national population. And does greater male youth predict greater rape? If so, then the example is demonstrated deductively. I am showing how each and every way we twist and turn on the issue, the result is the same. I suggest foreignness as a compounding factor, which you are perhaps too timid to accept. Regardless, maleness and youth you do accept - if I ask therefore, which age and gender group is most likely to rape, you would say young men. So, by pure logic, a disproportionately young male population is more likely to rape, than otherwise. Do you disagree?
>Subgroups are expected to differSo it's expected that some foreigners are more likely to rape than others?
>that actually makes your original statistical claim harder, not easier.>That statistic does not measure your definition of rape.We can gladly return to the same LBC article:
<More than a fifth of all rape convictions last year were also foreign nationals.So, MORE than 20% of rape in particular, and 26% of assault in general. They cleanly correlate, wouldn't you say?
>a valid conviction rate for small-boat arrivalsSo are the 8 convictions demonstrative of "male asylum seekers" in general, then? And we do actually have UK official statistics on asylum seeking in general, which is around 110,000 - males being 60% I believe, and so still being disproportionately represented in sexual assault. What appears to be your case in this post is that: there are more illegal immigrants in the UK than I predict, thereby making illegal asylum seekers more minority, and so more exceptionally criminal, as compared to the bulk of legal foreigners, per capita. You also say that it is expected for subgroups to deviate from the mean, which can only mean you have prior expectations of a minority being exceptionally prone to rape, over others. I agree in general, but as I write, you must present alternative figures to produce alternative results - tell me your own findings instead of being an eternal, opinionless critic.
take it to chatGPT please
>>2916454You keep presenting this as though the disagreement is over whether your arithmetic is internally consistent. It isn’t. The disagreement is over whether your arithmetic is answering the question you think it answers.
And this matters because your argument ultimately isn’t about “foreign nationals” in the abstract. It is being used to justify a very concrete proposition about the people being housed near Piddington: that residents have empirical grounds to regard those asylum seekers as an unusually high sexual threat.
You still haven’t demonstrated that.
Let’s take your points in order.
First, your “0.3%” calculation.
If you assume that small-boat arrivals constitute roughly 0.3% of the relevant foreign-national population, then yes: 0.3% of 380 is about 1.1.
But that is merely arithmetic conditional on your assumptions. It doesn’t make the underlying denominator valid.
You are taking a flow of people arriving by one route and comparing it with a stock of people currently present, while also comparing that fraction with convictions recorded during a particular period. Those are different quantities.
The House of Commons Library currently records about 33,000 small-boat arrivals in the year ending June 2026 and about 205,000 detected small-boat arrivals cumulatively since 2018. It also says 72% of the people arriving by small boat in that period were adult men. (
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10590/)
So if you want to construct a population-level conviction rate for small-boat arrivals, you need to specify the population actually at risk over the relevant period. That means dealing with cohorts, departures, returns, residence, time since arrival and exposure to the UK during the period.
You can’t simply take “people who arrived during year X” and treat them as though they constituted a stationary population exposed to the criminal-justice system for the whole year.
That’s why I keep making the flow/stock distinction. It isn’t pedantry. It is the denominator.
And there is an even simpler problem with your eight cases.
You say that finding eight cases instead of the 1.1 cases predicted by your model establishes that small-boat arrivals are disproportionately represented.
No. It establishes that eight is greater than 1.1.
If — and this is a very large if — all eight cases were genuine 2025 convictions, all eight defendants had arrived by small boat, all eight fell within the offence category you’re analysing, and your 0.3% denominator were valid, then you would have evidence inconsistent with the particular null hypothesis that small-boat arrivals contribute convictions in exactly proportion to their population share.
That’s worth investigating.
But it still wouldn’t tell you the actual conviction rate of small-boat arrivals.
And it certainly wouldn’t tell you the conviction rate of the particular asylum seekers being housed near Piddington.
Those are different propositions.
You also keep saying that because the eight cases are merely the cases you found in the media, there must be more cases you haven’t found.
That’s not a statistical argument.
There may be more. There may be fewer relevant cases than you think. We don’t know.
A collection of cases selected by media visibility is not a population sample. You cannot infer a rate from an unknown numerator simply by assuming the unknown part points in the direction you want.
If you have an official dataset containing all relevant convictions and showing immigration status and route of entry, produce it. That’s the denominator problem solved.
The important point is that the current published UK data do not do this.
The Migration Observatory’s August 2026 review explicitly says that there is no published data on convicted offenders’ immigration status showing whether they were asylum seekers, refugees, family migrants, work migrants, students, etc. It also notes that most offences never result in conviction, so conviction statistics cannot simply be read as true offending rates.
That is devastating to the particular inference you’re trying to make, because your chain is:
foreign nationals → foreign men → particular foreign nationalities → asylum seekers → unauthorised entrants → small-boat arrivals → the men being housed near Piddington.
You have data for some of those categories.
You do not have data demonstrating the transition from one category to the next.
That’s the missing evidence.
⸻
You also keep returning to the fact that small-boat arrivals are disproportionately young men.
Yes.
That is true.
And young men have higher offending rates than the population as a whole. The Migration Observatory explicitly notes that offending is concentrated among young men and that the lower conviction share of non-citizens becomes more pronounced when age is taken into account. (
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-crime-in-the-uk/)
But this doesn’t produce your conclusion.
It produces the obvious methodological requirement:
compare young male asylum seekers with an appropriately matched young male comparison population.
You cannot first observe that a population contains more young men and then treat the entire resulting difference as evidence of “foreignness”.
Suppose young men have a higher rate of sexual offending than older women. Fine.
That tells us something about sex and age.
It does not tell us that an Afghan young man has a higher rate than a British young man.
And if you want to establish that foreignness is a further “compounding factor”, as you put it, you have to actually estimate that effect after accounting for age and sex.
That’s what statistical adjustment is for.
You keep treating “young male” and “foreign” as though they are interchangeable explanatory variables because both correlate with the outcome. They aren’t.
Correlation between A and C does not allow you to assign the entire association to B simply because A, B and C are all related.
⸻
Your “minorities within minorities” point doesn’t solve this either.
Of course subgroups can differ.
That isn’t controversial.
Indians, Romanians, Afghans, Sudanese, British citizens, asylum seekers, students and workers don’t have identical demographic or socioeconomic compositions.
But once you say:
“there are exceptionally criminal minorities within minorities”
you have moved from describing an observed distribution to making a claim about the offending propensity of a particular subgroup.
That claim requires a denominator for that subgroup.
If you have one, show it.
If you don’t, “minority within a minority” is just a description of nested categories, not evidence that the innermost group has an exceptionally high offending rate.
And your ethnic argument has the same problem. The fact that some nationalities are disproportionately represented among small-boat arrivals does not establish that the people in those nationality groups who arrived by boat have a particular sexual-offending rate.
The current small-boat population itself is heterogeneous: the Commons Library records 71 nationalities among people detected crossing by small boat in the year ending June 2026. (
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10590/)
“Ethnic composition resembles the composition of another group” is not a substitute for a crime-rate comparison.
⸻
Then there’s the rape statistic.
The LBC article does indeed report that foreign nationals accounted for 155 of 720 convictions for “rape of a female aged 16 or over” in 2024, with 42 convictions of unknown nationality. It also reports the separate figure of 380 foreign nationals among 1,453 convictions for sexual assault on a female. (
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/foreign-nationals-quarter-sexual-assault-convictions-rpXpd_2/)
I’m not disputing those figures.
But notice what they actually establish.
They establish an observed nationality distribution among convictions.
They do not establish that the convicted people were asylum seekers.
They do not establish that they entered by small boat.
They do not establish that they were unauthorised migrants.
They do not establish that they were recent arrivals.
They do not establish the offending rate of those populations.
And they certainly do not establish the offending rate of the 1,256 people proposed for accommodation near Piddington.
This is exactly why the Migration Observatory warns that the criminal-justice data do not identify offenders’ immigration status or length of residence. Some non-citizens convicted of offences may have lived in Britain for years; some may not have been resident here when arrested. (
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-crime-in-the-uk/)
So your “correlation” is much less clean than you keep suggesting.
⸻
Your naturalisation argument doesn’t rescue it either.
You say:
“A naturalised citizen is more lawful by definition.”
No.
A naturalised citizen is someone who has satisfied the legal conditions for acquiring citizenship.
That’s a statement about legal status.
It isn’t evidence that citizenship itself produces a lower propensity to commit crime.
Indeed, your argument has a basic classification problem.
Imagine person A is a foreign national on Monday, commits no offence, satisfies the requirements for naturalisation and becomes British on Tuesday.
Their underlying propensity to commit rape has not magically changed because their passport has changed.
If you want to argue that people who remain non-citizens have a higher offending propensity, you need to identify the mechanism and demonstrate it empirically.
“British citizen” and “foreign national” are administrative categories. They are not biological or moral types.
⸻
And this brings us back to Piddington.
This is where I think your argument ultimately collapses.
Piddington has about 350 residents. The proposed accommodation is for up to 1,256 male asylum seekers at a former military site nearby. Residents subsequently held a symbolic NON-BINDING referendum in which 285 voted to secede from the UK and 26 voted against, with turnout of about 92%. The referendum has no legal force. (
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/piddington-village-vote-leave-uk-asylum-seekers/)
People are entitled to have concerns about that proposal.
They can argue about scale.
They can argue about infrastructure.
They can argue about consultation.
They can argue about policing.
They can argue about whether putting more than three times the village’s population into one accommodation site is sensible.
Those are all empirical or political questions.
But “these men are likely to rape us” is a different claim.
And that claim requires evidence about the sexual-offending risk of asylum seekers in circumstances comparable to those people being placed there.
You haven’t supplied it.
Instead, you’ve supplied:
- an aggregate foreign-national conviction disparity;
- a separate demographic fact that small-boat arrivals are predominantly male;
- a collection of nationalities associated with small boats;
- eight cases found in media reports;
- a denominator constructed from flows and stocks;
- and an inference that all of these pieces must point in the same direction.
That may be an argument for further research.
It is not an empirical demonstration of an elevated rape rate among the Piddington cohort.
And that’s the distinction I have been making from the beginning.
I’m not saying:
“Foreign nationals never commit sexual offences.”
Obviously they do.
I’m not saying:
“Asylum seekers cannot commit sexual offences.”
Obviously they can.
I’m not even saying:
“Small-boat arrivals cannot be disproportionately represented in some crime category.”
That is an empirical question.
I’m saying that you have not established the relevant rate.
And until you do, you cannot take an aggregate disparity and progressively narrow it through a series of increasingly specific categories until you arrive at “therefore the men being housed at Piddington are an elevated rape risk.”
That’s not discovering a statistical relationship.
That’s transporting an association down a chain of populations for which the relevant conditional probabilities have never been measured.
Your phrase “the whole is a sum of its parts” is therefore exactly backwards here.
The whole is not necessarily the sum of its parts when the parts are overlapping populations and marginal statistics.
You need the joint distribution.
You keep giving me:
P(foreign | conviction)
P(male | small-boat arrival)
P(nationality | small-boat arrival)
and asking me to accept:
P(rape | small-boat arrival)
as though logic fills the gap.
It doesn’t.
⸻
So yes: young male populations are more relevant to sexual-offending risk than the population as a whole.
Yes: foreign nationals appear disproportionately in some UK conviction statistics.
Yes: small-boat arrivals are overwhelmingly unauthorised entrants and predominantly male.
Yes: those facts justify studying the relationship carefully.
But none of them establishes that the particular asylum seekers being accommodated near Piddington have an unusually high propensity to rape.
And that matters because the question isn’t whether Piddington residents are allowed to feel frightened.
They are.
The question is whether that fear is empirically warranted by the evidence you have presented.
At present, it isn’t.
The evidence establishes that the population is overwhelmingly male, that foreign nationals appear at varying rates across conviction statistics, and that some foreign nationalities are prominent among small-boat arrivals. The available UK evidence does not provide the crucial statistic: the sexual-offending rate of asylum seekers or small-boat arrivals, adjusted for the relevant demographic and exposure differences. (House of Commons Library)
So when you say the Piddington residents’ reaction is justified by the statistics, you are putting the conclusion into the denominator that you never actually measured.
That’s the entire problem.
>>2916454>>2916488Now, There is actually a useful contrast here, because the United States demonstrates exactly what the kind of analysis you are asking me to accept would look like when the necessary data actually exist.
Take the peer-reviewed Texas study by Light, He and Robey, published in PNAS. The researchers were able to use Texas Department of Public Safety data that record immigration status for arrestees, allowing them to compare undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants and native-born US citizens directly over 2012–2018. (
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7768760/)
And the result was not merely an aggregate “foreigners are X% of arrests” calculation.
They calculated population rates.
They found that undocumented immigrants had the lowest felony arrest rates of the three groups. Native-born citizens were more than twice as likely as undocumented immigrants to be arrested for violent felonies, 2.5 times as likely for drug felonies, and more than four times as likely for property felonies. Most importantly for our discussion, when they broke violent crime down further, undocumented immigrants were roughly half as likely as native-born citizens to be arrested for sexual assault. (
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2014704117)
That is the kind of evidence that can actually answer the question.
It gives you:
numerator: arrests involving undocumented immigrants
denominator: undocumented immigrant population
comparison group: native-born citizens
same jurisdiction: Texas
same period: 2012–2018
same offence category: sexual assault
Whether one prefers arrest, conviction or offending data is a separate methodological question, but at least the comparison is between the population you are making a claim about and the appropriate comparison population.
Notice how radically different that is from your Piddington argument.
For Piddington, you have not produced:
P(sexual offence | asylum seeker)
You haven’t produced:
P(rape | small-boat arrival)
You haven’t produced:
P(rape | young male asylum seeker)
And you certainly haven’t produced:
P(rape | the particular population being accommodated at Piddington).
Instead, you are attempting to construct those probabilities indirectly from the proportion of foreign nationals among convictions, the sex composition of small-boat arrivals, selected media reports, nationality distributions and an estimated unauthorised-migrant population.
That is precisely the difference between having evidence about a subgroup and reasoning from several statistics about other groups.
And the UK data problem is not something I have invented to avoid your argument. The Migration Observatory’s August 2026 review explicitly says that there is no published UK data on convicted offenders’ immigration status showing whether they were asylum seekers, refugees, family migrants, work migrants, international students, etc. It also notes that nationality data do not tell us how long someone has lived in Britain or whether they were even resident here when arrested.
So the US example is almost a perfect illustration of the principle I have been making.
When you have the relevant denominator and the relevant subgroup classification, calculate the rate and compare it.
When you don’t have them, you cannot manufacture the missing conditional probability by multiplying together marginal statistics.
And there is an even more important point.
The American evidence does not merely fail to support the proposition that undocumented immigration necessarily increases crime. In the Texas data, it points in the opposite descriptive direction: undocumented immigrants had substantially lower rates of crime than native-born citizens across a range of offences, including sexual assault. (
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117)
That doesn’t prove that every undocumented immigrant population in every country has a lower crime rate than natives.
But it does demonstrate why the proposition
“they are disproportionately young foreign men, therefore they are likely to be disproportionately rapists”
is not a deductive conclusion.
If it were, we should expect the same demographic logic to produce the same result wherever it is applied.
It doesn’t.
The relevant empirical question is always what the observed rate is within the population being discussed.
⸻
And this is where your argument about Piddington becomes particularly important.
The residents’ concern is not simply:
“Is it possible that one of these men could commit a sexual offence?”
Of course it is.
The concern being expressed is much stronger: that bringing more than 1,000 male asylum seekers into a village of roughly 350 people creates a sufficiently elevated sexual-safety risk that residents have empirical grounds to be frightened of them as a group. That is the claim currently being made by some residents. (
https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2026-09-15/women-fear-for-safety-over-plans-to-house-male-asylum-seekers-at-military-base)
For that claim, possibility is nowhere near enough.
You need evidence that the relevant population has an elevated rate.
And at present the UK evidence does not provide it.
The Migration Observatory’s review says that UK research on migration and crime remains limited. Older studies generally found no measurable effect of migration on violent or property crime on average, although one study found an association between more asylum seekers and property crime. It also stresses that conviction statistics do not reveal true offending rates because most offences do not result in conviction.
So there is a very important asymmetry between what you are asking me to accept and what the evidence actually permits us to say.
In the United States, at least in the Texas study, researchers can say:
Here is the undocumented population. Here are its crime rates. Here is the native-born population. Here are its crime rates. Here is the difference.
In Britain, we currently cannot say:
Here is the asylum-seeker population. Here is its rape rate. Here is the small-boat population. Here is its rape rate. Here is the appropriately matched British comparison group.
Because the necessary data aren’t published.
That means the honest conclusion is not:
“Asylum seekers are no more likely to offend.”
Nor is it:
“Asylum seekers are exceptionally likely to rape.”
It is:
The evidence currently cited does not establish the latter proposition.
And that distinction is absolutely central when the empirical claim is being used to justify fear of a specific group of people living near a specific community.
You can reasonably debate whether putting 1,256 people into a community of roughly 350 is sensible. You can debate infrastructure, policing, consultation, accommodation policy, capacity and local impacts.
But those are arguments about the scale and management of the site.
They are not evidence that the people housed there have an unusually high propensity to rape.
That latter claim requires exactly the sort of subgroup-specific rate that your argument has so far failed to produce.
So I would actually turn your demand for “alternative figures” back around:
I don’t need to invent an alternative figure. The burden is on the person asserting that Piddington residents face an empirically elevated rape risk to produce the relevant rate.
The US example demonstrates that this is not an impossible standard. When the data exist, researchers calculate the rate.
Until the UK produces equivalent data for asylum seekers or small-boat arrivals, the statistically defensible position is simply that the specific rape-risk claim remains unestablished.
And that is why I keep separating legitimate questions about the Piddington policy from the much stronger claim that the residents’ sexual fears are empirically demonstrated.
They aren’t.
>>2916488>that is merely arithmetic conditional on your assumptionsYou haven't actually disagreed with any of my figures.
>Those are different quantities.Perhaps you still can't see the forest for the trees, but the relevant details concern: (i) foreign rates of sexual assault, (ii) the estimated number of illegal immigrants, and (iii) the number of unauthorised asylum seekers. This is necessary to determine the fraction of foreigners in the UK who happen to be boat crossers, which is able to be applied against rates of foreign sexual assault. So, the only disagreement you can have is the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the UK, which by given standards, has an absolute minimum of 700,000, and a maximum of 1,200,000. I am on the lower end of things, so do you think boat crossers are a smaller or larger fraction than I estimate them to be? Are they 0.3%?
>If — and this is a very large if — all eight cases were genuine 2025 convictions, all eight defendants had arrived by small boat, all eight fell within the offence category you’re analysing, and your 0.3% denominator were valid, then you would have evidence inconsistent with the particular null hypothesis that small-boat arrivals contribute convictions in exactly proportion to their population share. That’s worth investigating.Did you not read the articles? All convictions were in 2025, all men were asylum seekers, and all were convicted for sexual assault charges. These are not in dispute. The only question is the fraction of them in the general foreign population. Thus as I write, even if we suppose them to be in the subgroup "asylum seekers", they are still overrepresented, since 110,000 compared to 40,000 is around 300% more, so is rounded up to 1% of the foreign population. 1% of 380 is 3.8, meaning that in the foreign population, asylum seekers are at the very minimum, twice as likely to commit sexual assault than other foreigners. This is inescapable. Since you are so concerned with exact numbers, do you accept this? We do not know whether or not these asylum seekers came on boats, but we do know that they are asylum seekers.
>It does not tell us that an Afghan young man has a higher rate than a British young man.Why are you acting illiterate? I posted this ages ago:
https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/freedom-of-information/february-2025-foi-2355119-25-sexual-crimes-committed-non-uk-nationalsPer capita, Afghanis are more likely to be arrested for sexual assault than British citizens. This is a fact.
>you have to actually estimate that effect after accounting for age and sex.It's rather irrelevant to even proving the central case, since you are attempting to say that the disproportion of rape amongst foreigners is entirely due to their gender and age - if 1,250 young men are imported into an area which contains only 200 females, will sexual assault increase or decrease in that area? And please don't avoid this question; answer it certainly with statistics.
>you have moved from describing an observed distribution to making a claim about the offending propensity of a particular subgroup.I already began with this; I am defending foreigners in general (e.g. legal workers and students) against illegal migrants.
>not evidence that the innermost group has an exceptionally high offending rate.Well it's curious since at once you claim that subgroups are expected to deviate from the mean, but also suggest that deviation from the mean is an insubstantial result inferred from falty data. If we expect subgroups to have higher representation in sexual assaults, which ones?
>They do not establish that the convicted people were asylum seekers.I never claimed they did, which is why I have posited the relevant data to asylum seekers in general, and which by reason, you are forced to accept them.
>do not establish the offending rate of the 1,256 people proposed for accommodation near Piddington.You are utterly lost in details.
To simplify; statistically speaking - will sexual assault (i) increase, (ii) decrease, or (iii) stay the same, by putting 1,250 young men near a population of 200 females?
>But “these men are likely to rape us” is a different claim.No, it's about being "more" likely.
You apparently have no basic deductive skills.
If the majority of rapists are young men, and young men are most likely to rape - does increasing the population of young men relative to females increase the potential of rape? Yes. This is pure logic. But let's continue. The ratio of males to females in Piddington will go from 50:50 to 85:15. Will this increase be more likely to lead to sexual assault? Regardless of nationality. Will it?
>the sexual-offending risk of asylum seekersLet's convert it to "young men".
Will increasing young men relative to females increase the chances of sexual assault occuring? Be deductive.
>The whole is not necessarily the sum of its partsYou're quite confused.
>>2916489America isn't relative to our discussion.
>>2916414I've genuinely never met a anti immigration person who wasn't also chimp like in how they seem to short circuit emotionally at the slightest pushback to there narratives and how they resort to violence or similar when you try to engage with them. Its clear fascists are weaponizing traumatised and alienated people with personality disorders, the useful idiots get led by the ones who have material interests.
>>2916539>America isn't relative to our discussion.He used America as an example on what kind of statistics you need to decide whether your claim are valid or not.
>>2916562
your side of said "basic discussion" just uses a lot of verbiage to paper over a basic distaste for immigrants. the moment it became clear your pseud schtick stopped working was when he brought out the p(a|b) maths and instead of engaging at that level to show you had some actual understanding of probability, you just kept trying to pull a fast one by sloppily quoting percentages and appealing, in more words, to "common sense"
nobody is impressed. nobody is clapping. get off the stage.
>>2916553You're the only one seeming to get emotional.
>>2916560His point is redundant to our basic discussion.
We have already been over the fact that the UK is shit at statistics.
Making this discussion a larger issue of immigration isn't the point.
>>2916565The person I'm talking to already agrees with me - I'm just trying to make him realise that. But if you happen to disagree with me, what is it exactly do you find objectionable? Don't mock me; educate me.
>>2916567you should join hand in hand with the people who back you, epstein, isreal, the upper class, underclass bally gammon.
>>2916568>anyone who disagrees with me is mentally ill<that's a bit self-serving, isn't it?>why are you getting so emotional, fascist?<i'm not… i'm calling you silly. You are the one suddenly impassioned.>HA. See?>>2916569Either I am right or I am wrong. If I'm wrong, I can be proven wrong.
>>2916572arguing with you is like trying to beat a monkey at chess, they just swipe all the pieces off the board, declare themselves the victor then throw shit at you
>>2916576I'm not asking for an argument, just an acceptance of reality.
In all this, one is either deductive of empirical facts, or they're not.
The facts have not yet been denied, but deduction is lacking.
>>2916582>debate me bro debate me aaaa I have to validate the mindworms the upper class have fucked into my headall I can offer is a dewormer pill and a some energy pills
>>2916585There is no debate.
There is only the denial or acceptance of reality.
>>2916582Reply after reply you Anon had explained to you that the available data do not
prove your claims, but you refuse to understand that because you have superficial understanding of statistics and you're appealing to common sense a.k.a prejudice, like it can make up fo it.
>>2916588>the denial or acceptance of reality.pure ideology
>>2916589You are perfectly at liberty to deny reality.
>>2916591>ProofFrom the given premises supported by empirical evidence, there is a logical proof by deduction. The only thing which has to be admitted by the anon is that an [n]% chance of sexual assault by importing 1,250 young men into a population currently housing 200 females increases.
>Common senseDo you lack common sense, then?
>IdeologySo, do you disagree with me on any particular point? Probably not.
>>2916598>>2916600We must remember Plato's allegory of the cave.
Revealing too much leads the imprisoned men to harm you.
For a bit of exposure therapy then, do you disagree with this?
<While accounting for 26% of sexual assault convictions last year, foreign nationals make up 10.9% of the population.https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/foreign-nationals-quarter-sexual-assault-convictions-rpXpd_2 >>2916606News just in, white british people rape women at 20x the rate of Indian nationals, I am very smart.
>>2916606>>2916607So is that a yes or a no?
Notice how with every denial to accept it, you deny reality.
Are these statistics true?
<While accounting for 26% of sexual assault convictions last year, foreign nationals make up 10.9% of the population.https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/foreign-nationals-quarter-sexual-assault-convictions-rpXpd_2 >>2916609100% true, we should do something about the biggest offenders, white british males
>>2916610Okay, so to speak tautologically:
Is it true that foreign nationals per capita commit more rape than UK citizens?
>>2916612when the numbers being discussed are less than 50 people it stops being relevant to make analysis on wider trends
>>2916615Okay, so notice how you can't publicly affirm it, but still know that it's true? I don't think you're an idiot; you're just traumatised by your own ideology, like a Christian who lives in cognitive dissonance. You know what's true, but are struggling to admit it - that's all what's happening with me and the other anon. I'll have to wait to crack this nut, though.
>50You mean 380?
And "wider trends" are secondary to what is still primary.
I don't care to make general arguments about immigration, but only to see that the people of Piddington are rightfully concerned about rape.
>>2916620>racist does the thing where they conflate multiple different nationalities to make a retarded point in defense of parties funded by the upper classyou have no argument, you are a dog of the upper class
>>2916621Now see how your progress has once more devolved into defensive and uninspired insults? This is why it's difficult to rescue men from their own self-imprisonment. I wish you well, anon.
>>2906902So here it is!
The planets cry!
We'll rip the stellar sky!
Make way when worlds collide!
>>2916630How could you care about something when you can't believe it?
I am not asking for pathos, but logos.
Until you accept reality, there is no further purpose in talking to you.
>>2916635>no argumentThought so, you clowns make a big circus around the fact we're literally discussing a small rooms worth of people, with the dogwhistle attached that any immigrant = a rapist
You arent clever, you will answer to a tribunal or be fed into the meat machine by the capitalist pigs
>>2916445https://twstalker.com/saint1nick/status/2101385648531800228Sick and tired of these fascist switches trying to LARP as chads and still playing the victim, especially with their newfound “stochastic terrorism” talking point.
Plus it’s not like Restore Britain is some centrist party when it’s a haven for careerist Tories, Thatcherites with Enoch Powell characteristics or outright Neo-Nazis like Patrick McGinnis and “Zoomer Historian”:
https://searchlightmagazine.com/2026/08/rupert-lowes-nazi-problem-erupts-into-open-revolt/No wonder people would rather tune out of politics if this is the state of modern British political discourse online. Nowadays I spend my time by working out, reading books, looking for work and vent online.
What do you guys do outside of Leftypol?
>>2916638There are no arguments, as I have explained.
You either accept or deny reality. You deny reality.
>>2916644As I say, I wish you clarity of mind. I wish you only good things, anon.
Since you deny any possible progress at the moment, we cannot reasonably continue. So, that will be all for now.
>>2916604uyghur we live in a post-epstein world where all the upper class Anglos get away with raping children. of course they won't show up in the statistics because they'll never get investigated or it'll get hushed up/covered up like with Margaret Thatcher's merry band of sodomites.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/16/westminster-paedophile-ring-innuendo-evidenceI don't know why that other Spurdo anon is even trying to indulge you in this nonsense. Pretending like the amount of recorded sexual assaults is the definitive tally when we all know there are hundreds if not thousands of rich white rapists getting away with it every year is insane.
>>2916648His free September bus tickets have ruined us as a nation!!!
>>2916651>110,000 is not a population denominator for “foreigners”I never claimed it was! Why are you so dishonest?
All asylum seekers are foreign nationals and there are around 110,000 asylum seekers in the UK, are there not?
>It also says that around one-third of people who have claimed asylum since 2018 arrived by small boat.But that's exactly what I wrote. Total asylum seeker population is 300% of the boat crosser population…
>Some asylum seekers entered legally.Where do I claim otherwise?
>AfghanisSo, we must once more be deductive.
You accept that foreigners are overrepresented in rape statistics, but also write that deviations from the mean are expected, implying that some groups of the total are "expected" to shift the aggregate disproportionately. If not the Afghanis, then who? We can look at ethnicity:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/foi/2025/number-individuals-prosecuted-and-convicted-rape-offences-england-wales-2024-2025-brokenThere were apparently 2,623 rape convictions in 2024/5.
For all stated ethnicities, these were overrepresented:
Africans are 2.5% of the UK, but are 4% of rapists.
Pakistanis are 2.5% of the UK, but 4% of rapists.
Caribbeans are 1% of the UK, but 2% of rapists.
Non-Stated and non-provided were 24% of rapists.
Stated ethnicities which were underrepresented were Indians, Bangladeshis, Chinese, Arab, White British, White Irish, White Other. Other ethnicities non-specified.
So, amongst convicted rapists, we know that Pakistanis, Caribbeans and Africans are overrepresented by at least 50%. With asylum seekers in general, it's at least 100%.
>If a population contains more people belonging to a demographic group that has a higher baseline offending rate, then, all else equal, the population’s expected number of offences can rise.And since foreigners in general as a demographic has a greater per capita offending rate, this is also true? It must be "obvious", as you say.
>Proposition 2 requires evidence about whether these men have the same, higher or lower age-specific offending rates than the comparison population.They are foreigners, so it can be based on this.
Elsewise, it is an anomaly in predicted trends.
>Proposition 3 requires still moreThe asylum seekers are foreigners, so have a greater likelihood to rape than a citizen. If not, it is an anomaly.
>The population may now have a greater expected number of sexual offences simply because there are 1,250 additional young men. That does not mean that each individual young man has become more likely to rape.I never claimed it would. This isn't about individuals, but groups. Some ethnicities are more likely to rape than others within existing groups, so that would be factored.
>The aggregate effect and the individual conditional probability are not the same thing.Perfectly right - so then, what we have established is that within asylum seeker populations are those with a greater likelihood to rape than others, which does not evenly apply to all within the sample. In terms of groups however, probability applies itself to all of the samples. You say that it is "obvious" that the chances of sexual assault will increase; so how do we know who will do it?
>The aggregate effect and the individual conditional probability are not the same thing.But all aggregates are derived from singular data points.
What you are saying is that some asylum seekers are more likely than others to rape than others. If we take general statistics from rape in general, does this give us a clue? Are Pakistani asylum seekers more likely as a group to rape than Bangladeshi asylum seekers?
>You haven’t demonstrated that foreignness or asylum status independently increases the rate.So what you are saying is that foreignness and asylum status are contingent factors, with gender and age being necessary factors - in that case, being foreign or being an asylum seeker makes you more young and male than the general population, also making you more likely to rape. So, foreigners are thus more dangerous, making the people of Piddington justified in their concerns. That is one way to look at it; we can also look at ethnicity. As I have shown, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis differ in their representation for rape convictions. We see from these stats, that the median age of Pakistanis is older than the Bangladeshis, despite different rates of rape conviction:
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/age-groups/latest/So, Bangladeshis are younger than Pakistanis, but are less likely to be rapists than Pakistanis, showing that it isn't just age and gender which contribute to the results.
>An anomaly means an observation that is unusual relative to a specified model or expectation.Yes, and the expectation is that all foreigners will follow the same rate of sexual assault. Failing to do so shows an anomaly.
>the asylum-seeker conviction rate.We have the foreign conviction rate.
>you cannot deduce the direction of the immigration-status effect from demographic composition alone.Interestingly, we find an easy deduction from your US example; since foreign convictions per capita are lower than the US citizen, we then see the same reflected in the illegal immigrants. So, it can have universal logic. If the case is that foreign convictions in general deduce the foreign convictions in particular, it maps cleanly.
>That is precisely why I objected when you originally treated the foreign-national “sexual assault on a female” figure as though it directly measured rape.I have already showed you that over 20% of rapes are by foreigners, so sexual assault and rape easily overlap.
>>2916653>Does the available evidence establish that the 1,250 asylum seekers being placed near Piddington constitute an unusually elevated sexual threat to the local population?"Unusually" is loaded language.
If the chances are [n]% increased, it's the same difference. You have admitted that Piddington is, by data, justified in their concerns. The debate is over.
>the Piddington residents’ histrionics cannot presently be described as an empirically demonstrated response to an unusually high rape risk.Notice how you are presenting undefined metrics.
If risks increase [n]% my argument is vindicated.
Here is my original argument:
>>2913491<foreign nationals are overrepresented in sexual crimes. The concerns are thus validated by empirical evidence.You see that due to factors of age and gender, this is true nonetheless. I would add that nationality itself is a factor to be duly considered, but it's still secondary to the basic point; that Piddington is empirically justified.
>these particular asylum seekers are more likely to rape local womenStatistically, this is highly correlated.
They are (i) young, (ii) male, (iii) foreign, (iv) asylum seekers. All of these areas correlate to increased crime. You can say that (iv) cannot be "proven", but correlation is still authoritative over conjecture.
>If you want to argue that Piddington faces an increased expected number of sexual offences simply because it is receiving 1,250 additional young men, say exactly that.That's not my entire argument, but it's part of it.
>I reject itI know, because like the other stubborn fellow, you have a paternal pathos towards these foreigners. I think it would be healthier to abandon such sentimentalities. Woke 1.0 is over, as they say; the writing is on the wall.
>>2916715
>you are treating 110,000 as though it were a sufficient denominator for the particular eight convictions you are analysing. It isn’t […] Those are annual numbers of people claiming asylum, not a fixed population of 110,000 people exposed to the criminal-justice system for the whole year.
Right, so there are even less asylum seekers in the UK who are eligible to be convicted than 110,000 - making my estimates on the lower end once more. If we take away dependants, there were 80,000 in 2025, and so the overrepresentation of 2025 asylum seeker convictions is at an even worse rate, since rather than being 1% of the foreign population, it's closer to 0.6% doubling the given rate from 100% to 200% for 8 counts of assault. If we also see that 40% of all asylum seekers are illegally entering the UK, and they are 72% male, then at least 60<% of all male asylum seekers come from boats. So, at least 60% of any and all assault convictions from asylum seekers will be from boat crossers, making both asylum seekers in general more criminal, but with extra cause from these illegal immigrants.
>Someone granted refugee status is no longer an asylum seeker.
All the stories I provided were from asylum seekers in 2025. Do you want me to gather at least 8 convictions from all potential years of 2018–2026, to satisfy you?
>It is an assumption that the subgroup inherits the parent population’s rate.
Yes, because if it didn't, it would be anomalous.
I am proposing an anomaly.
>have different conviction distributions
You are lapsed in comprehension here.
I begin with the premise "foreigners commit more crime per capita, so particular foreigners are equally criminal", but then the evidence suggests a different trend, that some foreigners are more criminal than others, which thus "spoils the bunch". You will recall the process of this argument in my earlier posts. So, I do not claim that foreigners are equally criminal, but that some have a higher rate of crime than others. This was the gradation I established; that with foreigners in general, the more (i) legal, and (ii) naturalised, the more civilised. You have seemed to forget that I am explaining the anomaly.
> You cite the CPS rape data and say Africans, Pakistanis and Caribbeans are overrepresented. Fine.
I'm glad you accept reality.
>Second, ethnicity is not nationality, and neither is ethnicity immigration status.
Precisely. Here is the finer point.
As according to my grades of civility, my expectation is that since rape is an overrepresented statistic in foreign nationals, these co-ethnics raise the general rape rate. What I am saying again, is what I've always been saying: a foreigner of the same ethnicity as a UK citizen will be more criminal. So, ethnicity is circumstantial of being foreign, and it is foreignness which is the predictor.
>You cannot infer individual or group offending propensity merely from their percentage of the convicted population.
You aren't making sense, so let's go through the figures:
• Median age of Bangladeshis: 27
• Share of UK population for Bangladeshis: 1%
• Share of rape convictions for Bangladeshis: 1%
• Median age of Pakistanis: 28
• Share of UK population for Pakistanis: 2.5%
• Share of rape convictions for Pakistanis: 4%
What is incomparable? The data is complete.
>It would not establish that asylum seekers have the Pakistani rate.
This is why common sense is important.
>You don’t answer it by choosing the subgroup whose characteristics fit your conclusion.
I have presented correlations between the ethnicities of recent boat arrivals and sexual offence arrests, but you are not satisfied with pattern recognition, so you resign.
>You cannot collapse them into one proposition by saying “deductive”.
It's syllogistic logic. One premise follows the next.
>the apparent conviction/incarceration difference is reduced when age is taken into account.
Really? Please present this to me.
>You cannot say: foreigners are more criminal; because: foreigners contain more young men; and then use the higher offending rate of young men as independent evidence that: foreigners are more criminal.
Why not? I literally don't understand your criticism.
You seem to be saying the same thing; if you account for demographic differences, crime becomes equal.
>asylum status → rape rate
>small-boat arrival → rape rate
Well, you can't be satisfied by incomplete data on this point, so it's best to stop discussing it. I have given my numbers, and you just can't provide counter-examples.
>Piddington asylum cohort → rape rate
Your point is that by the factors of age and gender, an [n]% increase in rape is predicted by the transfer, but can't establish a disparity between asylum seekers and White British citizens, say - and you can't justify the proportion of response to the issue. My point is the minimal case; that the act in itself warrants at least the most basic caution according to the most basic threat. We agree on this, and this is the real crux of the matter; you are just trying to reduce further inferences as incomplete, and I have already agreed to this - saying that I cannot "prove" anything with incomplete data. So, the task of reason in this concerns deduction as regards incomplete data. I insist on more than I can prove, but that is a maximum case.
>“Foreign-national conviction rates vary between subgroups.” Fine. The next question is: “Why?”
And so what's your answer?
>you have now abandoned your original claim
I haven't abandoned anything; I am emphasising the minimal case so that our discussion isn't convoluted by various strands.
>Because once you admit that subgroup rates can differ, you have admitted the possibility that asylum seekers could have a lower rate than foreign nationals generally
Yes! And I already wrote this.
That's why I said that a lower offending rate would also be anomalous of the normal distribution. I was showing how in the minimal case, foreigners increase the odds of rape (e.g. 100% overrepresentation). The next point was to say that if asylum seekers did not warrant any empirical concern, this would be anomalous of results.
>ad hominem
It's more of a diagnosis.
>I am making a statistical argument.
I don't know if you've made a single argument; you've made counter-arguments. That's why I ask for your own numbers, but you add nothing. I do the research and you make notes. It's not a complementary discussion.
>the residents’ specific fear of these asylum seekers is supported by evidence of an unusually high propensity to commit sexual offences.
"Unusually" does a lot of lifting here, again.
You are allergic to using your own numbers.
>Sexual assault hysteria is woke as well.
And the white saviour complex is very boring.
The white man's burden is a burden to everybody.
>>2916754>media jumps straight to calling zio-ed a victim>ed is firmly a member of the upper class given he is worth £300 million+cry me a river, the slopwork by the media in force
>>2916748I think your latest response has actually clarified the disagreement rather nicely, because you have now explicitly admitted the central point I have been making throughout:
we do not have the asylum-seeker rape rate.
Everything you are doing after that is an attempt to infer it from other populations.
That is a legitimate thing to attempt. It is not legitimate to present the inference as though it were the measured statistic.
- You are still confusing population size with exposure
You say that reducing 110,000 to 80,000 “makes my estimates worse”.
No. It changes the denominator of your hypothetical calculation. It does not establish that the resulting ratio is an offending rate.
You are taking a number of convictions and dividing it by a number of people who claimed asylum in a particular period.
But convictions are not contemporaneous with asylum applications.
Someone can arrive in 2021, be investigated in 2023 and convicted in 2025. Someone can arrive in 2025 and be convicted in 2026. The denominator therefore needs to correspond to the population at risk over the relevant exposure period, not merely the number of people who happened to claim asylum during one calendar year.
This is not pedantry. It is the difference between calculating a rate and dividing two unrelated quantities.
And your own “80,000” figure actually demonstrates the problem: you have moved from people claiming asylum to your estimate of people who were adult main applicants, while retaining a conviction numerator whose cases need not correspond to that cohort.
- Your small-boat calculation is simply wrong
You now say:
“If we also see that 40% of all asylum seekers are illegally entering the UK, and they are 72% male, then at least 60% of all male asylum seekers come from boats.”
That does not follow.
The current Commons Library figures say that 40% of people who claimed asylum in the year ending June 2026 had arrived by small boat.
Separately, 72% of people detected arriving by small boat were adult men.
Those are two different denominators.
You cannot turn:
40% of asylum claimants came by boat
and
72% of small-boat arrivals were adult men
into:
60%+ of male asylum seekers came by boat.
You would need the sex distribution of the entire asylum-seeker population and the joint distribution of sex × arrival route.
In fact, the latest Commons Library data also show that people claiming asylum after entering the UK on a visa or other leave represented 39% of asylum claims in 2025. So even the broader premise that the asylum population is essentially synonymous with small-boat arrivals is demonstrably false.
Again: the problem isn’t that your conclusion is politically inconvenient. The arithmetic does not establish it.
- Eight convictions from asylum seekers would still not establish the rate you want
You ask whether you should gather eight convictions across 2018–2026.
If you found eight, that would establish that eight asylum seekers were convicted.
It would not by itself establish the rate.
You would then need to know the relevant asylum-seeker population exposed to the risk of conviction over that period.
And if you expand your numerator from 2025 to 2018–2026, you must correspondingly expand and properly define your denominator.
Otherwise you are simply adding observations to the numerator while leaving the denominator conceptually unchanged.
That’s not a stronger estimate.
- “If they don’t have the foreign rate, it is an anomaly” is not evidence
This is the fundamental problem with your argument.
You say:
“Yes, [I assume the subgroup inherits the parent population’s rate] because if it didn’t, it would be anomalous.”
But “anomaly” relative to what?
You’ve defined the foreign-national rate as the expected asylum-seeker rate.
Then you propose to interpret deviation from that assumed rate as anomalous.
That is circular.
Suppose I said:
“I expect asylum seekers to have a lower rape rate than foreign nationals generally. Therefore, if they have the foreign-national rate, that would be anomalous.”
You would quite rightly ask me what empirical evidence justified my expectation.
Exactly the same objection applies to you.
An expectation is not an observation.
A null hypothesis is not a discovered fact.
And “common sense” does not turn an assumption into a measured rate.
- Your own ethnicity argument makes this even clearer
You say your argument is not that all foreigners have identical offending rates.
Fine.
Then we agree that:
P(offending | foreign national)
does not determine:
P(offending | particular subgroup of foreign nationals).
That is precisely my point.
You have shown that national/ethnic groups can have different conviction distributions.
So the relevant question becomes:
What is the rate for asylum seekers?
Not:
What is the rate for foreigners?
And not:
What is the rate for Pakistanis?
And not:
What is the rate for people arriving by small boat?
Those are different populations.
The fact that the parent population is heterogeneous makes subgroup-specific measurement more important, not less.
- Your Pakistan/Bangladesh comparison does not establish what you think it establishes
You give:
Bangladeshis: median age 27, 1% of UK population, 1% of rape convictions
Pakistanis: median age 28, 2.5% of UK population, 4% of rape convictions
Even granting those figures exactly as you’ve presented them, this doesn’t give you the conclusion you want.
First, you are comparing representation in the conviction population with representation in the general population. That can be suggestive of a disparity, but it is not equivalent to measuring the underlying offending rate.
Second, the CPS data are defendant self-declared ethnicity data for rape-flagged prosecutions/convictions, not nationality data and not a census of actual rapes committed. The CPS itself attaches caveats concerning errors and omissions in ethnicity data.
Third, you haven’t controlled for the other differences between these populations.
So at most this demonstrates that the crude representation of these groups in this criminal-justice dataset differs from their population representation.
It does not tell you why.
And it certainly doesn’t tell you the asylum-seeker rate.
- Your “same ethnicity, therefore foreignness predicts it” claim doesn’t follow either
You say:
“A foreigner of the same ethnicity as a UK citizen will be more criminal.”
That’s the claim you need to demonstrate.
Your ethnicity figures do not demonstrate it.
If anything, they illustrate the problem.
Ethnicity and nationality are different variables.
A British-born British citizen of Pakistani ethnicity and a Pakistani national who arrived six months ago can belong to the same ethnic category while having radically different migration histories.
The CPS table doesn’t establish that the difference between those people is caused by nationality.
And the UK government’s criminal statistics do not even give you the joint dataset you would need to establish that cleanly.
The Migration Observatory notes that government crime statistics do not contain country-of-birth information, and naturalised citizens are recorded as British in nationality statistics. It also notes that there is no published data identifying convicted offenders’ immigration status as asylum seeker, refugee, work migrant, student, etc.
That is precisely why your proposed inference remains an inference.
- “But you haven’t provided a counter-example” is not how the burden of proof works
This is another important point.
You say:
“I have given my numbers, and you just can’t provide counter-examples.”
But the absence of a counter-example does not establish your proposition.
If you assert:
Asylum seekers have a higher rape rate than citizens
the evidential burden is to establish that comparison.
You cannot say:
“You haven’t proved that they have a lower rate, therefore my higher-rate hypothesis stands.”
That is an argument from ignorance.
The appropriate conclusion from missing data is:
the rate is uncertain.
Not:
therefore use the rate from another population.
- And no, demographic adjustment does not mean “crime becomes equal”
You ask:
“You seem to be saying the same thing; if you account for demographic differences, crime becomes equal.”
No.
I am saying something much more modest.
Suppose population A has twice the crude conviction rate of population B.
If A is also substantially younger and more male than B, then part of the crude difference may be attributable to age and sex composition.
After adjustment, three things are possible:
- the difference disappears;
- the difference becomes smaller;
- the difference remains or becomes larger.
We don’t know which without doing the analysis.
That is exactly why the Migration Observatory’s statement that the non-citizen share of the prison population is lower relative to citizens when age is taken into account matters. It doesn’t prove that nationality has no effect. It demonstrates that crude nationality comparisons can change materially after accounting for age.
You are treating “age-adjustment matters” as though I had claimed “age explains everything”.
I haven’t.
- Your “all aggregates are sums of individual data points” point is irrelevant
Of course an aggregate consists of individual observations.
The question is whether you can infer the conditional distribution of one subgroup from the aggregate distribution.
You cannot.
Imagine a university where 20% of students fail an exam.
That tells you nothing by itself about whether:
* first-years fail at 30%;
* second-years fail at 10%;
* international students fail at 25%;
* domestic students fail at 18%;
* students from one faculty fail at 40%.
The aggregate is mathematically composed of the subgroups, but the subgroup rates are not recoverable merely from the aggregate.
You need the subgroup data.
That is the exact statistical mistake you’re making.
- “Syllogistic logic” doesn’t rescue an invalid premise
A syllogism is only as good as its premises.
Your implicit syllogism is roughly:
- Foreign nationals have a higher observed conviction representation.
- Asylum seekers are foreign nationals.
- Therefore asylum seekers have the foreign-national conviction rate.
But premise 3 does not follow.
Being a member of a population does not entail having the population’s mean rate.
If it did, there could be no subgroup differences at all.
But you yourself are relying on subgroup differences when you discuss Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Afghans and other nationalities.
So you are simultaneously saying:
“subgroups can have substantially different rates”
and:
“the asylum-seeker subgroup should be assumed to have the parent group’s rate.”
Those propositions are incompatible unless you supply evidence for why asylum seekers should be an exception to the subgroup principle.
- What I actually concede about the 1,250 men
Here I think we should be completely explicit, because this is where we genuinely agree.
If Piddington receives 1,250 additional people who are predominantly young men, then, holding age/sex-specific offending rates constant, the expected number of offences can increase simply because the population has increased in a demographic category with a higher baseline rate of offending.
Yes.
That is a perfectly reasonable demographic observation.
But it is not the same proposition as:
“The asylum seekers have a higher rape propensity.”
Nor is it:
“The asylum seekers have a 100%, 200% or 300% higher rape rate.”
Nor is it:
“Piddington residents have empirical evidence that these asylum seekers constitute a particular sexual threat.”
The first proposition is an expectation based on population composition.
The latter propositions require measurements that you do not have.
- And your “minimal case” is weaker than you think
You now say that your argument is deliberately minimal:
“The act in itself warrants at least the most basic caution according to the most basic threat.”
Fine.
Then call it that.
There is a very important distinction between:
“Adding 1,250 predominantly young men changes the demographic risk profile of a small village.”
and:
“The asylum seekers themselves are demonstrably more likely to commit rape.”
I accept the first.
You have not established the second.
But notice what happens if you retreat to the first proposition.
You no longer need the foreign-national conviction figures at all.
You don’t need your Pakistan/Bangladesh comparison.
You don’t need the eight convictions.
You don’t need the boat-crossing statistics.
You don’t need the CPS ethnicity data.
The entire evidential superstructure you’ve spent this debate constructing becomes unnecessary.
You’re simply making a demographic population-change argument.
That is a much narrower proposition.
- And it does not follow that every increase in expected crime validates every fear
This is another distinction you keep collapsing.
Suppose adding a large number of young men increases the expected number of sexual offences from, say, 1.0 to 1.2.
That is a 20% increase in expected offences.
It does not follow that residents should therefore believe:
“These men are unusually likely to rape women.”
Nor does it follow that a particular individual is substantially more dangerous.
Nor does it establish that the increase will actually materialise.
Expected value is not realised outcome.
And it certainly doesn’t establish the magnitude of the increase.
You keep saying I’m hiding behind the word “unusually”.
I’m not.
The magnitude is precisely the thing you haven’t measured.
If your claim is simply “the expected number could increase”, I agree.
If your claim is “the increase is sufficiently large to empirically validate residents’ sexual-threat fears”, then you need to tell me how large it is.
That is not moving the goalposts.
That is asking what your conclusion actually means.
- Your “at least 60% of male asylum seekers are boat crossers” claim is especially important to withdraw
Because this is no longer a philosophical disagreement.
It is an arithmetic error.
The latest Commons Library figures say:
* 40% of people claiming asylum in the year ending June 2026 had arrived by small boat.
* 72% of small-boat arrivals were adult men.
You are reversing the conditioning.
You have:
P(boat | asylum) ≈ 40%
and:
P(male | boat) ≈ 72%.
You are claiming:
P(boat | male asylum seeker) ≥ 60%.
That does not follow.
Those are different conditional probabilities.
You would need the joint distribution to calculate the latter.
This is actually a textbook example of why I have been objecting to your repeated use of “deduction”.
- Finally, your position has now become unfalsifiable
This is the most serious methodological problem.
You’ve said:
* if asylum seekers have the foreign-national rate, that supports your hypothesis;
* if they have a higher rate, that supports your hypothesis;
* if they have a lower rate, that’s an “anomaly”;
* if there aren’t enough data, you use pattern recognition;
* if I ask for a subgroup denominator, you say the missing data shouldn’t prevent deduction.
What empirical result would actually make you revise the hypothesis?
If asylum seekers were shown to have a lower sexual-offence conviction rate than citizens, would you accept that as evidence against your claim?
If asylum seekers were shown to have the same rate, would you accept that?
If young male asylum seekers had the same age-specific rate as young male citizens, would that change your conclusion?
If small-boat arrivals had a lower rate, would that change your conclusion?
Those questions matter because a statistical hypothesis has to be capable of being contradicted by evidence.
Otherwise “anomaly” simply becomes a word for any observation that conflicts with the prior assumption.
So I think the actual disagreement is now very simple
There are three separate propositions:
A. Adding a large number of predominantly young men to a small population can increase the expected number of sexual offences.
Yes.
B. Some foreign-national or ethnic groups have different observed conviction distributions from others.
Yes, although the CPS data have important methodological caveats and those distributions are not themselves proof of underlying offending rates.
C. Therefore the particular asylum seekers being placed at Piddington have a higher rape rate, or that residents’ specific fear of them as a sexual threat has been empirically validated.
You have not demonstrated that.
And your latest argument doesn’t fill that gap.
It simply says:
“I don’t have the subgroup rate, so I will assume the parent-population rate, and call any deviation an anomaly.”
That isn’t a deduction from the available evidence.
It is an assumption about the missing evidence.
And once we distinguish those two things, I don’t think there is actually much left to disagree about.
>>2916779>>2916748There is actually a very useful problem with your latest appeal to my US example, because you have now stated your inference in its clearest form:
“Since foreign convictions per capita are lower than the US citizen, we then see the same reflected in the illegal immigrants. So, it can have universal logic.”
No. And this is precisely where the US example becomes useful.
You have just described a logical principle:
If population A has rate X, and subgroup B is contained within A, then B can be assigned rate X unless there is evidence of an anomaly.
The Texas evidence provides a direct counterexample to that principle.
The Texas data actually measured the subgroup
A peer-reviewed PNAS study used Texas Department of Public Safety data from 2012–2018 in which immigration status was recorded for arrestees. The researchers could therefore distinguish:
* native-born US citizens;
* legal immigrants; and
* undocumented immigrants.
They then calculated separate crime rates for those groups.
And the result was not:
foreign/immigrant rate → therefore undocumented immigrant rate.
The groups had substantially different rates.
Undocumented immigrants had the lowest felony arrest rates of the three groups. Native-born citizens were more than twice as likely as undocumented immigrants to be arrested for violent felonies, and legal immigrants occupied an intermediate position for most broad categories. For sexual assault specifically, undocumented immigrants were roughly half as likely as native-born citizens to be arrested. The researchers also report that the broad pattern was replicated when convictions rather than arrests were used.
That is exactly the phenomenon you keep calling an “anomaly”.
Except it isn’t an anomaly.
It is simply a subgroup effect.
And that is the point I’ve been making to you throughout this discussion.
Your proposed “universal logic” therefore isn’t universal
Suppose we call the foreign-national population F and undocumented immigrants U.
Your proposed logic is effectively:
P(crime | F) → P(crime | U)
because U ⊂ F.
But the Texas data demonstrate empirically that:
P(crime | U) ≠ P(crime | foreign-born/legal immigrant)
and, for several offence categories, differs substantially from the native-born rate.
So membership in the parent population does not determine the subgroup’s conditional probability.
That is precisely what I have been telling you about asylum seekers.
You cannot say:
foreigners have rate X;
therefore:
asylum seekers have rate X;
unless you have evidence that the asylum-seeker subgroup actually has that rate.
The Texas example demonstrates why the inference is invalid as a matter of statistical reasoning, not merely why I happen to dislike it in the British case.
And notice what the researchers had to do
They didn’t say:
“Undocumented immigrants are foreigners, therefore their crime rate must be approximately the foreign-national rate.”
They obtained immigration-status information for the individual arrestees and calculated the relevant denominator.
That’s what proper subgroup analysis looks like.
The paper explicitly explains that calculating a group-specific crime rate requires a numerator and denominator for that particular group, and that the scarcity of immigration-status information is precisely what has historically made undocumented-crime comparisons difficult.
Your British argument has exactly the data problem I’ve been pointing out.
We have some statistics for foreign nationals.
We do not have a published UK rape-conviction rate for asylum seekers.
So you are trying to substitute the former for the latter.
And your response actually strengthens my point
You say:
“I am proposing an anomaly.”
But that’s not the right use of “anomaly”.
An observation is not anomalous merely because it differs from a rate you assumed beforehand.
If subgroup B has a different rate from parent population A, the first question is:
Is B genuinely different?
Then:
Why?
Only after specifying a statistical model and its expected distribution can you meaningfully call an observation anomalous relative to that model.
You cannot define the foreign-national rate as the expected asylum-seeker rate and then declare deviation from it an anomaly.
That’s just assuming the conclusion.
Your own argument about Pakistanis and Bangladeshis proves the same thing
You say that different foreign ethnicities have different conviction representations.
Exactly.
So you’ve already accepted that:
the foreign-national aggregate contains heterogeneous subgroups.
Once you’ve accepted that, you cannot infer the rate of one subgroup from the aggregate without additional information.
Your Pakistan/Bangladesh comparison doesn’t solve that problem.
It illustrates it.
If:
P(foreign national)
is heterogeneous,
then you need:
P(asylum seeker)
not merely:
P(foreign national).
And if you want:
P(asylum seeker ∩ young ∩ male ∩ Afghan, etc.)
then you need data on that joint subgroup.
That’s what I’ve been asking for.
There is an even more important point
The Texas example does not establish that British asylum seekers have a low crime rate.
I am not making that claim.
Nor does it prove that US findings mechanically transfer to Britain.
What it establishes is something much narrower and much more important:
You cannot infer the direction of an immigration-status effect merely from the crime rate of the broader foreign-born/foreign-national population.
The Texas data are a concrete counterexample to precisely that inference. (
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7768760/)
So when you say:
“It can have universal logic.”
No.
The empirical literature demonstrates that the relationship between nationality/immigration status and crime is not governed by the universal rule you are proposing.
The subgroup has to be measured.
And this also exposes the asymmetry in your treatment of my US example
When I originally cited the Texas study, you dismissed it because:
“it’s not relative to the UK.”
That’s a reasonable objection if I were using it as direct evidence of the UK asylum-seeker rate.
But I’m not.
I’m using it to test your method of inference.
You are now doing the exact opposite: you are taking the Texas result and trying to use the relationship between foreign-born/legal/undocumented groups as a general logical principle.
You can’t simultaneously say:
“The US isn’t relevant because it’s not Britain”
and then:
“The US demonstrates universal logic which we can apply here.”
Either the US evidence is merely a US empirical finding, in which case it cannot establish a universal rule, or you are accepting that comparative evidence can tell us something about the validity of the statistical reasoning.
You don’t get to switch standards depending on which direction the example points.
In fact, your own Texas inference is backwards
You say:
foreign convictions per capita are lower than US citizen convictions per capita, therefore the same is reflected among illegal immigrants.
But the Texas researchers didn’t reason that way.
They measured undocumented immigrants directly.
And the result happened to be lower.
That distinction matters enormously.
Your inference was not what established their conclusion.
Their subgroup-specific data established their conclusion.
That’s precisely the methodological standard I’ve been asking you to apply to the UK asylum-seeker question.
So let’s apply your rule consistently
If your principle is:
“The parent population’s rate can be applied to the subgroup unless a contrary rate is demonstrated,”
then the rational conclusion when no asylum-seeker-specific UK rate exists is not:
“Therefore asylum seekers have the foreign-national rate.”
It is:
“The asylum-seeker rate is unknown.”
The absence of a subgroup-specific measurement cannot be converted into the parent population’s measurement simply because the latter is available.
Otherwise every subgroup would inherit the population mean until somebody happened to measure it.
That would make subgroup-specific statistics almost meaningless.
And this brings us back to Piddington
I am perfectly happy to distinguish two claims:
Claim 1:
Adding 1,250 predominantly young men to a village can increase the expected number of sexual offences, holding age/sex-specific rates constant.
Yes.
Claim 2:
The 1,250 asylum seekers therefore have a higher propensity to commit rape than an appropriate comparison population.
Not established.
Claim 3:
Therefore the residents’ specific fear that these asylum seekers constitute a heightened sexual threat is empirically validated.
Also not established.
The Texas example doesn’t prove Claim 2 or 3 either.
It simply demonstrates why Claim 2 cannot be deduced from the foreign-national aggregate.
And that’s exactly why I keep asking you for the asylum-seeker-specific rate.
You keep treating that request as though I am demanding perfect information before permitting any rational inference.
I’m not.
I’m asking you to distinguish:
what the evidence directly measures
from
what you infer from it.
You are perfectly entitled to make an inference from incomplete data.
You are not entitled to relabel that inference as a measured statistical fact.
And at this point, that’s really the entire disagreement.
>>2916779>>2916786>the central point I have been making throughout: we do not have the asylum-seeker rape rate.I made this point originally.
It has been in the background of the discussion.
>Everything you are doing after that is an attempt to infer it from other populations.No, it is an inference from correlated populations.
You are not understanding inferred correlations.
>60%+ of male asylum seekers came by boat.In total, 62% of asylum claimants in 2025/6 were male:
<More than three-fifths (62%) of people claiming asylum in the YE March 2026 were adult males.https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2026/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-ukIn total, 42% of asylum claimants are from boats:
<42% (38,980) of asylum seekers arrived on a small boathttps://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2026/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-ukIn total, 72% of boat crossers are male:
<Around 72% of those arriving were adult menhttps://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10590/If we add this up, 60<% of male asylum seekers come from boat crossings. There is no controversy on this.
>the broader premise that the asylum population is essentially synonymous with small-boat arrivals is demonstrably false.But I never stated that premise. You have proven over and over again to lack reading comprehension. And we can look at the governmemt data again on this point: only 39% of asylum claims had legal legitimacy, with the rest being unlawful in some capacity. Illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly male, so it proves the point.
>What is the rate for foreigners? And not: What is the rate for Pakistanis? And not: What is the rate for people arriving by small boat? Those are different populations.But they're not "separate" groups. Read this:
<The top 6 nationalities with the largest number of people claiming asylum (Pakistan, Eritrea, Iran, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Sudan), together represented 46% of claimants in the YE March 2026.https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2026/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-ukSo, the population of (i) foreign, (ii) Pakistani, (iii) illegal asylum seekers is comprehended by this. You are treating the matter nominally, and so literally lack the apperception of reason. You're acting irrational in saying that different groups cannot be correlated or overlap.
>First, you are comparing representation in the conviction population with representation in the general population. That can be suggestive of a disparity, but it is not equivalent to measuring the underlying offending rate.It literally is; you're just denying statistical reality.
That's why you can't provide a counter-example of what would establish a conviction rate.
>So at most this demonstrates that the crude representation of these groups in this criminal-justice dataset differs from their population representation. It does not tell you why.That's why common sense is important. The majority of asylum seekers in YE March 2026 were young Pakistani men, and as we've seen, asylum seekers are more likely to sexually offend by an [n]% rate, given the reasonable controlled populations, than citizens. So, if we are able to infer from given incomplete data, we have a cause. This correlates entirely between arrested ethnicities of foreign nationals (the majority being Pakistani), the influx of illegal asylum seekers (the majority being Pakistani), and the rate of rape convictions (the majority being Pakistani). We have seen that this is not merely due to age and gender, since Bangladeshis are younger and are less offending per capita. So, the only factor which gives an explanation is the factor of foreignness.
>“A foreigner of the same ethnicity as a UK citizen will be more criminal.” That’s the claim you need to demonstrate.Foreigners are more likely to rape than citizens. This is a statistic you have already accepted.
>That is precisely why your proposed inference remains an inference.And all conclusions in this case of incomplete data are inferences. I know you pretend to have no inference, but since I do, I have a greater right to explaining reality.
>"But you haven’t provided a counter-example” is not how the burden of proof works.I already said a long time ago that I cannot "prove" anything, which is why I rely on persuasion by reason. I am not proving anything, but making my inference as intelligible as possible to you. You misunderstand me.
>the absence of a counter-example does not establish your proposition.No, but without an alternative reason, there is a lack of causality. If you disbelieve something, you must on the contrary believe something else, however implicitly. Thus, it is an either/or case that asylum seekers are per capita (i) more, (ii) less, or (iii) identically criminal to the foreign rates in general. But here we must understand something more; knowledge is not belief. This is why I ask for your personal beliefs, yet you decline to do so. It pops out sometimes with contempt you hold against the "hysterical" people of Piddington. As you have been shown to be, you are quite dishonest, so it's expected. If you were rational and honest, you would be forthcoming.
>It demonstrates that crude nationality comparisons can change materially after accounting for age.But this doesn't happen between Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, does it? You are supposing hypotheticals while I am presenting realities. Where is your data?
>The aggregate is mathematically composed of the subgroups, but the subgroup rates are not recoverable merely from the aggregate. You need the subgroup data.Yes and the subgroup of Pakistani foreign nationals has a higher offending rate per capita than others, and is also most represented in illegal asylum seekers. I have given you the data.
>Being a member of a population does not entail having the population’s mean rate.Correct, which is why deviation from the mean would be an anomaly, you would agree?
>“Piddington residents have empirical evidence that these asylum seekers constitute a particular sexual threat.”If 1,250 men entering the area increases rates of sexual assault potentials, then what empirical evidence are you using for that, while dismissing it in the case of 1,250 men who happen to be asylum seekers? You miss the point by treating the general and particular point as separate, when they are connected. You agree that the 1,250 asylum seekers moving in will "obviously" mean an increased potential rate of sexual assault. You agree with the people of Piddington. There is no more debate.
>You have not established the second.Again, let's return to the syllogism:
(i) IF importing 1,250 young men causes risk
(ii) AND 1,250 asylum seekers are young men
(iii) THEN importing 1,250 asylum seekers causes risk
This is the minimal case, which you agree with.
My maximum case is that foreignness is a multiplier on top of the inherent risk. You accept that foreignness is itself a multiplier, but don't accept that asylum seekers can be proven to be represented in predicted trends. So then, will you accept this syllogism, given the evidence?
(i) IF foreign men are more likely to rape than citizens
(ii) AND foreign men are imported into Piddington
(iii) THEN foreign men are more justifiably cautioned of
This seems to be right. Therefore you would agree with the middle case that 1,250 foreign men are per capita more worthy of caution than 1,250 British citizens, no?
>It does not follow that residents should therefore believe: “These men are unusually likely to rape women.”You keep using this term "unusual". That is baggage you have brought to the discussion. You may believe that there is an "hysterical" reaction, but the caution itself is necessarily justified. You agree with Piddington but are nitpicking them.
>If your claim is “the increase is sufficiently large to empirically validate residents’ sexual-threat fears”, then you need to tell me how large it is.I have already said: [n]%
Whether it's 100% or 0.1% it's the same.
>That does not follow.Since you're claiming my arithmetic is incorrect, tell me what percentage of male asylum seekers are from boats. You have 42% boat crossings with 72% males, and 62% male asylum seekers in total. Help me with this.
>If asylum seekers were shown to have a lower sexual-offence conviction rate than citizens, would you accept that as evidence against your claim? If asylum seekers were shown to have the same rate, would you accept that?Of course.
>Therefore the particular asylum seekers being placed at Piddington have a higher rape rate, or that residents’ specific fear of them as a sexual threat has been empirically validated.Right, so let's go over this again:
The general case of young men is validated.
The general case of foreign men is validated.
But not the particular case of asylum seekers.
That's fine, since you accept most of my argument.
>So you’ve already accepted that: the foreign-national aggregate contains heterogeneous subgroups.I began with that.
>foreign convictions per capita are lower than US citizen convictions per capita, therefore the same is reflected among illegal immigrants. But the Texas researchers didn’t reason that way.I wasn't citing the specific study, but look at general data:
<Immigrants in the United States commit crimes at lower rates than the U.S.-born populationhttps://www.migrationpolicy.org/explainer/immigrants-and-crime-united-states<Nearly two centuries of data show that immigrants commit fewer crimes than US-born citizens.https://www.aeaweb.org/research/chart/incarceration-immigrants-us-bornWe see in the US that immigrants in general commit less crime, so undocumented immigrants are expected to commit less crimes in general. It proves my point. In the UK, it's the opposite; foreigners are more likely to rape, so I infer that asylum seekers are more likely to rape. It's not proof, but it is a rational deduction.
>The asylum-seeker rate is unknownBut you still have an educated guess about it, right?
>residents’ specific fear The fear doesn't have to be "specific" to asylum status.
>You are perfectly entitled to make an inference from incomplete data. You are not entitled to relabel that inference as a measured statistical fact.I don't claim to make exact measurements, but only the least acceptable measurements. I don't care about the exact asylum seeker conviction rate, but only an [n]% citation to offer persuasion. I am not a data scientist, just someone with common sense and basic reason.
On the point of faulty arithmetic:
42 + 72 = 114
114/200 = 0.57
So, I was off by some percentage points.
We can say that at least 57% of all asylum seekers are male boat crossers therefore, and if there are 62% male asylum seekers, then only 5% are non-boat crossers. If we then take the inference that male asylum seekers are more likely to sexually assault (by the given cases), then at least 90% of these will be irregular arrivals. So again, I am defending the (i) legal and (ii) naturalised foreigners. As we see, the overwhelming majority of legal asylum seekers by visa (e.g. 39% of total) will be females, then. Has anybody ever held a protest against female asylum seekers? People understand where the real problem is. The government plainly describes irregular arrivals as a type of illegal immigration, so if they're just deported, we would have less problems. Thankfully, Starmer's Labour has already been a most effective anti-illegal immigrant party (increasing asylum claim rejections by over 70%), which is unfortunately unnoticed by many right-wing idiots who play partisan politics. It seems that Burnham is going to lose the plot on the new budget. I don't think Starmer should have ever been deposed; we'll miss him.
>>2917130>>2917110Your latest reply actually makes the disagreement much clearer, because you have now explicitly conceded that your asylum-seeker crime rate is an inference, not a measured statistic.
That’s perfectly legitimate as a starting point. What isn’t legitimate is repeatedly describing that inference as though the premises logically entail it.
They don’t.
There are also two fairly important numerical errors in your latest post before we get to the underlying argument.
- Your 42% + 72% calculation is not how conditional probabilities work
You write:
“42 + 72 = 114
114/200 = 0.57
So, I was off by some percentage points. We can say that at least 57% of all asylum seekers are male boat crossers…”
No.
You cannot add those percentages.
You have:
* 42% of asylum claimants arrived by small boat;
* 72% of small-boat arrivals were adult men;
* 62% of asylum claimants were adult men.
The first two figures imply that approximately:
0.42 × 0.72 = 0.3024
or about 30% of all asylum claimants were adult male small-boat arrivals.
To get the proportion of male asylum claimants who arrived by boat, you then need to divide the male boat arrivals by the total number of male asylum claimants:
P(boat | male asylum claimant)
= P(boat and male | asylum claimant) / P(male | asylum claimant)
Using your figures:
0.42 × 0.72 / 0.62 ≈ 0.488
So your own figures imply roughly 49%, not 57% and certainly not 60%+.
And that’s assuming the percentages refer to perfectly compatible populations and periods.
This is actually a beautiful illustration of the statistical point I’ve been making to you throughout this discussion: P(boat | asylum) is not P(boat | male asylum).
You cannot manipulate marginal percentages into the conditional probability you want.
- Your “39% legally legitimate” claim is simply not what the government statistic says
You write:
“only 39% of asylum claims had legal legitimacy”
But the government data say that 39% of asylum seekers had previously entered the UK on a visa or other leave with relevant documentation. That’s a route-of-entry statistic, not a judgement on whether their asylum claim was “legitimate”. (
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2026/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-uk)
And the government’s separate outcome statistic says the initial grant rate was 39% in the year ending March 2026. (
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2026/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-uk)
Those are completely different concepts:
legal route of entry ≠ lawful asylum claim ≠ successful asylum claim.
You are conflating all three.
The government itself distinguishes people who enter through illegal entry routes from people who previously entered legally and subsequently claim asylum. In the year ending March 2026, 42% arrived by small boat, 11% through other illegal entry routes, 39% after entering on a visa or other leave, and 8% through other routes. (
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2026/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-uk)
So if you want to argue about “illegal immigration”, do so with the actual route-of-entry figures. Don’t turn “entered on a visa” into “legitimate asylum seeker” and “arrived by boat” into “criminal asylum seeker”.
⸻
- Now to the substantive argument: “correlated populations”
You say:
“No, it is an inference from correlated populations.”
Fine.
But correlation does not tell you the direction of the subgroup effect merely because the populations overlap.
Suppose:
* foreign nationals have rate X;
* Pakistani nationals have rate Y;
* asylum seekers have rate Z.
The fact that asylum seekers contain foreign nationals and Pakistanis does not allow you to set Z = X or Z = Y.
You need to know the composition and the conditional rates.
That’s not some esoteric objection.
It is precisely what conditional probability means.
If I know that 4% of a university’s students fail an exam, I cannot infer that 4% of first-year Pakistani male students fail unless I know that the subgroup’s rate is actually represented by the aggregate.
The subgroup is correlated with the aggregate.
It is not identical to the aggregate.
⸻
- Your syllogism isn’t actually a syllogism
You repeatedly describe your argument as syllogistic.
Let’s write it explicitly.
Your foreign-national argument is essentially:
- Foreign nationals have a higher observed conviction representation for some sexual offences.
- Asylum seekers are foreign nationals.
- Therefore asylum seekers have a higher sexual-offence conviction rate.
That conclusion does not follow from those premises.
Why?
Because premise 2 tells us about membership, not about the subgroup’s conditional rate.
The missing premise is:
Asylum seekers have the same or higher sexual-offence rate as foreign nationals generally.
And that is precisely the proposition you are trying to establish.
So your syllogism has smuggled its conclusion into its missing premise.
That isn’t deduction.
It is an inference.
You have now admitted that yourself.
⸻
- “If they differ from the mean, that’s an anomaly” still doesn’t work
You say:
“Correct, which is why deviation from the mean would be an anomaly.”
No.
A subgroup differing from a population mean is not inherently anomalous.
That’s what subgroups are.
Suppose the average age of a population is 40.
A subgroup with a median age of 28 isn’t an “anomaly”.
It is a subgroup with a different distribution.
Likewise, if foreign nationals have an aggregate conviction rate of X, a subgroup can have:
* X;
* less than X;
* more than X.
All three are ordinary possibilities.
You cannot establish which one applies by declaring the others anomalous.
You need a model that generates a prediction before you can assess whether an observation is anomalous relative to it.
And your model currently amounts to:
“I expect asylum seekers to have the foreign-national rate because they are foreigners.”
That’s a prior assumption, not an empirically established expectation.
⸻
- Your Pakistan/Bangladesh argument still doesn’t identify the causal variable
You say:
“We see that this is not merely due to age and gender, since Bangladeshis are younger and are less offending per capita.”
But even if I grant the premise, what follows?
Only that age and sex do not explain the entire difference between those two groups.
It does not follow that the residual difference is therefore “foreignness”.
There are countless other possible variables:
* socioeconomic circumstances;
* family structure;
* deprivation;
* migration route;
* duration of residence;
* selection into migration;
* education;
* employment;
* neighbourhood;
* prior offending;
* reporting;
* policing;
* prosecution;
* differences in the age distribution within your broad median-age figures;
* differences in sex composition;
* and many interactions among these.
You are doing a classic residual fallacy:
“A does not completely explain B, therefore C must explain B.”
No.
You have to test C.
And the Migration Observatory’s current review makes precisely this point: conviction statistics vary by nationality, but people from different backgrounds have different risk factors and migration routes, while the available data do not allow us to isolate immigration status cleanly. (
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-crime-in-the-uk/)
⸻
- And there is an even bigger problem with your Pakistani argument
You say:
“The majority of asylum seekers in YE March 2026 were young Pakistani men.”
That’s not what the government data establish.
Pakistanis are one of the largest asylum-seeking nationalities, but the six largest nationalities together accounted for 46% of claimants. That means the asylum-seeker population is not predominantly Pakistani.
And nationality is not the same thing as ethnicity.
Nor is either one the same thing as immigration status.
A British citizen of Pakistani ethnicity, a Pakistani national with a work visa, a Pakistani asylum claimant, and a Pakistani person who arrived irregularly are four different categories.
You keep moving between these categories as though they were interchangeable.
They aren’t.
⸻
- Your “foreign men are more likely to rape, therefore foreign men should be more cautioned” argument is only as good as its first premise
You propose:
“IF foreign men are more likely to rape than citizens
AND foreign men are imported into Piddington
THEN foreign men are more justifiably cautioned.”
The formal logic is fine if the first premise is established in the relevant population and with the relevant comparison.
But that’s precisely what hasn’t been established.
The evidence we’ve been discussing concerns foreign-national representation in particular criminal-justice datasets.
It does not establish:
P(rape | foreign male) > P(rape | British male)
for an age-matched population in Britain.
And the distinction matters enormously.
The Migration Observatory’s current review says that non-UK citizens made up 13.1% of people receiving cautions or convictions in 2024 and 12.1% of the prison population in June 2025, roughly similar to their estimated share of the adult population; it also says the non-citizen share is lower when age is taken into account because non-citizens are younger. (
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-crime-in-the-uk/)
So I am not accepting your first premise as a general proposition.
I’m saying the evidence is offence-specific, population-specific and affected by demographic composition.
⸻
- And this is where your own US example still matters
You say:
“Immigrants in general commit less crime, so undocumented immigrants are expected to commit less crimes in general. In the UK, it’s the opposite; foreigners are more likely to rape, so I infer that asylum seekers are more likely to rape.”
But you’ve just repeated the exact inferential problem I’ve been explaining.
You are taking:
parent population statistic
and using it to infer:
subgroup statistic.
The Texas study is useful precisely because the researchers did not do that.
They measured immigration status directly.
They could distinguish undocumented immigrants from legal immigrants and native-born citizens and calculate status-specific rates.
The fact that the resulting rates differed is evidence that:
subgroup ≠ parent population.
You can call your inference reasonable.
You cannot call it logically entailed.
And the fact that the US happens to provide an example where the direction is lower rather than higher is not the point.
The point is that you don’t know the direction until you measure the subgroup.
That is precisely why the UK data gap matters.
⸻
- Your “I have greater right to explaining reality because I make an inference” statement reverses the epistemic hierarchy
You say:
“I am making my inference as intelligible as possible… since I do, I have a greater right to explaining reality.”
No.
An inference can be rational without being established.
And a person who says:
“The evidence doesn’t allow us to determine this”
isn’t refusing to reason.
They are distinguishing between:
what is known
and
what is inferred.
That’s the entire point of probabilistic reasoning.
I have no objection to you making an educated guess.
I object to the repeated transition:
educated guess → “deduction” → empirical validation.
Those are three different epistemic statuses.
⸻
- You are also trying to turn my refusal to guess into a political position
You repeatedly ask:
“But you still have an educated guess about it, right?”
Perhaps I could construct one.
But why should I?
If the available data do not establish the asylum-seeker rate, the intellectually honest answer is:
I don’t know the asylum-seeker rate.
That isn’t a “personal belief” that needs replacing with another personal belief.
It’s an acknowledgement of uncertainty.
You seem to think that because the true value must exist — higher, lower, or equal — we must therefore choose one.
That’s false.
There is a difference between:
the parameter has some true value
and:
we know which value it has.
For example, the true number of sexual offences committed by asylum seekers in a particular year is some number.
That doesn’t mean I am obliged to guess the number.
⸻
- Your “either/or” argument confuses ontology with knowledge
You say:
“It is an either/or case that asylum seekers are per capita (i) more, (ii) less, or (iii) identically criminal to the foreign rates in general.”
Yes.
One of those is true.
But that doesn’t tell us which.
There is a fourth category that matters in an empirical argument:
unknown.
“Unknown” doesn’t mean there is no true answer.
It means the evidence presently available to us does not identify the answer.
You are repeatedly eliminating “unknown” because you find it unsatisfying.
But uncertainty isn’t eliminated merely because you dislike it.
⸻
- Your Piddington argument therefore has three different levels, and you keep sliding between them
I think this is the cleanest way to settle the discussion.
Level 1 — demographic composition
Piddington receives 1,250 predominantly young men.
This can increase the expected number of sexual offences, holding relevant age/sex-specific rates constant.
I agree.
Level 2 — immigration/nationality composition
The men are predominantly foreign nationals.
Whether that independently increases the per-capita sexual-offending rate is an empirical question.
You have not established it for this subgroup.
Level 3 — this particular asylum-seeker cohort
These particular 1,250 people are asylum seekers accommodated near Piddington.
Their actual sexual-offending rate is not published.
The ONS has explicitly said that it does not hold the requested information linking crime to immigration status, including asylum-seeker status. The Home Office likewise said in November 2025 that statistics on offences involving asylum seekers were not then published and that its foreign-national-offender data systems were being redesigned. (
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/availabilityofdatalinkingmigrationorasylumstatuswithrecordedcrime)
So your Level 3 conclusion is an extrapolation from Levels 1 and 2.
That’s perfectly legitimate to describe as an inference.
It isn’t legitimate to describe it as a measured fact.
⸻
- And that distinction answers your “what empirical evidence are you using?” question
You ask:
“If 1,250 men entering the area increases rates of sexual assault potentials, then what empirical evidence are you using for that, while dismissing it in the case of 1,250 men who happen to be asylum seekers?”
I’m not dismissing it.
I’m distinguishing two mechanisms.
Mechanism 1:
More young men → more people exposed to a demographic category with a higher baseline offending rate → potentially more expected offences.
That’s a demographic inference.
Mechanism 2:
Asylum seeker → independently higher sexual-offending rate than an appropriate comparison group.
That’s an immigration-status effect.
The first does not establish the second.
And you don’t need the second to make the first argument.
That’s why I’ve repeatedly said that if your claim is simply:
“Putting 1,250 predominantly young men into a village can alter its expected crime profile,”
then yes, I agree.
But if you then say:
“Therefore these asylum seekers are particularly dangerous because they are asylum seekers,”
you have added a new causal claim.
That is the claim requiring evidence.
⸻
>>2917240- “Any increase, however tiny, vindicates me” makes your claim unfalsifiable
You say:
“Whether it’s 100% or 0.1% it’s the same.”
It absolutely isn’t.
A 0.1% increase and a 100% increase have radically different implications for the practical significance of a risk.
More importantly, if any positive increase whatsoever counts as validation, then your claim becomes almost impossible to falsify.
You could never be wrong.
If the effect is large: “I was right.”
If the effect is tiny: “I was right.”
If the effect is zero: presumably you would say the data were inadequate.
If the effect is negative: “anomaly.”
That’s not a testable hypothesis.
And when you are making a claim about whether residents’ concerns are empirically warranted, magnitude is not an irrelevant detail.
It is the substance of the claim.
⸻
- Your eight cases don’t solve this
You continue to appeal to eight convictions.
Fine.
Eight convictions are eight convictions.
But to turn them into a rate you need:
8 / relevant asylum-seeker population at risk
over the appropriate exposure period.
You haven’t supplied that.
And even if you did, you would then need an appropriate comparison group.
And because your conclusion concerns rape, you need rape convictions or, preferably, a consistent offence measure — not a mixture of rape, sexual assault and other sexual offences.
That is why I have objected throughout to treating every sexual-offence statistic as though it were interchangeable with rape.
⸻
- Your argument about “foreignness” also has a major empirical problem
You say:
“the only factor which gives an explanation is foreignness.”
No.
You have not eliminated the alternatives.
And the current UK evidence doesn’t support treating “foreignness” as a universal crime multiplier.
The Migration Observatory’s latest review says non-citizens made up 13.1% of cautions/convictions in 2024 and 12.1% of the prison population in June 2025, approximately similar to their estimated adult-population share. It also notes that non-citizens are underrepresented for violent offences while the picture is more complicated for sexual offences, and that conviction differences vary substantially by nationality and offence type. (
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-crime-in-the-uk/)
So even your broad premise:
“foreigners are generally more criminal”
is too broad.
You have evidence of overrepresentation in some specific datasets/offence categories.
That is not the same proposition.
⸻
- And “foreigners are more likely to rape” is not something I have accepted in the form you keep repeating
I have accepted that some foreign-national groups are overrepresented in particular sexual-offence conviction statistics.
That is not the same as accepting:
“foreigners are more likely to rape.”
Those statements require different denominators and different offence definitions.
The Migration Observatory explicitly warns that most offences do not result in convictions, meaning conviction statistics do not directly give us true offending rates. It also notes that the available data don’t provide immigration status for convicted offenders. (Migration Observatory)
So please stop turning a qualified statement about a particular criminal-justice statistic into an unqualified statement about underlying rape propensity.
⸻
- And this is why the Piddington conclusion still doesn’t follow
Your minimum case is:
young men → increased expected sexual offending.
Agreed.
Your intermediate case is:
foreign young men → greater per-capita sexual-offending risk.
Not established in the form you require.
Your maximum case is:
asylum seekers/small-boat arrivals → particularly elevated rape risk.
Not established.
The fact that the first proposition is true does not make the second and third propositions true.
You keep saying that I “agree with Piddington”.
No.
I agree with a demographic proposition about expected offences.
I do not thereby agree with every conclusion somebody might draw from that proposition.
If someone says:
“Adding 1,250 young men changes the expected crime environment,”
that’s one statement.
If someone says:
“Therefore I should regard those 1,250 people as individually or collectively more likely to rape because they are asylum seekers,”
that’s another.
If someone says:
“Therefore the residents’ specific fears about these people are empirically validated,”
that’s a third.
You’re trying to make those three propositions collapse into one.
They don’t.
⸻
- And finally, the “white saviour/woke” stuff is irrelevant
You can call me woke, sentimental, paternalistic, a white saviour, or whatever else you want.
None of those claims changes the denominator.
None changes the conditional probability.
None changes the fact that:
42% × 72% / 62% ≈ 49%, not 57%.
None changes the fact that 39% entering on visas is not the same thing as 39% of asylum claims being legitimate.
None changes the fact that the UK does not currently publish a reliable asylum-seeker-specific rape conviction rate.
And none changes the fact that “subgroup differs from parent population” is not itself an anomaly.
So I think we can reduce the entire disagreement to this:
I accept that putting 1,250 predominantly young men into Piddington can increase the expected number of sexual offences.
I do not accept that this establishes an independent asylum-seeker or foreign-national multiplier.
You accept that the asylum-seeker-specific rate is unknown, but want to infer it from foreign-national and demographic statistics.
That’s a reasonable inference to investigate.
It is not a measured result, and it isn’t deductively entailed by the premises.
And your latest arithmetic actually provides a neat demonstration of why: you took three marginal percentages, added them together, and obtained a conditional probability that the underlying data do not support.
That’s exactly the statistical error I’ve been pointing out all along.
>>2917247>>2917130>>2917110There’s a useful problem with the way you’re treating the “per capita” argument.
If your claim is that an ethnic group’s representation among sexual/rape convictions, relative to its population share, tells us that members of that group are intrinsically more likely to commit those offences, then we should apply exactly the same method to British ethnic groups rather than stopping at “foreign national”.
The CPS’s 2024/25 rape-flagged data record 30 convictions involving defendants who identified as Indian and 1,346 involving defendants who identified as White British. When those figures are population-adjusted by male population, the reproduced CPS data give roughly 3.2 convictions per 100,000 Indian males versus 6.2 per 100,000 White British males.
So on that particular crude measure, the Indian figure is lower than the White British figure.
That doesn’t prove that Indian men are “less likely to rape”, any more than your foreign-national comparison proves that foreign nationals are “more likely to rape”. The CPS data are rape-flagged cases, use self-declared ethnicity, and contain missing/unknown ethnicity; a conviction recorded in the rape-flagged dataset isn’t necessarily a conviction for rape itself. The appropriate conclusion is therefore narrower: the figures do not support the simple inference that ethnic representation in conviction statistics directly reveals an underlying propensity to commit rape.
And this is precisely why the foreign-national argument doesn’t get you where you want it to go.
“Foreign nationals constitute X% of convictions despite being Y% of the population” is a descriptive disparity. To turn that into “foreign nationals are intrinsically more likely to rape”, you have to account for the composition of the populations being compared — especially age and sex, but potentially also socioeconomic circumstances, geography, migration history, prior offending, offence mix and other factors.
Then you have an additional problem when you move from foreign nationals to asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are only a subset of foreign nationals, and there is no logical rule saying that a subgroup must have the same conviction rate as the wider population from which it is drawn.
You therefore need the actual asylum-seeker numerator and denominator if you want to make an asylum-seeker-specific per-capita claim.
The same principle applies to ethnicity. The fact that one ethnic group is over- or under-represented in a particular conviction dataset doesn’t tell us what causal characteristic produced the difference. Indeed, the very different figures for Indian and Pakistani defendants illustrate why simply moving from one broad population category to another isn’t an adequate causal explanation.
So I don’t have a problem with calculating per-capita rates. I have a problem with treating a crude per-capita disparity as though it were already an explanation of the disparity — and then transferring that conclusion from foreign nationals generally to asylum seekers specifically.
>>2917250>>2917247>>2917240>You cannot add those percentages.You're perfectly correct.
I'm glad you have corrected me on this issue.
>about 30% of all asylum claimants were adult male small-boat arrivals.And if we adjust to 49% of adult male asylum seekers, the numbers rise from 30% to 35% by UK application:
• Male boat crossers/total adult applicants
• (0.72 × 39,000)/80,000 = 0.351 (35%)
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2026/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-ukSo, boat crossers are 49% of adult males and 35% of all adults.
>legal route of entry ≠ lawful asylum claim ≠ successful asylum claimTo me, all illegal routes are unlawful, so are illegitimate.
Our immigration system was designed to persecute unauthorised asylum seekers by cutting off safe and legal routes (the raison d'etre of Brexit was to separate ourselves), so until the disincentives are met by immediate deportation, there is no cure to the problem. This means denying the right of asylum to all illegal immigrants, and no further right of appeal for claims.
>“arrived by boat” into “criminal asylum seeker”But it is a crime. It's unauthorised entry by UK law.
We can read that all declined asylum claims lead to deportation. It's only the pesky and lengthy rights to appeal the claim which creates the terrible backlog:
<Nearly 87,500 appeals to overturn failed asylum applications had been lodged at the end of March 2026 - a 70% year-on-year increase.https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-uks-asylum-backlog/In this article is also a startling graph showing how the appeal is being abused with each subsequent year, with each case being judged on for an average of 67 weeks:
<the average wait time for a case to be decided by a judge is 67 weeks. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/asylum-appeals-target-launched-for-faster-removalsSo, if you have no right of stay, you can still live in the UK for over a year, pending your right of appeal for asylum. Mr. David Lammy in bringing up concerns for backlogs properly saw that overnight courts and a lack of juries are necessary, but the right wing despised him for that.
>does not allow you to set Z = X or Z = Y.But syllogistically, Pakistani nationals are foreigners.
Both Pakistanis and asylum seekers in particular are foreigners in general. In calculating a predictive rate, I thus begin with the aggregate, or universal premise: IF A, then B (e.g. if foreigners in general have a predicted rate of crime, then foreigners in particular have a rate of crime which is general). You appear to be saying that induction is necessary, and I agree but with no inductive method by statistical registry, I see deduction as an end. In case you don't follow; we begin with the accepted premise that (i) if foreign nationals are arrested for the crime of sexual assault at a certain rate, (ii) and since asylum seekers are foreign nationals, (iii) then we expect asylum seekers to be criminal at this particular rate. This is the perfectly sound deductive claim. Notice that this is not demonstrative, but is predictive. I begin with this thus, that at the very least, if asylum seekers follow the trend of foreigners in general, they are, from strict conformity, already overrepresented, and so from pure reason alone, the first premise (e.g. the empirical data) leads to the final premise, justifying concerns. It is in my first posts that I set out this neatly, to which you reply that the first premise does not necessarily follow the first; to which I agree, and thus call this an anomaly. If there is deviation from the mean, then it is a margin within a margin that shifts results. For this, I employ common sense, which establishes gradation of margins; (i) legal, (ii) naturalised, (iii) foreign, (iv) illegal. I say that each follows the next in order of civility, thus inferring the standard deviation from the mean by subgroup (iv); of illegal immigrants. My proposition thus becomes that it is illegal immigrants which deviate from the mean, and so are anomalous. For this, I calculate the estimated fraction of illegal immigrants in the UK, including asylum seekers, which came to 0.3% of foreign nationals, with adjusted figures scaling from 0.4% to 0.1%. Thusly, I presented an average of 40,000 unauthorised asylum seekers per year (trailing from about 2021–2026), and calculated predicted rates of sexual assault. For 2025, I thus presented 8 convictions which show a disparity between expected results (e.g. given from foreigners in general) and applied results of asylum seeker charges. For this, you were unsatisfied, so I asked whether or not I ought to provide more cases per year to establish a minimum discrepancy, but you declined to request this by stating that we cannot know (i) when and (ii) how these convicted asylum seekers entered the country. This then offsets any possible satisfaction of results which are given, since even if I provided 100 cases from 2025, you would infer no certain correlation. Proof of this is in that you yourself don't provide an estimate of expected offences or otherwise, leaving it all in limbo. Nonetheless, don't you see the logical continuity? The apparent shifting of goal posts is not on my part, since I still maintain my original claim; it's on your divulgence of correlation as accidental rather than necessary. You thus pose necessary conditions of sexual assault being age and gender, rather than ethnicity or national status. All disparities are provided from gender and age; swiftly disproven through Bangladeshis being younger than Pakistanis, yet having a lesser conviction rate. This then benefits my argument that the disparity is provided from (i) foreignness and (ii) asylum status, since Pakistanis are the majority ethnicity of asylum seekers in 2025/6. You have grown ambivalent to this premise, stating:
<age and sex do not explain the entire difference between those two groups.But in place of this, you posit any number of causes; yet as we already agreed upon, poverty doesn't cause rape, and as you have implied, culture can play a part, since ideas are relative. I would certainly agree, but "culture" here is a euphemism for foreignness. We have then at least come to the agreement that the disparity between groups for sexual assault is not just due to age and sex. I posted earlier that the government presumes culture as a cause, by distribution of anti-rape leaflets to the illegal asylum seekers. That is at least official opinion. I have an opinion relative to the government. Government implies that asylum seekers are exceptionally prone to rape, since they do not comprehend the very notion of consent; I am not so judgemental - I think rapists know what rape is, but they just don't care about consent.
>I am not accepting your first premise as a general proposition.Okay, so you have reverted, by denying reality.
>distinguishing between: what is known and what is inferred.Yes, and some inferences are better than others.
>why should I [construct an educated guess]?Anon, like me, you're a shitposter on /leftypol/, not an academic. You are extremely opinionated, which is why you post on these obscure forums in the first place. To feign objectivity on this particular issue is dishonest, as I have said. I know you have an educated guess, but are just refusing to share it with me, so you can only lie.
>we must therefore choose one. That’s false.No it isn't. In a choice between 3 options, not choosing one necessarily leads to the other. You have an opinion on what the case is most likely to be, so just say it. Why is having disagreeing opinions so traumatic for you?
>we knowIt's not about knowing, it's about opining, as I repeat.
>That doesn’t mean I am obliged to guess the number.A man without opinions is simply a lesser man. Sorry.
>One of those is true.Okay, so you've contradicted yourself. To disbelieve one is to believe another, as I have explained.
>unknownTo not-know is still to opine.
You pretend that there is no intermediate position.
>This can increase the expected number of sexual offences, holding relevant age/sex-specific rates constant.Can, or will? I believe in causation, personally.
>You have not established it for this subgroup.Yes I have. Foreigners in general are more likely to rape.
>That’s perfectly legitimate to describe as an inference. It isn’t legitimate to describe it as a measured fact.I never claimed it was a "measured fact". I have given different types of complementary evidence for a claim which I originally admitted could not be proven. Intuition also doesn't require proof but still counts as knowledge. The question then is, do I know, but can't prove it? Well, many religious people will claim this of their own faith. I at least have belief, and can offer a minimal case for it.
>More importantly, if any positive increase whatsoever counts as validation, then your claim becomes almost impossible to falsify. You could never be wrong.Well, it depends on the proposition.
I said that Piddington is rightfully concerned, since the increase of asylum seekers into the area will increase the likelihood of sexual assault. This I added is given by empirical data. You agree to the first term already, but by comparative demographic compositions in age and gender. This I say is the minimal claim. You add extra baggage of "hysteria" and "unusual" numbers. I never proposed original numbers, but only justified a feeling of danger. You want the debate to be more than it is. I say that Piddington is rightfully cautious - and you agree.
>If the effect is zero: presumably you would say the data were inadequate. If the effect is negative: “anomaly.” That’s not a testable hypothesis.I already said that I would be obliged to agree to any and all data offered to me. You yourself have thankfully corrected me many times in my own idiocy. Do not pretend that I have acted dishonestly in this discussion.
>magnitude is not an irrelevant detail.According to you, but not according to the minimum case.
>You haven’t supplied that.I'm asking you to provide reasonable estimates for me.
Give me the needed samples to work with.
>treating every sexual-offence statistic as though it were interchangeable with rape.They are closely correlated.
>the current UK evidence doesn’t support treating “foreignness” as a universal crime multiplier.Foreignness is synonymous with male youth, as you have repeated, so it is an indictator, by connection.
>“foreigners are generally more criminal” is too broad.Piddington isn't worried about shoplifting, but rape.
>And “foreigners are more likely to rape” is not something I have accepted in the form you keep repeatingAs I say, you have sadly reverted.
>You keep saying that I “agree with Piddington”. No.But you do, for the minimum case.
You agree that this is 'more' dangerous for them than not, don't you?
>I accept that putting 1,250 predominantly young men into Piddington can increase the expected number of sexual offences.Can increase - more than not - correct?
Putting them there automatically increases it, correct?
>then we should apply exactly the same method to British ethnic groups rather than stopping at “foreign national”.Of course.
>So on that particular crude measure, the Indian figure is lower than the White British figure. That doesn’t prove that Indian men are “less likely to rape”, any more than your foreign-national comparison proves that foreign nationals are “more likely to rape”.Why not embrace the correlation? I can easily accept that White British people are more likely to rape than Indians. It's not a problem to me. But we are always returning to the fact that we have incomplete data, so we are just going around in circles. I am glad to end this extremely time-consuming saga in some parting words.
>>2917545I think your latest reply actually makes the central problem with your argument clearer, because you have now explicitly described your conclusion as a prediction based on an assumed conformity between asylum seekers and foreign nationals generally. That is an inference you are entitled to make. What you cannot do is turn that inference into an established statistical result simply by calling it deduction.
First, on the arithmetic: your revised calculation is fine, subject to the periods and populations matching. The Home Office says that in the year ending March 2026, 38,980 asylum seekers arrived by small boat, 62% of claimants were adult men, and 57,643 of the 93,525 claimants were adult men. So roughly 72% of the small-boat group being male would imply about 28,000 male small-boat arrivals, which is around 35% of all adult claimants and around 49% of adult male claimants. (
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2026/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-uk)
But that correction does not establish anything about sexual offending. It establishes the demographic composition of the asylum population.
You are repeatedly moving between these two propositions:
- Adding roughly 28,000 predominantly young men to a population can increase the expected number of sexual offences, holding age/sex-specific offending rates constant.
- Those men have a higher individual rate of sexual offending because they are foreign, irregular migrants or asylum seekers.
I accept the first proposition in the ordinary statistical sense. I do not accept that it establishes the second.
If you put 1,000 additional young men into an area and assume they have the same age/sex-specific offending rates as the existing population, the expected number of offences will increase. That is simply arithmetic. But it tells us nothing about whether those 1,000 men have a higher, equal or lower rate than comparable men already living there. That is exactly the distinction you keep removing.
Your “deduction” isn’t actually the deduction you say it is
Your argument is effectively:
* Foreign nationals have observed conviction rate X.
* Asylum seekers are foreign nationals.
* Therefore asylum seekers should be assigned rate X.
But that second step does not produce the third step.
The valid statement is:
If asylum seekers have the same relevant conviction rate as foreign nationals generally, then their expected conviction rate would be X.
I agree completely.
But that is a conditional proposition. You have supplied the antecedent as an assumption, not demonstrated it empirically.
And the fact that asylum seekers are a subset of foreign nationals does not make the subgroup rate equal to the parent-group rate. If 10% of a population has a particular characteristic, a subgroup can have a rate of 5%, 10%, 20%, or anything else consistent with the data. The subgroup relationship alone tells us nothing about which it is.
This is not a disagreement about whether induction is philosophically necessary. It is simply the definition of a conditional statistical claim.
Your own language gives the game away when you say:
“if asylum seekers follow the trend of foreigners in general”
Exactly. If.
That is the missing premise.
You then call deviation from that assumed rate an “anomaly”. But that is circular. You first assume the asylum-seeker rate should equal the foreign-national rate, and then define any departure from that assumption as anomalous. You haven’t independently demonstrated that equality is the expected value.
“Common sense” does not supply a statistical model
Your proposed hierarchy — legal, naturalised, foreign, illegal — is not a statistical distribution. You have not shown that criminal propensity monotonically increases along that sequence.
“Common sense” cannot tell us that:
British citizen < naturalised citizen < foreign national < irregular migrant
is the correct ordering for sexual offending.
Indeed, the available evidence does not give us such a universal ordering. The Migration Observatory’s current review specifically notes that conviction rates vary by nationality and that there are multiple possible explanations, including socioeconomic deprivation, education, childhood experiences and social networks. Crucially, it says there is no published data identifying the immigration status of convicted offenders, such as whether someone was an asylum seeker, refugee, family migrant, work migrant or international student. (
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-crime-in-the-uk/)
That is almost exactly the data gap we have been discussing.
So you cannot use the foreign-national conviction rate as though it were secretly an asylum-status rate.
Your Pakistan argument is factually wrong
You also keep saying that Pakistanis constitute the majority ethnicity/nationality of asylum seekers.
They don’t.
In the year ending March 2026, the six largest asylum nationalities — Pakistan, Eritrea, Iran, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Sudan — together accounted for 46% of claimants. Pakistan was the largest individual nationality, but it was nowhere near a majority. The Home Office also notes that the majority of Pakistani and Bangladeshi asylum claimants had previously entered the UK with a visa or other leave, whereas Eritrean, Iranian and Sudanese claimants predominantly arrived through illegal entry routes such as small boats. (
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2026/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-uk)
So your chain:
Pakistanis are the majority → Pakistanis are disproportionately represented → therefore most asylum seekers have that characteristic
doesn’t work. Pakistanis were the largest single nationality, not a majority, and the asylum population is heterogeneous.
And that heterogeneity matters because you are trying to infer a rate for asylum status from statistics about nationality.
Bangladesh vs Pakistan doesn’t do what you think it does
Your Bangladesh/Pakistan comparison establishes, at most, that two populations can have different observed conviction representations despite differences in their demographic composition.
Fine.
But that does not isolate “foreignness”.
Suppose age and sex explain 50% of an observed difference. The remaining 50% isn’t automatically “foreignness”. It is simply unexplained variance until you identify the remaining variables.
You keep presenting the alternatives as:
age/sex, or foreignness.
But there is no reason those have to be the only possibilities.
Nationality groups can differ in:
* socioeconomic circumstances;
* age distribution beyond the median;
* sex distribution;
* geographical concentration;
* length of residence;
* migration route;
* education;
* employment;
* family structure;
* prior offending;
* social networks;
* reporting and policing patterns;
* and other characteristics.
The Migration Observatory specifically warns that the available conviction statistics cannot establish the underlying offending rates and that differences between nationalities can arise from differences in socioeconomic deprivation, education, childhood experiences and social networks, among other factors. (
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-crime-in-the-uk/)
You don’t get to eliminate all of those variables merely by saying “poverty doesn’t cause rape”. Nobody claimed that poverty is a sufficient explanation for rape. Confounding does not require a variable to be a sufficient cause of the outcome.
Your “culture” argument is also a non sequitur
You say the government’s distribution of consent material to asylum seekers proves the government considers asylum seekers unusually prone to rape.
It doesn’t.
A government giving a particular population information about British sexual law could reflect prevention policy, uncertainty about cultural differences, a precautionary approach, or a variety of other considerations. It does not establish the proposition:
asylum seekers have a higher rape rate because they do not understand consent.
You have supplied your own interpretation of the government’s motivation and then used that interpretation as evidence for the proposition it supposedly proves.
That’s circular too.
And there is an important difference between saying:
some cultural norms may affect attitudes towards sex and consent
and saying:
therefore asylum status is a statistical multiplier for rape.
The first is a potentially testable sociological hypothesis. The second requires data.
Irregular entry and asylum are not synonymous
I also think you are making an important legal category error.
Yes, UK law contains offences relating to knowingly entering the UK without the required leave. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 amended the law to create such offences. (
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/36/pdfs/ukpga_20220036_en.pdf)
But “entered unlawfully” and “is a criminal asylum seeker” are not interchangeable propositions.
The UK asylum system explicitly contemplates protection claims from people who entered or are present unlawfully. The Refugee Convention also contains protections concerning penalties for refugees who entered irregularly in specified circumstances, which UK law gives effect to through section 31 and the 2022 Act. (
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/36/notes/division/7/index.htm)
More importantly for our statistical argument, immigration offending and sexual offending are different variables.
Even if every single small-boat arrival had committed an immigration offence, that would tell us nothing about the rate at which that population commits rape.
You cannot use:
immigration offence
as a proxy for:
sexual propensity.
That is the same category error we have been arguing about from the beginning.
Your appeal argument doesn’t establish anything about rape either
There really is an asylum appeal backlog. The Migration Observatory puts the First-tier Tribunal asylum appeals backlog at about 87,450 applications in the first quarter of 2026. (
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/5charts_v9_f4_update.html)
But that tells us nothing about sexual offending.
An asylum seeker having an unresolved immigration appeal means that their immigration status is unresolved. It doesn’t mean that they are committing offences during that period, and it certainly doesn’t tell us their sexual-offence rate.
You are repeatedly adding propositions about immigration administration to a statistical argument about sexual offending and treating the accumulation of propositions as though it were cumulative evidence for the final proposition.
It isn’t.
The eight convictions don’t establish what you want them to establish
This is another place where the distinction between numerator and denominator matters.
If you have eight convictions, you have a numerator.
To calculate a conviction rate you need an appropriate denominator.
But you also need to know what population those eight people actually belong to for the purpose of the exposure period. If some entered years earlier, some entered recently, some may have been asylum seekers only temporarily, and the conviction dates don’t correspond neatly to the asylum-claim dates, then dividing eight by an annual flow of asylum applications is not a valid incidence calculation.
The Migration Observatory explicitly notes that nationality-based conviction statistics don’t show how long people have lived in the UK before conviction and, in some cases, don’t even establish that the person was resident in the UK when arrested. It also says there is no published data on convicted offenders’ immigration status. (
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-crime-in-the-uk/)
So even if you gave me 100 cases rather than eight, I would still ask what population and exposure period those 100 cases belong to.
That isn’t moving the goalposts. That is what a denominator is for.
>>2917808And no, I haven’t contradicted myself by saying “unknown”
You keep making the same philosophical error here.
You say:
“One of those is true.”
Yes.
There is a true underlying rate.
But from:
one of X, Y or Z is true
it does not follow that:
I know which one is true.
“Unknown” is not a fourth value of the underlying parameter. It is a statement about the state of our knowledge.
If I tell you that a coin has landed either heads or tails, you don’t get to conclude that I therefore know whether it is heads or tails.
Similarly:
* asylum seekers could have a higher sexual-offence rate;
* they could have the same rate;
* they could have a lower rate.
The data currently available to us do not establish which.
That is epistemic uncertainty, not an opinion disguised as neutrality.
Your “any increase is enough” position makes the claim unfalsifiable
This is probably the biggest substantive concession you have made.
You now say that your claim is merely:
putting more predominantly young men into Piddington increases the expected number of sexual offences.
Fine. I have already agreed with that conditional demographic proposition.
But notice what happened.
You began with a claim about whether the residents of Piddington were justified in fearing a particular population as a sexual threat.
You have now retreated to the much weaker proposition that adding a large number of predominantly young men changes the expected number of offences.
Those aren’t the same claim.
If your proposition is merely:
more people, including more young men, means more expected offences,
then yes, that follows under standard assumptions.
But if your proposition is:
these asylum seekers create a specifically elevated sexual risk because they are asylum seekers/foreign/irregular,
then you need evidence about their rate relative to an appropriate comparator.
You can’t have it both ways by switching between those two propositions whenever one becomes difficult to defend.
The “any positive effect validates me” problem remains
You say that you would accept any empirical result.
Good. Then specify what result would actually change your conclusion.
Suppose an appropriate longitudinal study found:
* asylum seekers: 0.8 sexual-offence convictions per 1,000 person-years;
* comparable British-born men of the same age: 1.0;
* comparable foreign-born non-asylum men: 0.9.
Would that change your conclusion?
If your answer is “yes”, then your proposition is testable.
But if your answer is that Piddington is still justified in its specific fear because any demographic increase means some additional expected offences, then the proposition cannot distinguish between:
a tiny increase in expected offences
and
a large increase in individual risk.
Those are radically different empirical claims.
I am not saying magnitude is philosophically interesting but practically irrelevant. Magnitude is precisely what determines whether an observed difference constitutes a meaningful change in risk.
The Indian/White British comparison illustrates the problem
You say you are happy to accept that White British people might have a higher rate than Indians on the crude measure I cited.
Good. Then you’ve actually conceded the methodological point.
The CPS data are explicitly described as rape-flagged prosecutions and convictions broken down by defendants’ self-declared ethnicity. (
https://www.cps.gov.uk/foi/2025/number-individuals-prosecuted-and-convicted-rape-offences-england-wales-2024-2025-broken)
If you are willing to accept the crude correlation in one direction when it produces a result you find surprising, then you should also accept the methodological rule that the correlation itself does not tell us why the difference exists.
That is all I am claiming.
I am not saying:
“Indians are really less likely to rape.”
I am saying:
“This dataset gives a particular observed conviction rate, and that rate cannot by itself tell us the causal mechanism.”
Exactly the same rule has to apply to foreign nationals.
Finally, the thing I have actually been saying throughout this discussion
I think we can now reduce the disagreement to three propositions.
A. Demographic effect:
Adding a large number of predominantly young men can increase the expected number of sexual offences, all else equal.
B. Foreign-national effect:
Some UK datasets show differences in conviction representation between foreign nationals and British nationals, but those data do not establish a universal independent “foreignness multiplier”. The Migration Observatory specifically notes the limitations of these data and the absence of published immigration-status information. (
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-crime-in-the-uk/)
C. Asylum-status effect:
We do not currently have the necessary UK data to establish that asylum seekers have a particular per-capita sexual-offence rate, still less that the Piddington population has a higher rate because of asylum status.
You agree with A.
You want to infer B and then transfer it to C.
My objection is simply that A does not entail B, and B does not entail C.
That is not “denying reality”. It is keeping three different statistical propositions separate.
And I don’t need to manufacture an educated guess about C to make that point. If the relevant parameter is currently unknown, saying “I don’t know” is not intellectual cowardice and it is not secretly believing one of the alternatives. It is the correct description of the evidence.
You can certainly say:
“My hypothesis is that asylum seekers have a higher sexual-offence rate, because I think the foreign-national evidence, demographic composition and migration route make that the most plausible explanation.”
That’s a perfectly intelligible hypothesis.
But that is different from saying:
“The evidence establishes that asylum seekers have that higher rate.”
It doesn’t.
And that distinction is the entire argument.
>>2917809I won’t concede your “foreigners in general are more likely to rape” racist formulation, because the current evidence base does not support treating that as a universal, measured individual-level rate. The Migration Observatory’s August 2026 review explicitly says actual offending rates by group are unknown and that there is no published immigration-status breakdown for convicted offenders:
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-crime-in-the-uk/Hence why I mentioned the Texas study. It provides a useful reference precisely because, unlike the UK data you’re relying on, the Texas dataset actually distinguishes native-born citizens, legal immigrants and undocumented immigrants. The researchers therefore measured the subgroup you’re trying to reason about rather than assuming that its rate must conform to the aggregate foreign-born rate.
That directly undermines the inference you’re making here: being a member of a broader category does not tell us the rate of a particular subgroup within it. You still need subgroup-specific data to establish the subgroup’s rate.
You’ve largely refused to engage with that distinction and instead returned to the assumption that asylum seekers should be expected to conform to the foreign-national rate. But that’s exactly the assumption under dispute.
Also, your 35% calculation is not the problem. My previous correction should be left standing: your arithmetic is now approximately right if the numerator and denominator are treated as compatible. The mistake is what you try to infer from that demographic composition afterward. The Home Office itself reports 42% arriving by small boat and 62% adult male, while separately warning that demographic profiles vary by nationality and route:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2026/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-ukAnd your statement that Pakistanis are the majority of asylum seekers is simply false: Pakistan was the largest single nationality, but the top six nationalities together were only 46%:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2026/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-uk >>2917808>>2917809>>2917811>racist formulationAfter all this is an ad hominem which reveals the raison d'etre of your absurd defence. Instead of wasting all this time, you should have just began with this thought-terminating cliché. I am a "racist"; that is your one and only verdict. I thought you were more clever than this, but apparently not. This is where you begin and end; I am a "racist". What a waste of words.
>>2917985Aww butturt about being called out are we?
>>2917985>thought-terminating clichéAs if “rape” and “sexual assault” in victim-centric British society aren’t thought-terminating cliches in and of themselves. Like c’mon, Starmer’s cabinet passed the 2023 Online Safety Act and wanted to ban VPNs under the pretence of wanting to “safeguard” kiddies away from “child rape” and “child sexual assault” first and foremost, because it’s well-known that you can justify a surveillance state if it’s the context of preventing le raep.
And that’s why I’m pushing back: Because as much as British liberals want to pretend that their country is enlightened, thing is that the UK is still stuck in the same mentality that led to the Satanic and “child ritual abuse” moral panics, made worse by the anti-immigration brainrot which seems to have gotten into you.
Most anti-racists here aren’t even pro-open borders anyway making your strawman disingenuous. They’re instead, by and large, opposed to the reactionaries led by thugs such as Danny Tommo and Tommy 10 names and supported by the Tories explicitly and implicitly by the current Labour government. Y’know why? The British left has been housebroken by feminist dogma, central to which is an entire ideology built around the notion that rape is this spectacular event that even a police state isn’t enough to prevent it.
>>2917985Instead of whining about being called mean names, why don’t you address your opponent’s claims.
Unique IPs: 211