Child refugees -majority to be males aged 17???

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Yes. It logs claims of multiple rapes as a series of individual rape reports - unlike other states. That obviously is not comparing like with like when it comes to statistics of reported rape.

Yes. Because multiple rapes are ... multiple rapes.

Are you suggesting that a woman who has been raped 3, 4, or 5 times has only been raped once?

Timberrrrrrrr

Mary63 wrote: »

I didn't work with them I am glad to say, it was a young relative who did.If you were surrounded in college by Irish speakers you had the choice to find someone you could communicate with.You also choose to travel and again if someone you met on your travels could communicate with you in your language most people have enough civility to make the effort.
You have no choice in a workplace except to ask management on your behalf to request that the colleagues converse in a common language,you are obviously a very rude self centred person so you don't get how a sensitive working person would find this working environment intolerable so no point in debating this any further with you.
I wish you had as much consideration for Irish people as you have for immigrants.

The muslim women do breed non stop, what is the issue with that, we breed just as every other animal species does.The German and the italian native population and the French too have stopped breeding in sufficient numbers, this is a huge problem in France now as the Muslims are now twenty per cent of the population.If this keeps up and we continue to allow uncontrolled immigration white europeans are going to become a minority in Europe and with that goes our way of life and in comes the muslim way of life, thats not a very comforting thought.

If your "relative" was working in a large company then surely (as you state) she could have found someone to converse with in English, If on the other hand she was the only Irish person there and the majority of people were Polish then surely they were speaking in the most common language in the company.

alastair

AnGaelach wrote: »

I've already cleared this matter for you,

I was clear already, cheers.

AnGaelach wrote: »

I've given you a direct quote from the legislation you are referencing. It refers to the right to travel to States when coming directly from your homeland,

No it doesn't.

AnGaelach wrote: »

it does NOT grant you total immunity from immigration law.

Of course not - it simply enforces no penalties for those entering irregularly for the purpose of seeking asylum.

AnGaelach wrote: »

And we're not talking about that, are we? We're not saying whether they have a right to transit a country or not. We are discussing whether they are (as you posit) protected to illegally occupy an area - which they are not.

We are? Not until now, we haven't.

AnGaelach wrote: »

You can obfuscate as much as you wish, but until you quote a piece of legislation proving your claim, I will continue to call you out on your lie.

You are being deliberately deceptive. The law is not on your side in this argument, no matter how much you say "lalala" and keep your fingers in your ears.

I'd rather direct you to the law of the land, which supports what I've tried to explain to you.

4. The expression “coming directly” in Article 31(1), covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection, safety and security could not be assured. It is understood that this term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short period of time without having applied for, or received, asylum there. No strict time limit can be applied to the concept “coming directly” and each case must be judged on its merits.

http://www.refworld.org/docid/3c2b3f844.html

What should prosecutors consider?
• This provision is intended to exclude only those who had been recognised as refugees in other countries or who have been granted some other form of protection. Prosecutors should have regard here to the judgment in R v Asfaw [2008] UKHL 31 in which the majority of the court indicated that 'coming directly' should be interpreted in such a way that the provision is given a liberal interpretation so that a person may travel through several countries whilst they are still in flight until they eventually apply for asylum.
• It is not important if the person came via a country or the number of countries the person has transited through. What is important is whether the person was able to obtain protection from persecution in the country in question. This includes those who are transiting through the UK to reach another country in which they intend to claim asylum.
• No strict time limit for the passage through or the stop in another country can be applied to the concept of “coming directly” and each case must be judged on its own merits. The defence also applies to transit cases, where refugees are committing the offences to leave the UK – see Adimi and R v Asfaw [2008] UK HL 31.

http://www.crownoffice.gov.uk/images/Documents/Prosecution_Policy_Guidance/Guidelines_and_Policy/COPFS%20Refugees%20Policy.pdf

Now how do you imagine all those successful asylum seekers who transited third states before making their application managed, if, as you suggest, they were not entitled to seek asylum? It's quite the riddle, isn't it?

AnGaelach

alastair wrote: »

No it doesn't.

I'm not going to reply to the rest of your post, because you are either stupid or a being deliberately deceptive. I've already quoted the legislation you sourced and highlighted it for you.

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

You've provided no evidence to support your claims, you've merely said "nuh uh" and peddle a lie again and again.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Well, from your own link, yes. They're imagining it.

Of course. They went from being welcoming to feeling unsafe because... they're imagining it?

Nothing to do with mass sexual assault, people being murdered by a piece of filth - (who, incidentally, entered Europe by pretending to be a minor), nothing to do with assaults of minors in swimming pools.

Nope. They're all just imagining it - because Alastair provided a link to a rape apologists wet dream, and had the singularly poor taste to try to defend that link, not one, but twice.

You do realise that makes you lose all credibility?

alastair

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm not going to reply to the rest of your post, because you are either stupid or a being deliberately deceptive. I've already quoted the legislation you sourced and highlighted it for you.



You've provided no evidence to support your claims, you've merely said "nuh uh" and peddle a lie again and again.

I've provided ample evidence. Whether you choose to ignore it, is entirely up to you. It's worth pointing out that while you were emboldening text, you failed to notice it didn't actually correspond with your claim. Strange that.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course. They went from being welcoming to feeling unsafe because... they're imagining it?

Nothing to do with mass sexual assault, people being murdered by a piece of filth - (who, incidentally, entered Europe by pretending to be a minor), nothing to do with assaults of minors in swimming pools.

Nope. They're all just imagining it - because Alastair provided a link to a rape apologists wet dream, and had the singularly poor taste to try to defend that link, not one, but twice.

You do realise that makes you lose all credibility?

I'd try a little test of comprehension, if I were you. Did you actually read the article you linked to? I'm guessing not.

jmayo

I just find it very sad, also infuriating, when people are now going to the level of downplaying rape and sexual assaults to help their argument.
Yes Sweden may count rapes differently but it sill sits way out there and we do know sexual assaults have increased.
Hell we know sexual assaults have increased both in number and sheer depravity in any country we have had arrivals of a certain belief system and from certain very backward areas of the world.

Yes we always had rape, hell we had institutionalised rape in this state and others, but FFS does that make it ok to now to go backwards and introduce a new strand of rapists.

How anyone can say it is a good idea to let in hordes of young males without absolutely no idea of their backgrounds, bar the fact they predominantly come from some very non secular discriminatory countries and they have been brought up in probably the most discriminatory misogynistic belief system on the planet, is lunacy and downright dangerous.

I am sick to the back teeth of continuously regurgitating lists of murderers, would be murderers, rapists, paedophiles that should not have ended up in Europe but for the lunacy.
And that list is growing day by day.
Of course you wont find the information on RTE, BBC, Irish Times, Independent or the Guardian.
How many people complained post property bubble that the media were property pimps that led them astray, yet when the media is highlighted now for even more serious omissions and untruths the messengers are slaughtered.

How many dead bodies, how many rape victims, how many traumatised children will it take before these people say no more and figure out there is more than just their feelings of superiority to consider here.

alastair

jmayo wrote: »

I just find it very sad, also infuriating, when people are now going to the level of downplaying rape and sexual assaults to help their argument.
Yes Sweden may count rapes differently but it sill sits way out there and we do know sexual assaults have increased.

Nope. We know the reporting of sexual assaults have increased - as they have here, and elsewhere.

jmayo

alastair wrote: »

Nope. We know the reporting of sexual assaults have increased - as they have here, and elsewhere.

Funny how you mention reporting.
Would you consider that before or after the police have ignored them, refused to acknowledge them and then downplayed them ?

alastair

jmayo wrote: »

How many dead bodies, how many rape victims, how many traumatised children will it take before these people say no more and figure out there is more than just their feelings of superiority to consider here.

"Think of the children!"?

That's the mantra in a thread venting spleen over the provision of sanctuary for 20 minors?

Hmm.

Mary63

It isn't twenty minors, thats only the first tranche, we have to take at least two hundred.

alastair

Mary63 wrote: »

It isn't twenty minors, thats only the first tranche, we have to take at least two hundred.

Two hundred minors then. All the better. Looks an awful like thinking of the children.

Mary63

They are also going to be attending secondary school if they are claiming to be seventeen, I can't see the townspeople of whoever they end pup being happy about this if the only schools available are mixed.

You could have adult males of up to thirty years of age sitting in class alongside sixteen year old girls.

This is not going to end well.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. Because multiple rapes are ... multiple rapes.

Are you suggesting that a woman who has been raped 3, 4, or 5 times has only been raped once?

That's how it would be recorded in most states.

enricoh

I see over in Sweden it's working out great for the locals. A young local lad of 15 was raped by 5 afghani 'minors'.
The local agency confirmed that the perpetrator was lying about being 17 and was older. The judge rejected this and took the rapists word that he was 17 n so tried as a child ! Jesus wept!
3 of middle eastern appearance even posted a live video on Facebook them raping a young one !
Maybe the swedish locals should try venting a bit of spleen eh Alistair

alastair

enricoh wrote: »

I see over in Sweden it's working out great for the locals. A young local lad of 15 was raped by 5 afghani 'minors'.
The local agency confirmed that the perpetrator was lying about being 17 and was older. The judge rejected this and took the rapists word that he was 17 n so tried as a child ! Jesus wept!
3 of middle eastern appearance even posted a live video on Facebook them raping a young one !
Maybe the swedish locals should try venting a bit of spleen eh Alistair

You do get that those are different people, yes? Where does this bizarre need to ascribe ill intent to people completely uninvolved with other's crimes start and finish with you? You realise that there are Irish people committing all sorts of crimes and it doesn't imply anything with regard to other Irish people? Same story with these 20 lads.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

I'd try a little test of comprehension, if I were you. Did you actually read the article you linked to? I'm guessing not.

alastair wrote: »

That's how it would be recorded in most states.

I read it. I even posted relevant - very disturbing - issues, which the rape apologist "authors" chose to discount as rape, choosing instead to suggest that surveys were a more reliable measure for rape crimes.

We all know how reliable surveys proved in recent elections, do we not?

Meanwhile, you choose to ignore facts, ignore whatever you feel may make your posts even more appalling than they already are - and defend the fact that multiple rapes = more than one rape, by posting vile, disgusting,tripe about that's how it would be recorded in most states. Care to prove that, by the way?

Would you also care to answer these questions:

Do you consider "forced vaginal fisting" to be rape?

Do you consider sexual intercourse when the victim is incapacitated to be rape?

Do you consider sexual intercourse with someone who is mentally incapacitated to be rape?

Do you consider it acceptable that half of German women feel unsafe?

enricoh

alastair wrote: »

You do get that those are different people, yes? Where does this bizarre need to ascribe ill intent to people completely uninvolved with other's crimes start and finish with you? You realise that there are Irish people committing all sorts of crimes and it doesn't imply anything with regard to other Irish people? Same story with these 20 lads.

Yeah, the problem is that its beginning to turn into the theme story of migrants in germany ,sweden etc
Yeah, I'm sure we'll get a better crowd in than Sweden did. We're getting this lot from the lawless jungle in Calais. I'm equally sure none of them were causing roadblocks, threatening truckers and damaging the truckers property on a nightly basis. If they say they weren't at it its good enough for me!

AnGaelach

alastair wrote: »

You do get that those are different people, yes? Where does this bizarre need to ascribe ill intent to people completely uninvolved with other's crimes start and finish with you? You realise that there are Irish people committing all sorts of crimes and it doesn't imply anything with regard to other Irish people? Same story with these 20 lads.

Yeah, because the Irish totally weren't infinitely more likely to carry out an IRA bombing than a Pole or German :rolleyes:

There's a reason we judge people by the groups, and it's not because of racism. :rolleyes:

Galwayguy35

These guys must be thanking their lucky stars, no need to jump on the back of a truck when you have a gullible leftie like Katherine Zappone to let them in here and spend 275 k on each of them.

Are any of them even Syrian?

What backround checks have been don eand have they all got passports?

I'd like to know these things.

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

These guys must be thanking their lucky stars, no need to jump on the back of a truck when you have a gullible leftie like Katherine Zappone to let them in here and spend 275 k on each of them.

Are any of them even Syrian?

What backround checks have been don eand have they all got passports?

I'd like to know these things.

Wouldn't we all.
But we're just the mugs that provide the taxes that pay for it! Apart from that, we're apparently meant to accept them on blind faith....

Galwayguy35

Deleted User wrote: »

Wouldn't we all.
But we're just the mugs that provide the taxes that pay for it! Apart from that, we're apparently meant to accept them on blind faith....

Seems to be the case all right, and there's no fear they will be sent to the posh areas Zappone and Fitzgerald live in.

alastair

enricoh wrote: »

Yeah, the problem is that its beginning to turn into the theme story of migrants in germany ,sweden etc
Yeah, I'm sure we'll get a better crowd in than Sweden did. We're getting this lot from the lawless jungle in Calais. I'm equally sure none of them were causing roadblocks, threatening truckers and damaging the truckers property on a nightly basis. If they say they weren't at it its good enough for me!

You reckon these 20 lads will be busying themselves out trying to hop on trucks when they get here? The 'theme story' for the vast majority of migrants in Europe is one of law abiding participation in society btw - but don't let that get in the way of a good old scaremonger.

alastair

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yeah, because the Irish totally weren't infinitely more likely to carry out an IRA bombing than a Pole or German :rolleyes:

There's a reason we judge people by the groups, and it's not because of racism. :rolleyes:

Just to be clear - you were in the habit of presupposing that Irish people were likely IRA bombers? And you are now happy to equate the actions of five Afghan refugees in Sweden with 20 unknown Syrians in France, simply on the basis of, presumably what?; their possible religion, their age, their general foreigness? What a nonsense.

The rationale for your 'judgement' is nothing more than your bias, nothing to do with the actual group in question.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Just to be clear - you were in the habit of presupposing that Irish people were likely IRA bombers? And you are now happy to equate the actions of five Afghan refugees in Sweden with 20 unknown Syrians in France, simply on the basis of, presumably what?; their possible religion, their age, their general foreigness? What a nonsense.

The rationale for your 'judgement' is nothing more than your bias, nothing to do with the actual group in question.

They're all Syrian? Link, please?

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

They're all Syrian? Link, please?

Given that the minors haven't been selected yet, that's rather tricky to provide, wouldn't you say? Still, at least they're not those bomb-crazy Irish lads, eh?

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Given that the minors haven't been selected yet, that's rather tricky to provide, wouldn't you say? Still, at least they're not those bomb-crazy Irish lads, eh?

I'd say it's currently impossible to provide, so, why would you state that it was the case that the 20 lads from Calais are Syrian?

AnGaelach

alastair wrote: »

Just to be clear - you were in the habit of presupposing that Irish people were likely IRA bombers?

I'm presupposing that the Irish are infinitely more likely to be IRA members than people of other nationalities. Because they are and were.

Judging groups by what they're proportionately more likely to do/be is how you formulate policy. If we went your route, we'd never get anything done because it might be rude and doesn't take into account the 1 in 1000 exceptions.

jmayo

alastair wrote: »

"Think of the children!"?

That's the mantra in a thread venting spleen over the provision of sanctuary for 20 minors?

Hmm.

Ehh I don't consider a 16/17 year old a child.
And maybe that is why you yourself are using the term "minor".

At that age according to the Education (Welfare) Act of 2000 one can legally leave school.
The legal age of sexual consent in Ireland is 17, it can be much lower in other European countries which means the 16 year olds can legally also have sex.
Although going on track record displayed elsewhere some of these migrants don't worry too much about consent.

And I especially don't consider most migrants who claim to be 16/17 to be children or minors to use your own terminology.

Maybe the reason for me reaching that conclusion is the fact that a lot of those claiming to be 16/17 have been found by state agencies in other states to frauds and over 18.

BTW can I ask if you would be happy having some of these poor minors sitting in a classroom with your daughter, sister, neice ?

Mary63

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/bogus-marriages-in-republic-linked-to-asylum-claims-1.2949938

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/how-irish-sham-marriage-scam-was-dismantled-1.2949970

More evidence that the Garai and other agencies are not watching who is coming into this country and what they are up to when they get here.

It would make you despair.

rgossip30

Mary63 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/bogus-marriages-in-republic-linked-to-asylum-claims-1.2949938

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/how-irish-sham-marriage-scam-was-dismantled-1.2949970

More evidence that the Garai and other agencies are not watching who is coming into this country and what they are up to when they get here.

It would make you despair.

This has gone on years , No Cert of Freedom to Marry, say you are not married before and no Divorce Cert .In the past 2 years this was reformed Certs are now required and an Apostle Cert .Those married should have to present themselves to GNIB and prove they are still married . Asylum seekers should not be allowed to marry and only those who have a visa to enter Ireland .The Gardai know of 1000 scam marriages but will they deport them ?
Surprised the Pro Immigration Times is reporting this .

alastair

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm presupposing that the Irish are infinitely more likely to be IRA members than people of other nationalities. Because they are and were.

Judging groups by what they're proportionately more likely to do/be is how you formulate policy. If we went your route, we'd never get anything done because it might be rude and doesn't take into account the 1 in 1000 exceptions.

Ridiculous nonsense tbh. The problem is your personal bias, not any evidenced likelihood towards Irish bombers or refugee rapists.

alastair

jmayo wrote: »

Ehh I don't consider a 16/17 year old a child.
And maybe that is why you yourself are using the term "minor".

Minors are children. It really doesn't matter to me, or to the law, what you feel about it.

And no, I've no difficulty in migrant unaccompanied minors sharing a classroom with any Irish kids. That'd be your hang-up.

Mr.Micro

Mary63 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/bogus-marriages-in-republic-linked-to-asylum-claims-1.2949938

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/how-irish-sham-marriage-scam-was-dismantled-1.2949970

More evidence that the Garai and other agencies are not watching who is coming into this country and what they are up to when they get here.

It would make you despair.

The Gardai have bigger concerns, like their pay etc. Day to day stuff like keeping up to date with crime and all the modern scams, that's for someone else. Look at the scam at Dublin Airport.... Nobody noticed. We are stuck in the last century, sleepy little Ireland.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Minors are children. It really doesn't matter to me, or to the law, what you feel about it.

And no, I've no difficulty in migrant unaccompanied minors sharing a classroom with any Irish kids. That'd be your hang-up.

Speaking of the law, in this case, Swedish law, you haven't replied to this post:

Deleted User wrote: »

I read it. I even posted relevant - very disturbing - issues, which the rape apologist "authors" chose to discount as rape, choosing instead to suggest that surveys were a more reliable measure for rape crimes.

We all know how reliable surveys proved in recent elections, do we not?

Meanwhile, you choose to ignore facts, ignore whatever you feel may make your posts even more appalling than they already are - and defend the fact that multiple rapes = more than one rape, by posting vile, disgusting,tripe about that's how it would be recorded in most states. Care to prove that, by the way?

Would you also care to answer these questions:

Do you consider "forced vaginal fisting" to be rape?

Do you consider sexual intercourse when the victim is incapacitated to be rape?

Do you consider sexual intercourse with someone who is mentally incapacitated to be rape?

Do you consider it acceptable that half of German women feel unsafe?

Any response?

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Speaking of the law, in this case, Swedish law, you haven't replied to this post:



Any response?

Yeah - save your red herring posts for some dupe. I'm not interested.

Mary63

Mary63 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/bogus-marriages-in-republic-linked-to-asylum-claims-1.2949938

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/how-irish-sham-marriage-scam-was-dismantled-1.2949970

More evidence that the Garai and other agencies are not watching who is coming into this country and what they are up to when they get here.

It would make you despair.

The whole scam came out when Gardai set up a unit to investigate these marriages.
It also states that numbers of sham marriages have fallen over the last 18months because Of The Garda unit
So completely the opposite of what you said.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Yeah - save your red herring posts for some dupe. I'm not interested.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not some dupe, either.

You sought to justify a reprehensible piece of rape apology, (badly)dressed up as a pseudo-intellectual study.

Accordingly, you shouldn't be surprised if you are:

A: Called out on it, and

B: People seek to clarify your beliefs.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Unfortunately for you, I'm not some dupe, either.

You sought to justify a reprehensible piece of rape apology, (badly)dressed up as a pseudo-intellectual study.

Accordingly, you shouldn't be surprised if you are:

A: Called out on it, and

B: People seek to clarify your beliefs.

Once again - no interest in your red herrings. Try another buyer.

kupus

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/748938/child-refugees-gain-entry-uk-home-office-over-18-gain-entry-uk-migrants-calais-jungle

In my experience when a number is toted out like that. Its just the tip of the iceberg.
465 lied about their age.
multiply that by a lot more I think.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Once again - no interest in your red herrings. Try another buyer.

I'll take that to mean that you can't back up your allegation that "many" states wouldn't regard the issues I raised as rape.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll take that to mean that you can't back up your allegation that "many" states wouldn't regard the issues I raised as rape.

Heh. Feel free to add projection to your red herrings. I made no such allegation. That's a product of your vivid imagination.

Still no interest in that guff.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Heh. Feel free to add projection to your red herrings. I made no such allegation. That's a product of your vivid imagination.

Still no interest in that guff.

So provide the link that proves your assertion that "many" states wouldn't regard eg. Sexual intercourse with someone who is mentally incapacitated, incapacitated, or endures "forced vaginal fisting" - as rape.

In other words, prove your assertion.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

So provide the link that proves your assertion that "many" states wouldn't regard eg. Sexual intercourse with someone who is mentally incapacitated, incapacitated, or endures "forced vaginal fisting" - as rape.

In other words, prove your assertion.

One more time for luck:

Feel free to add projection to your red herrings. I made no such allegation. That's a product of your vivid imagination.

Still no interest in that guff.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

One more time for luck:

Feel free to add projection to your red herrings. I made no such allegation. That's a product of your vivid imagination.

Still no interest in that guff.

You posted this, in an attempt to prove that Sweden defined rape differently to other states, in an attempt to downplay Sweden's rape statistics.

alastair wrote: »

Once again - apples and oranges. Sweden classifies and logs instances of reported rapes in a completely different fashion to other states. One Irish report could equate to dozens of Swedish ones.

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2015/12/12/how-anti-immigration-activists-misuse-rape-statistics/

I then extracted the areas the link suggested that Sweden considered differently.

I note you didn't attempt to defend that site's suggestion that surveys were more reliable than police reports.

Your response was:

alastair wrote: »

Yes. It logs claims of multiple rapes as a series of individual rape reports - unlike other states. That obviously is not comparing like with like when it comes to statistics of reported rape.

On being asked if you were suggesting that multiple rapes should be classified as one rape, you replied:

alastair wrote: »

Yes. It logs claims of multiple rapes as a series of individual rape reports - unlike other states. That obviously is not comparing like with like when it comes to statistics of reported
rape.

So, prove your allegation, instead of posting blustering nonsense.

Hexen

Deleted User wrote: »

[...]Are you honestly suggesting that surveys are more reliable than police reports? [...]

That's widely accepted in the field. For cross-national comparison to have legitimacy it has to be done on the basis of victim crime surveys. This is due to vast differences between jurisdictions in how crimes are defined or recorded, in policing, in how statistics are compiled, in cultural attitudes to specific crimes, likelihood of reporting, etc.

See here and here.

I assume we're talking about Sweden. It's always Sweden isn't it?

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

You posted this, in an attempt to prove that Sweden defined rape differently to other states, in an attempt to downplay Sweden's rape statistics.



I then extracted the areas the link suggested that Sweden considered differently.

I note you didn't attempt to defend that site's suggestion that surveys were more reliable than police reports.

Your response was:



On being asked if you were suggesting that multiple rapes should be classified as one rape, you replied:



So, prove your allegation, instead of posting blustering nonsense.

You get that those bolded points have nothing to do with your previous posts?

I've already provided links to support the fact that Sweden logs instances of rape differently to other states.

Brian?

Mary63 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/bogus-marriages-in-republic-linked-to-asylum-claims-1.2949938

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/how-irish-sham-marriage-scam-was-dismantled-1.2949970

More evidence that the Garai and other agencies are not watching who is coming into this country and what they are up to when they get here.

It would make you despair.

So the Gardai arresting people for a sham marriage scam is proof that they aren't watching? Surely it's proof of the exact opposite?

alastair

Brian? wrote: »

So the Gardai arresting people for a sham marriage scam is proof that they aren't watching? Surely it's proof of the exact opposite?

Why let facts get in the way of a good diatribe.