Migrant Rapists urged to be kind!
The David Vance BriefingRead More
There are moments when the State accidentally exposes its complete and total failure. Did you see that the Government has published a nine-page booklet telling asylum seekers not to rape children and not to cut girls’ genitals? Yes, really.
This is the Home Office reaching out to so-called “asylum seekers” and requesting that they refrain from the urge to rape our women and girls and stop the barbarism of female genital mutilation. In doing this, it is surely a tacit admission that some migrants are indulging in precisely those behaviours! You only have to read the news to see reports of horrific attacks. In some cases, men are also now being targeted.
“An Eritrean man who raped a pensioner outside a church can be pictured for the first time today.
“Bruke Desalagne, 33, dragged the victim off a bench before taking him behind a hoarding at St John’s Church in Harrow, north-west London, and raping him on a grass verge.”
The guidance notes, with studied bureaucratic understatement, that “laws and customs here may be different from your home country.”
No sh*t, Sherlock! Yes, it’s called civilisation, and we are very good at it.
Of course, many of these migrants come from war-ravaged Islamic countries characterised by barbarism and a complete contempt for women and girls. FGM is widely practised in a number of countries from which migrants come, and there is an obvious concern about the practice continuing within diaspora communities.
The posters and booklet are very precise.
“Sex with someone under the age of 16 is a serious crime in the UK. There are no exceptions… Even if they say yes, it is still illegal.”
FGM and forced marriage are defined as crimes. Domestic abuse, controlling behaviour and non-consensual photography are also called out.
The booklet threatens that “breaking these rules can cost you your accommodation, your support, and your asylum claim.” But all the evidence seems to point in the opposite direction. Our courts and human-rights lawyers work very hard to ensure that the overwhelming majority remain in this country regardless of the crime. Few, if any, appear to be going anywhere.
Reform leader Nigel Farage asked the most obvious question: why is public money being spent explaining these basics to people we have chosen to admit? If you have to explain it to them, then they shouldn’t be here!
Conservative Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp was blunt: instead of trying to retrain large numbers of mainly young male arrivals in elementary standards of behaviour towards women and girls, the Government should deport the lot.
Over on X, people put it a bit more bluntly still — anyone who needs a poster telling him not to have sex with children does not belong here. Their very presence poses a potential threat and, indirectly, the Home Office appears to acknowledge the risk.
Bad as the Home Office is, it didn’t actually invent these problems. There is plenty of documented evidence that foreign nationals are disproportionately represented in some categories of sexual offending, although the precise figures and categories matter. FGM also continues within some diaspora communities despite being unlawful. I remember writing about it more than a decade ago; it was a particular concern in certain parts of London, as I recall.
The truth of the matter is that these posters and this booklet look like a damage-limitation exercise produced by the Government. They aren’t blind to the rapes and assaults being carried out. However, they are concerned that it’s bad PR for them.
If we had an asylum system that worked, we would of course prioritise people who can live by the rules of the society that shelters them. Instead, we have a process that generates the need for official leaflets explaining that girls under 16 cannot consent and that slashing their genitals is illegal. That isn’t compassion, it is negligence dressed up as humanitarianism.
These “Educational leaflets” are a very poor substitute for effective border control and for the consistent, swift enforcement of the criminal law against those who ignore the rules once inside.
The UK has zero obligation to admit vast numbers of people who treat our laws as optional. Publishing these rules is an admission of utter failure. It raises serious questions about the claim that diversity is invariably a strength when profound differences in attitudes towards women, children and the law are involved.
These posters alone will do nothing to keep us safe. What will protect the public is effective border control, rigorous enforcement of the law and the removal of foreign nationals who have no legal right to remain or who are lawfully subject to deportation.
Mass Deportation alone can save us.
STOP!
Please take a moment to support my work
I publish regular political analysis, overlooked history, and original commentary that you won’t find in the mainstream media.
Free subscribers receive every article I publish.
Paid subscribers receive everything above, plus The Saturday Briefing — my exclusive weekly analysis launching this September. Each edition will pull together the week’s most important political developments, highlight stories the mainstream media has ignored, and explain what they really mean.
If you value independent journalism and want to help support my work, I’d be delighted to have you on board.
That sentence should not exist in a serious country. Yet here we are. The Home Office has produced official materials explaining that the age of consent is 16, that sex without clear consent is rape, that female genital mutilation is a serious crime, that women do not require a man’s permission to work or travel, and that whistling at strangers in the street is unacceptable. The guidance is aimed squarely at people who have arrived claiming asylum. It notes, with bureaucratic understatement, that “laws and customs here may be different from your home country.”
This is not education. It is an admission of failure.
The posters and booklet are precise. “Sex with someone under the age of 16 is a serious crime in the UK. There are no exceptions… Even if they say yes, it is still illegal.” FGM and forced marriage are listed as crimes. Domestic abuse, controlling behaviour, and non-consensual photography are spelled out. Breaking these rules can cost you your accommodation, your support, and your asylum claim. The state is telling a specific group of newcomers the absolute minimum required to function in a civilised society—and warning them of the consequences if they refuse.
Public reaction was instantaneous and largely disgusted. The materials spread rapidly on X. Nigel Farage asked the obvious question: why is public money being spent explaining these basics to people we have chosen to admit? Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp cut through the polite language: instead of trying to retrain large numbers of mainly young male arrivals in elementary standards of behaviour toward women and girls, the government should deport them. Many ordinary observers put it more bluntly still—anyone who needs a poster telling him not to have sex with children does not belong here.
The Home Office did not invent these problems. Crime data, local safeguarding reports, and repeated scandals have shown for years that a disproportionate share of certain sexual offences involves foreign nationals, including those in the asylum system. FGM continues in diaspora communities. Attitudes toward consent and women’s autonomy in many of the countries supplying high volumes of claimants remain starkly different from those that developed in Britain over centuries. The posters are not a proactive civic education programme. They are a damage-limitation exercise produced because the risks are already visible.
Defenders will claim this is merely pragmatic: everyone is subject to the same laws, and clear information prevents misunderstanding. That argument collapses under its own weight. The state does not produce equivalent materials for tourists, students, or work-visa holders from high-trust societies. It produces them for asylum seekers because officials know a significant proportion of this cohort arrives without the baseline norms that make liberal democracy possible. High-trust societies rest on shared assumptions about the inviolability of children, the meaning of consent, and the equal standing of women. Import large numbers of people who do not share those assumptions and the trust erodes. Posters do not restore it.
The deeper failure is one of selection. A functioning asylum system would prioritise people who can live by the rules of the society that shelters them. Instead we have a process that generates the need for official leaflets explaining that girls under 16 cannot consent and that cutting their genitals is illegal. That is not compassion. It is negligence dressed up as humanitarianism. Education leaflets are a poor substitute for border control and for the consistent, swift enforcement of the criminal law against those who ignore the rules once inside.
Britain is not required to import people who treat its foundational norms as optional. Publishing the rules is the bare minimum. The real task is ensuring that those who cannot or will not abide by them are removed. The posters are not a solution. They are evidence that the current approach has already failed.
