Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
I don't get stuff like this. Normal people wouldn't grope a random woman on the street, and those who would wouldn't be stopped by some friggin bracelet. Either take meaningful action or no action at all.

I was surprised in college at how many men I met who didn't have "common sense", and thought groping was a normal, valid way to interact with women. For example, one of my roommates kept asking me for dating advice, and his questions painted a picture of a man who does not realize women have their own thoughts and desires--it was creepy as hell. Later on, many of my coworkers had similar outlooks. I suspect that you are part of a local culture that is fairly progressive, a culture that might be over represented on the Internet and in the media. There are a lot of people out there who have different community standards of "normal", and the bracelet campaign might actually reach someone who belongs to one of those communities. It's a conversation starter, not a cure.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Tank_Dweller wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

There's still over 13,000 respondents. With a properly randomised sample that's more than enough to be representative of the (adult) population. Yes, you're missing young children and the elderly over 79 years of age, but it's not like scientific surveys ever query the entire population of a country.

Dude you are telling me to dismiss the actual official figures of people convicted of rape and reported sex crimes in favour of your "Official Survey" which is missing so much Data for reasons I have explained. If you can't get your head around why the Official figures are more valid than an optional survey for 16-79 year olds then honestly you should not be here stating "facts" because respectfully you do not know what you are talking about.

Respectfully, NO U.

13,000 respondents with a 63% response rate is well over the levels needed in order to generalize to the rest of the population. Further, I'm not telling you to ignore the reported rapes, I'm telling you that they don't mean what you think they do. The two are not in opposition.

Let's try this from the start, because I'm not sure if I follow anymore: What are the issues with the survey, and why are they a problem?

owww. Ok sorry I have had a long day and this just seems beyond obvious to me.

Ok here is an example before an election we can get an idea of the support for a specific candidate and we can estimate the said candidates possibility for election but what we can not do is rely on those figures with 100% certainty and after the election has been won you can not say the results of the election do not matter because the survey said the other guy or gal was going to win. I hope you can see the parallels in your reasoning, the results are in and you are trying to bypass them with a survey that isn't even inclusive of all age groups or people in general for that matter as it is just a survey.

I hope that makes sense to you?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
You know what would also be an interesting number to dig up and look for correlations? The number of people who earn a living from studying sex crimes, caring for sex crime victims, making sex rime awareness wristbands or otherwise have a vested interest in convincing us there is a sex crime epidemic.

There is no Big Sex Crime. People who study it or treat survivors are often paid by the state or universities and wouldn't be given bigger paychecks if the state decided to do more about sexual assault. There would just be more people providing these services and/or they would be funded to handle a larger amount of patients. They wouldn't get richer. This is on the same level as suggesting that scientists who study global warming are somehow suspect because they have to apply for funding in order to do so.

Tank_Dweller wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Tank_Dweller wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

There's still over 13,000 respondents. With a properly randomised sample that's more than enough to be representative of the (adult) population. Yes, you're missing young children and the elderly over 79 years of age, but it's not like scientific surveys ever query the entire population of a country.

Dude you are telling me to dismiss the actual official figures of people convicted of rape and reported sex crimes in favour of your "Official Survey" which is missing so much Data for reasons I have explained. If you can't get your head around why the Official figures are more valid than an optional survey for 16-79 year olds then honestly you should not be here stating "facts" because respectfully you do not know what you are talking about.

Respectfully, NO U.

13,000 respondents with a 63% response rate is well over the levels needed in order to generalize to the rest of the population. Further, I'm not telling you to ignore the reported rapes, I'm telling you that they don't mean what you think they do. The two are not in opposition.

Let's try this from the start, because I'm not sure if I follow anymore: What are the issues with the survey, and why are they a problem?

owww. Ok sorry I have had a long day and this just seems beyond obvious to me.

Ok here is an example before an election we can get an idea of the support for a specific candidate and we can estimate the said candidates possibility for election but what we can not do is rely on those figures with 100% certainty and after the election has been won you can not say the results of the election do not matter because the survey said the other guy or gal was going to win. I hope you can see the parallels in your reasoning, the results are in and you are trying to bypass them with a survey that isn't even inclusive of all age groups or people in general for that matter as it is just a survey.

I hope that makes sense to you?

I see where you're coming from, but you're assuming that the reported number of rapes and the actual number of rapes are the same, when rape and sexual assaults are notoriously underreported crimes. The victimization survey would seem to contest this. Further, the survey has taken into account that it's not running across all age groups (see page 17). Considering the survey's been run consecutively for a number of years, if there were a massive spike in actual rapes (as opposed to nominal increases) there should be some sort of indication of this in the survey; 15-79 covers the vast majority of the population, after all.

Sorry if I've been a bit harsh, my point of view is as obvious to me as I assume yours is to you, after all.

 Daemonhammer wrote:
This whole thing is really confusing, on one side you have people who try to blame most of the problems that exist on refugees and migrants while on the other side you have people who refuse to admit there is anything wrong with the behaviours of these refugees and migrants.

I am more inclined to think that the Muslim immigrants are to blame for atleast some (or even a lot) of whats going on, considering how they treat women back in their own countries but I could be wrong, Its hard to get a good feeling about whats going on as everyone is pushing some political agenda.

If you read up on the issues you will find that it's a bit of both.

Was there rape before immigrants arrived in Sweden? Of course. It happens everywhere.

Is there more rape now, and does it match the rise in immigration? Yes, though only to the extent that adding 1% to the population might be expected to add 1% to rape. In other words, immigrants don't statistically rape more people than native Swedish people, as far as we can tell.

Do immigrants come from different cultures with different attitudes to women? Yes.

Do immigrants try to fit into the Swedish culture? Yes, because they know without that their chance of getting a girl friend is massively reduced. They do this partly by attending "Swedish culture" classes.

This pattern of blaming foreigners and immigrants for crime is common to many cultures. It is seen in Japan, South Korea, the USA, Sweden and the UK, for instance.

It is always associated with racist groups, and makes use of a different incoming group to blame for crimes against the purity of our women and thereby consolidate nationalist and racial group identity. For example in South Korea white US English teachers are a major concern.

It diffuses to the general population by disinformation, in other words lies that are accepted by people who don't check the facts.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Tank_Dweller wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Tank_Dweller wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

There's still over 13,000 respondents. With a properly randomised sample that's more than enough to be representative of the (adult) population. Yes, you're missing young children and the elderly over 79 years of age, but it's not like scientific surveys ever query the entire population of a country.

Dude you are telling me to dismiss the actual official figures of people convicted of rape and reported sex crimes in favour of your "Official Survey" which is missing so much Data for reasons I have explained. If you can't get your head around why the Official figures are more valid than an optional survey for 16-79 year olds then honestly you should not be here stating "facts" because respectfully you do not know what you are talking about.

Respectfully, NO U.

13,000 respondents with a 63% response rate is well over the levels needed in order to generalize to the rest of the population. Further, I'm not telling you to ignore the reported rapes, I'm telling you that they don't mean what you think they do. The two are not in opposition.

Let's try this from the start, because I'm not sure if I follow anymore: What are the issues with the survey, and why are they a problem?

owww. Ok sorry I have had a long day and this just seems beyond obvious to me.

Ok here is an example before an election we can get an idea of the support for a specific candidate and we can estimate the said candidates possibility for election but what we can not do is rely on those figures with 100% certainty and after the election has been won you can not say the results of the election do not matter because the survey said the other guy or gal was going to win. I hope you can see the parallels in your reasoning, the results are in and you are trying to bypass them with a survey that isn't even inclusive of all age groups or people in general for that matter as it is just a survey.

I hope that makes sense to you?

I see where you're coming from, but you're assuming that the reported number of rapes and the actual number of rapes are the same, when rape and sexual assaults are notoriously underreported crimes. The victimization survey would seem to contest this. Further, the survey has taken into account that it's not running across all age groups (see page 17). Considering the survey's been run consecutively for a number of years, if there were a massive spike in actual rapes (as opposed to nominal increases) there should be some sort of indication of this in the survey; 15-79 covers the vast majority of the population, after all.

Sorry if I've been a bit harsh, my point of view is as obvious to me as I assume yours is to you, after all.

Of course rapes slip through the gap and some people are wrongly accused but at least those are the numbers that have been collated and vetted through the legal system. Rapists have not been let off the hook to conform with your survey results at least I would hope not lol.... this whole concept is crazy to me but you are free to believe what you want.

Tank_Dweller wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Tank_Dweller wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Tank_Dweller wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

There's still over 13,000 respondents. With a properly randomised sample that's more than enough to be representative of the (adult) population. Yes, you're missing young children and the elderly over 79 years of age, but it's not like scientific surveys ever query the entire population of a country.

Dude you are telling me to dismiss the actual official figures of people convicted of rape and reported sex crimes in favour of your "Official Survey" which is missing so much Data for reasons I have explained. If you can't get your head around why the Official figures are more valid than an optional survey for 16-79 year olds then honestly you should not be here stating "facts" because respectfully you do not know what you are talking about.

Respectfully, NO U.

13,000 respondents with a 63% response rate is well over the levels needed in order to generalize to the rest of the population. Further, I'm not telling you to ignore the reported rapes, I'm telling you that they don't mean what you think they do. The two are not in opposition.

Let's try this from the start, because I'm not sure if I follow anymore: What are the issues with the survey, and why are they a problem?

owww. Ok sorry I have had a long day and this just seems beyond obvious to me.

Ok here is an example before an election we can get an idea of the support for a specific candidate and we can estimate the said candidates possibility for election but what we can not do is rely on those figures with 100% certainty and after the election has been won you can not say the results of the election do not matter because the survey said the other guy or gal was going to win. I hope you can see the parallels in your reasoning, the results are in and you are trying to bypass them with a survey that isn't even inclusive of all age groups or people in general for that matter as it is just a survey.

I hope that makes sense to you?

I see where you're coming from, but you're assuming that the reported number of rapes and the actual number of rapes are the same, when rape and sexual assaults are notoriously underreported crimes. The victimization survey would seem to contest this. Further, the survey has taken into account that it's not running across all age groups (see page 17). Considering the survey's been run consecutively for a number of years, if there were a massive spike in actual rapes (as opposed to nominal increases) there should be some sort of indication of this in the survey; 15-79 covers the vast majority of the population, after all.

Sorry if I've been a bit harsh, my point of view is as obvious to me as I assume yours is to you, after all.

Of course rapes slip through the gap and some people are wrongly accused but at least those are the numbers that have been collated and vetted through the legal system. Rapists have not been let off the hook to conform with your survey results at least I would hope not lol.... this whole concept is crazy to me but you are free to believe what you want.

No, my point is that these rapes have always existed. In essence, our "true" rape statistic has always been higher than the one being reported, and through changing the definition of what constitutes rape we have been given a clearer picture of the number of rapes that take place every year. Thus, the people who anonymously respond to the victimization survey remain fairly static, while the people reporting rapes have increased due to awareness campaigns and stricter laws against rape. Hence why I don't believe the two charts are at odds with eachother; the "reported rape" chart is simply settling in to a picture that is more true to real life than before.

Tank_Dweller wrote:
You are suggesting that all the offenders have been allowed to continue on a yearly basis after they have been reported. This is not how it works as criminals are taken out of circulation. So the somewhat consistent figures with a consistent rate of immigration makes sense. Do you simply dismiss the spike in sex crimes reported from 2007 -2008 and if so why?

This argument only works if you assume that all (or at least almost all) of the "extra" rapists in each year's immigrants are convicted and put into prison within a year of arriving. Given that rape is often under-reported and often fails to end in a criminal conviction I do not think that this is a plausible argument. And I am especially skeptical of the claim given how the anti-immigrant side tries to present Sweden as some kind of borderline anarchy with gangs of immigrants going around raping whoever they want, not a civilized country where rape is consistently and harshly punished with all rapist immigrants being neatly convicted and put into prison as soon as they commit a crime.

As for the spike, no, I don't dismiss it, I just believe the explanation that people who actually live in Sweden have told you over and over again. The rules for what defines "rape" changed just before 2007-2008 to include more acts, an immediately after that change there was a steady increase in reported rapes as you would expect from people getting used to the new law and realizing "I can report this now!". Given the problems I've mentioned with your "the immigrants did it" theory this is a much more convincing explanation of a one-time increase in reported rapes.

Either way, it does seem like a pretty big issue for Sweden at the moment, i wonder how they are going to deal with it.

 Daemonhammer wrote:
Either way, it does seem like a pretty big issue for Sweden at the moment, i wonder how they are going to deal with it.

Probably the same way that every other country deals with it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Daemonhammer wrote:
Either way, it does seem like a pretty big issue for Sweden at the moment, i wonder how they are going to deal with it.

Probably the same way that every other country deals with it.

So argue a lot and then do something that wont fix the problem at all?

 Daemonhammer wrote:
Either way, it does seem like a pretty big issue for Sweden at the moment, i wonder how they are going to deal with it.

With bracelets.


They are quite the conversation starter.

 CptJake wrote:

 Daemonhammer wrote:
Either way, it does seem like a pretty big issue for Sweden at the moment, i wonder how they are going to deal with it.

With bracelets.


They are quite the conversation starter.

Winner!

 Daemonhammer wrote:
Either way, it does seem like a pretty big issue for Sweden at the moment

No it's not. People who are not Sweden are trying to make it one because it suits their agenda but that does not mean it has anything to do with reality, kind of like how I do not say 'you should vote Trump because otherwise robot hitler will take all your children'.

If I see that insanely stupid 'sweden yes' meme one more time...

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Daemonhammer wrote:
This whole thing is really confusing, on one side you have people who try to blame most of the problems that exist on refugees and migrants while on the other side you have people who refuse to admit there is anything wrong with the behaviours of these refugees and migrants.

I am more inclined to think that the Muslim immigrants are to blame for atleast some (or even a lot) of whats going on, considering how they treat women back in their own countries but I could be wrong, Its hard to get a good feeling about whats going on as everyone is pushing some political agenda.

... ...

This pattern of blaming foreigners and immigrants for crime is common to many cultures. It is seen in Japan, South Korea, the USA, Sweden and the UK, for instance.

It is always associated with racist groups, and makes use of a different incoming group to blame for crimes against the purity of our women and thereby consolidate nationalist and racial group identity. For example in South Korea white US English teachers are a major concern.

It diffuses to the general population by disinformation, in other words lies that are accepted by people who don't check the facts.

Here is an example from the UK. It is not sex related but it shows the same pattern of propaganda.

Sherwood Forest is where the semi-legendary Robin Hood lived in the 13th century. It is a relatively wild area of forest.

Britain First, a far-right group, found a treehouse that had been built by teenagers in 2010. They took a picture of this and wrote up a story that gangs of armed and dangerous illegal immigrants had set up camps in Sherwood Forest. These prompted 700 complaints from local people.

The story is a lie. There are no camps. But a lot of people believed it anyway.

BBC report.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36693136

Local newspaper report.
http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/investigation-are-people-really-living-in-sherwood-forest-1-7958444

It is the constant repetition of these kind of false "facts" that helps to grow fear, resentment and unfair discrimination.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Britain First, a far-right group, found a treehouse that had been built by teenagers in 2010. They took a picture of this and wrote up a story that gangs of armed and dangerous illegal immigrants had set up camps in Sherwood Forest. These prompted 700 complaints from local people.

It is the constant repetition of these kind of false "facts" that helps to grow fear, resentment and unfair discrimination.

Something people might also not know is that a lot of these groups communicate with each other and exchange these "facts" as the truth the evil guv'ment is suppressing. Our neonazis are tightly connected with the Swedish and select members make trips to see how things are done abroad, in places like the UK, USA and Russia to mention a few.

To be fair though as much as I hate the "Britain first" and other cancers similar to them, the left wing media is just as bad with the way they present the news.

There is a lot of examples of this, in general though while the right wing people will blame most of their problems on immigrants, the left outright refuses to criticise or even mention the word "Muslim" when a Muslim does anything wrong.

This is a bit off topic but the reactions to the Orlando shooting are a good example to how biased people and the media are, the right wing people suddenly become the protectors of gay people from the terrorist menace while the left went straight to blaming guns.

I have trust issues because of stuff like this

What left-wing media? IDK about Sweden but there's a lot more right-wing media in the UK than left-wing.

Right Wing: The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Times, The Daily Telegraph,

Left Wing: The Guardian, Daily Mirror.

This is going full circle.

Do you believe that Muslims commit more rapes in Sweden than white Swedish men?

I refer you to the previous four pages of thread, which show that they don't. So why should the media say they do?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Daemonhammer wrote:
This whole thing is really confusing, on one side you have people who try to blame most of the problems that exist on refugees and migrants while on the other side you have people who refuse to admit there is anything wrong with the behaviours of these refugees and migrants.

I am more inclined to think that the Muslim immigrants are to blame for atleast some (or even a lot) of whats going on, considering how they treat women back in their own countries but I could be wrong, Its hard to get a good feeling about whats going on as everyone is pushing some political agenda.

... ...

This pattern of blaming foreigners and immigrants for crime is common to many cultures. It is seen in Japan, South Korea, the USA, Sweden and the UK, for instance.

It is always associated with racist groups, and makes use of a different incoming group to blame for crimes against the purity of our women and thereby consolidate nationalist and racial group identity. For example in South Korea white US English teachers are a major concern.

It diffuses to the general population by disinformation, in other words lies that are accepted by people who don't check the facts.

Here is an example from the UK. It is not sex related but it shows the same pattern of propaganda.

Sherwood Forest is where the semi-legendary Robin Hood lived in the 13th century. It is a relatively wild area of forest.

Britain First, a far-right group, found a treehouse that had been built by teenagers in 2010. They took a picture of this and wrote up a story that gangs of armed and dangerous illegal immigrants had set up camps in Sherwood Forest. These prompted 700 complaints from local people.

The story is a lie. There are no camps. But a lot of people believed it anyway.

BBC report.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36693136

Local newspaper report.
http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/investigation-are-people-really-living-in-sherwood-forest-1-7958444

It is the constant repetition of these kind of false "facts" that helps to grow fear, resentment and unfair discrimination.

I'm no bigot but it sickens me that immigrants refuse to use a perfectly acceptable home. They should accept what they are given!

 Daemonhammer wrote:
the left outright refuses to criticise or even mention the word "Muslim" when a Muslim does anything wrong.

Because it isn't actually relevant. The only people complaining about the nasty lefty media not cataloguing the skin colour of every last person who so much as frowns at anyone are nazis who are mad that they don't have articles they can selectively quote to support their pre-formed conclusion that the West needs a racial purge.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What left-wing media? IDK about Sweden but there's a lot more right-wing media in the UK than left-wing.

Right Wing: The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Times, The Daily Telegraph,

Left Wing: The Guardian, Daily Mirror.

This is going full circle.

Do you believe that Muslims commit more rapes in Sweden than white Swedish men?

I refer you to the previous four pages of thread, which show that they don't. So why should the media say they do?

They're overrepresented in criminality, the question is why? Swedes are overrepresented in crime in Norway compared to their numbers, and Norwegians in Sweden, so it seems to be more a case of immigrants in general rather than anything to do with culture.

The answer also has a lot more to do with socio-economic factors than the amount of melanin in their skin (c.f. the Globe and Mail article I posted quoting Prof. Sarnecki who's a professor in criminology at Stockholm University). If socioeconomic factors are more important, however, we have to ask a lot of uncomfortable questions about class and distribution of wealth, so it's simpler to just blame it on the immigrants.

Besides rattling the sabers and stoking Islamophobia, what is the purpose of this, in the context of the conversation. Are you under the impression that large amount of muslim refugees across Europe are coming from Qatar? Seems unlikely. Do you think that social mores distribute uniformly across 1.6 billion individuals, simply because they share a religious book? What counts as a "Western system"? Does Mexico count as a "Western system"? Does Italy?

Attitudes toward women vary widely even throughout western societies. Feminist issues that have been dealt with decades ago in French-Canadian (and Canadian, and, to an extent, throughout North-America) society still barely register in France, a country which is very often lauded for its progressiveness.

Qatar sounds like a proper gakhole. And for more than it's attitude toward women. Being a poor man, or even just not being a rich man seems like enough for you to be exploited by everyone else. Sounds less like a "Islam" issue, and more a "New to capitalism, default to savage mode" issue. I'm fairly sure that there is a large number of Muslim communities that would be driven to revolution if their authorities tried to impose the qatari standards.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
[...]
Do you believe that Muslims commit more rapes in Sweden than white Swedish men?

I refer you to the previous four pages of thread, which show that they don't. So why should the media say they do?

Im not actually saying that they do. And considering how there is so much less Muslims in Sweden than actual Swedes it would be hard to prove anything like that. And even if it was true, I doubt the media would admit it.
However if I had to make a bet I would say that Muslims are more prone to such behaviours considering what cultures they come from. Im sure we can all agree on that there isnt much equality between genders in Muslim nations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Daemonhammer wrote:
the left outright refuses to criticise or even mention the word "Muslim" when a Muslim does anything wrong.

Because it isn't actually relevant. The only people complaining about the nasty lefty media not cataloguing the skin colour of every last person who so much as frowns at anyone are nazis who are mad that they don't have articles they can selectively quote to support their pre-formed conclusion that the West needs a racial purge.

When ISIS, or even some random angry Muslim decides to be a terrorist, how often do you see the left wing media say that he was a Muslim? Thats pretty relevant.

How often are Christians who commit terrorist acts or rape women referred to as Christians?

 skyth wrote:
How often are Christians who commit terrorist acts or rape women referred to as Christians?

Are you trying to make a point?

Because if you look at actual instances in recent years where we've had religiously motivated attacks on abortion clinics, they get labeled as anything BUT Christians.

Here's a search that looks up the pages on The Guardian (prominent left-wing paper in the UK) that contain the words Muslim and Terrorist.

https://www.google.co.uk/#as_q=muslim+terrorist&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=www.theguardian.com&as_occt=any&safe=active&as_filetype=&as_rights=

As you can see, over 17,000 results, so perhaps it is more often than you believe.

That took me about 20 seconds to do.

Is it relevant? If not, why not?

If you know a terrorist or mass shooter or whatever you want to call someone has ISIS links - and, these days, that's the first thing any media outlet wants to speculate on - does it really matter if someone uses the exact words 'radical Islam'?

We already know why they did it. They're not magic words.

 skyth wrote:
How often are Christians who commit terrorist acts or rape women referred to as Christians?

Practically never. Thats another problem, if an Anti-Abortion Christian decides to shoot up a clinic it should be pointed out but nobody would do it.

But thats not really relevant

Results from The Guardian for a search of Christian Abortion Clinic Attack.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=Christian+abortion+clinic+attack&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=www.theguardian.com&as_occt=any&safe=active&as_filetype=&as_rights=

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Results from The Guardian for a search of Christian Abortion Clinic Attack.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=Christian+abortion+clinic+attack&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=www.theguardian.com&as_occt=any&safe=active&as_filetype=&as_rights=

Well... those are certainly some interesting articles.

How did Swedish sexual assaults end up here though?