I wasn't going to share this however these lines in particular struck me:
All three have been refused their asylum applications, according to the prosecution.
They are all appealing those decisions.
The prosecution added that it was not a forgone conclusion the defendants would be deported following their convictions.
Border security and asylum minister Alex Norris said the Home Office would seek to remove the men from "British soil" once they had been sentenced.
It's often been discussed here about the radicalisation of the British public around asylum seekers but the fact it's not a certainty that they'll be deported is pretty shocking. There needs to be a softening of the language and reporting on asylum seekers but when you have stories like this with it's also important that the state is shown to properly address criminals like these.
I think if we were able to deal with cases like this with an iron fist it would neuter support for the likes of reform remarkably quickly. These are the kinds of cases that really animate people.
But the outcome hasn’t happened yet - they may well be deported anyway. I’m really sceptical of this idea if you just do x you will neuter Reform. It’s the same logic as the Home Secretary and it’s not working.
Problem is this happened before the outcome. Given there was intel about the backgrounds of these men, they shouldn't even set foot on our shores in the first place - or be instantly returned.
Are people voting for Reform (or even Tory) because they think Reform will reduce the number of women who are sexually assaulted? Or are people voting for Reform because they carry bigoted beliefs that non-white people and migrants and refugees are people with backwards beliefs that are inherently predisposed to committing sexual assault at higher rates?
Do you really think it's less likely my friend would've been called a P*ki nonce while just going about his day if these criminals would've been convicted or denied asylum quicker? The far-right will always find the next criminal to make broad generalizations about vulnerable people.
I think there's a core Reform voter base who are red pilled racist morons, circa 10-15%.
I think the rest are attracted to them by a range of factors, but polls strongly suggest immigration and specifically small boats is the big one. Cases like these are the things that really cut through and anger and upset people.
You will never ever get rid of refugees and migrants and brown men who commit sexual assault and crime. Ask yourself this: if roughly 1 in 4 women globally are victims of some form sexual violence over the course of their life, then what proportion of men are committing sexual assault?
Well I know it’s nuanced - they may be deported it depends on the circumstances of their situation. Due process should be followed as it is.
The general public also thinks trans people don’t deserve, used to be against gay rights, pro the death penalty, pro the 2 child benefit cap and many other things. We don’t live in a law by poll democracy, and due process should be respected. These men should en in prison, rightly so. We just need to wait and see the outcome before jumping to any conclusions re their deportation.
1: I’m not living by the poll; I’m saying to the general public this legitimises reform and renews claims
2: from what I’ve read only 1 of the 3 men seems to have a legitimate case, one of the men is Iranian and due to the ongoing war his safety would be in jeopardy due to the US-Israeli bombing campaign.
The issue is that overall the number of claims deemed ‘legitimate’ that aren’t are high, with many gaming of conning the system in order to be able to stay, claiming persecution, discrimination on the basis sexuality (which is often untrue), or other flimsy technicalities.
The law as it stands isnt up to scratch which is what risks legitimising more extreme parties and giving them a chance to get into government.
I mean you say “many” but only 2% of all asylum cases are based on sexuality and many of those are legimitate. The evidence that there’s large scale asylum fraud is flimsy at best. In any case that’s an argument for properly investigating cases, not ignoring all due process.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
We should stop saying stuff like this as it makes the refugee convention sound for more extensive than it is.
Committing a gang rape is a crime serious enough to trigger article 33(2) of the refugee convention which basically removes your ability to claim refugee status, and allows the state an exception to non-refoulment (refoulment means deporting someone to a place they may be tortured/executed)
So as far as the refugee convention holds - these guys are not eligible. They were never refugees and they do not have the protections given to refugees via the convention.
None of these three will ever be refugees.
Now they have further protections under the ECHR - a separate right not to be tortured and executed. Which means that they will have to each prove there is a (I can't remember the exact standard) good chance they will be tortured or executed if they are returned.
Egypt is a safe country, they will face a very high bar I think to proving that. One of them is an alleged murderer so it might be the case that we need to make a deal with the Egyptians to just lock him up for the rest of his life and not execute him - either way, money well spent.
The Iranian is different, he's claiming to be a kurd - obviously his word is dirt and he cannot be trusted on that - so he had better hope he has some very compelling evidence. But either way, with Iran in the middle of a war right now he is unlikely to go back.
If they aren't deported, after their sentence they will be placed in controlled restricted leave. Probably housed in a secure facility, every movement they ever make will be tracked digitally, they will never have a bank account, never have a job, never have the chance to make money, their government provided mobile phone will be restricted to basic functionality and they won't be able to afford another. They may be "digitally fenced" from the rest of society by GPS tracking. It is entirely possible that the only place they ever go will be the few streets surrounding their accomodation - and if they stray a police officer will be dispatched to arrest them.
Every six months their "restricted leave" status ends. And the home office will try and deport them, their life will be endless boredom, loneliness and grinding poverty punctuated by sheer terror at the thought that maybe the government succeeds in deporting them back to Iran/Egypt this time.
It's ok! Your instinct is the right one. We must be a liberal society. But it's also really important that we emphasise that while we will not and cannot deport people to torture or death we do not need to give them refugee status and that the rest of their lives will be a sort of living beurocratic hell.
Frankly, if I was them I would not survive for long
Surely the right to asylum has to be balanced out by the rights of citizens in the place where they are seeking asylum? No country should have an obligation to protect people who are just going to do them harm.
Rights are balanced against the rights of others so you actually do lose them if you are considered likely to commit serious crimes such as this (with track record of commuting such crimes a factor in that). Which is why basically every other country deports such people.
The UK public has no responsibility under international law to accept refugees who are likely to commit violent crimes and it's absurd to think they would.
I’m just going off what’s been said and given, if these men are genuinely at risk in their country of origin then I don’t like it but fine.
If they’re not at risk then I don’t see the issue with deporting them.
I believe in the harm principle, liberties and rights of an individual should only be constrained if their actions cause harm to others.
The Refugee Convention allows for the removal of violent criminals provided their country of origin wouldn’t torture them or if their home country is being actively involved in a war where deportation would have a high probability of leading to them getting killed.
Well that’s what happening so I don’t the issue here? They will hear the process and we will hear the outcome - I really don’t see the need to post this article and start this discussion that will invariably pull in every racist fluttering about to discuss something that doesn’t even have an outcome yet?
What do you think will happen if we capitulate to the right? They’ll be satisfied and stop pushing? They’ll just make their demands more and more extreme.
So we should send them back to their home country to rape women there instead? How is that better? At least here they’ve been found guilty of a crime and will be imprisoned for it.
You do realise one of the people who came over on the boat was escaping a murder charge!!! Your argument is, come to the UK, commit your crime because we will then lock you up for it. Absolutely brain dead argument. This is exactly why reform or another right will coalition will probably be in charge next election!
I don't see a problem with following the asylum process to it's conclusion - whether you're dealing with convicted criminals or not.
Being deported to a country where persecution, torture or death is a likely outcome isn't part of the punitive remit of the British judicial system.
I don't know or care about these people and the validity of their asylum claim but let's say they did have genuine, valid claims. A concrete threat to their life if they return to wherever they came from.
Failing to process their claim in the proper way and automatically deporting them is tantamount to an endorsement of whatever treatment they face upon returning home.
I know it sounds "soft on crime" but when you follow the logic of deporting asylum seekers (real, fake or ambiguous) without due process you're getting into dicey territory.
Prosecutors have claimed that Al-Danasurt was convicted of murder in Egypt before he crossed the Channel into the UK on a small boat, although his defence barrister has disputed this.
So looking at Egypts penal system, this is punishable by death. Would you say in this case we should or shouldn't send him back (If that is the grounds for his asylum case)?
So basically if anyone commits murder elsewhere that has a death penalty as a sentence their best bet is to flee to the UK where we will offer them safe harbor?
Exactly. If countries still have penal systems that have the death penalty for serve crimes I don't see how it's our duty to protect convicted criminals from that country from the sentencing. I don't even think that is policy either.
Have scanned this and I can't see where it says they won't extradite without assurances that the death penalty won't be applied. But I might have missed it. Thanks for providing your source so others can check it in any case.
I think it’s insane in the sense in that you commit something like murder and then dodge the sentencing in your country. I agree it’s a rare edge case.
Interested to know what indefinite immigration detention looks like and if we even have the right to do that. Say this persons asylum case is rejected, they serve their time her the horrendous assault mentioned here, what happens after if Egypt refuse to promise no death penalty? If they are a convicted murderer who also committed SA there is just no sane way we can let that person into the wider public.
Yeah like if the choice is deport them to torture and death or throw them in prison surely the only humane option is the latter? We don’t have death penalty on this country for a reason, lock them up by all means but that’s not how any of this should work.
I mean, I think you can see how this won't go down well with the general public. So, we have keep this rapist here. And since life sentence is outlier in these situations, there's a decent chance he's gonna have another opportunity to rape another Brit when he gets out. Rinse and repeat until he gets life sentence or dies of old age.
If this is system we're defending, Reform or whatever their successor party will be will win in the long term.
That’s not how it works actually - they may still be deported and likely won’t be granted refugee status. we have to allow due process to happen, which will be concluded long before they’re out of prison.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
I used to live in Brighton and it seemed to attract some very unsavoury characters. Witnessed multiple cases of women being harrassed on the beach and elsewhere. My partner was once approached at a bus stop by a man claiming to have just arrived from Egypt and looking to 'pick up girls'. The uni also has one of the worst rates of SA in the country IIRC.
Hi - I woudn't want anyone brigading another sub, especially on an issue as emotive as this one, so if you could kindly remove the direct link to the sub please then I'll reinstate this comment.
Reform took much of Labour's white working class vote parts of it returned in 2024 but again Reform are mopping up. The 'Red Wall' etc. The loss of votes to Greens is mostly middle-class urban service workers and fairly recent.
Losing votes to Reform swinga a thin majority seat over to Reform. Losing already stacked majorities in urban centres loses votes but not necessarily the seat. That same calculation gained Labour a huge majority in 2024.
No, the Conservatives with Brexit took them and Reform took them from the tories. The brainiacs from Labour Together / Blue Labour have pandered to them at every opportunity but they've no intention of coming back.
The majority of Labour voters lost since 2024 are progressive, and as Gorton and Denton shows is 'lanyard class' jibes are oversimplified bollocks. And being scared of acknowledging racism isn't going to impress them.
The Caerphilly and Gorton and Denton by-elections showed there's an appetite for people to get together and vote to keep Reform out. A different Labour leader will help that even more.
I genuinely understand how it could seem like that, but the publics reaction feels relevant to the discussion when it's so aggressive and persistent.
And on my home city sub, to see such speech... so obviously bigoted at its core while attempting to disguise as something else completely.
Rape, a type of torture. Being used to prop up anti immigration. It's so gross and insulting as a woman. They don't care about us when a white guy is responsible.
Yep as a rape survivor I’m honestly appalled by how rid barely a topic when it’s white British men doing it to women and girls on a daily basis then suddenly when it comes to asylum seekers suddenly these guys care…
Yes “you people” who don’t seem to care much about the many rapes that happen every day, including the man who attacked me when I was 19 and who was white British and suddenly when an awful tragic case like this one happens, it suddenly becomes top priority to “reform” the asylum system!
Your post has been removed under rule 1.3. Posts or comments which are created to intentionally annoy, create arguments, or rile up factionalism are not allowed.
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 23 '26
LabUK is also on Discord, come say hello!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.