Deport the Rochdale three.

The Summer Edition of the Salisbury Review is out now..

Demonstration London August 1st Parliament Square ‘Deport the Rochdale Three.’

In 2012 members of the Rochdale grooming gang were sentenced to be stripped of their British citizenship and deported after they finished their jail terms for raping and pimping young white girls. 

That was eight years ago. Three of them who have dual UK Pakistani nationality and lost their appeals against deportation are still here and living back in the same town as their victims – to the great distress of the latter. Numerous appeals have been made to a succession of Home Secretaries, including the weak and powerless Priti Patel, to deport them, but it would appear the Home Office is determined by stalling as long as possible to allow them to stay. 

Read frightened Priti Patel’s latest answer to Hearts of Oaks demand for these convicted criminals’ deportation

It is an article of faith in Whitehall that immigrants’ rights supersede those of the native British and to that end various means of assisting criminals such as the Rochdale rapists have been devised. One is legal aid. One of this group appealed on the grounds that the British government in deporting him was not paying sufficient regard to the safety and welfare of his children.

Another, also funded by your wages, appealed to the European Court in Strasbourg that he had not received a fair trial because it was in front of an all-white jury. Both appeals were rejected out of hand. While it was unlikely that the appeals, themselves repellent in their casual cynicism, would succeed, they had a secondary purpose – delay. 

The deportees employed a firm of lawyers ‘Burton and Burton’ who were severely criticised by the senior judge of the Immigration and Asylum, Chamber Bernard McCloskey, for failing to submit the necessary papers to the court and repeatedly asking for adjournments 

The judge said, ‘Scarce judicial and administrative resources have been wasted in dealing with repeated unmeritorious requests by the appellants’ solicitors for an adjournment. The upper tribunal has been treated with sustained and marked disrespect. The conduct of these appeals has been cavalier and unprofessional. The rule of law has been weakened in consequence.’ 

Nor was it only the appellants’ lawyers who took part in gaming the system. McCloskey also criticised the government lawyers representing the Home Secretary, saying that they had only produced a skeleton argument at the ‘eleventh hour’ and only after repeated requests from tribunal staff. ‘It was,’ the judge said, ‘produced in egregious breach of the tribunal’s directions … A feeble and unacceptable excuse for this particular default has been proffered,’ said McCloskey. 

This is not surprising given Whitehalls attitude to asylum and immigration matters. A deep contempt for the British public permeates the corridors of Whitehall, it is almost as if because the mandarins know immigration is a burning issue for many ordinary people, they are determined to rub mass migration in their faces. They have succeeded. 

There was talk of referring Burton and Burton to the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal but, three years on, a search of the Tribunal’s web site makes no mention of any such referral except to record that a number of Burton and Burton’s partners have resigned from the company. 

To anybody familiar with the immigration and asylum system, there is nothing unremarkable about this unpleasant story except perhaps the exceptionally disgusting nature of the men’s crimes. Games like this are played out daily in our asylum courts, which serve only one purpose, to pay the lawyers and judges involved. 

You know asylum and immigration appeals are a joke as soon as you attend an asylum hearing. However outrageous or insultingly ludicrous the appellant’s claim might be, even if he or she has a history of being previously deported, it is highly unusual for him (it is usually a him) to be held in custody.

Instead, as in any civil case such as an unpaid parking fine, a tax appeal or a country court order for an unpaid debt, the appellant is told that the decision of the court will be communicated to him by post in two to three weeks. The court then adjourns and everybody goes home, the appellant if he has any sense, to an address other than he gives to the court. This gives him time to run away if the decision goes against him. 

It is all perfectly logical. What possible benefit would an efficient asylum appeals system be to the legal profession, with appellants being swiftly dispatched to their countries of origin as soon as the falsity of their stories are revealed at the port of entry? Far better to keep them here and make as much money off the taxpayer from them as you can. It is why amnesties are not looked on with favour by the legal profession. What farmer would like to see his prize cattle released? 

Asylum farming extends to our so-called Border Force. Readers may be under the impression that its job under the Dublin Convention is to return asylum seekers to the first European country they reached, in the case of Channel crossers (1200 last year – more this year) to France. Not so. A border force representative interviewed on Radio 4 said her task was to ‘make sure asylum seekers were safely landed in Dover’. 

In effect there is no border to the UK when it comes to asylum or illegal migrants. They arrive, a series of meaningless but expensive administrative and legal tests are applied, they are then provided with housing, state aid and their families allowed to join them. A few, very few, are deported, but not always those who most deserve to be. An honest asylum seeker is at much greater risk of being deported than a dishonest one. It is impossible to test the truth of a fairy story but it is possible to check that of an honest account. Lies pay in the migration game. 

There are two types of border in the UK, the external border, our frontier, and the borders to our private and commercial properties. The latter are secured by agreements and contracts, so you don’t find asylum seekers squatting on your lawn or come downstairs to breakfast to find a Nigerian ‘businessman’ helping himself to your bacon and eggs. But the external border has now been lifted, the second will follow. 

It is on the point that the whole process hinges. Either we consider ourselves obligated to accept any individual from anywhere in the world to live here, however meritorious or unsavoury, or we apply the same principles as we do for land ownership within the UK. You cannot just walk into somebody’s house and start living there, but it seems in the case of the Rochdale grooming gangs, you are able to walk into Britain and take up residence, rape the inhabitants of the country you have chosen to live in, yet have a very good chance of avoiding deportation. If not why are they still here? 

Subscribe to the quarterly print magazine

Subscribe to the quarterly digital magazine

Myles Harris, Editor 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


23 Comments on Deport the Rochdale three.

  1. Is there any way the legal system can be overhauled to serve the country and not to line the pockets of rapacious and venal lawyers who use the labarynthine processes to thwart justice? Open and shut cases are argued, popstponed, wrangled over in every detail to frustrate the court – are appealed agaian and again to ever higher courts where a judgement could have been given in one hearing. It is outrageous.

  2. It seems the key factor is the self-interest of lawyers.
    The law is too important to be left to lawyers; something that the British constitution recognised by giving the Attorney General and the Law Lords the ultimate authority.
    The first step back towards sanity is to abolish the supreme court. The next step is to deport some of the more troublesome “human rights” lawyers.

    • Further to that point – I have wondered if there are any limits on the number of law degrees that can run each year as there are for other professions like teaching and medicine. If not, that would explain the over-abundance of dimwits looking for any kind of work and finding it in our damn-fool fee system.

      Related issues are the abysmal quality of law school staff (speaking from my own experience only) and the ineffectiveness of whatever passes for an ethics committee. Not a word was said, never mind done, about the UCL law teacher who thought the PM going into hospital was a smiling matter. No wonder our streets are blocked by embryo nazis with nothing in their heads.

  3. Since I’m in a mood for putting little messages in a bottle and throwing it in the sea in the hope that someone will find it, let me suggest that the Conservative party could save itself a lot of trouble by enunciating loudly and clearly some philosophical principles on which they believe public policy should be based, and likewise for rigorous criticism of opposing parties and rampaging fanatics currently on the loose in one city or another. The importance of individual thought, word and deed in our homeland, since our current state of comparative well-being is a tribute to their efforts – and in this I would include not only ‘great’ theoreticians, states-persons and entrepreneurs but also every worker, however humble, who gets out of bed in the morning, however reluctantly, to play their part in the economy.

  4. One has to expect this kind of thing from a minister with more than one constituency to which she has to appeal. There is I believe a great deal wrong with the idea that it is more (or even equally) important to have people who are conspicuously recognisable as belonging to some sort of sociological category. There is also a great deal wrong with the notion that curry chefs are skilled workers of whom we need more. However, It does look like the Conservative party may need her more than she needs the party. And at the risk of defining her as a category rather than just an individual like the rest of us (which is how I see her) we mustn’t forget the other chap at the Treasury, who seems to be having a good innings in the public eye.

  5. Our Government doesn’t care about Islamic terrorists sloping into England. There are much more pressing matters than that:

    In a statement on 22 July in the House of Commons the Home Secretary Priti Patel (after the obligatory genuflection to the Windrush ‘scandal’) declared that every single new and existing member of Home Office staff would now have to undertake mandatory training “to ensure that everyone working in the Department understands and appreciates the history of migration and race in this country.”

    She also said she would:
    ‘ensure that all new policies are developed in an inclusive way, factoring in the cultural and historical context, and with effective mechanisms to monitor and, where necessary, resolve any concerns.”

    And also that:
    “There are simply not enough black, Asian or minority ethnic staff working at the top in senior roles, and there are far too many times when I am the only non-white face in the room.”

    I think further comment is superfluous. May God Save England!

  6. Dear Mr. Lanch.

    The wonderful satirist Michael Wharton would not thrive in today’s Britain and would be open to accusations of ‘hate crime’ and/or ‘cancelled’ by the enemies of free speech. The true cost of the panic decisions over a virus will not be felt until next year and if China puts a financial squeeze on Britain, heaven alone knows what fate awaits us. Meanwhile, superhero B. Johnson is dreaming of a bridge to N. Ireland which is destined to be absorbed into the E.U. via a demographic change and a successful vote for unification with Eire. And, lest we delude ourselves, the government is not concerned with saving your life; it is concerned with the cost of N.H.S treatment. All government ‘safety’ legislation – from crash-helmets for cyclists to seat-belts in cars – is to save money not lives but the crazy and conflicting ‘safety’ measures to combat this virus are costing big money on the strength of predictions with little if anything to justify it.

  7. In the absence of the much missed Peter Simple column by the late Michael Wharton in the Daily Telegraph. It is refreshing to hear the truth spoken about our shameful state of affairs in the Salisbury Review blogs.
    If only politicians treated access to the country with the same regard as access to their own properties. Then the people would have the government they deserve.
    Not the craven bunch of self deluded politically correct imbeciles orchestrating the demise of a once great country.

  8. Dear PJR.

    Yes, I might well be living in cloud-cuckoo land but that was said of Nigel Farage when he spearheaded U.K.I.P. to leave the E.C./E.U. in the 1990s/2000s. There is a glimmer of hope that Britain may yet reject the Marxist/globalist multicultural vision that has gripped the imagination of the young but I shan’t be alive to witness it. If the English cannot regain Britain then the last best hope for anglo civilisation lies in the United States of America if it can resist the cultural holocaust that threatens it but I’m not optimistic for it.

  9. 40-odd years of EEC,EC, and E.U. has brought on amnesia in some areas of being English. In my previous comment, I referred to Shamima Begum as a ‘citizen’ to which we were all condemned to be – including our Queen – when John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty. I assume that on the 1st January 2021, we shall return to the status of ‘British subject’ again and that illegal immigrants/asylum-seekers arriving from France will be returned for citizens of the E.U. to deal with as we should be an independent sovereign state once more.

    • Derek Sibthorpe: I was born a British Subject (a few years before we were manhandled into the EEC) and that’s what I’ll be until the day of my death. Like the admirable Non-juror Bishops of the 18th Century, I politely decline to change my allegiance.

      But you’re living in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land if you’re not joking and seriously think that leaving the EU will make any difference to our rulers’ immigration policy. Since 1945 our rulers’ immigration policy has been “the more the merrier”. Every MP and every Life Peer agrees.

      In demotic language, the fact is that the UK – and Europe – and the greatest civilisation in the history of humanity – are f**ked up beyond all possibility of recognition.

      You and I are uncomfortable because we remember a time when our civilisation was in decline instead of being finished. But the next generation seem to be quite happy to live the life of savages in the world of Stormzy, Banksy and (Gawd ‘elp us!) Boris.

      Oh well. Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

  10. Firstly, let me state that I would like to see all illegal immigration stamped on hard as happened in Australia. Second, as Britain is an island and reached only by sea or air, only those genuine asylum-seekers who arrive by air or ship directly from harms way should be considered to stay in Britain. All those who arrive via France should be immediately returned to the safe haven of the E.U. Shamima Begum was born in Britain and, thus, should not have been stripped of her citizenship but should not be assisted by the government to bring her back to Britain at taxpayers expense. If any ‘charity’ or any other organisation wishes to fund her return it should be responded to by immediate arrest at point of entry and be charged with treason. Maintaining our law is more important than the understandable revulsion of her action as depriving a U.K. person of citizenship poses a dangerous precedent for the future.

  11. I never understood why we don’t take ALL asylum seekers to an old WW2 airfield site or currently uninhabited small island off the UK, declaring that spot of land ‘non-uk’? Then as these people are fearing for their lives apply maximum security to the facility. It is not a prison but an open shelter, with school, med centre, shops and workshops. Asylum seekers could help staff it also. Then we say “You are safe. Your application will take 10yrs to review or you can take £1500 and leave today. If you take the £1500 you can never return to the UK. Should you return you will be imprisioned for life”. Only those truly fearing for their lives would then stay, as 10yrs in an open, safe environment is preferable to certain death?

  12. They are not done yet.
    What is to stop these people self-identifying as female and thereby adding another impediment to their return to known-misogynist Islamic countries?

    This week it was reported that a Blackpool woman has been convicted of possessing porn images of 15 year old girls. Odd, I thought, a woman? Just learned, but not from the MSM, that ‘she’ is a man but claiming to be a woman. Off to a women’s prison no doubt where more offences can be committed under the eye of our useless rulers.

  13. It has been true for years that our own establishment hate us, this excellent article is another indication of how much this is true.
    ‘They’ have been working against our interests for years, but had all kinds of means of disguising this hate; they were working towards equality, they were in favour of human rights, they were humanitarian, they were anti-racist, they understood the oppression of minorities, and always, always, we were somehow, at fault, somehow found wanting. Then they gave us a referendum, ‘they’ never thought it was possible ‘we’ would win. The shock was so great, that ‘they’ stopped the covert war against us and it became a overt war. They openly called us ill-educated, stupid, xenophobic, and of course racist. Gina Miller, The Supreme Court, Anna Soubry, Dominic Grieve, the CBI, the TUC, Gus O’Donnell, the BBC, Channel 4, Sky all of them gave up reason and impartiality for hectoring, fury, and undemocratic tactics for preventing the return of our country. Now we have Black Lives Matter, a thuggish man is killed whilst being arrested in Minneapolis, and suddenly this extremely well funded, hard left, pressure group, has taken centre stage in nearly every civilised country in the world. They demand that ‘we’ change our history, they say ‘we’ are wrong, that our beloved United Kingdom is a dreadful place, that ‘we’ remove anything that is of importance to us, that ‘we’ accept their alien culture as equal to our own, they have the support of every organisation that wanted to stop Brexit, particularly the Black lives matter Broadcasting Company. However as The Editor Points out despite the dreadfulness of our country, they don’t want to leave it, the establishment doesn’t want them to leave it, and indeed they are crossing the Channel in rubber dinghies so desperate are they to get here. Then, they provocatively attack the memory of our greatest Prime Minister of the 20th Century, he is part of both the truth and mythology of us as a nation (and every country needs a mythology) they know this of course, which is why they attack Churchill, the establishment’s response is typically weak, and worse seems to connive with Black Lives Matter. How do we respond?

  14. One of Margaret Thatcher’s mistakes was her ‘no win, no fee’ reform which opened the flood-gates to American-style ambulance-chasing lawyers of which the odious Phil Shiner was a conspicuous example and made Ms. Blair a fortune. The well-meaning changes to provide justice for all was an opportunity for money-grubbing unprincipled lawyers to ‘milk’ the system and multiculturalists another weapon in their armoury. Again, I must quote the phrase from Enoch Powell’s speech to his Wolverhampton constituents: “the black man will have the whip-hand over the white man” – to which he might have added – through the efforts of our English Marxists and the Conservative husks in Westminster.

1 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. The Rochdale Groomers: The Salisbury Review Editorial (Summer Edition) - Independence Daily