This Clapham attack

N

North22

Active member
Mother and her 3 year old daughter have life changing injuries. Other people including her 8 year old daughter covered in a corrosive substance. The suspect was convicted of sex offences in 2018 then granted asylum in 2021/2022. :cry:
 
North22 said:
Mother and her 3 year old daughter have life changing injuries. Other people including her 8 year old daughter covered in a corrosive substance. The suspect was convicted of sex offences in 2018 then granted asylum in 2021/2022. :cry:
Click to expand...

From the coverage I have seen everyone is obsessed with the race of the perp and hardly a mention of the poor victims.

Not sure how the police haven’t found him yet.

But it is a sad representation of the Tory asylum scheme that someone who is obviously dangerous being allowed to roam the UK.

The Conservatives and Home Office need to hang their heads in shame.
 
What about the priest who vouched he’d converted to Christianity, which in part allowed his asylum application to be successful…he’d been rejected twice prior. Not sure he was just roaming around….
 
Media has gone into overdrive with the "asylum seeker" narrative......not a dangerous psychopathic c*nt has done this appalling act to a mother and child. Yes media, there are victims in this, actual people with life changing injuries.

The Tories will be rubbing their filthy racist hands together with this incident, plays right into their hands that "they are ALL wrong 'uns", party line.

But didn't the Home Office, under their watch, grant him asylum .........

Backlash for all of this could be huge ☹️☹️
 
Last edited:
What’s the answer! Are you advocating stricter asylum controls? No entry for anyone with a criminal record? Certain types of criminal record? Zero tolerance approach?

No thought that said person could have been rehabilitated? Such as a priest supporting the application?

All well and good criticising but what would your approach be? What policy would you like to see government of the day implement?
 
h_m_boro said:
Media has gone into overdrive with the "asylum seeker" narrative......not a dangerous psychopathic c*nt has done this appalling act to a mother and child. Yes media, there are victims in this, actual people with life changing injuries.

The Tories will be rubbing their filthy racist hands together with this incident, plays right into their hands that "they are ALL wrong 'uns" party line.

But didn't the Home Office, under their watch, grant him asylum .........

Backlash for all of this could be huge ☹️☹️
Click to expand...
Yeah exactly. Critical thinking out of the window as usual for easily influenced. Anger will be focused in the wrong place again, when it should be focused on this F***ing government.
 
Geoff_B said:
What’s the answer! Are you advocating stricter asylum controls? No entry for anyone with a criminal record? Certain types of criminal record? Zero tolerance approach?

No thought that said person could have been rehabilitated? Such as a priest supporting the application?

All well and good criticising but what would your approach be? What policy would you like to see government of the day implement?
Click to expand...
I think we definitely need stronger/stricter immigration/asylum controls as a whole and especially for those with a criminal record. I wouldn't go zero tolerance but 100% we need a stronger stance.
 
Geoff_B said:
What’s the answer! Are you advocating stricter asylum controls? No entry for anyone with a criminal record? Certain types of criminal record? Zero tolerance approach?

No thought that said person could have been rehabilitated? Such as a priest supporting the application?

All well and good criticising but what would your approach be? What policy would you like to see government of the day implement?
Click to expand...
For one, not allowing something as ridiculous as new found belief in an all-powerful being like Santa Claus or God to have any bearing on an asylum application for a sex offender.
 
Bit all over the place this thread.

Accusing people of focusing their anger on the perpetrator instead of thinking about the victims in one breath, then focusing their own anger on the government in the next.

Claiming the media are obsessed with the asylum seeking status of the attacker whilst also calling it shameful that the government allows asylum seekers like him to be out and about. Isn't that basically doing the same thing?

Some incidents are best not to be used for political point scoring.
 
Rofesleg said:
Bit all over the place this thread.

Accusing people of focusing their anger on the perpetrator instead of thinking about the victims in one breath, then focusing their own anger on the government in the next.

Claiming the media are obsessed with the asylum seeking status of the attacker whilst also calling it shameful that the government allows asylum seekers like him to be out and about. Isn't that basically doing the same thing?

Some incidents are best not to be used for political point scoring.
Click to expand...
I agree but it is political really, everything now has a political slant in this current climate, whether it is just points scoring or trying to come up with some credible solutions, so many parts of our political system do not align to result in a sustainable solution. What one side says is right the other says is wrong so we end up nowhere.
 
Hear, hear, well said.... Anger should be aimed at the perpetrator solely, as stated above (but not mentioned by others) the asylum application was rejected, TWICE. Surely that is the government/home office whatever you want doing exactly as posters above are now saying they didn't, the application went through the 3rd time, helped by a priest supporting the application.

Rishi Sunak didn't invite him over and let him run loose, the government rightly rejected his applications, obviously last time with supporting evidence from a priest he has ticked some box in which to allow the application, probably done by someone on about 30K a year processing numerous applications a day.... we didn't say "Come on in" like being suggested above....
 
if you are refused asylum that should be it for 3 years not being allowed to stay until appeal after appeal finds a way through, all at the expense of us.
We pay all of us time after time.
 
Need to amend above - turns out he was granted by tribunal, so government rejected his applications but got overruled in a court......
 
Geoff_B said:
What’s the answer! Are you advocating stricter asylum controls? No entry for anyone with a criminal record? Certain types of criminal record? Zero tolerance approach?

No thought that said person could have been rehabilitated? Such as a priest supporting the application?

All well and good criticising but what would your approach be? What policy would you like to see government of the day implement?
Click to expand...
My answer would be to refuse someone with a conviction for Sexual Abuse asylum.
Change the acceptance criteria to make sure that does not happen.
 
1finny said:
he conned the system as an asylum seeker - that’s exactly why we should send them to Rwanda

or, like most attacks on women - he was a nasty bloke like many of the other white, black, policemen, pop stars, et al
Click to expand...
Rwanda will solve nothing (200 people a year out of 50,000 plus refugees a year) it's a side show. An expensive white elephant that will do nothing to solve any of the issues the Tories have created in our immigration and asylum system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top