To be so upset that the leader of the Rochdale grooming gang has been allowed to stay in the UK!

[vermicello]

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ringleader-rochdales-infamous-sex-grooming-24336978

Those poor girls. It is like they have been abused twice, first by him and his fellow groomers and secondly by the UK justice system, police and social workers. It is sending them a big message that their right to feel safe and protected is not a concern. I can't imagine how traumatic it must be to know you could bump into your abuser at any time and nothing can be done about it. Our justice system is a disgrace.

To top it all off, he has apparently received hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal aid courtesy of taxpayers. I really don't want my taxes wasted on people like him. So upsetting and infuriating!

Four years!?! That is sickening.

And I agree with the OP, it must be horrible for the victims that he is able to remain here despite being from another country originally.

Why should he be able to access the benefits of living in the UK when he abused the laws of the country. He denounced his Pakistani citizenship 6 years AFTER being arrested. Fuck him. He impregnated a 13 year old child and now he's crying for HIS human rights?!

It is uncomprehendible that they're being released so soon. That's what you should be outraged about OP.

I agree. It's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction, but a justice system must be balanced and neutral, and sometimes that means we don't like the outcomes. Personally I am opposed to capital punishment on all grounds, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t sometimes think that it would be far better to “put down” some of the worst offenders like serial killers. But justice cannot be measured by our baser instincts, and that is what sets us apart. Or what should set us apart.

What I personally find more interesting is the comparison with Shamima Begum – whose alleged crimes I also deplore. But she has had her UK citizenship removed despite having no other citizenship. So this is exactly the same situation, except for the fact that she had no other citizenship and Aziz chose to give his up to avoid deportation. And, to be fair, she was groomed (whether we agree with what she consequently did or not) and he is a groomer. Double standards?

Prison sentences should be longer for just about every crime. When the death penalty was abolished it was said that it would be replaced by life sentences. Nowadays a life sentence can mean as little as ten years in prison. Life should mean life. As in you do not leave prison alive. And prisons should be actual prisons, not holiday camps with free Sky and a choice of free food.

I agree with all of this.

Additionally, we DO get quite a few Aussie criminals deported back to the UK. One guy had spent 50 out of 51 years in Australia, was still deported back here.

Heres another recent one:

Australian sitcom actor Robert Hughes will be freed from jail and deported to the UK after serving a sentence for child sexual abuse.

Hughes found fame for his lead role in Australian TV show Hey Dad! which aired in more than 20 countries from 1987.

In 2014 he was convicted of a string of child sexual offences - which he denied - against girls in the 1980s and 1990s.

The 73-year-old was granted parole by Australian authorities on Thursday.

Having renounced his Australian citizenship, the British national will be deported to the UK, where he will live with his wife, upon his release from prison.

I think the Begum case is different because she isnt/wasn't in the country. Maybe there are other reasons for the different approach too, but that's what made it "possible".

It's different accepting her back to sending someone out iyswim. For a start we can't make anyone accept him.

The "Human Rights Act" can go to hell. If someone commits a serious crime like this and has citizenship or ancestral links to another country, of course we should deport them.

We'd be screwed if every country in the world applied the same standards to criminals with ancestral links to Britain. Where the hell would we put all those people?

Is it just me misreading some of the comments or are there posters here who seem to be defending this piece of shit?
What about the human rights of his victims?

Cant we enact legislation that states that if you abuse the basic rights of others, you negate your own.

It sickens me that these utter bastards receive taxpayers' money in legal aid. Fuck them and send them back whence they came.

I think the Begum case is different because she isnt/wasn't in the country. Maybe there are other reasons for the different approach too, but that's what made it "possible".
It's different accepting her back to sending someone out iyswim. For a start we can't make anyone accept him.
No it isn't different. We removed her citizenship and made her stateless. Her location is irrelevant. The exact same law applies - it is against international law to make a person stateless. That is why Aziz's British citizenship cannot be removed, and for no other reason.

It's a truly dreadful decision , no doubt the others will get to stay now .

Why aren't are judiciary on the side of victims .

I personally think the sentence was too light, and he should still be in jail.

But as for the HRA can go to hell?

Keep him in prison for as long as you like, but this rule allowing people to stripped of their British citizenship and deported is absolutely terrible.. if a person has obtained citizenship legitimately then they should be treated exactly the same as if they were British from birth. The only time citizenship should be stripped is when it was fraudulently obtained.

I think the closest anyone has come to a defence of him is saying that human rights should apply to everyone. Which is a pretty low bar, and not a defence of this man as an individual.
Most people have said his sentence should have been a lot longer, which I'd agree with.
No one has defended his actions.

He should of never been allowed to give up his other citizenship.

Also no criminals born in another country shouldn’t get human rights to live in the country they prefer. He also should of got a lot longer than 4 years.

When you rape and abuse children you don’t deserve human rights.

I'm more stunned that he only did 4 years

This is the only bit I don't understand.

I understand him not being deported and getting legal aid might not like it but understand legal necessity - but such a short sentence - I just don't get it multiple child rapes and the rest and it's such a short sentence.

You sound very ignorant. Read The Secret Barrister if you want to educate yourself. Otherwise stay ignorant like the tabloids want you to be.

Research by the Home Office has shown that most grooming gangs are actually white

I think you'll find it's a bit more nuanced that that, not least because of inconsistencies around the collection of data relating to offenders' ethnicity

I do agree about the "slippery slope" aspect of removing nationality, even when it's clear someone's gamed the system, and most of all I agree that the original 4 year sentence was a disgrace. Unfortunately too many offenders see "fairness" as weakness, and so the problems continue

I think the point of universal human rights is that they are rights (such as fair trials, etc) given to all humans. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished properly for their crimes, but lenient sentences are the fault of our judicial system (perhaps because we lock up too many people for crimes against property?)

If they were on the side of the victims they would impose a very lengthy sentence indeed, rather than deport a Birtish citizen (which they can't do anyway) to very likely create more victims elsewhere.

You're misreading.

Nobody is defending him.

YANBU. HRA1998 is an Anthony Lionel Blair brainchild and came into force in 2000. It should have been put through a shredder. The paedophilic pile of human detritus should have been <something that can't be published>.