Change law to kick out Rochdale rapist, No 10 urged

[Twiglets1]

Reported in The Telegraph that Labour is facing mounting pressure to change immigration laws immediately so that a child rapist freed from jail can be deported.

Shabir Ahmed, 73, was sentenced to more than 20 years in jail after being convicted of 30 child rape offences as part of the Rochdale grooming gang.

But on Thursday, the Pakistan-born rapist was released after serving 14 years.

Britain stripped him of his citizenship, but cannot currently deport him because of protections granted to Commonwealth immigrants such as Ahmed under the Immigration Act 1971.

On Thursday, Downing Street said the Prime Minister had asked Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, to “consider what can be done” to deport Ahmed, describing his case as “particularly heinous”.

It comes after Andy Burnham, expected to succeed Sir Keir Starmer as prime minister, also vowed to “review all options” to deport the "vile criminal".

The amendment to Ms Mahmood’s immigration bill will propose rewriting the 1971 act to permit the removal of serious criminals such as Ahmed.

However, even if an amendment were to pass, two senior Pakistani government officials told The Telegraph that the country would not accept Ahmed back because he renounced his Pakistani citizenship “several decades ago”.

They added that he posed a danger to Pakistani children.

If their claim is correct, it places Ahmed in the same situation as two other freed Pakistani ringleaders of the Rochdale grooming gang whom Pakistan has refused to take back.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/02/deport-foreign-born-child-rapists-demand-labour-mps/

Who’s this “we”? And yes I would dump him back in his country of origin. This country should be protecting its own children first before worrying about everyone else.

They target the lowest hanging fruit. If white girls aren't so easily available they'll go for the next branch, like buying a girl child from her poverty stricken father.

Exactly some of these people can't be deported because they would be beheaded in Pakistan or any other Muslim country they came from. Yet we pay them on the had and let them out after 14 years, presumably for ' good behaviour '? He should have served a minimum of 30 years and died in prison.

Stop aid to, and visas from, Pakistan.

https://c.org/qRWDr7Pc25
Protect Public Safety: Oppose Early Release of Sexual Offenders and Rapists

There's a petition on Change.org, made by a woman who was raped as a child and now he's set for early release. I've added the title for those who don't trust links, so it can be found that way.

His British citizenship has already been revoked. He and his 3 co-defendants. To pave the way for their removal.

The home office already made the decision and the rapists took it to the court of the appeal and it was upheld.

The legal hurdle is that he can't currently be deported due to when he immigrated. He is legally entitled to protections from deportation to Pakistan as a commonwealth subject under the immigration act 1971 as they were the law at that time.

The government can't utilise existing laws for his deportation as they didn't apply when he immigrated. Which is the loophole and why the government are wanting to change the law.

Thank you

This problem has been exported from a small region of Pakistan to the UK and allowed to happen here as a result of people not understanding this, and thinking ' cultural sensitivities' means allowing men to rape children. It's not even acceptable in most of Pakistan, just in some tribal backwaters where the same community ( parents, siblings, wives) protect these men both there and here. They may not groom Pakistani girls but some cousin will allow him ( at 72) to marry their 12 year old.

@Twiglets1 Few offenders serve their whole sentence. They get discounts for various things and I don’t know if this was at the maximum sentence at the time. They could perhaps have looked at 25 years but I don’t know and I don’t know if the sentencing guidelines could have stipulated he served the whole sentence. However, we are where we are.

We run the risk of falling out with commonwealth countries if we just push criminals back but that’s only part of the issue. He’s here and he’s our problem. How does anyone force Pakistan to have him? The government have known about these issues for a very long time and have failed to deport people. Wanting it and getting other countries to agree to it, are two different things.

1000%

Why on earth are we allowing a single person in from a country when it’s a one way ticket!

If he breaches his license conditions then yes. Otherwise, no.

I think the judge was thinking of current deportation laws and didn't realise laws from 50 plus years applied in this particular case.

We wanted them to fill our factories (Windrush era) staff our hospitals and care homes, drive our taxis, run our corner shops, and pay huge fees to our universities.

After they've been in the country 53 years surely it's unreasonable to throw them out?

Should have kept him locked up until they'd changed the law and insisted he was deported back.

It's not even that. Or in any way conspiratorial.

It's simply that he immigrated at a time when the 1971 immigration act was in force which gave him protections as a commonwealth citizen.

I don't know enough about Pakistans current stance regards this rapist but Pakistan may not want him and likely don't but that isn't the reason why they may refuse him now and can. It's that the law currently being used didn't apply when he came here and you can't retrospectively immigration apply laws that didn't apply at the time. So they can say 'that wasn't what was agreed back in 1971'

Which is why the government want to change that loophole in the law and will be in negotiations with Pakistan to agree for him to be returned.

But Pakistan may feel it opens international doors to renege on previous agreements in the future.

@Tofringeornot Because we don’t make the laws in Pakistan! We don’t control them and they decide their own laws about who they let in. What’s so hard to understand about this!? He’s our problem!

No offender gets discounts from their sentence for anything.

See my post at 8.37 explaining sentencing.

He has served his full custodial sentence.

@KindPinkEagle They do for pleading guilty and if they are allowed to apply for parole, various factors are taken into account. Sentencing takes the facts of a case into account which is where there’s a range of sentence length.

I doubt you've ever read anything about any grooming gangs.

You appear to have zero idea about their motivations and targets.

If your source of information are Guardian articles telling you that all cultures are the same, and that grooming gangs are just men looking for any women to rape, then it might be time to open your eyes.

Shabir Ahmed said "All white girls are prostitutes".

Rochdale is 30% non-white and yet 100% of the girls Shabir Ahmed raped were white.

He shouted at the judge after his sentence that he hated white people. He's on record saying all white girls deserve to be raped.

And some on here still think race has nothing to do with his crimes.

Do you think he’ll end up being deported @KindPinkEagle?

He should die in prison, make it easy send him back to prison for a full life term

Have the other two men (child rapists) who were released been deported yet? I'm local to Rochdale and unsure if they are still living here. I think they may still be?

I do remember that the ban on PIA flying into the UK was lifted partially because of negotiations to get them deported (PIA had a crash which lead to the discovery that many of their pilots weren't qualified- the airline was banned on landing in the UK on safety grounds).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/24/pakistan-airlines-restarts-flights-ban-fake-pilot-licences/

I think the term "grooming gang" isn't appropriate and they should be called what they are- rapists.

You seem confused.

A poster was querying why he hasn't served his whole sentence (when he has) and you said 'few offenders serve their whole sentence, they get various discounts for various things'.

Which they don't at all.

In regards to you mentioning guilty pleas, At sentencing a judge can take off time for an early guilty plea as that shows some accountability and saves the public purse the expense of a trial and saves victims from having to testify.

But that whatever sentence given is the sentence given and the person serves that sentence with no discounts because that doesn't even exist as a possibility.

He was sentenced to 22 years and 19 years to run concurrently. As a sex offender with a sentence over 4 years. it was always the case he would serve 2/3 of 22 years in custody and the remaining on licence in the community.

He hasn't been released early. He hasn't been given discounts for anything. He's been released on his release date. It would be illegal to keep him in prison when he's served the custodial part of his sentence.

And sentence reduction for a guilty plea is completely irrelevant in this case since it never happened because he pled not guilty and put traumatised victims and the public purse through an expensive trial.

He's been released six years early.

This wouldn’t be an issue if he was still in prison and serving the sentence he was given. Then the law about deportation could be amended prior to his release in however many years to come.