Forum Topic

Andrew Broadbent · 10/17/2008 1:03:00 PM

www.HammersmithToday.co.uk Communtity Forum Topic posting

UN terror suspect has leave to remain in the UK

A 'news' item on this site says "An Egyptian al-Qaeda suspect and his family have won permission to stay in Hammersmith and claim hundreds of pounsd a month in benefits....The decision means he can stay in Britain with his wife and five children until 2011....Youssef received damages in 2004 after the High Court ruled he was unlawfully detained....Conservative MP for Hammersmith and Fulham, Greg Hands, said: "I am shocked that that someone on the UN Al-Qaeda list has been given another three years Leave to Remain in the UK. I was told that he would be deported. Understandably, I am concerned that this man is living in Hammersmith, at our expense, when he should be deported to Egypt."Does anyone know anything more about this ? I can't find any info on the Internet.If he's never been charged with anything and the High Court has preciously compensated him for being unlawfully detained, why shouldn't he be able to stay whilst his case for asylum is considered ?As for saying that he can 'claim hundres of pounds in benefits', what else is his family supposed to live on whilst he is prevented from working ? Fresh air ??Poor, uninformative reporting (including a spelling error !) IMHO, focussing on the fear of terrorism and implied waste of benefit cash. Has this just been lifted from the Daily Mail, or something ?

Andrew Broadbent ● 6096d17 Comments

Maybe I'm missing something here - has the Egyptian government requested that we send him back to Egypt ?My original post simply commented on the lack of any kind of background information in the original 'article' on the "News" section of this site and the assumption that he would claim loads of benefits.

Andrew Broadbent ● 6078d

I don't think we have an extradition treaty with Egypt but we do have good relations with that country and a long historical association. When they make a request for one of their citizens to be sent back to them obviously the seriousness of the crime should be a factor but I don't think anybody would suggest that involvement in terrorism wouldn't be sufficient cause.Your suggestion of racism in our approach to deportation could be turned on his head. We would not hesitate to deport someone to a predominantly white country but we seem to believe that Arabs cannot be trusted to administer justice in their own country.The suggestion that we should not deport someone simply because he is not causing any problems to us could be seen as morally bankrupt.

Paul Corcoran ● 6080d

I'm no expert in this, but I don't think they can be extradited unless we have an extradition treaty. Deoprtation is a different thing altogether.We may choose not to extradite or deport people if we think that they would be in grave danger in the place that we send them to. Which is quite right, IMHO, if they don't pose a threat to us.So, should we deport non-UK residents for : - terrorism ? - Murder ? - Burglary ? - Parking fines ? - looking at me in a funny way ?Does this apply to :- all non-UK citizens ? - Just those from outside the EU ? - Do we give exceptions to the Irish or Americans ? Or does it just apply to Arabs, Africans and other shady-looking types ?Now, can someone explain to me whether (a) this guy has broken any law, or (b) poses a clear threat to us, or (c) has claimed any benefits ?My guesses are no, no and no......

Andrew Broadbent ● 6084d

Matthew clearly meant people from other countries who have been convicted of crimes shouldn't be allowed to move hear. The problem is that criminals know that if they come to Britain from certain countries they won't be extradicted back because of their 'human rights'. That means we become their first port of call.

Ellen Kearney ● 6084d

"I must agree with you that I think it is ridiculus that anyone who is or who has been convicted of any crimes should be allowed to live anywhere in the UK".I never said that, or anything like it; please read my post again.So, since I have a 3 point driving penalty, are you saying that I should have to leave the UK ? Or are you winding me up ?

Andrew Broadbent ● 6086d

Hello Andrew, I don't live in Hammersmith now, I moved to live in Dublin, Ireland. 4 years and 7 months ago, but I must agree with you that I think it is ridiculus that anyone who is or who has been convicted of any crimes should be allowed to live anywhere in the UK. I am not British but have respect for Britian.

Matthew Phelan ● 6089d

But he has the right to work and it's not clear that he IS claiming benefits. So why mention it ?I have the right to claim benefits in this country too; it doesn't mean that I do.My point is that the article would have been more useful if it told us what he's accused of, why he's here and on what basis he's been given leave to remain. Instead, the article seems more intent on pointing out that he's eligible to claim benefits, IMHO.

Andrew Broadbent ● 6090d

Of course the benefit issue is relevent. He wouldn't have brought his large family here if he couldn't have been sure of getting generous financial support at our expense. Other European countries are far more rigorous when it comes to handing out taxpayers cash.

Ellen Kearney ● 6091d

If that's the case (that we have created a system which seems designed to attract those involved in terrorism to come and live here) then I entirely agree that this should be the real outrage of the story.The benefits issue is not relevant, IMHO.Maybe Emma can enlighten us as to the source of this story ?

Andrew Broadbent ● 6091d

The answer to your first question is yes. The answer to your second is that nobody is likely to admit to this being the policy but Britain has been accused of doing it by many overseas countries especially France. As for the mention of benefits perhaps given the quote from Greg Hands at the end the Tories are the original source of the story. Whilst this aspect may be over-emphasised in the article and it may be generally under researched I think the outrage is understandable. We have created a system which seems designed to attract those involved in terrorism to come and live here.

Paul Corcoran ● 6092d

There's more info here than in the report on the main page of this site - I deduce that this guy is suspected of terrorist offences in Egypt, right ? But I also deduce that you're saying that our government allowed some 'fundamentalist extremists' to settle in the UK as long as they promised not to carry-out terrorist attacks on the UK - is that right ?I still don't understand why the reporter was so hung-up on the possibility that this person would claim benefits rather than providing some of the backstory which you've provided.

Andrew Broadbent ● 6092d

What if the situations were reversed and Egypt was refusing to deport a British citizen suspected of terrorist offences? There would be outrage in this country as indeed there is outrage over this issue in Cairo. We are essentially saying that we are prepared to offer a safe haven to people suspected of terrorist offences in Egypt because we don't trust their judicial system. This is despite the fact that reportedly an MI5 report states this man is involved in terrorism at the highest level. There is an implicit racism in this approach.The problem seems to stem from the Londonistan policy of the eighties and nineties when fundamentalist extremists were allow to flee from secular Arab regimes to the UK on the tacit understanding that Britain would not be subject to terrorist attacks. As most terror attacks on Britain have been home grown it could be that there still remains in place some sort of informal agreement between the Al Qaeda network and the British government. As long as these people are on the first plane back to Egypt the moment there is an internationally directed Al Qaeda attack on Britain I can understand the reasoning of the British government.

Paul Corcoran ● 6094d

Err, no it doesn't clear up why in your first sentence you mention he has "the right to claim hundreds of pounds a month in benefits". Has he said that's what he's going to do ? If not, why is it so prominent in the report ? And also, what does the fact that "he is on the UN Al-Qaeda list with the Home Office" mean ? Has he been accused of anything ? Is he being investigated ? What has he done to get on the list ?Serious questions.Your report implies that he's a terrorist who will claim benefit money. You have no proof of either, IMHO.

Andrew Broadbent ● 6094d

Here's a link to a Guardian article, Andrew. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/aug/06/uk.terrorism2 Doesn't look like the guy in question has actually been convicted of anything at all.

Lina Leaman ● 6096d

Then if he can work, he should work and only claim any additional benefits he is legally entitled to, ie child benefit.

Carol Burge ● 6096d

Hi, I spoke to the Home Office and MP Greg Hands before writing this story, it has also been on the Guido Fawkes political blog if you are familiar with that website.According to the Home Office the man in question has been granted discretionary leave to remain which means he can legally work or claim benefits in this country. I confirmed this information and that he is on the UN Al-Qaeda list with the Home Office. Hope that clears things up a bit.

Emma Midgley ● 6096d

If he has already received damages, admittedly do not know how much, has this already been used up? Surely any money already in hand needs to be taken into account before benefits are paid out?

Carol Burge ● 6096d