BS Summary: This article contains 38 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 46.6% saturation with 431 hits. Analysis detected 2,517 faulty-reasoning hits from 924 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.9% and a BS Rank of 50% (11,130 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.80% of the article peer group.
Want unlimited, ad-free access?
Become a spiked supporter .
The case of Shabir Ahmed – specifically, the UK’s seeming inability to send the ringleader of the Rochdale rape gang back to his home country of Pakistan – is sickening.
I do not want this man to ever walk the streets of this country again.
It is also infuriating.
For it is emblematic not just of political cowardice, but also of our toothless foreign policy and the whole rotten edifice of human rights law that so often seems to protect bad people instead of victims.
The problem is partly legislative – specifically provisions under the Immigration Act 1971, Section 7 of which bars the removal of any Commonwealth citizen who arrived in the UK before 1973, and had been in the country for five years.
In the last 24 hours, Alex Norris, the Home Office minister, told the Commons that the government was ‘examining every option’, but that Ahmed – who arrived in the UK in the 1960s – could not be deported unless this law was amended.
This may end up being achieved through an amendment to the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which comes before the Commons next week.
But the problem is also Pakistan, and its failure so far to agree to take back its own criminals.
Ahmed held dual British and Pakistani citizenship when he was convicted in 2012.
His British citizenship was then stripped by the courts upon his conviction, and it was expected he would be deported when he completed his sentence.
In an apparent bid to avoid that happening, Ahmed, who was freed last week after serving 14 years behind bars for 30 child rape offences, ripped up his Pakistani passport and renounced his citizenship.
Pakistan says he is no longer a Pakistani citizen and has so far refused to take him back.
However, Pakistan does not allow its citizens to make themselves stateless.
Under the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951, a citizen cannot renounce their nationality unless they already hold another nationality or citizenship.
So ripping up his Pakistani passport is meaningless.
But quibbling about legal technicalities misses the larger point here: why has British diplomacy become so impotent that we cannot force Pakistan to take back this contemptible man?
There are tools at our disposal, if only we had the stomach to use them.
We continue to give Pakistan – a nuclear power with its own space programme, it should be pointed out – hundreds of millions of pounds in foreign aid.
We could – and should – threaten to scrap every last penny of it until it takes him back.
With that threat hanging over Pakistan’s head, the government would surely not hesitate to do so.
Even more pertinently, our government granted over 200,000 visas to Pakistani nationals in the year ending 31 March 2026.
Visas could easily be leveraged to exert pressure.
Pakistan also earns billions of pounds in remittances from its nationals living here in the UK and sending money home – those remittances could be taxed.
What else?
Pakistan International Airlines recently regained permission to operate to the UK after restrictions were lifted.
That, too, could easily be reversed.
The point is our refusal to play the cards we hold.
Yes, as ever, diplomatic negotiation is happening behind the scenes, and in this case, we may yet eventually convince Pakistan to take back Ahmed.
But time and again we fail to play hardball and are reluctant – even embarrassed – to use our diplomatic clout to deliver on domestic priorities.
This is one of the greatest failings of our foreign policy.
Why have we not already instrumentalised aid, visas and more over the other jailed ringleaders of the Rochdale grooming gangs – Qari Abdul Rauf and Adil Khan – over which Pakistan has likewise been giving us the two fingers?
Indeed, why has Pakistan’s ambassador not been summoned over any of these cases and forced to answer for them?
What does it say about our national priorities that we have not?
The whole purpose of the merger between our foreign ministry and development department in 2020, to create the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, was to ensure that our development activities and aid budget were operating in support of hard-nosed foreign policy objectives.
Successive governments have at least paid lip service to crafting a foreign policy that furthers domestic priorities – from tackling the causes of immigration and terrorism under the Tories to acting as the ‘international arm of the growth mission’ under Starmer’s Labour government.
This is the right intention.
But until we stop shirking from using the tools in our diplomatic armoury to deliver concrete outcomes for the British people, they will remain nothing more than fine words.
Let us start by turning the screws to rid ourselves of this wretched scum.
That would be a diplomacy the British public could truly get behind.
Ameer Kotecha was formerly a senior diplomat and is now the CEO of the Centre for Government Reform.
You’ve hit your monthly free article limit.
Support spiked and get unlimited access.
Already a supporter?
Log in now:
Monthly support makes the biggest difference.
Thank you.
Graham Platner and the death of ‘The Resistance’
Big Burnham will be watching you
Could Labour be about to ban X?
Prince Harry’s loss is a victory for free speech
If Nigel Farage is so dangerous, why won’t they stand against him?
‘Without a border, we’re not a country’
Brexit: a revolution betrayed?
Speakers
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.