Wednesday, December 31, 2025
Tuesday, December 30, 2025
Monday, December 29, 2025
Sunday, December 28, 2025
Saturday, December 27, 2025
Tuesday, December 23, 2025
Monday, December 22, 2025
Sunday, December 21, 2025
Saturday, December 20, 2025
Friday, December 19, 2025
Thursday, December 18, 2025
Wednesday, December 17, 2025
How the cult
of victimhood poisoned the West
Philosopher Pascal
Bruckner calls for the rejection of self-pity and imagined guilt
Pascal Bruckner is
one of France’s, and the West’s, foremost philosophers; his work is less
well-known in Britain than it should be. He has made a formidable reputation for
attacking contemporary mindsets, notably the self-hating, anti-Westernism of the Left, the
masochism of Western guilt, and the obsession with noxious and illogical
identity politics. All those themes converge in his masterful book I
Suffer Therefore I Am, which dissects victimhood, perhaps the most toxic
feature of current discourse – a confidence trick played by people, even whole
nations, on useful idiots who long to punish themselves for their own imagined
guilt.
So much of this is
about posturing. Bruckner suggests that, for many, “the ultimate dream would be
to become a martyr without ever having suffered anything other than the
misfortune of having been born… Today’s citizens can wake up one morning and
exclaim, as if struck with a revelation, ‘I too am a victim.’” Their “executioners”, he
says, include “capitalism, my family, the bourgeoisie, patriarchy, the system”
– a list that is likely to “change and accumulate”. Seeking bogus victimhood
has become an equal-opportunity delusion, with many examples on the Right
– Donald Trump is cited – but many more on
the Left. After all, the Left’s great invention, welfarism, thrives not least
because of unchallenged victimhood.
Bruckner sets out
how the advance of “woke” began with Leftists seeking to radicalise discourse
through reducing minorities to the status of victims. He mentions the
discipline, coined by a fellow philosopher, of “offensology” – “today, we are
all oversensitive, lashing out at the slightest shock, the slightest remark” –
and the idiotic concept of “microaggressions”. For example, he cites a
former French minister, a black woman, calling it a “microaggression” whenever
she walked past a statue of Colbert, who under the ancien régime drew
up the code of how masters should treat their slaves. Some are so resolute in
their search for victimhood that they claim it even in success: Bruckner quotes
a French singer who, on winning a major televised award, nonetheless informed
the audience watching that “they don’t want to let us overweight black people
rise to the top” – whoever “they” are.
Bruckner is right to question the position that the
descendants of slaves and other oppressed or exterminated people should receive
special treatment, beyond the right we all enjoy, equally, to be spared any
further oppression. He denounces the notion of “indulgence credit for
eternity”, and the idea that such people are “born with a portfolio of
grievances to build on”. This is ahistorical: “Each of us could go back into
our family tree and find a slave, a serf or a hanged man to explain our present
misery.”
He exposes the
absurdity of white people publicly “taking the knee” after the killing of George
Floyd, when practically none of those kneelers had ever done a
disservice to a person of colour in his or her life. There are millions who
feel better for professing guilt by recognising the victimhood of others; that
this victimhood is largely confected does not appear to occur to them, nor that
they are often being exploited by political extremists who manipulate
victimhood for their own ends.
A loose definition
of oppression will inevitably expand the ranks of the oppressed. “Even studying
is sometimes equated with oppression,” Bruckner writes. “Any teaching of a new
subject… is violence inflicted on a child who is being torn from the soft
cocoon of ignorance.” The resultant dilution of school curricula does not just
spare students the arduousness of learning, for example, foreign languages or
(especially) the classics. It also relieves them of reading texts that make
them experience “the retrograde representation of women or minorities, so as
not to wound their fragile souls. As a result, standards are falling,
illiteracy is on the rise and private schools that still focus on excellence
and competition are flourishing.” (That, of course, is not least why the Labour
Government seeks to destroy them by putting VAT on their fees.)
Bruckner argues
that victimhood is not merely a problem with individuals who don’t grasp how
self-destructive and pathetic their self-pity is; when states follow suit, it
becomes a problem on a vast scale. Putin’s Russia is his key example, and an
example too of what he terms the reductio ad Hitlerum, by which
alleged victims enlist Nazism as their opponents’ creed – as Vladimir Putin
does, absurdly, with Ukraine, even though Volodymyr Zelensky himself is Jewish.
Even Hamas can be victims, though Bruckner, in illustrating the imagined
hierarchies of suffering, wonders why nobody seems to know much or care about
Arab-on-Arab violence any more than they highlight the long global history of
non-white people engaging in slavery. But then victim reversal is a familiar
human trait, used to conceal the wickedness of those portraying themselves
falsely as victims, such as when senior Nazis consoled those who murdered Jews
for the distress this taking of innocent lives might have caused them.
Similarly, Bruckner asks why the suffering in the
Gulag, under the Stalinist regime, or in China under Mao, is rarely placed in
the same category as that inflicted by Hitler. Some victims, even if they have
suffered identical fates, seem to be more important than others, especially
those whose misery was inflicted by fascists and not communists. The idea that
men are uniquely violent is countered by depressing lists of names of the
bestial women who did the Third Reich’s dirty work in the camps – and did it
with pleasure – not to mention the thousands of teenage girls who, Bruckner
says, went to Syria to engage in jihad and assist in the enslavement and
maltreatment of other women.
Bruckner is
unequivocal in his belief that some seek victim status in order to attract
attention: “There are people whose only identity is to be ill… these little
bundles of misfortune recite their litanies to anyone who will listen.” In the
West, millions have embraced a culture of whining. “How,” he asks, “did we
pass from the heroic figure of Rosa Parks fighting discrimination in America to
that of Greta Thunberg weeping over the fate of
the planet? That’s the story of the past half-century.”
Although he
concedes that there are still real heroes, performing acts of genuine heroism
in saving the lives of others at the cost of their own, too many people prefer
to be cast as victims, exploiting the status either out of narcissism or for wider
political ends. And heaven help any political leader who does not emote
excessively at anyone else’s misfortune: George
W Bush never recovered from showing insufficient empathy after
Hurricane Katrina.
Bruckner asks
whether we might, at last, shed “the robes of martyrdom to enter the orders of
the free”. One woman he praises for doing just that is Samantha Geimer, who
was sexually assaulted by Roman Polanski when
she was 13, but has had enough of being a victim. Others lack Geimer’s courage,
and lack of ulterior motive. Leaving aside the personal and political gains to
be made by those who present themselves as victims, there is also a whole
grief-maintenance industry that earns a handsome living from encouraging this
toxic mentality.
Bruckner’s thesis is underlined by this thought:
stuff happens, it’s a pretty horrible world out there, and we had better get
used to it. “Cruelty kills but does not break us,” he writes. “Composure is one
of the faces of heroism.” If we did face up to our fate, perhaps we would be
better prepared, when manipulative politicians such as Putin, Trump and Erdogan
try to present themselves as victims, to treat them with the contempt they
merit. Too many people have been terrorised by fashion into a permanent state
of guilt that forces them into a permanent state of compassion for individuals
and institutions who don’t need it or deserve it, but milk it for all it’s
worth. Enough is enough.
★★★★★
I Suffer Therefore
I Am is published by Policy at £25. To order your copy for £19.99, call 0330
173 5030 or visit Telegraph Books
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/5789d728673c0ade
Tuesday, December 16, 2025
Monday, December 15, 2025
Sunday, December 14, 2025
Saturday, December 13, 2025
Friday, December 12, 2025
Thursday, December 11, 2025
Tuesday, December 9, 2025
Monday, December 8, 2025
Sunday, December 7, 2025
Saturday, December 6, 2025
Friday, December 5, 2025
Wednesday, December 3, 2025
Monday, December 1, 2025
Sunday, November 30, 2025
Saturday, November 29, 2025
Friday, November 28, 2025
Thursday, November 27, 2025
Wednesday, November 26, 2025
Tuesday, November 25, 2025
Monday, November 24, 2025
Thursday, November 20, 2025
Wednesday, November 19, 2025
Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Monday, November 17, 2025
Thursday, November 13, 2025
Wednesday, November 12, 2025
Tuesday, November 11, 2025
Monday, November 10, 2025
Sunday, November 9, 2025
Saturday, November 8, 2025
Friday, November 7, 2025
Thursday, November 6, 2025
‘I think it
is inevitable a man I grant asylum to will rape or murder a young girl’
Caseworker reveals
how illegal migrants trick the system to stay in Britain
All mothers have sleepless nights.
We lie awake worrying needlessly that our offspring
may be in danger, but Nicky’s fears for her girls are not just fears.
She believes she has very good reason to fret that
her three daughters, and millions of other people’s children, are not safe.
“To be honest with you, I think it’s inevitable
that one day I will turn on the TV news and there will be some man I have
granted asylum to and he will have raped or murdered a young girl, just like my
girls.”
Nicky, whose name I
have changed to protect her identity, is an experienced caseworker in the UK’s asylum system, which she describes
variously to me during a long interview as “unsustainable”, “laughable if it
wasn’t so dangerous”, and a “crazy carousel” in which tens of thousands of
applicants (“We have to call them ‘customers’ now, can you believe it?”) use
every trick in the book to remain in this country.
Nicky and her
colleagues must somehow assess the claims of those “customers”
– mostly men from Africa and Asia who come ashore on the south coast of
England, often without identity documents. In 2025 alone, official figures
suggest around 37,000 have crossed the Channel by small boat.
As she makes me the first of several strong mugs of
tea that will keep us both going over the next few hours, she tells me: “Look,
we get some people who totally deserve our help, African women, say, who are
victims of FGM (female genital mutilation). If we send them back, they are
forced to become ‘cutters’ themselves, so we offer them refuge, and I’m glad
that we do. And there are trafficked girls, harrowing cases that leave you
traumatised. But most people I assess are lying.”
Nicky has warned me
to prepare myself for what she is about to reveal. “You’re going to
be shocked, Allison.”
Am I? Happily perched on a stool in Nicky’s cosy
kitchen overlooking the garden of her charming stone cottage just a few breezy
miles from the English Channel, ironically enough; I think, well, we all know
the asylum system is a mess. How bad can it be? Half an hour later, I am shaken
to the core. Prepare yourselves.
How does Nicky know when an applicant is lying?
Some, she claims, repeatedly change their story.
“For example, an Iranian will say, ‘I’m claiming asylum because I was
politically active against the regime’. There’s no evidence to prove that, and
we feel like it’s safe for him to return. Then, he’ll say, ‘Well, I’m a
Christian convert now’, although he never mentioned that before.
“And when I ask him about Easter, he says Easter is
to do with ‘chocolate eggs’ and has never heard of the resurrection. But if
there’s a live claim lodged, it’s a barrier to removal, and we still have to
house him and fund him. Now, men like him will go through the whole process
again till they get to appeal rights exhausted, and then they’ll lodge a
further submissions claim to say, ‘Well, I’m homosexual now’.”
Disappeared asylum seekers
Further submissions can be made by an asylum seeker
after all their appeals are exhausted. It is a way to provide new evidence or
information to the Home Office. If the information is judged to be significantly
different to their previous case, it can be reviewed as a fresh claim.
How long does that go on?
She rolls her eyes. “Forever basically. Even if
they eventually get a deportation order, it’s mainly voluntary. Very few of
them ever get sent home – the Home Office hasn’t got the resources or the
willpower to do it. They just disappear.”
How many disappeared asylum seekers does Nicky
think are in the UK?
“To be honest, I think it must be hundreds of
thousands. Just based on the number of further submissions claims. And that’s
without the initial asylum claims from people who were able to come over on
lorries before Brexit, and they were mainly the ones who absconded because they
just got out of the lorry and ran.”
Nicky claims they have tried to track down so many
people who fell off the map years ago, but the trail runs cold at the last
known address.
“Because we can’t find them it’s called ‘implicit
withdrawal’. So that’s one way of improving the numbers, we’ve closed that
case. And those numbers will be included when the government of the day says,
‘We’ve cleared this backlog’. In fact, they haven’t because the Home Office has
implicitly withdrawn the asylum claim because we couldn’t find them, but the
public will think it’s all sorted.”
Claims can be treated as withdrawn either because
the asylum seeker explicitly says they no longer want to claim protection or
implicitly if their actions – such as failing to attend interviews – are judged
by the Home Office to amount to a withdrawal.
With new applicants, Nicky conducts an initial
screening interview online. She says: “I ask nationality questions, via an
interpreter, but there’s some migrants that, if they’re from a particular
country, they’re not getting sent back no matter what.”
New high grant countries
Which countries does the Home Office say you aren’t
allowed to send people back to?
“Afghanistan, Eritrea, Kuwait and Sudan at the
moment. The ‘high grant’ countries used to include Syria, Libya, Yemen and
Iraq. Eritrea is on the list because we can’t return anyone to a country with
enforced military conscription because it’s against their human rights.”
Most Africans now claim they’re from Eritrea, Nicky
says. “Because they know they’ll automatically get asylum. I’m allowed to ask
them nationality questions. What is the capital of Eritrea? What is the flag of
Eritrea? But it’s child’s play to Google those answers so...”
She throws her hands up in despair: “It’s a joke.”
The Home Office claims that there is no country
from which asylum seekers are guaranteed to be allowed to stay in the UK. But
the rates of approval for Eritrean, Syrian and Sudanese applicants between
2021-23 were all 99 per cent.
The conviction rate for sexual violence by
nationality per 10,000 people shows Afghans at the top and Eritrean men in
second place.
Has anyone in Nicky’s work said it is madness to
grant automatic asylum to young males from those countries?
She claims: “Yes, of course. We all sit there and
go ‘how come this is allowed?’ Before things went pear-shaped in Afghanistan,
we had loads of Afghan claims and they were mainly all refusals. It was safe to
go back to Afghanistan. Then, after the Taliban took over, we were given our
refusals back and told we had to reassess. I always run the Police National
Computer (PNC) check and the terrorist check (Warnings Index Control Unit,
WICU). And the first guy I had to reassess, it came up that he’d been arrested
multiple times for indecent exposure in children’s play areas.
“So I said, ‘I’m refusing. He’s a wrong’un’. And my
senior manager said we can’t refuse an Afghan, we’ve got to grant. And I said I
wouldn’t do it because a man who exposes himself in front of kids – well,
where’s that going to end? And they said you’ve got to make the decision on the
basis of the claim – he can’t be returned because he says he was politically
active in Afghanistan against the Taliban. Just one anti-regime post on social
media and he can say he’s politically active. But I still refused to make the
grant, and I got disciplined for that.”
Why?
“Because I wasn’t meeting the requirements of my
job. I was refusing that man because of criminal activity and because I
believed he posed a threat to children, but he was never going to receive a
jail sentence for indecent exposure, he was just getting repeated warnings. So
they gave his case to someone else who was prepared to say ‘yes’.”
Nicky prides herself on being able to spot the
genuine cases, even where they have been initially rejected and then appealed.
“There was a Bangladeshi guy who had previously been
interviewed by a male decision maker, and he felt so ashamed of his
homosexuality in front of another man that he said he was politically active
instead.
“And then, years later, he comes back and he said
to me, ‘I’m a homosexual’, and he completely broke down. In my experience, you
can very rarely fake those emotions.”
Push to clear backlog
As the number of migrants entering the country
illegally increases, and with the embarrassment that causes the Government,
especially the so-called “asylum hotels” costing taxpayers nearly £6m a day,
Nicky claims the pressure on caseworkers to get those men off the books is
ramping up. But getting an asylum seeker “off the books” is a lengthy process,
Nicky says.
“In the past, we would investigate a case
thoroughly and often refuse them and they would appeal and then an immigration
judge would agree with our assessment and reject their claim. But then, once
the appeals process was exhausted, the applicants’ lawyers could move on to
further submissions and that would string the process out even longer. If their
claim was eventually rejected – we could be talking about seven to ten years
living in the UK by that point – then the applicant would just abscond and go
and work in a nail bar or a car wash.”
Or a migrant might claim he had fathered a British
child and deportation to his country of origin would breach his right to a
family life. Nicky says that she has spent hundreds of hours trying to check
whether certain fathers have any contact at all with their putative children.
She claims that
when she started the job, caseworkers had “the most amazing
training. On further submissions it was six months of training. It needed to be
thorough so that, when anybody did go to appeal, our decisions were robust and
sound, and the immigration judge would find on our behalf”.
No longer. She claims that since a push on clearing
the backlog in December 2022, decision makers aren’t allowed to take their time
and make quality decisions any more, she claims. “In the past, I would always say
if I’m on the fence, it’s a refusal, unless someone can prove their claim. Even
if I didn’t meet my targets, I knew I’d made a really sound decision, but we
can’t do that now because it’s ‘get the numbers, get the numbers, get the
numbers’. And those rushed decisions won’t hold up in a court.”
There are 19 decision-making units located across
the UK with more than 6,500 staff. Major centres are in Croydon, Leeds,
Manchester, Sheffield and Belfast. These asylum centres are coming under huge
strain as politicians twig that public anger about immigration in general, and
illegal migrants in particular, is tanking their electoral prospects.
Staff are feeling “browbeaten”, morale is at rock
bottom and stress-related sick leave is endemic, Nicky claims. But the Labour
Government has promised to empty asylum hotels by the end of the current
parliament in 2029, and Nicky alleges that this pledge is leading to
corner-cutting on an alarming scale.
What happens when politics enters the equation
She has seen this kind of politically driven panic
before, and makes an especially damaging allegation.
“In December 2022, Rishi Sunak said that he was
going to clear the ‘legacy’ asylum backlog of 100,000 claims by the end of
2023. So all these decision-making units were set up to clear the backlog
because it was an election promise. And that’s where the standard of training
fell down because they just wanted bums on seats as quickly as possible.
“So they needed a lot of staff to do the initial
asylum decisions. Teams from the Home Office went to different job centres
around the country and people who were signing on, they got a quick 15-minute
interview and the Home Office people said, ‘We’ve got a job for you’. Some
weren’t even interviewed at all. They just applied online, and they were given
the role. And then they had a matter of weeks training. So these new asylum
staff, they were going to be making, in some cases, life or death decisions,
and they hadn’t got the first clue.”
Hang on, Nicky, you’re claiming hundreds of completely
random people were drafted in and were, with minimal training, put in charge of
deciding who was safe to stay in our country?
“Correct. And the stress levels are awful because
they’ve been thrown in at the deep end. We have people called technical specialists
who are experienced decision-makers. There were hardly any of those. So the new
people had nowhere to go to ask questions and they were like: ‘We don’t know
what we’re doing.’ Even after they’d been there a year. And the team leaders
were saying: ‘It’s terrible. You’ve got no idea how bad it is.’ But if anyone
complained, we were told: ‘Get the numbers out! Get the numbers!’.”
The Home Office insists that the recruitment and
training process was vigorous. Nevertheless, I ask Nicky, did she feel that
there was political pressure to rush asylum approvals through?
She says: “God, yes, it was unbelievable. Huge
pressure and targets. Back then, for a full-time decision maker, it was five
decisions a week, and five interviews, and bear in mind some of the cases are
very complex. But if you didn’t hit that target, there were threats of losing
your job.
Nicky claims it takes half a day to grant asylum
and several days to refuse.
“So people are granting because they are frightened
for their jobs. And the technical specialists who do random checks on our work
say they see loads of grants go out on a Friday because people are panicking to
hit that week’s stats.”
Again, just so we’re perfectly clear, I ask Nicky,
you fear that there could be an applicant who could have been a terrorist, a
member of Islamic State, and their box would be ticked in order to hit a
target?
“Yes, because the caseworker would be frightened
for their job. If they hit their stats – 90 per cent or over – they’re under
the radar, so they make sure they hit their target come what may.”
The Home Office says that it doesn’t prioritise
speed or volume above high standards. But Nicky fetches her laptop and shows me
an email dating from autumn 2023 which she says demonstrates the kind of
shortcuts that were encouraged.
“People on the legacy backlog from Afghanistan,
Eritrea, Libya, Syria and Yemen have been asked to fill out a questionnaire
instead of having face-to-face interviews,” says the memo from the Home Office.
Nicky alleges that in practice, this meant
thousands of illegal migrants could get away with making stuff up, giving them
a golden ticket to stay in Britain, with no further questions asked.
She was right. I am shocked. Actually, I feel
stricken that this is happening in our country. What Nicky has described is no
less than the reckless endangerment of public safety by politicians and senior
civil servants whose main concern seems to be clearing the asylum backlog – or
at least pretending to – in order to make themselves look good rather than
taking decisive action to protect our borders and deport migrants who shouldn’t
be here in the first place.
A place for terrorists
Does Nicky believe that terrorists and criminals
have been granted asylum in the UK?
“Of course they have,” she says, without
hesitation. “Why wouldn’t a terror cell come over on a boat and say they’re
from a high grant country? It’s the easiest way to get in. Terrifying really.
It’s unsustainable, it’s dangerous, it’s got to stop before more people are
injured or killed.”
We pause for a break and, as I walk through the
cottage to find the loo, I see framed photographs everywhere of the three girls
with their locks of fine blonde hair.
I can understand why their mother might fear they
are at risk from migrants to whom she has been told to grant asylum, even
though she knows for a fact they’ve exposed themselves and been arrested for
indecent behaviour.
Nicky tells me: “The kids know what I do for a job
and they think you should just let refugees in to be nice, but they haven’t got
a clue what some of these guys are capable of. I’m not racist, Allison, I’m a
realist. I’d feel the same if it was a gang of white men coming over on a boat
from a country that has different opinions on women and children. Doesn’t
matter the colour of the skin, it’s their culture. They’ve come from lawless
countries where women are fair game if they’re not covered head to toe. And in
the asylum service, we are not allowed to question them about misogyny or
medieval attitudes that could hurt women and girls here in the UK.”
That threat is not
hypothetical. In the week that Nicky and I meet, an asylum seeker from Sudan
was convicted for murdering Rhiannon Whyte, a young mother who worked in
the asylum hotel where he lived (CCTV captured him laughing and dancing); a
Somalian asylum seeker who illegally entered the UK via a small boat in October
2024 was jailed for life for the fatal stabbing of a popular restaurant owner “without
provocation or motive” (he was appealing his asylum claim); a
Syrian asylum seeker was jailed for sexually assaulting a student in Cardiff; and
there was been widespread outrage at the story of Ethiopian Hadush Kebatu who, eight days
after he illegally entered the UK by small boat, sexually assaulted a
fourteen-year-old schoolgirl in Epping and the adult woman who tried to protect
the child.
“It’s almost a daily occurrence now,” sighs Nicky.
It certainly is. In
the first six months of this year, 339 court cases – including
sexual attacks and violent assaults – involved a suspect who was a foreign
national living in an asylum hotel.
According to Nicky, the pressure from the Labour
Government to empty the asylum hotels before the next general election will
only make things worse. She tells me that the target for caseworkers has gone
up again in the last few months – from five to six asylum decisions and six
interviews a week.
She says that this makes errors more likely while
increasing the perverse incentive to approve yet more claims.
Nicky believes every home secretary she’s worked
under has “lied and lied about the asylum situation”, although there is one
exception.
“Suella Braverman understood what was going on with
further submissions. These repeated claims that were a barrier to removal and
she tried to stop them, she really did, but unfortunately, she never got that
far because she lost her job.”
She says that delusion and deceit about our asylum
crisis are found at the highest level. Recently, Sir Keir Starmer has taken to
boasting that, in the period since he became Prime Minister, from July 2024 to
June this year, 26,000 migrants have been returned to their home country.
“Typical smoke and mirrors,” claims Nicky. “They
were mainly Albanians, and we have a returns agreement with Albania, but they
don’t break it down. Only 27 per cent of those deported were asylum claimants –
that’s just over 7,000. So where are all the others? Still in the crazy
carousel going round and round.”
The light is draining out of the afternoon and
Nicky and I sit there in the half dark as I try to absorb the implications of
what she has told me. So many loopholes, so many lies.
The state actually thinks the safety of some
migrants, who must not be returned to forced conscription in their home
country, is more important than the safety of our children in their home.
“Bear in mind,” she says, “what we’ve been talking
about, these are just the claims that are over 12 months old, not the most
recent ones from the past year or the ones that keep coming in the small
boats.”
“It’s mind-blowing, isn’t it? There are staff in my
office, the women with young kids, and they cry about it. You know I’d really
like this interview to bring about a change.”
I thank Nicky for her bravery in speaking out. Was
there one case, I wonder, that compelled her to get in touch with me?
Yes, she answers.
She claims: “There was this initial asylum claimant
from a high grant country – he’d been stalking young girls, he’d raped, beaten
women up. We had to barrier the case, that means wait and see what action has
been taken against him, if he’d get a prison sentence or not, but he absconded
before that. He’s out there now.
“Get the numbers, get the numbers, get the
numbers.”
This has to stop right now. Because, if it doesn’t,
one day Nicky fears that she will turn on the TV news and there will be some
man she has granted asylum to and he will have raped or murdered a young girl
just like her girls, or your girls, or mine.
Home Office response:
A Home Office spokesman said: “We take all allegations seriously and are
committed to addressing any concerns appropriately. However, we do not accept
the characterisation of these concerns as presented.
“The integrity of the UK immigration system is paramount. We operate
within a robust framework of safeguards and quality assurance measures to
ensure that all claims are thoroughly assessed, decisions are well-founded, and
protection is granted only to those who meet the established criteria.”
“We are changing the law so individuals convicted of sexual offences
cannot be granted asylum in the UK.”
The Home Office denied that asylum caseworkers had
to prioritise speed and volume and said standards of decision making were
maintained through robust quality assurance measures.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/6aac9907edc0ca08