What is the government going to do?

[cromwell]

About stories like these?
Epping migrant accused of sexually assaulting young girls.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/0 ... -protests/

Two Afghan asylum seekers charged in connection with the rape of a twelve year old girl.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy98l9j913vo

Migrant tries to kidnap ten year old girl
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/0 ... p-girl-10/

These stories have all appeared in a very short time. What are the government's options?

Stop it happening? Good luck with that. How?
Deport those doing it? In our human rights world, unlikely.

Just to be clear, this isn't a rant about these crimes, appalling as they are. It's about a bad political issue for the government and how they might handle said issue.

But it is a political problem.
No government can defend the sexual assault of children; aand that's what is happening here.

They can try and use the old "far right" smear, but not against concerned mothers and relatives.

The only option they have as far as I can see, is to try and stop these stories getting into the papers. Whether this is by using a superinjunction or what, who knows.

Just to be clear, this isn't a rant about these crimes, appalling as they are.
It's about how the government might or might not try to handle a very sticky political problem.

[Workingman]

I can find no evidence that anyone in government local / national has ever tried to defend what has happened, that is just not the case. What the spokespeople have explained. or tried to, is the legal constraints they are under regarding the release of certain details about a person charged with a crime, any crime, not just rape / sexual offences.

That situation obviously needs looking at PDQ.

And, as these stories have been aired in the media, I can see no evidence of them being prevented in any way. What I have noticed is that the names of the perpetrators have been released. Years ago that never used to happen...

What are the government's options? Pretty limited I would say, without changes to the law. The UK's own Human Rights Act (2000) alongside other international conventions / treaties ties their hands somewhat.

[Suff]

Trying to bury the acts and then hiding the risk from the public is, in many ways, worse than condoning it or at least tolerating it with minimal control.

I'm not sure they are trying to bury it right now but I'm pretty sure if they thought they could they would.

There is only one resolution to this. These migrants are held in a holding area until they are rejected back to where they came from or are accepted as a legal immigrant.

They don't want to do that because these same press decrying the damage being done by the current policy will call them Nazi's for trying to control it.

I was recently asked to engage in a nascent political party. I agreed I'd engage, talk to them and offer my thoughts. But I would become no further engaged. It is a poisoned chalice and someone has to do it, but it is for the next generations to take hold of their future and run with it.

Much as I despise politicians for their blustering statements and wilful myopia around the real causes of the problems, I have some very small drop of sympathy for how they are treated. Even Labour.

[Workingman]

There is only one resolution to this. These migrants are held in a holding area until they are rejected back to where they came from or are accepted as a legal immigrant.

This what many ordinary people have said for ages and ages. Those people are not Extreme Right-Wingers, Anarchists, Nazis or Fascists; just ordinary people. What is more, they are supporters of all the main political parties of all colours.

These secure holding areas could be built well away from population centres and those housed there would be given shelter, obviously, as well as food, clothing, access to medical facilities, interpreters, legal assistance and so much more.

That one simple move would automatically do away with the hotel protests we have seen up and down the country. It would save fortune in the hotel bills and the costs of policing those protest. If the claims made by these refugees / asylum seekers are correct then they have left Hell-holes of torture, oppression, hunger, on-the-spot executions without trial and so on. A few months in a holding centre would seem like heaven. IMO they, personally, would have little to complain about. However, they will have a small minority of loud-mouthed do-gooders to stir things up for them.

[medsec222]

I would imagine that a huge proportion of the general population would agree with you Frank. However the money orientated human rights lawyers would be there like a shot because detention would be against their human rights, however comfortable they have been made. Certainly looking at the scenes of the migrant camps in Calais, they are living in absolute squalor. But there is no justification for putting people who have illegally landed on our shores into luxury hotels and allowing them to roam freely around the country.

[Workingman]

Meds, my take is that they are not in detention, they are being processed (yes / no) in a secure environment which is safer for them. That system is actually protecting their human rights not diminishing them.

[medsec222]

It seems whatever action the Government of the day tries to take it is ultimately thwarted one way or another. There now appear to be loopholes in the one in, one out scheme, such as migrants with human rights claims or are aged under 18 not being able to be returned - and goodness knows what other loopholes will come to light as the scheme evoles. At least the government does have some element of control with migrants coming through legal routes or on a visa, although even that is debatable. Those coming across the channel may be fewer in number but they are coming in ever increasing numbers with no end in sight.

I find it totally depressing that unelected human rights lawyers can seemingly prevent the Government from deporting illegal immigrants and securing our borders.

[Suff]

Meds, my take is that they are not in detention, they are being processed (yes / no) in a secure environment which is safer for them. That system is actually protecting their human rights not diminishing them.

Absolutely WM. But you know the reality. 99% of them are not fleeing war and oppression. They are there to get ahead without doing the work at home.

At least if they are securely held then they are secure and so are the population around them. If they are comfortable, well fed, have access to internet and media, what is their complaint? Apart form that they can't leverage what they have done for their advantage.

I would not deny anyone sanctuary who truly needed it. Not even the tens of thousands Cameron lifted out of Syria who had horrific injuries and put a massive burden on the NHS everywhere they landed.