You must log in or register to comment.

BlueFox5 t1_jcuxbb8 wrote

He needs to invent something or win a world-wide competition at something. Then they’ll call him a Briton again and welcome him back.


Crimbobimbobippitybo t1_jcuxtsx wrote

He was back years ago after a DNA test proved that he was right, this isn't about him coming back, he's suing for compensation.


[deleted] t1_jcuz1o4 wrote



Cougfan334 t1_jcvd3lp wrote

No one calls Canadians and Australians 'Britons'.


[deleted] t1_jcw5avn wrote



TacoCommand t1_jcx1kpw wrote

As someone with Canadian clients, please never actually say this out loud.

Canadians are their own special group.

They're America's hat.


Zrkkr t1_jcx3q21 wrote

Is Alaska a ponytail then? Or is it like a backward baseball cap type of hat?


BlueFox5 t1_jcvjgkp wrote

Of course not. They haven’t done anything worthy to be called britons.


Armins_CopyOf_Swank t1_jcvm0s8 wrote

We saved your bacon in WWI and WWII.

You're welcome.


[deleted] t1_jcvmb86 wrote



Okaynowwatt t1_jcvre64 wrote

He isn’t English. He is saying that from the perspective of an Aussie or Canadian. I’m half American, and agree a bit with you. But take issue with some slack jawed yank calling people Limey. And I have no ancestral reason to side with the English.

You ruined your point by issuing a slur that’s about a whole peoples. And one that’s about 100 years out of date as well. So, bravo.


SuteSnute t1_jcvroue wrote

I like how you point out that it's outdated and silly, almost as if no one should take it seriously, but also took serious offense to it. Calm down hun


Sean001001 t1_jcvnbce wrote

You've completely dreamed this up


BlueFox5 t1_jcvzelv wrote

It’s legit from the show Grand Tour when they’re talking about a Scottish driver. If I could find a clip I would post it.


IOnlyPostNiceThings t1_jcwavep wrote

That’s a long running joke in the UK about whether people are considered Scottish or British. Has absolutely nothing to do with countries outside the UK like Australia or Canada.

Typical American, fails to understand the joke and then vomits his worthless opinion all over everyone else that nobody asked for.


Langeball t1_jcxr48k wrote

Why not just steal some Jamaican artifacts for the British Museum?


Crimbobimbobippitybo t1_jcux92u wrote

The whole Windrush Scandal was a shameful moment in our history, but this guy has to be the least sympathetic human in the entire story.


samuelgato t1_jcvd9zm wrote

He served two years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. Surely that is deserving of some sympathy.


jimicus t1_jcxgdq9 wrote

He also served nineteen years in prison for a crime he did commit.


Culverin t1_jcxikoz wrote

Then justice was served.

and then over served?


[deleted] t1_jcvgvqn wrote



samuelgato t1_jcvh9bu wrote

And he served the sentence that was handed down. After completing his sentence he was imprisoned for two years on false charges.


[deleted] t1_jcvhe5n wrote



Head-Ad4690 t1_jcwqd8f wrote

Rights are worthless if you only give them to sympathetic people.


tothemax44 t1_jcvgb53 wrote

Even a bad man can have a righteous cause.


dirty_cuban t1_jcvv4b0 wrote

Which is why it’s important to give everyone access to a robust defense at trial.


TocTheElder t1_jcuxi7t wrote

That's a long way of saying "I don't believe in rehabilitation or spent convictions."

EDIT: I've never seen someone who is right resort to blocking people. Seems like an easy way to shut down conversation without having to justify your position.

>The whole Windrush Scandal was a shameful moment in our history, but this guy has to be the least sympathetic human in the entire story.

But, therefore what?


jimicus t1_jcxh70t wrote

Legally, there's no such thing as a spent conviction as far as this chap's concerned. He committed murder.

However - big "however" - most killers aren't as dangerous to society at large as you'd believe.

More often than not, it's a spur-of-the-moment, "oh my god what have I done?" thing which they never repeat when they get out.

The unrepentant serial killers of this world are relatively rare.


IsoNeko t1_jcxl3zr wrote

This wasn't a spur of the moment, it was a robbery turned murder with a gun. I of course don't need to explain the difficulties in getting a firearm in the UK, but it's clear this wasn't just something that 'happened'.

He then snuck into the back of a fast food place, took a hostage while robbing them of money/jewellery, and then shot a guy in the head twice.

Reformed or not, 19+2 years in prison is still 19+2+x more years than the murdered man had.


jimicus t1_jcxrjgh wrote


Okay. I see what is meant by "least sympathetic human in the entire story". If you want to find someone to use as the poster child for fucked up immigration, maybe don't choose him.


literorrery t1_jcv2p0b wrote

I block right-wing trolls all the time. Some positions shouldn't be put up for debate.


theboredforeigner t1_jcx074h wrote

“Criminals are always criminals, even if they serve their time” is a very right-wing position which is often accompanied by racism and other equally bigoted fuckery.


[deleted] t1_jcvdar3 wrote



SuteSnute t1_jcvmwgt wrote

Blocking people on Reddit is literally fascism? You clowns get more and more absurd with your reaches by the day.


Crimbobimbobippitybo t1_jcuxnqi wrote

No, if that's what I meant then I would have said that; don't try to justify your straw man by pretending you're reading between the lines.

Edit: > But, therefore what?

But therefore he's the least sympathetic victim of the Windrush scandal. If you need more help understanding, I'd start with this.


TocTheElder t1_jcuzf4g wrote

Why would this guy need to be sympathetic? He is British, convicted murderer or not. Do you think we should be deporting British citizens because they were convicted of a crime? Because that's worked out so well in the past... You trying to throw caveats in there to justify his deportation is just fucking bizarre.


Bangarangadanahang t1_jcv62j4 wrote

>Do you think we should be deporting British citizens because they were convicted of a crime? Because that's worked out so well in the past...

Well we got Australia that way and I quite like the Australians generally. So not all bad I guess.


Crimbobimbobippitybo t1_jcuzixc wrote

I didn't try to justify his deportation, you're just so desperate for a fight or some worthless clout that you're pretending I did.


Wyrmalla t1_jcv76ol wrote

The article makes this man out to be a model prisoner, and states the hardships he went through in his time he was stuck in Jamaica. Nothing in the article is a flag justifies you saying this man is the "least sympathetic human in the entire story".

The other poster's relevant then as it seems the only basis you have for criticising this man is that he served a sentence on a murder charge. That poster then is justified in saying that your criticism runs contrary to concepts like rehabilitation.

Or is there some other reason you think this man is somehow the bad guy in this story?


Crimbobimbobippitybo t1_jcv7gtg wrote

> Or is there some other reason you think this man is somehow the bad guy in this story?

I think being a murderer and having a resulting bit of ill fortune which was corrected makes him less sympathetic than others affected by the Windrush scandal.

Edit: The good old seagull... shit all over the place and then fly away block and run. You won't be missed.


Wyrmalla t1_jcv8ndl wrote

Right, so you confirm what the poster said - that your criticism is based on his previous conviction. That isn't them creating a strawman, its them just repeating what you said back to you and then you getting annoyed.


TocTheElder t1_jczht7v wrote

>I think being a murderer and having a resulting bit of ill fortune which was corrected makes him less sympathetic than others affected by the Windrush scandal.

So exactly what I said, then?


jujubean67 t1_jcxdsde wrote

Who the fuck cares if he is sympathetic or not. He is a citizen and has rights, which were violated. Can't tell if you're just dumb or if this "sympathetic" talk is just another dogwhistle.


typhoidtimmy t1_jcwe8m1 wrote

Moroni deported to Sweden!

Claims he isn’t from there!


SpaceTabs t1_jcxul4q wrote

The Brits have the driest sense of humor.


StopCensoringPeopleR t1_jcyy1mq wrote

How will the current "nope you can't come back" statement to the British woman in Syria who has had her citizenship stripped affect this case? Will the UK government use that as a precedent to avoid paying anything?


Bierum t1_jd73hqj wrote

So this waste of oxygen killed a guy, got of with 20 years, is released early, jumps on the woke bandwagon and is now complaining about injustice, institutional racism, trauma etc. because he doesn´t like the Jamaican sleeping conditions? Oh wait, it´s the Guardian


ilikecchiv t1_jcxfwk5 wrote


Assuming this is the correct case, can't say i feel sorry for Mr Abu-Neigh.


nachoolo t1_jcxqkcc wrote

This doesn't mean that he should loose his rights and be deported into a foreign country.

After concluding his sentence, he's a normal citizen and shouldn't be treated differently.


Serious_Guy_ t1_jcy0jul wrote

36 years old, no previous convictions, murder weapon never found, pleaded not guilty, appealed, exceptionally good conduct in prison, including charity and educational work, gaining a BSc honours degree, peer tutoring and teaching in prison and a long list of other achievements, only expressed remorse and guilt at the point where not doing so would mean serving years longer before parole/release, the suggestion during trial that someone else may have targeted the victim due to drug dealing from the cafe rather than the alleged perpetrator commiting an opportunistic robbery. I would really like to see the evidence used to convict this guy before I say I don't feel sorry for him, especially as someone who has plead guilty to a crime I didn't commit as part of a pragmatic plea deal to save myself several years in prison.


Effective-Juice t1_jcz38or wrote

There's that.

But, also: Fascinated to hear from all these legal experts as to why "being worthy of sympathy" is the basis of whether the law applies to an individual.

I didn't know that a criminal record resulted in a permanent outlaw status or that not being very likable was a basis for denying human rights. This whole time we could have had Andy Dick on a chain gang.


[deleted] t1_jcv7o34 wrote



Ok-disaster2022 t1_jcv8uvq wrote

You may not know the entire history here, and that's fine. After WW2 UK allowed commonwealth citizens to freely immigrate to the UK to meet the manpower shortage after the war. They hand waived any official immigration documentation and just let people come. Recently cracking down on immigration they started exporting everyone who didn't have official record of immigration, including people who have spent decades of their life in UK as well as their children and grandchildren who have only ever know UK life. It's a cluster fuck of epic proportions. But that's what Racist fascists do.


Dadavester t1_jcvcn06 wrote

Thats not quite true.

Those that arrived had documentation that was stored since the 50's/60's at the home office. In the late 2000's it was decided that those records would be scrapped. Anything importent would be digitised the rest would be rubbish.

When the Con/LD government came in they continued this. So all the government records were destroyed.

The Tories then changed the rules on what is acceptable as proof of residancy. Many of the Windrush generation now did not have the correct documentation. And the Home office no longer had any record of them.

The whole process was started under labour. But at the time it was not issue because of the rules. The tories changing the rules would not have been an issue, if the home office had kept the records.

It was a huge fuck up. And it took far too long for the tories to admit their error.


IIIlllIIIlllIIIEH t1_jcvpv70 wrote

I have a question, I am just curious.

I was aware there is no national ID in USA, but surely there is one in UK? How can you not know whether you are a citizen or not for more than 20 years and still have any access to government services/ administration/ sign any kind of contract?

Unless you are a nut job that lives off the grid, how can the government not be aware that you exist for so long?

In my country you either have a citizen number or foreigner number, there is no in between. Surely you may be in the process of getting citizenship but you would know that don't have it yet just by the fact that you don't have the number.


yabushido t1_jcvvin9 wrote

No, there is no national ID in the UK - there are talks about introducing one, but currently most common ID's are passport and driving licence. You must be British nationality (not citizen!) to get the passport.

How is goverment don't know you exist? Reason #1 - they know, they just don't care. Reason #2 - goverment agencies don't like to share information with eachother or with the ministers unless they really have to.

As for 'numbers' - in the UK it is called National Insurance Number. It is tied to pretty much all goverment services - taxes, benefits, NHS, you name it. You have one and you can access these services.

There is no 'special' set of numbers just for citizens, and it will not change if you applied and was granted citizenship.


Gairmonster t1_jcxb2of wrote

the landing documents were deliberately destroyed a few years earlier by the same government organizing the deportations. this is important because it can be seen as part of their plan. This is an openly racist government.


Dadavester t1_jcxc2l9 wrote

The Labour government organised and approved the documents being destroyed, and it was carried out under Tory-Lib Dem government.

All 3 parties share blame for thos documents being destroyed.

How the Tories are the only ones at fault for the removals.


Armins_CopyOf_Swank t1_jcvmf0p wrote


Do words mean nothing anymore?


kaenneth t1_jd4s6ft wrote

"The fascist across the street is walking his dog again."

"Since when does walking a dog make someone fascist?"

"It doesn't, the swastika armband he's wearing does."


Crimbobimbobippitybo t1_jcv93bq wrote

It's incredible that the architect of that mess, Theresa May, became PM. Tells you all you need to know about what Tory voters really stand for.


Smaugb t1_jcw6fkf wrote

The Australians are doing exactly this right now.

New Zealanders can freely live and work in Australia.

New Zealand citizens who in many cases have been in Australia since they were children are being forcibly deported back to New Zealand after conviction.


pensezbien t1_jcwe6fk wrote

Whether the example you give is a good thing or a bad thing, it’s not at all exactly this - in that scenario they are deporting non-citizens who have committed crimes to their country of citizenship.

This man is a British citizen born and mostly raised in the UK (although he had spent some years living in Jamaica) where the UK government insisted he was someone else, deported him to Jamaica, incorrectly accused him of using his genuine British passport fraudulently when he returned a few years later, and jailed him for additional years on that basis.


Test19s t1_jcxt7at wrote

Humans are a vile tribal bunch, and as long as the most prosperous countries are those with limited migration and very high percentages of Northern European ancestry my faith in humanity is absent.


Used_Pen_5938 t1_jcy8uu8 wrote

Damn, people don't usually just come out and say their giant racists.

Bet you're a real lovely person to be around. Any other groups you hate?


[deleted] t1_jcvowa8 wrote



samuelgato t1_jcvyxwo wrote

A government that can lock someone up for two years on phony charges with no evidence can probably do the same to you, and that should concern you


Martholomeow t1_jcw7kto wrote

that’s not what happened here though. he admits to being a murderer.

why are so many people here defending murderers?


dagbiker t1_jcw9l4q wrote

They aren't defending murderers, they are defending rights.


Martholomeow t1_jcwsb6u wrote

defending the rights of murderers


joojie t1_jcwv9qu wrote

People who are charged with murder have a trial in front of a judge and jury. The purpose of this judge and jury is to decide whether the right to live freely in society is taken away (and in some cases right to life at all, but that's a whole other can of worms) The judge and jury do not decide that this person now has no human rights at all and that they can be treated however this person or that person sees fit.

Once time is served, this human is now a part of society again. But you think we can just arbitrarily remove rights as you see fit? That's a slippery slope....


Martholomeow t1_jcxylvo wrote

and the rest of us are welcome to our opinion that once someone becomes a murderer we don’t care about them or their rights.

i’m sure if someone killed someone you love then you wouldn’t be so quick to stand up for the rights of murderers.


dagbiker t1_jcy1twn wrote

Actually my cousin was murdered in Montana. He was shot in the head, so your theory's invalid.


Martholomeow t1_jcy20xo wrote

sorry to hear that. so you honestly care about the rights of the murderer of your cousin?


samuelgato t1_jcwbqf4 wrote

Try reading the article? When he came back to the UK they locked him up for two years on trumped up charges of using a fake ID


jujubean67 t1_jcxe2tq wrote


> He returned to the UK on his British passport in 2018. But on his return he was accused of using his own passport fraudulently and was jailed for two years. He was released in October 2020 after DNA tests with other British members of his family proved him to be a match with them.


Martholomeow t1_jcxy5pj wrote

He’s still a murderer.


jujubean67 t1_jcy08jl wrote

Nobody is arguing the opposite. For that murder he served his sentence, a separate sentence so he has paid his debt to society.


Martholomeow t1_jcy241j wrote

ok good. and i don’t care about his rights now that he killed someone


jujubean67 t1_jcy29bk wrote

You sound like a 14 year old lmao. We have laws for a reason.


[deleted] t1_jcw2rsg wrote



[deleted] t1_jcw7bql wrote



crashspeeder t1_jcwsqwz wrote

Rights aren't only for good people, straight people, white people, neurotypical people, patriotic people, or people who don't protest. Rights are for everyone (thus the name, rights, not privileges). Rights have been denied to many groups, and will continue to be denied to anyone "different" unless we fight against it. The mentally disabled are often the worst off, because they're easily taken advantage of, or coerced into confessing to something they didn't do. Work your way through the above list and come up with a good reason each group that doesn't fall into any of those should be denied their rights. If you genuinely believe the reason(s) you give then you're likely to be swayed by an authoritarian figure looking to exploit your fervor for their power.

When human rights are denied to the least of us they can be denied to all of us. Nobody is defending a murderer just to defend him. But what crimes would warrant the loss of rights you're so up in arms about? Vagrancy was a crime, but only black people were really accused of it. From that point on they were criminals, and even easier to deny rights to. Speaking out against the government can also get you put in jail, depending on how you exercise that right. Sometimes the government does genuinely bad things. You shouldn't lose your rights because you called attention do the government's misdeeds. And laws change. What's illegal today may be legal tomorrow. Similarly, now abortions are illegal in many states, but they were legal before. Politics changes laws, so being a convicted felon shouldn't mean you get carted off to a foreign country to figure out how to start your life from scratch. It's not that country's problem/fault, and it's your right as a citizen to live in the country you're a citizen of. What you're suggesting is being stripped of citizenship and leaving somebody stateless. I don't know that you understand the implications of that.