Well we finally have some good news on immigration. The removal of foreign criminals, immigration offenders and people with no legal right to be in Britain has reportedly reached its highest level since 2016, with more than 80,000 returns since Labour came to power. Well done, Labour!

Returns are said to be up 52 per cent compared with the equivalent two-year period before the 2024 General Election. If you have no right to be here, you should be removed. If you come to Britain and repay our hospitality by committing serious crimes, I have zero sympathy for you. But we need to go much further, because for every encouraging set of figures there seems to be another case that makes you wonder whether our immigration system has lost the plot.

Take Hendrix Ekwen. He is an Italian national who was convicted of raping a woman who was drunk, unconscious and vulnerable here in Britain. The details are appalling. At his criminal trial he was found to have demonstrated a sense of sexual entitlement and attempted to place responsibility for the rape on his victim.

Yet Ekwen has now succeeded in an immigration case allowing him to remain in Britain after eventually accepting responsibility for what he did, nine years after the attack. Apparently, among the things he told the tribunal was that he would never wish such an experience upon his sisters. How charming and touching. I’m sure his victim will be delighted to hear that.

This is where ordinary people become completely exasperated with the immigration system. We seem to spend an enormous amount of time considering the rights, rehabilitation and personal circumstances of people who have committed horrendous crimes, while the rights of their victims barely seem to get a look in. Where are her human rights? Where is her right to feel safe knowing the man who raped her has been kicked out of her country? And where is our right, as a nation, to say “you were welcomed into Britain, you committed a serious crime here, and therefore you have forfeited the privilege of remaining?”

Ekwen is Italian, and last time I checked Italy was a safe, democratic European country. We’re not talking about sending somebody into a war zone or handing them over to a brutal dictatorship. Being an EU citizen doesn’t automatically protect someone from deportation either. Foreign nationals, including Italians, can be deported following serious criminality, and so they should be.

So the question is simple – why is it still so difficult? The Government deserves credit for increasing removals, but now it needs to tackle the legal maze that allows cases like this to happen because immigration control isn’t simply about numbers on a spreadsheet or boasting about how many people have been put on planes.

It is about whose interests the British state puts first. When somebody who isn’t British commits one of the most serious crimes imaginable, protecting the public and standing with the victim should be at the very top of that list.

Andrew Should Speak Up

Now let’s have it right. Andrew, formerly known as Prince, has reportedly been enjoying himself in the South of France, and I think that is a terrible optic.

Yes, while the disgraced former Duke of York remains under an enormous cloud over his past associations and allegations which he has consistently denied, apparently Andy has been busy sunning himself on the Côte d’Azur. According to royal biographer Andrew Lownie, Andy was spotted wearing a red baseball cap, white trousers, Timberland shoes and Ray-Bans, accompanied by two women in their forties – one blonde, the other with red hair.

He’s even said to be looking for a property in the region. How lovely for him.

But instead of sipping a chilled glass of rosé and browsing French villas, perhaps Andrew could make himself useful for the first time in his life and finally answer some serious questions. US lawmakers have called for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to cooperate with a congressional committee examining Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. They want him to speak to them about what he knew and his relationship with the convicted sex offender. They even said he could do it via Zoom, so why hasn’t he?

Andrew has consistently denied wrongdoing and he is entitled to do so. But cooperating with investigators is not the same thing as admitting guilt. If he genuinely has nothing to hide, surely answering questions is the best way to demonstrate it?

Harry’s Coming Home

Harry and Meghan are coming home! I said on our Daily Expresso podcast last week that Harry would start spending more time back in Britain – although I thought it would be without Meghan. So I got half of it right, because reports suggest the whole family are heading back.

Naturally, there are a million questions. Have they secured the armed protection Harry has been fighting for? Where exactly will they live? What are they going to do for work? And, perhaps most importantly, why have they chosen to move back now? But actually, I don’t think the ‘why’ matters.

Harry is from these shores and has every right to live here with his wife and children. Of course, there are some enormous bridges to rebuild with the Royal Family – especially with William and Catherine who must be feeling slightly peeved that the Montecito circus is coming to town. Plus winning over the sections of the British public who cannot stand the Sussexes ain’t gonna happen overnight.

But on the whole I think this could be positive. Welcome home, H.

Britain is Blooming

I really dislike people running Britain down. Yes, we’ve got problems – plenty of them – and things could be better. But we’re still incredibly fortunate to live in one of the greatest countries in the world.

Sometimes we need to stop moaning and celebrate our wins, even the small ones. Which brings me, strangely, to Aldi. The supermarket has already sold more than 100 million British-grown flower stems this year, with demand up 10 per cent. It expects to sell 108.5 million by the end of 2026, while sales of its Truly British bouquet are up a whopping 51 per cent. That’s fantastic!

So well done to our horticulturists and shoppers choosing home-grown flowers. Britain isn’t perfect – nowhere is – but there’s still plenty happening on these shores to be proud of.

FOREIGN CRIMINALS MUST BE DEPORTED TO HELP PROTECT BRITISH WOMEN: TOUGHER ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY UNDER SCRUTINY

The safety of women and girls remains one of Britain’s most important public concerns. From sexual violence and domestic abuse to stalking and harassment, crimes against women can have devastating consequences for victims, their families, and their communities. Against this background, the question of what should happen when a foreign national commits a serious crime in the United Kingdom has become an important part of the national debate over public safety and immigration enforcement.

Supporters of tougher deportation policies argue that foreign nationals who commit serious offences should face the full consequences of the law, including removal from Britain where legally permitted. They believe that effective enforcement is essential to maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system and demonstrating that serious offending carries meaningful consequences.

However, protecting British women requires more than one immigration policy. It also demands effective policing, successful prosecutions, support for victims, prevention programmes, and a justice system capable of responding quickly when women report abuse.

The challenge for policymakers is to ensure that foreign offenders are dealt with firmly and lawfully while developing a broader strategy that makes women and girls safer.

Why Deportation Has Become a Major Political Issue

Foreign national offenders have long been a subject of debate in British politics. When a person who is not a British citizen is convicted of a serious crime, the public may reasonably ask whether that person should be permitted to remain in the country after serving a prison sentence.

The argument for deportation is particularly prominent in cases involving sexual offences, violent assaults, and persistent criminal behaviour.

Under the UK’s existing legal framework, foreign nationals convicted of crimes can be considered for deportation. The government has a duty to pursue deportation in qualifying cases, subject to statutory exceptions and the UK’s legal obligations. The rules also allow deportation to be considered where an offender has caused serious harm or has repeatedly committed offences. <Cite refs={[“turn572114search0″,”turn572114search1”]}/>

The principle behind these provisions is that permission to remain in Britain does not give a person immunity from the consequences of criminal behaviour.

Nevertheless, each case must be considered according to the applicable law. Nationality alone does not establish whether someone is dangerous, and an accusation is not the same as a criminal conviction.

A credible system must focus on evidence, the seriousness of the offence, public safety, and the legal requirements governing removal.

Protecting Women Must Remain the Priority

Violence against women and girls takes many forms, including rape, sexual assault, domestic abuse, stalking, harassment, and exploitation.

These crimes can cause long-lasting physical and psychological harm. Survivors may experience fear, financial difficulties, disrupted relationships, and a loss of confidence in their ability to live safely.

Protecting women requires authorities to respond effectively whenever credible reports of abuse arise, regardless of the suspect’s nationality, social position, or background.

Police must investigate allegations properly. Prosecutors must assess the available evidence. Courts must impose appropriate sentences when guilt is established. Victims must have access to protection, support, and clear information about their cases.

Immigration enforcement can form part of this wider response when a foreign national is convicted of a qualifying offence. However, deportation generally takes place after the relevant legal process and cannot replace the investigation and prosecution of the original crime.

The government’s published strategy on violence against women and girls includes measures aimed at strengthening the response to foreign nationals who commit such offences, alongside proposals to improve safeguarding and support for victims. <Cite refs={[“turn572114search4″,”turn572114search23”]}/>

This approach recognises that public safety requires coordinated action across criminal justice, immigration enforcement, and victim-support services.

What Does British Law Already Require?

The claim that foreign criminals must be deported needs to be understood in the context of the law currently in force.

Under the UK Borders Act 2007, the deportation process generally carries a statutory presumption for qualifying foreign offenders who receive a prison sentence of at least 12 months. Amendments under the Sentencing Act 2026 also extended the relevant provisions to qualifying suspended sentences imposed following convictions on or after 22 March 2026.

Deportation may also be pursued in cases involving serious harm or persistent offending, even where the automatic-deportation threshold is not met. Certain legal exceptions continue to apply. <Cite refs={[“turn572114search1″,”turn572114search6”]}/>

These rules are designed to balance the public interest in removing foreign criminals against other legal obligations.

For example, deportation decisions may involve questions about family life, the rights of children, and the risk that a person would face persecution or serious harm if returned to their country of origin.

These considerations do not mean that every foreign offender can avoid deportation. They mean that authorities must apply the relevant legal framework rather than treating every case as identical.

The public can reasonably demand consistent enforcement while also expecting decisions to comply with the law.

Faster Deportation and Greater Accountability

One area of political disagreement concerns how quickly foreign offenders should be removed after sentencing.

Supporters of faster deportation argue that unnecessary administrative delays increase costs and can undermine public confidence. They want immigration authorities to identify qualifying cases early, coordinate with prisons and courts, and arrange removal as soon as it is legally possible.

The government has already introduced measures aimed at strengthening the treatment of foreign offenders, including changes concerning suspended sentences and the early removal of eligible prisoners. <Cite refs={[“turn572114search2″,”turn572114search10”]}/>

However, speed must be accompanied by accurate decision-making.

Authorities need reliable identity documents, cooperation from receiving countries, and procedures for resolving relevant legal claims. Some individuals cannot be removed immediately because their nationality is disputed, their home country will not accept them, or a legal restriction applies.

These obstacles should be addressed efficiently, but they cannot simply be ignored.

A well-managed system would identify deportation cases early, explain decisions clearly, enforce lawful removal orders, and publish meaningful statistics about outcomes.

Such measures would help the public understand whether the system is working as intended.

Deportation Alone Cannot End Violence Against Women

Although deportation can prevent a removed offender from continuing to offend in Britain while excluded from the country, it is not a complete solution to violence against women.

Most importantly, the prevention of sexual and domestic violence requires action against offenders of every nationality.

British citizens who commit serious crimes cannot be deported abroad simply because they are dangerous. Their cases must instead be addressed through criminal prosecution, sentencing, supervision, and other lawful public-protection measures.

This distinction illustrates why a national strategy cannot rely exclusively on immigration enforcement.

Police forces need sufficient resources to investigate sexual offences and domestic abuse. Courts need the capacity to process cases fairly and efficiently. Victims need access to specialist services, emergency accommodation where necessary, and protection against further abuse.

Prevention is equally important. Public education, early intervention, effective supervision of high-risk offenders, and better responses to reports of stalking or threatening behaviour can all form part of a comprehensive approach.

A policy that focuses only on the nationality of offenders risks overlooking other weaknesses in the systems designed to protect women.

The objective should be to reduce violence and hold perpetrators accountable, regardless of who they are.

What About Victims and Public Confidence?

For victims, the experience of reporting a crime can be difficult. Some may fear they will not be believed, worry about retaliation, or feel uncertain about how the criminal justice system operates.

If victims believe that authorities are failing to respond effectively, they may become less willing to report abuse.

This is why public confidence depends on more than sentencing announcements or deportation figures. It depends on whether victims receive a fair hearing, whether investigations are conducted properly, and whether authorities act when there is credible evidence of danger.

In cases involving foreign offenders, communication about immigration decisions may also be important, subject to legal and privacy restrictions.

Victims should not be left unnecessarily uncertain about whether an offender remains in the country or whether relevant protective measures are available.

At the same time, public statements about individual cases should be accurate. Unsupported claims about an offender’s nationality, immigration status, or criminal history can distort public understanding and unfairly implicate people who have not committed offences.

Trust is strengthened when authorities provide reliable information and explain the limits of what can legally be disclosed.

Conclusion: Firm Enforcement, Fair Justice and Safer Communities

The deportation of foreign nationals who commit serious crimes is an important part of Britain’s immigration and public-safety debate. Existing legislation already provides for deportation in qualifying cases, while retaining exceptions where legal obligations prevent removal.

Those rules reflect a central principle: protecting the public is a legitimate priority, but decisions must be made according to the law and the evidence in each case.

For women and girls, the most important outcome is effective protection from violence, intimidation, exploitation, and abuse. That requires robust policing, successful prosecutions, appropriate sentences, victim support, and consistent immigration enforcement where deportation is legally justified.

The government should ensure that qualifying foreign offenders are considered for removal promptly, that avoidable delays are addressed, and that the public can scrutinise the results.

However, policymakers must also recognise that violence against women is not confined to one nationality or immigration category. Protecting women requires a comprehensive approach that addresses offending wherever it occurs.

Ultimately, the test of public policy is whether it makes communities safer, supports victims, and ensures that serious offenders face appropriate consequences. Firm enforcement and fair legal procedures are not opposing objectives; both are necessary for a justice system that the public can trust.