🚨 BRITAIN’S SECURITY SHATTERED: EXTREMIST HANDED FULL UK PASSPORT – AND THE GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO TAKE IT BACK! 🚨

You won’t believe this… A man with a documented history of violent, racist, and antisemitic rants – calling for the killing of Zionists, police executions, and even describing Brits as “dogs and monkeys” – has been quietly granted full British citizenship.

Parliament is exploding. The Shadow Home Secretary is demanding the passport be ripped up immediately and the man deported. But the Home Secretary’s jaw-dropping response? A flat-out NO – claiming the old posts “don’t meet the high bar” for stripping citizenship.

How did this happen under our noses? Who signed off on this national security disaster? And why is the government digging in its heels while the public boils with rage?

This isn’t just incompetence… it’s a betrayal. 😡

Read more:

A major political firestorm has engulfed Westminster after the Home Office confirmed it will not strip British citizenship from a dual-national activist whose historic social media posts allegedly called for violence against police, Zionists, and contained racist language targeting white people and Brits.

The controversy centers on Alaa Abd el-Fattah, a British-Egyptian human rights campaigner who was recently released from years of imprisonment in Egypt and returned to the UK. Abd el-Fattah, who holds dual nationality, was granted British citizenship in 2021 under the previous Conservative government. But fresh scrutiny emerged in late December 2025 when old tweets resurfaced, prompting opposition leaders to demand immediate revocation and deportation.

The posts, dating back more than a decade, reportedly include calls for the killing of “Zionists,” endorsements of violence against police, derogatory references to British people as “dogs and monkeys,” and other inflammatory language described by critics as antisemitic, anti-white racist, and extremist.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, Reform UK chief Nigel Farage, and Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp have led the charge, branding the material “abhorrent” and urging Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to act. Philp, in a heated TV appearance, called Abd el-Fattah a “scumbag” with views incompatible with British values and vowed that a future Tory government would revoke the citizenship and deport him without delay.

“If I were Home Secretary today, I’d be revoking his citizenship and deporting him,” Philp declared. He argued the original grant in 2021 represented a “major failure of the British state,” questioning how background checks missed such material.

Farage wrote directly to Mahmood, stating: “It should go without saying that anyone who possesses racist and anti-British views such as those of [Mr Abd el-Fattah] should not be allowed into the UK.” Badenoch echoed calls for the Home Office to explore all options for removal.

In response, the Home Office issued a firm statement on December 30, 2025, declaring that the posts – made before citizenship was granted – do not meet the “high bar” required for deprivation of citizenship on grounds conducive to the public good. Officials emphasized that deprivation powers are used sparingly, typically in cases involving terrorism, serious criminality, or fraud, and that historic expression alone rarely qualifies unless it poses an ongoing threat.

Abd el-Fattah issued an apology for the “shocking and hurtful” posts, describing them as from a different period in his life and expressing regret for the pain caused. He said he was “shaken” by the renewed attacks on his integrity just as he reunited with family after 12 years of detention.

The case has divided opinion across the political spectrum. Some senior Labour figures have reportedly joined calls for review, though the government has stood by the decision. Critics on the right argue it exposes lax vetting under both Conservative and Labour administrations, while supporters of Abd el-Fattah highlight his long-standing status as a pro-democracy dissident imprisoned for activism during Egypt’s Arab Spring era. Successive UK governments, including under Boris Johnson and subsequent leaders, campaigned for his release as a matter of principle.

The row has reignited broader debates over citizenship deprivation powers. Under the British Nationality Act 1981 (as amended), the Home Secretary can strip citizenship from dual nationals if it is deemed “conducive to the public good” – a threshold met in cases like Shamima Begum, whose citizenship was revoked in 2019 over alleged ISIS links. That decision has been upheld in domestic courts but faces ongoing scrutiny at the European Court of Human Rights.

In contrast, officials here note that Abd el-Fattah’s posts predate citizenship and do not involve active support for proscribed terrorist groups. The government has also closed related loopholes in 2025 legislation, ensuring citizenship is not automatically reinstated during appeals for those deemed national security risks.

Parliament has seen heated exchanges, with opposition MPs accusing the Labour government of weakness on border security and extremism. Reform UK has gone further, questioning why citizenship was extended at all given Abd el-Fattah’s “tenuous” UK connections and the content of his online history.

The timing is politically sensitive for Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who has faced criticism for welcoming Abd el-Fattah back to Britain (though sources say he was unaware of the specific posts). The Foreign Office has condemned the historic content as “abhorrent” while defending the diplomatic efforts to secure his release as a long-standing priority.

Public reaction has been intense, with social media flooded by calls for tougher action against individuals expressing extremist views. Some commentators argue the case reveals inconsistencies in how the UK handles dual nationals accused of hate speech or incitement, especially when compared to revocations for terrorism-related activities.

Legal experts note that revocation is not straightforward. It requires ministerial satisfaction of the public good test, consideration of human rights, and – crucially – cannot render someone stateless unless they hold another nationality. Abd el-Fattah’s Egyptian citizenship provides that safeguard, but critics say the bar is set too high for what they view as clear threats to social cohesion.

The controversy also touches on free speech boundaries. Abd el-Fattah’s defenders argue the tweets were part of broader political expression in a repressive context, and punishing them retroactively sets a dangerous precedent. Opponents counter that incitement to violence crosses into unprotected territory, especially for someone now holding full British rights and protections.

As the new year begins, pressure continues on the Home Office to reconsider. Philp and allies have vowed to make the issue a frontline attack on Labour’s record on immigration and security. Whether the government shifts position remains unclear, but the episode has exposed deep divisions over who qualifies for British citizenship – and what happens when past words clash with present realities.

With national security, free expression, and political accountability all in the mix, this citizenship scandal shows no signs of fading quietly.