Just a week after Hamas’ deadly raid into Israel on 7 October, the conflict in the Middle East inspired a terror attack in a northern English town. Ahmed Alid, today sentenced to 45 years in prison for the attack, directly invoked Gaza as he stabbed two people. He maimed Javed Nouri, a fellow asylum seeker with whom he shared Home Office-approved accommodation in Hartlepool before killing 70-year-old Terence Carney when he found him in the street. It was a brutal rampage by a man ‘hell-bent’ on violence. The judge described the murder as ‘a terrorist act’.
Alid burst into his housemate’s room, stabbing as he slept, yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’ as he did so
The details of his rampage are horrifying. Alid first burst into his housemate’s room, stabbing him repeatedly as he slept. He yelled ‘Allahu Akbar’ as he did so. He then left the shared house, prowling the streets for more victims. He found Mr Carney out for his regular morning walk and set upon the elderly man in the street. He was apprehended by police later, looking for further victims with a knife still tucked in his waistband.
When under arrest, he was uncowed and unrepentant. Police said he made clear that he wanted to kill more. He reportedly gave a speech in Arabic, calling for Gaza to ‘be an Arab country’, later telling police his actions were because: ‘Israel had killed innocent children’. More chillingly, he claimed he would have continued his attack and found more victims had he not injured his hands stabbing Mr Nour and Mr Carney. After pleading not guilty to murder and attempted murder, he was finally convicted last month.
Many will have missed this attack. Reporting around the incident has been subdued until now. This is, in part, due to reporting restrictions designed to protect the trial, but even within these limitations, it seems curiously under-discussed. From the initial incidents to the trial, there were only relatively brief mentions outside of the local press. It feels less discussed than, for example, the recent knife rampage in Hainault, in east London. Perhaps now, with the conviction in place, its significance will be more widely understood.
Alid’s violence in Hartlepool is perhaps the most dangerous example of a wave of extremist responses to the Israel-Gaza war. Legitimate protests around the actions of the Israeli government have been marred by those showing support for Hamas. Several people have been convicted of openly supporting the proscribed group, both in public and online. This week, three men appeared in court accused of plotting a terror attack against Manchester’s Jewish community. These incidents are not simply about Britain’s connection to the conflict but represent the realities of the ‘globalisation’ of the conflict, with attacks on civilians anywhere in response to a war the country has only limited influence over.
Beyond that, the Hartlepool attack highlights some of the worst fears about the government’s handling of asylum and refugees. Alid had come to the UK from Morocco and was in the process of seeking asylum. That he could carry out an attack like this seems like a real failure of vetting, monitoring, and security. It’s the latest in a line of attacks perpetrated by those who had arrived seeking refuge.
The failed bombing of a Liverpool maternity hospital in 2021 was carried out by a man whose asylum claim had been rejected. The 2020 Reading attacks which killed three were carried out by a refugee from Syria. Though such incidents are still very rare, each shows the catastrophic risk that comes with getting it wrong. That one of the victims this time was a fellow migrant, seemingly targeted for converting to Christianity, shows that even the most compassionate of asylum systems would have to take these risks seriously.
Yet our bodged-together approach to asylum is primed for these sorts of failures. Away from the government’s tough rhetoric on Rwanda, the reality is a system wholly inadequate for the task.
Processing times have grown hugely, with commensurate backlogs. Even before the legal and practical complexity of what you do with those who fail in their claims, it is simply taking too long to identify unsuitable claimants. Furthermore, a reliance on temporary accommodation serves migrants and local communities poorly. Perhaps the only winner is Graham King, the accommodation magnate with a Home Office contract for housing migrants, who this week entered the Sunday Times Rich List.
Over the last few decades, we have grown morbidly used to the ebb and flow of terror attacks. Those like Hartlepool, with just a couple of casualties and where reporting restrictions rapidly apply can sometimes get forgotten. Like the failed Liverpool attack, the London-centric nature of UK media can sometimes play a part in this. Whatever the reasons, it is important not to miss the trends and the lessons coming from these. Such tragedies are all the worse if nothing is taken from them, and Hartlepool points to two things.
The first is the dangerous impact that the conflict in the Middle East could be having here. Those like Ahmed Alid already drawn to extremism might be galvanised by the war, and the rhetoric around it. The timing here, and Alid’s own words, suggest it was a critical factor. Second, the dangers of violent extremists looking to exploit routes of asylum are real, and it diminishes the safety of the public, including other migrants when the Home Office fail to manage this.
Alid will now spend nearly half a century in jail. For Nour and Carney’s family, the repercussions of the attack will be lifelong. Their suffering, and its causes, should be properly noted – and now the trial is over, it’s perhaps time for a real discussion on the lessons that come from this incident.
Comments