Asylum seekers can stay at hotel in Epping after government wins appeal

31 comments

1. The government is getting what it always wanted. More asylum seekers in hotels while minimising the voices of the plebs

2. I’m sure this will go down well.
   Labour are simultaneously saying they will dramatically cut hotel use while appealing the decision to stop them using hotels.
   And so far their flagship policy to lower the numbers needing hotel accommodation is a ‘one for one swap’ with France that won’t bear any fruit (if at all) for a year.

   Also

   >The Court of Appeal seriously criticised the judge who issued the order to clear the hotel, saying that while he had lawfully taken into account the fear of crime in Epping, he had failed to take into account that the order could encourage protest and was not necessary given that the council’s full claim against the hotel would be heard within weeks.

   That will also go down very well, because you can easily frame that as ‘the goverment wil happily accept the risks of crime being committed in your areas in order to stop you getting ideas that you can protest for change’
   People will see that as the goverment trying to stamp out their dissent once again. 
   Another deeply unpopular ribbon that labour can add to their collection.

   >The prevailing narrative this summer has been against the government and while it is trying to emphasise the bigger picture – and has won that argument here in court – for some this will look like a national Goliath thumping a local David to get its way.

   >That is not a good look – but it may be one ministers have to uncomfortably wear for now

3. They don’t want to incentivise protests? Surely this ruling is a guaranteed way to incentivise protests? Bizarre justification.

4. >Somani Hotels then entered into a new contract, and in April 2025 it re-opened to provide accommodation. The council said it would have to seek permission.

   > Somani Hotels, on advice from the Home Office, said it would not be submitting an application for a temporary change of use. The council did not reply.

   So the council did not reply to the Hotel’s request, then months later sue the hotel for an error in planning law? Gaslighting at its finest

5. The public will never forgive Labour for this. This move pretty much guarantees Farage will win the next election. Goodbye NHS.

6. God I love labour

   Snatching defeat from victory once again

7. So does this mean we can just ignore planning rules now?

8. Promised that the boats will stop, gangs will be smashed, instead record number of arrivals who no one wants and then the local councils can’t do anything to stop it.

   I imagine it will take what happened the other day where a teenage girl was murdered in Amsterdam by one on her way home for it to all really kick off.

9. So when the government argues that migrant right trump ours and the judges agree. It should be of no surprise to anyone when Reform get into power and ruin everything.

   >The rights of migrants trump those of the people in Epping, Home Office lawyers have argued as it appeals against a temporary injunction granting the closure of an asylum seeker hotel.
   https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15042859/asylum-seekers-Epping-residents-Home-Office-migrant-hotel.html

10. Note that this is still just about the interim injunction.

    The actual case is scheduled to be heard in October.

    This was just about the High Court saying that the asylum seekers had to be removed while the case was being heard. The Court of Appeal has reversed that, so the Home Office can keep using the hotel pending the outcome of the trial.

    The Government’s plan is still to stop using the hotels, but now they have longer to sort out alternatives – they don’t have to rush it within the couple of weeks the High Court gave them.

11. Our “independent” judiciary sides with the government again.

12. I’m sure this will go down like a lead balloon.
    Last time people wanted them removed from a hotel, looked what happened.

13. I get why they appealed but government was fucked either way on this as they have legal duty set by parliament to keep asylum seekers off the streets and I genuinely don’t know where else we can put them at the moment. And deportation isn’t as easy or simple as people seem to think. Especially if the country doesn’t want them back. Glad I’m not in politics anymore.

14. The UK is cooked. Labour are just digging themselves a deeper hole.

15. Labour are finished on illegal migration. They don’t have the balls to make any decision that might go against outdated asylum laws, and their big policy of a returns agreement is hopelessly weak, and may never come to fruition anyway given the upcoming collapse of the French Government

16. I am sure there was a lot of behind the scenes pressure to get this outcome

17. Surely the mass dumping of people from hotels on to the streets will just cause more issues? makes sense.

18. Asylum hotels at their worst cost £3bn a year. The tax gap is £30bn a year. Interesting how the media and the government seem happy to not raise this big pink elephant in the room and let asylum seekers take the heat.

19. Double as many hotels during tory rule and no one cared in the slightest. Oh look, Badenok is criticising Labour without feeling a hint of irony.

20. It was always going to be the case as two things would have happened IF the Government had lost this appeal.

    Firstly, other councils would have gone to court to get migrants out of their local hotels causing them a real headache in rehousing them AND costing them their little revenue stream of £8 billion a year.

    Secondly, with the loss of confidence losing this again Starmer would find his position untenable, though wether he’d step down is debatable.
    Either way Labour would have lost face.

21. Red torys at it again.

    Really tho this is just going to play into the hands of the reform party and stir up more anger towards the migrants who aren’t really the source of all this anger, it seems like its the special treatment that they are getting at the expense of the tax payer. Am I wrong? :/

22. I expected this outcome, but it’s just going to add further fuel to an ever growing powder keg.

23. If it wasn’t the case already then that’s the end of the labour party. 100% of the working class ‘red wall’ will never vote for them again.

    It must be deliberate because they must understand this.

24. Hahaha what on earth are the government doing?!

    Surely this will just lead to even more protests now?

25. Because I’m sure this government appeal isn’t going to utterly backfire for Keir Starmer and lead to further civil unrest…

    Could a leader be any more out-of-touch with their voters? All Starmer has done is continue an unpopular Tory policy which has managed to simultaneously piss off both left and right wing voters. Asylum hotels are not only an astronomical waste of taxpayer’s money which would have been much better spent on trying to build affordable social housing, but it also sends the message that the government is prioritizing anybody who comes here on a dinghy or in the back of a lorry over our own citizens.

26. I don’t get WHY this is happening.

    The UK is already way over crowded and doesn’t have enough money for their native citizens, be they white, black, Asian, Chinese Japanese etc…..people BORN there.

    So why in the hell are the UK just letting these people in and giving them much more than what a regular citizen would have.

    I just truly don’t understand it. Unless for every 1 person that comes to the UK illegally, some rich cunta get even richer

27. I’m confused here.

    Is this a purely legal ruling or a decision made in the context of potential consequences of allowing this to happen?

    Either way expect more unrest and protests in response soon.

28. The entire system is openly working against Britain and its people.

29. The smart thing to do would be to take this win and close the former hotel anyway.

    Why fight? Because the Tories gave all these hotels 2-5 year contracts, some of which have break clauses that don’t kick in until next year. If you’re allowing councils to close them then you’re throwing away money to make a point. You fight to stop this cascading.

    Why close it anyway? It shuts down the narrative and shows they’re listening to the public.

    I appreciate that some of these asylum seekers need stability but we need a policy where they are sorted into locations based on calculated risk.

    Women and children are allowed in former hotels near schools.

    Men without any identification or where we’ve determined they might have criminal pasts, say hello to Camp Former RAF Bedbugginton and Secure Asylum Warehouse Outer Hebrides.

    It’s not a rational thing. People need to be reassured, even with things that won’t really change much.

30. Well done Labour, really are trying to guarantee a Reform government.

31. All this does is put a target on the human rights act.

    Rather than on the Tories for not processing asylum claims for almost a decade.

Comments are closed.