“Migrants are more important than residents" A statement that the Labour party will live to regret?

So you have no solutions.
You just argue with anyone who wants something done.

Why am I not surprised.

Did you mean Stradey Park Hotel?

JamesandJon33

Lizziedrip I believe the people of Llanelli protested over the use of the Stradey Park as an asylum hotel, some time ago. They won and the hotel is back to its original use.

Was it the council which prosecuted? Do you know what grounds were used?

Lizziedrip I believe the people of Llanelli protested over the use of the Stradey Park as an asylum hotel, some time ago. They won and the hotel is back to its original use.

You can stay interested. That's not what this thread is about.

It's about a specific case. Thankfully, the facts of the judgment and appeal are now in the public domain. Hopefully, enough people will challenge the malicious twisting and misinterpretations.

Kandinsky

growstuff

What would you like to happen regarding this crisis?
Because that’s how many people see the migrant issue - a crisis.
I’m asking you in particular because you’re all over these threads being extremely defensive.
Are you happy for the situation to continue as it is? even though it’s causing so much trouble?
What is your solution to this problem?

Yes I’d be very interested to know that too.

growstuff

What would you like to happen regarding this crisis?
Because that’s how many people see the migrant issue - a crisis.
I’m asking you in particular because you’re all over these threads being extremely defensive.
Are you happy for the situation to continue as it is? even though it’s causing so much trouble?
What is your solution to this problem?

PS. The Bell Hotel in Epping isn't in the centre of town.

Oreo

It doesn’t matter really about the actual wording as the damage is done. The government have appealed and won this judgement which means in itself that Labour doesn’t care what the residents of Epping or any other town think/ concerns.
Hotels housing migrants, mainly men, should never be used in the centre of towns.

It certainly does matter what the wording was, when the OP states categorically that something was said when it wasn't. This so-called fact was being used to stir.

You don't appear to understand the law.

Your opinion of where and how asylum seekers should be housed is a red herring and there have been plenty of other threads about the issue. The OP was specifically about the Epping case.

Thank you so much for those links Nougat. I couldn't find the second one when I searched.

It doesn’t matter really about the actual wording as the damage is done. The government have appealed and won this judgement which means in itself that Labour doesn’t care what the residents of Epping or any other town think/ concerns.
Hotels housing migrants, mainly men, should never be used in the centre of towns.

I have read the two legal texts. Has anyone else?

The first in which the judge gave interim relief to the complainant Epping Forest District Council aka a temporary injuction to stop accommodating asylum seekers at the Bell Hotel:

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Epping-Forest-DC-v-Somani-Hotels-Final-Judgment-2.pdf

The second in which the appeal court overturned his decision so that current use can continue for now.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Secretary-of-State-for-the-Home-Department-and-Somani-Hotels-v-Epping-Forest-District-Council-PRESS-SUMMARY-.pdf

The current use of the Bell Hotel began in May 2025. It had been closed for a year before that.

It had previously been used between May 2020 to March 2021 to accommodate homeless persons including asylum seekers without incident.

Between October 2022 until April 2024 it had been used to accommodate asylum seekers without incident.

Epping Forest District Council claim is that there has been a material change of use from hotel to hostel for which planning consent was not obtained. Read the first text to see the history of this.

It is made plain that the outcome of the application - to stop the accommodation of asylum seekers - turns on technical issues about whether there has been a breach of planning law (and what constitutes a hotel versus a hostel). That is all.

The appeal judges state that at no time during these earlier periods of thr hotel’s use between 2020 and 2024 did Epping Council take steps to restrain Somani from providing accommodation for asylum seekers.

They make plain the undesirability of incentivising protests. They say: “We were told by counsel for Epping that the protests operated as a ‘trigger’ for the application for the injunction.”

Surely the issue here is that the government has already pledged to end the use of hotels to accommodate asylum seekers but other accommodation needs to be found and that cannot happen overnight.

The Home Secretary has a duty to provide accommodate pursuant to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The goverment made the argument that:

“The provision of accommodation for asylum seekers pursuant to the Home Secretary’s statutory duty is a national issue requiring a structured response. Adhoc interim injunction applications seeking closure of particular sites may each have some individual merit, but the [first] judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that closure of one site means that capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system, and may incentivise local planning authorities who wish to remove asylum accommodation from their area to apply to the court urgently before capacity elsewhere in the system becomes exhausted. The potential cumulative impact of such ad hoc applications was a material consideration within the balance of convenience, but was not considered by [Judge Eyre], perhaps because he did not have the advantage in reaching his decision of evidence and submissions from the Home Office.”

I've no idea when the transcript is to be published, but I hope it is very soon.

However, it won't stop the lies and misrepresentations circulating as they've had a head start...

PoliticsNerd

That link is not a transcript of the Appeal court hearing, is it? It seems to be a not impartial article but it does have adverts flashing over the text do I may be wrong.

No, it's not a transcript, as I said, that hasn't been published yet.

But it does seem to be a balanced account of the judgement, made by a lawyer.

MaizieD

As no transcripts of the Appeal court hearing have yet been published it is impossible to know with any certainty precisely what was said, PN.

All commentary on the hearing so far is just interpretation spun to make political points.

Is it due to be published on Monday?

I have posted before about The Telegraph printing a story about an asylum seeker being granted leave to remain because he had a cat.
This story has been repeated time and time again, and is accepted as fact by many people.
It was, of course, completely untrue, or as others might put it, a lie.
The man in question, who had lived here peacefully for some time, had a partner, a child, a home, and a job offer.
The judge ( unwisely perhaps) joked that his cat would be glad that he wouldn't have to learn to catch Colombian mice.
The journalist found this a little disappointing, perhaps, so decided fiction might be better received - and his/ her editor was happy to print this.

Link's been posted three times now. I think everyone should read it...

That link is not a transcript of the Appeal court hearing, is it? It seems to be a not impartial article but it does have adverts flashing over the text do I may be wrong.

windmill1

BlueBelle

Never fail do you FGT

Pardon? Explain, if you please.

Never fail to spark an interesting debate perhaps?
😁

There is absolutely no need for rude comments as this is a hot topic at the moment and people are allowed to discuss it and put forward different views without being attacked.

Although the temporary injunction was set aside, EFDC’s challenge to the Bell hotel being used to house asylum seekers will still proceed to a trial, scheduled for October. Should EFDC be successful, the high court could then decide that asylum seekers should be removed from the Bell hotel.

The court of appeal judges were clear in stating that the case “is not concerned with the merits of government policy in relation to the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers in hotels or otherwise”.
Guardian

It would have been difficult to find alternative accommodation at short notice as successive governments have failed get a grip on the situation and the numbers of people seeking asylum.

PoliticsNerd

It does help to have the date-stamp GrannyGravy13, but sadly, like MaizieD I can't find it.

It's here:

www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/litigation-and-enforcement/400-litigation-news/62083-home-office-wins-appeal-over-asylum-hotel-interim-injunction

29 August

Snap Maizie. I was still typing when your post appeared. No, it doesn't support many of the posts on this thread.

It does help to have the date-stamp GrannyGravy13, but sadly, like MaizieD I can't find it.

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD

As no transcripts of the Appeal court hearing have yet been published it is impossible to know with any certainty precisely what was said, PN.

All commentary on the hearing so far is just interpretation spun to make political points.

I posted a link at 17.34 yesterday, page 2, which was informative.

I've just read it.

www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/litigation-and-enforcement/400-litigation-news/62083-home-office-wins-appeal-over-asylum-hotel-interim-injunction

Thank you for posting it. I confess I missed it first time round. (sorry) It really should be compulsory reading for anybody interested in the case.

It sums up very clearly and objectively the legal issues.

It seems that some people didn't like the appeal judgment and are sore losers. The fact is that the full hearing will be in a few weeks. This was only ever an interim injunction. The words in the OP were not used.

Of course there are issues surrounding the accommodation of asylum seekers (and the whole asylum system). Nobody is denying that. Nevertheless, the way this one incident has been weaponised is (IMO) a bit sick. There have been umpteen threads on GN about the wider issue.

The man in question hasn't even been convicted yet. The case is "sub judice". It bothers me that there has now been so much negative publicity that his lawyers might be able to claim he hasn't had a fair hearing.

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD

As no transcripts of the Appeal court hearing have yet been published it is impossible to know with any certainty precisely what was said, PN.

All commentary on the hearing so far is just interpretation spun to make political points.

I posted a link at 17.34 yesterday, page 2, which was informative.

I couldn't find a complete link, GG13

Did you mean this one, which is very informative and doesn't support much of what has been said on this thread.

www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/litigation-and-enforcement/400-litigation-news/62083-home-office-wins-appeal-over-asylum-hotel-interim-injunction

MaizieD

As no transcripts of the Appeal court hearing have yet been published it is impossible to know with any certainty precisely what was said, PN.

All commentary on the hearing so far is just interpretation spun to make political points.

Thanks Maizie

I'm sad to say I simply dont trust FGTs headlines any more. It's the "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". I have gone well passed accepting FGT's view of what is acceptable as a topic headline.