Allira
^OK! Find some "official statistics". The statistics I posted weren't plucked from the air. There's a source.^
Exactky the same source as the link I provided, growstuff except your statistics are out of date and my link is dated August 2025.
Sorry! I'm being daft (well, it is the middle of the night), but I can't find where your link gives details of education levels.
Incidentally, I looked up the crime statistics for Braintree District Council (where Wethersfield is situated). The crime figures are about average when compared with similar places, but (curiously maybe) have decreased over the last year, when hundreds of asylum seekers have been living there. It still has one of the worst drug crime rates in Essex, but it's had that reputation in the 40+ years I've lived in the area, so it can't have anything to do with asylum seekers.
PS. I also had another very close look at the appeal judgment.
Para 38 states:
"38. The written arguments on behalf of the Home Secretary in this appeal included the contention that “the relevant public interests in play are not equal” and that one aspect
of this is that the Home Secretary’s statutory duty is a manifestation of the UK’s obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. *This point
was not pursued in oral argument. Any argument in this particular context about a hierarchy of rights is in our view unattractive.* "
(My bold) The appeal judges did not accept the argument about inequality of public interests, so the people (Kemi Badenoch and Chris Philp amongst others) who claim that the injunction was set aside because migrants' interests are more important than those of residents are wrong. Nowhere in the judgment were the claimed words used.