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

The phrase 'It is clear from that para' shows that the following text is an interpretation, so not 'true' in the pure sense of the word.

But it goes on the say that The Home Secretary argued....
So is true is it not?

Legally, it is true that Article 3 of the ECHR insists that the government has a duty to house destitute asylum seekers, so that duty takes priority over concerns of local people

And again, that is true as well?

It depends what you mean by true.

The phrase 'It is clear from that para' shows that the following text is an interpretation, so not 'true' in the pure sense of the word.

If you are asking whether the rights of asylum seekers is of greater importance or significance than the government's duty to ensure the safety of the people of Epping, then again, it comes down to whether you want the legal situation or an emotional one.

Legally, it is true that Article 3 of the ECHR insists that the government has a duty to house destitute asylum seekers, so that duty takes priority over concerns of local people when the actual situation is that there has been one reported sex crime committed by an asylum seeker and many more by residents of the area. A reasonable person would see the concerns as disproportionate to reality, so the decision to delay the closing of the Bell Hotel has to take priority.

The emotional argument would be that one assault is one too many, and the fact that agitators are whipping up anger will make residents feel generally unsafe is also likely to be true.

A court has to take account of the legal argument.

It is clear from that para that the Home Secretary argued in written submissions that ‘the relevant public interests in play are not equal’ and her duty under the ECHR towards the ‘asylum seekers’ was of greater importance or significance than the government’s duty to ensure the safety of the residents of Epping.

You are saying that this is not true?

fancythat

^Numerous people seem to think that a DM headline is equivalent to gospel and 'proof' that the words were spoken by KS or his representatives on Earth.^

Telegraph Heading wrong as well?
Rights of asylum seekers trump people of Epping, argues Home Office

I havent looked, but what if there are 5 of them?
All wrong?

Well wrong is wrong. If the Home Office has not argued that, then it doesn't matter who says they did or how often it is repeated, does it?

One look at the supposed quote shows that it is nonsense. Who are 'the people of Epping? Do they speak as one? I doubt it. Who is 'The Home Office' in this context? Why not name the spokesperson and what s/he actually said? Does anyone really think that a representative of the HO would use vocabulary like that in such a febrile situation?

I want to know who is telling the whole truth and who isn't.

If you present false evidence to a court of law then you commit perjury, can be charged under the Perjury Act 1911 and sent to prison.

That's why I am basing what I post here on the legal text and the evidence presented to four judges and not the deliberately incendiary rubbish uttered by Philp and Farage and published by the migrant-hating right-wing media.

Whatever government are in power are always looking to tackle the side effects, never the cause.

We’ve legislated ourselves to death and will never be able to legislate our way out of it. It’s too big a problem now. Turbulent times ahead.

FGT2 unfortunately this Labour Government are constantly tying themselves in knots.

The optics of this and other policies have been badly managed.

They are lacking a good coms team.

All the above add up to their position in the Polls I posted up thread.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Worth repeating what I just said ….

“It’s interesting that this wasn’t advanced on behalf of the HS in oral arguments - doubtless it was realised that this wasn’t a sensible thing to say (!) but too late, it was mentioned in the judgement - so the damage was done and the press rightly seized on this evidence of the government’s thinking.”

Worth repeating - it's not a direct quote, which is what you implied.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Para 38 is the bit relevant to my post people and you don’t have to read the rest unless you’re a glutton for punishment!

It is clear from that para that the Home Secretary argued in written submissions that ‘the relevant public interests in play are not equal’ and her duty under the ECHR towards the ‘asylum seekers’ was of greater importance or significance than the government’s duty to ensure the safety of the residents of Epping.

That is where the newspaper quote was taken from, and the Appeal Court said they found the concept of a hierarchy of rights in this particular context ‘unattractive’.

It’s interesting that this wasn’t advanced on behalf of the HS in oral arguments - doubtless it was realised that this wasn’t a sensible thing to say (!) but too late, it was mentioned in the judgement - so the damage was done and the press rightly seized on this evidence of the government’s thinking.

I rest my case M’lud. 😁

It's not a direct quote.

Worth repeating what I just said ….

“It’s interesting that this wasn’t advanced on behalf of the HS in oral arguments - doubtless it was realised that this wasn’t a sensible thing to say (!) but too late, it was mentioned in the judgement - so the damage was done and the press rightly seized on this evidence of the government’s thinking.”

LizzieDrip

Nougat

Exactly, Maizie. Epping Council's action was a reaction to the protests. The only point under consideration is whether the Bell Hotel is now a hostel and whether Somani need permission for a material change of use.

Judge Eyre's decision (now overturned) included this about the history:

Although the site of the Bell had been used as a hotel for some time before then the current principal building was constructed in 1900 and there were additions in the 1960’s. It has 80 bedrooms. The sign outside describes it as having a “restaurant & bar, banqueting suite & conference rooms.” Before the Covid-19 pandemic and the measures put in place to address it those facilities had been available for use by local people and others. However, that use had been declining in part because of the Bell’s location on the outskirts of the town. That decline is confirmed by the planning history which shows that in 2006 the owners sought planning permission for a partial demolition and for the use of the remaining part of the site as a care home. That application was initially refused but permission was subsequently granted although the change was not implemented.

Also, there's this:

{Epping Cllr] Beardwell emphasizes that although she believes many local residents oppose the current use of the Bell they also have no truck with those from outside the local community who have attended to engage in acts of violence. The thrust of Cllr Beardwell’s evidence can be seen from paragraph 10 of her statement where she says: “Based on my liaising with my constituents, residents have become increasingly fearful. Businesses on the high street tell me that they are suffering from reduced footfall. I have seen for myself a disruption to daily life, with road closures, noise and a persistentatmosphere of tension. The feedback I am receiving from my constituents is that the protests are making residents feel unsafe and are damaging the local economy.”

There were have it. It is the protesters who are making residents feel unsafe.

And there we have it indeed!

Sums it all up doesn't it … it’s the protesters who are making residents feel unsafe and damaging the local economy.

So patriotic!

So says one Councillor?

I am all for knowing the truth.

Once this mess is unravelled, I want to know who is telling the whole truth and who isnt.

Do the media have it correct?
One Councillor?
Are things being reported partially correct[which may make it not really correct?}.

Who.

Numerous people seem to think that a DM headline is equivalent to gospel and 'proof' that the words were spoken by KS or his representatives on Earth.

Telegraph Heading wrong as well?
Rights of asylum seekers trump people of Epping, argues Home Office

I havent looked, but what if there are 5 of them?
All wrong?

Nougat

Exactly, Maizie. Epping Council's action was a reaction to the protests. The only point under consideration is whether the Bell Hotel is now a hostel and whether Somani need permission for a material change of use.

Judge Eyre's decision (now overturned) included this about the history:

Although the site of the Bell had been used as a hotel for some time before then the current principal building was constructed in 1900 and there were additions in the 1960’s. It has 80 bedrooms. The sign outside describes it as having a “restaurant & bar, banqueting suite & conference rooms.” Before the Covid-19 pandemic and the measures put in place to address it those facilities had been available for use by local people and others. However, that use had been declining in part because of the Bell’s location on the outskirts of the town. That decline is confirmed by the planning history which shows that in 2006 the owners sought planning permission for a partial demolition and for the use of the remaining part of the site as a care home. That application was initially refused but permission was subsequently granted although the change was not implemented.

Also, there's this:

{Epping Cllr] Beardwell emphasizes that although she believes many local residents oppose the current use of the Bell they also have no truck with those from outside the local community who have attended to engage in acts of violence. The thrust of Cllr Beardwell’s evidence can be seen from paragraph 10 of her statement where she says: “Based on my liaising with my constituents, residents have become increasingly fearful. Businesses on the high street tell me that they are suffering from reduced footfall. I have seen for myself a disruption to daily life, with road closures, noise and a persistentatmosphere of tension. The feedback I am receiving from my constituents is that the protests are making residents feel unsafe and are damaging the local economy.”

There were have it. It is the protesters who are making residents feel unsafe.

And there we have it indeed!

Sums it all up doesn't it … it’s the protesters who are making residents feel unsafe and damaging the local economy.

So patriotic!

Para 38 is the bit relevant to my post people and you don’t have to read the rest unless you’re a glutton for punishment!

It is clear from that para that the Home Secretary argued in written submissions that ‘the relevant public interests in play are not equal’ and her duty under the ECHR towards the ‘asylum seekers’ was of greater importance or significance than the government’s duty to ensure the safety of the residents of Epping.

That is where the newspaper quote was taken from, and the Appeal Court said they found the concept of a hierarchy of rights in this particular context ‘unattractive’.

It’s interesting that this wasn’t advanced on behalf of the HS in oral arguments - doubtless it was realised that this wasn’t a sensible thing to say (!) but too late, it was mentioned in the judgement - so the damage was done and the press rightly seized on this evidence of the government’s thinking.

I rest my case M’lud. 😁

I see the transcript has been posted but who here has managed to understand the significance of para 38.??

The judges’ reasons for their decision are set out in plain English!

Instead of reading what has been posted - many on here continue to castigate me for my entirely correct statement of the HS’s case. Hmm.

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202508/medium-g933ff-img-1281.png https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202508/medium-3w3sqv-img-1282.png

Quick Google these are the latest IPSOS Polls.

Rather sad and worrying.

Primrose53

woodenspoon

growstuff

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.

I think it is. You vehemently disagree with most posters on the thread. What is your vested interests in allowing these migrants into the UK? It’s not just about principles of law. You’re too angry and emotionally involved to be dispassionate about it. So, let’s have the truth. What is your vested interest?

Don’t expect a straight answer any time soon. 😉

I have asked many times “ what possible benefits can unskilled, often uneducated, single young men who have no documents to prove who they are, bring to our country?”

Why on earth do you think I should have an answer?

I have never - not once - advocated sending invitations to unskilled, uneducated, single men with no documents. I have never denied there's a problem. I have no idea what the answer is, but what I do know is that it's not so simple as some people seem to think. I also know that using up police time or throwing brocks at them doesn't solve anything. I also know that some (at least) of the asylum seekers have suffered trauma that most of us can't even imagine.

I feel as though I'm in a parallel universe.

Starmer has 'played into the hands of Reform' because a biased summary of a court ruling has been taken as a quote from someone (#vague) connected to the Labour Party and the rumour has spread around social media?

growstuff must have a 'vested interest' (in what?) because she refuses to conflate said rumour and the truth?

Numerous people seem to think that a DM headline is equivalent to gospel and 'proof' that the words were spoken by KS or his representatives on Earth.

It's really scary.

Yvette Cooper has reiterated that the plan is to close all ex hotels in a 'planned manner', as over the past 15 years the number of asylum seekers has reached the point where they can't be housed other than in centres. This is happening, but the plans can't be completed overnight.

Immigrants are being scapegoated as a drain on the country's resources, and responsible for the lack of public spending. Having seen how quickly the population has bought into the lies and propaganda, I dread the day when the current prejudice against pensioners comes to a head. It is perfectly possible that it will do so soon, given the lack of resistance to disinformation we are seeing these days. A quick glance at MN shows how many people already believe that anyone drawing a state pension is an undeserving scrounger, and that older people are only entitled to what we 'need' and no more. Even if you (generic) don't care about asylum seekers, remember that it could be our turn next.

Exactly, Maizie. Epping Council's action was a reaction to the protests. The only point under consideration is whether the Bell Hotel is now a hostel and whether Somani need permission for a material change of use.

Judge Eyre's decision (now overturned) included this about the history:

Although the site of the Bell had been used as a hotel for some time before then the current principal building was constructed in 1900 and there were additions in the 1960’s. It has 80 bedrooms. The sign outside describes it as having a “restaurant & bar, banqueting suite & conference rooms.” Before the Covid-19 pandemic and the measures put in place to address it those facilities had been available for use by local people and others. However, that use had been declining in part because of the Bell’s location on the outskirts of the town. That decline is confirmed by the planning history which shows that in 2006 the owners sought planning permission for a partial demolition and for the use of the remaining part of the site as a care home. That application was initially refused but permission was subsequently granted although the change was not implemented.

Also, there's this:

{Epping Cllr] Beardwell emphasizes that although she believes many local residents oppose the current use of the Bell they also have no truck with those from outside the local community who have attended to engage in acts of violence. The thrust of Cllr Beardwell’s evidence can be seen from paragraph 10 of her statement where she says: “Based on my liaising with my constituents, residents have become increasingly fearful. Businesses on the high street tell me that they are suffering from reduced footfall. I have seen for myself a disruption to daily life, with road closures, noise and a persistentatmosphere of tension. The feedback I am receiving from my constituents is that the protests are making residents feel unsafe and are damaging the local economy.”

There were have it. It is the protesters who are making residents feel unsafe.

Freya5

Black Belt barrister is a very interesting listen on this, to anyone who actually wants the facts, and
not their own idea of facts. You Tube. Explains why the Judges are wrong in their judgement . All Labour supporters I read.

I do listen to him, but I don't find him impartial.

LizzieDrip

^hmm So the council hadn't objected to the use of the hotel for asylum seekers for 4 years. In all that time it had been free to take action against the planning breach that was the subject of their application for an injunction and had failed to deal properly with the eventual application for change of use made by the hotel owners^

Funny that isn’t it MaizieD.

Asylum seekers housed in that hotel seemed to be fine with the Tory council when we had a Tory government.

How strange

To be fair, Tory Braintree District Council did take legal action against the Home Office about the use of the former RAF site near Wethersfield, which now has 800+ residents. It was a bit embarrassing for the Tory Home Secretary at the time because it was no other than James Cleverly, who was and still is Braintree's MP.

MaizieD

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

Then of course, we must but later in my case.

... and thanks for all the repeats of the link everyone.

hmm So the council hadn't objected to the use of the hotel for asylum seekers for 4 years. In all that time it had been free to take action against the planning breach that was the subject of their application for an injunction and had failed to deal properly with the eventual application for change of use made by the hotel owners

Funny that isn’t it MaizieD.

Asylum seekers housed in that hotel seemed to be fine with the Tory council when we had a Tory government.

How strange

I have asked many times “ what possible benefits can unskilled, often uneducated, single young men who have no documents to prove who they are, bring to our country?”

Indeed you may have, but what proof do you have that what you are claiming is correct?

From ^GG23's* link:

For much of the period of four years from 2020-2024 Somani Hotels had been running the hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers without enforcement action from the council.

"When, in 2023, Somani sought planning consent to change its use, for over a year Epping did not process the application, notwithstanding the statutory duty upon it to do so within eight weeks," the Court of Appeal judgement said.

It continued: "The council was aware by February 2025 that the hotel was once again to be used to house asylum seekers, and by its letter of 15 May 2025 Somani made clear that it had been advised by the Home Office that a planning application was unnecessary.

"The council took no steps in response to this letter whether by issuing an enforcement notice or otherwise. There was no threat of court proceedings."

The Court of Appeal pointed out that Somani was first made aware of any step of this kind when it received the court papers and a court bundle running to over 1,600 pages together with a detailed skeleton argument prepared by leading and junior counsel.

It said the tactics used on the council's behalf were "not only procedurally unfair to Somani, but ought to have reinforced the argument that the delay was a significant factor in the balance against the grant of interim relief".

The Court of Appeal meanwhile found that Eyre J "wrongly characterised" the hotel operator's actions.

On this point, Bean LJ said: "The judge found as a fact that Somani had acted deliberately in declining to seek change of use permission under planning law after April 2025. He was critical of them taking this line. He was wrong in both respects

"Those underserved criticism which were repeated several times in the judgment mainly plainly played a material part in the judge's ultimate decision."

It continued: "If the council had considered Somani to be in breach of planning laws, it could have taken enforcement measures provided for within the 1990 Act.

"It did not do so. In short, the judge's exercise of discretion in this case was seriously flawed by his erroneous reliance on the 'deliberate breach' as a significant factor in favour of the grant of an interim injunction."

So the council hadn't objected to the use of the hotel for asylum seekers for 4 years. In all that time it had been free to take action against the planning breach that was the subject of their application for an injunction and had failed to deal properly with the eventual application for change of use made by the hotel owners.

I suspect that if you go to law on one particular point of law you can't expect to introduce other matters. Which is also why the injunction was overturned.