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

growstuff

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?

Apparently the tory government planned to use the hotel for asylum seekers. It was never occupied. They met with determined local opposition (though the council was refused an injunction) and the tories abandoned the plan.

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?”

growstuff

woodenspoon

Regarding the barge at Dorset, they use these in the Netherlands unopposed.

What's that got to do with Epping or the latest judgment?

Temper temper growstuff.
Somebody else, who is also allowed an opinion and to post, mentioned the Bibby barge at Dorset.
I was responding to that, as I am allowed to do.

MaizieD

^What is your vested interests in allowing these migrants into the UK?^

Didn't you know? Behind the veneer of innocent citizen interested in supporting the rights of asylum seekers and making sure that people are aware of facts, rather than lies, growstuff runs a series of had car washes, vape shops and East of England work gangs all staffed by boat people who she smuggles off the beaches as they land... I expect she organises some of the people smugglers too. Bit of a dark horse is our growstuff.

What ridiculous assertions you are making...

I don’t agree with you and sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, particularly when you have no answers to put forward.

Growstuff - "Incidentally, did you know that the judge in the original hearing, Mr Justice Eyre, stood as a Conservative MP at least three times, so it's likely he isn't impartial."

It could also be said that Lord Justice Bean who delivered the court ruling yesterday, is unlikely to be impartial too.

He has many links to the Labour party reportedly being a member of the LP for nearly 30 years before becoming a judge.

He is the ex treasurer of the Society of Labour Lawyers and used to chair the Fabian Society which is affiliated to Labour.
Yvette Cooper is also an ex chair of the Fabian Society.

sundowngirl But according to a news item this morning the Bell hotel is next to a school!

That simply isn't true. Check your facts and Google maps. You are spreading misinformation.

MaizieD

^What is your vested interests in allowing these migrants into the UK?^

Didn't you know? Behind the veneer of innocent citizen interested in supporting the rights of asylum seekers and making sure that people are aware of facts, rather than lies, growstuff runs a series of had car washes, vape shops and East of England work gangs all staffed by boat people who she smuggles off the beaches as they land... I expect she organises some of the people smugglers too. Bit of a dark horse is our growstuff.

What ridiculous assertions you are making...

That’s it growstuff … you’re rumbled😱

Ok, I’ll hold my hands up - I’m in the people smuggling game too🤷‍♀️

‘Vested interest’ my arse bum!

Nougat

sundowngirl But according to a news item this morning the Bell hotel is next to a school!

That simply isn't true. Check your facts and Google maps. You are spreading misinformation.

From google
the Bell Hotel in Epping is located in close proximity to several schools. The Epping Forest District Council highlighted the presence of five schools near the hotel when it opposed the location of asylum seekers there, and the BBC reported that three schools with 1,800 students are within a one-kilometre (0.6 mile) radius of the site.

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.

That may be but one kilometre isn't next to.

What the protesters seem to be alleging is that their children are in danger from asylum seekers accommodated at the Bell. Where is the evidence of that?

The alleged assault that is currently the subject of a court case allegedly took place in the town centre.

This is all just hysteria whipped up by the right wing media.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 😁

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!

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?

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.