Rights of Asylum Seekers Trump the People of Epping, Home Office Tells Court as it Appeals Hotel Closure
The rights of asylum seekers trump the people of Epping and their safety concerns, Home Office lawyers have told the Court of Appeal as they attempt to overturn the closure of the migrant hotel. The Telegraph has more.
Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.
The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.
In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.
“The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.
“Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.
“However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”
On Thursday, lawyers also argued that arrests of asylum seekers were not a reason to close migrant hotels.
Edward Brown KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that housing asylum seekers was “in the national interest”.
The hotel became the focus for anti-immigration protests after the alleged sexual assault of a 14-year-old schoolgirl by an Ethiopian asylum seeker living there.
At court on Wednesday, it was heard Hadush Kebatu, 41, told the teenager that she would be a “good wife” and that he wanted her to go back with him to the hotel to “have babies then… go to Kenya”.
The alleged incidents provoked protests and counter-protests outside the Bell Hotel. Similar protests have been held outside hotels across the country housing asylum seekers.
Mr Kebatu denies two counts of sexual assault, one count of attempted sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity and one count of harassment without violence.
The Government’s lawyers have also told the Court:
- The application for an interim injunction was “triggered by protests” and not genuine concerns about planning.
- There is no evidence of increased crime rate where migrants are housed.
- Making the injunction permanent would set a “dangerous precedent” for other councils to potentially copy.
- The “hardship” caused to the 138 male asylum seekers in the hotel has not been considered.
- The perceived risk of housing migrants in Epping is “fuelled by dis-information on social media”.
- Protests outside the hotel are being driven by a “range of grievances” including an “animosity towards asylum seekers”.
- Accommodating asylum seekers is in the national interest.
Follow the Telegraph‘s live coverage here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Does my human right to a place to live override the local planning laws. No, I thought not. It only applies to the elites and their foreign clients.
The fact that the government persists in referring to these groups of men as “asylum seekers” is based upon their self-identification as such.
Until their true circumstances have been tested and they are then confirmed as coming here with a valid claim of asylum they should not be refereed to as asylum seekers.
What they actually are is illegal immigrants, who have bypassed all of the conventions laid down by international law to then break into a country, conceal their true identity and exploit the squeamishness of western liberal comfort.
Call them what they are until you know otherwise
Yes
If they are genuine Asylum Seekers, who presumably came by “small boat”, why did they not apply for Asylum in France? Or in any other EU state they passed through to reach France?
Obviously rhetorical questions!
I think we know exactly which way this challenge is going to go, because we know the priorities of our so-called Government!
If the appeal court dares to defy the Home Office, they will presumably appeal that decision in the High Court, and if that fails then to the European Court in Strasbourg where they’ll get the decision they want!
Watch Reform support go stratospheric if this appeal goes the Home Office way!
Which may well be the intention.
Exactly that. Once they were in Europe (and probably before that, depending on their route), they were out of harm’s way. They could have applied there for asylum. But no, by choosing to travel all the way across the safe space that is Europe to then reach the UK by an unofficial route, they made their motivation patently clear. They are here because they think they’ll do well out if it, both economically and in terms of all the handouts they’ll get at the expense of the profligate UK government, paid for by the UK tax payer. Asylum laws are there to protect people who legitimately need protection, but we are being abused and robbed, with no means of self-protection. Even our own government says that our rights are less than those of the illegal migrants.
The Judiciary have just had a 25% pay rise. I believe a win for the government of occupation is in the bag.
As has proved to be the case.
Actually they are criminals, they stepped aside from the asylum process and paid criminal gangs to help them in their criminal activity to enter the country. I cannot believe under the ECHR that a country has a legal responsibility to put Criminals up in 4 star Hotels with 3 meals a day allow them to roam the countryside and pay them for it. If the ECHR does rule that Criminals should be given such rights over the law abiding citizen then it is a bad convention which puts the Criminal first. What sort of Government supports that?
“If the ECHR does rule that Criminals should be given such rights over the law abiding citizen then it is a bad convention which puts the Criminal first.”
And of the ECHR ruling would apply across Europe which means the first European country these criminals set foot in.
Illegal immigrants – their claim to asylum belongs in the first safe country they set foot in, assuming of course that the country they left is dangerous. Our only responsibility is to send them back whence they came – France.
It’s not complicated.
Is the problem simply housing asylum seekers in urban hotels at public expense, or is it that some of the people being housed in these accommodations are unvetted and could pose a risk to the local community? We need to be clear about what our concerns actually are and what we want to see done differently—because most reasonable people in the UK do not object to helping those who are genuinely in need.
If we want to win this debate, we must ensure that the terms of the discussion are clearly understood by both sides.
No. It is one thing to be compassionate, and the most compassionate people on the planet are Ethnic Europeans = White People.
It is quite another thing to be a Gullible Fool.
So what is your answer to the question: is the problem simply housing asylum seekers in urban hotels at public expense, or is it that some of the people being housed in these accommodations are unvetted and could pose a risk to the local community?
And in terms of compassionate people: have you ever visited a majority buddhist country – I have and found those brown skinned people to be at least as compassionate as any predominately white skinned nations I have visited.
“Is the problem simply housing asylum seekers in urban hotels at public expense, or is it that some of the people being housed in these accommodations are unvetted and could pose a risk to the local community?”
Both, and many other problems. We have enough foreigners already – people from different races and cultures. Our race and culture are being swamped and will die out.
So what is the solution, do we use a colour card at the port of entry and ask them if they can sing a Christmas carol?
I think all immigration needs to stop, for a long long time – decades, centuries. After that, I don’t know. Not sure why we’d ever need any really. If for some reason we felt we desperately needed it, I think favouring nations of origins with cultures and populations similar to our own seems like a good option – if there are any left.
All academic anyway – none of this will happen and our race and culture will die.
A DNA test for Anglo-Saxon markers. No markers = Export.
‘A DNA test for Anglo-Saxon markers. No markers = Export’
The Anglo-Saxons themselves began as migrants to Britain—unwanted by the native Britons, who often saw them as a threat. Migration has shaped this island before, for better and for worse. The real question is whether we are learning from that history or repeating it.
Shaped by migration of white people a
very long time ago
Port of entry? – that would be nice… ‘beach’ more likely. The main issue I see is they are illegal immigrants, and economic illegal migrants at that – they are breaking the law to get here – that should mean an instant ‘no citizenship’
There is no discussion to be had. Illegals = export.
Sorted.
Most reasonable people in the UK know that there are over 8 billion people in the world and many of them have horrible lives and would prefer to live here. Please tell us who and how many may not be hosted here if they manage somehow to enter our country. Where did the notion that we are responsible for all the world’s misery come from and that rejecting that notion is “not who we are”? Is national suicide now compulsory?
Seconded 👍
You write: Most reasonable people….
You’re right that Britain cannot be responsible for all the world’s misery—nor should national survival be treated as optional. Borders between nations may be artificial, but the boundaries of private property and community are not: they are the foundation of civilised life. In a truly free society, people should be welcome where they are invited and offered hospitality voluntarily, but no one has the right to impose themselves as a burden on strangers.
Where the state controls public resources through taxation, it has no moral authority to treat those resources as gifts for outsiders. Compassion for individuals in genuine need is one thing; large-scale, unvetted migration imposed from above is another.
The deeper issue is that the state has been captured by political and corporate interests that view mass migration as a tool. Weakening national, family, and tribal cohesion makes it easier to replace organic communities with a centralised, globalised system of governance—the very model promoted by the WEF and its allies. Migration, in this sense, is being used as a weapon of social transformation.
And of course being able to show a growing population is vital to keeping up the fiat currency ponzi scheme with the IMF… without it we can’t keep robbing Peter to pay Paul…
It’s very simple – illegals have broken in to our country and have no rights whatsoever except on a boat back to France.
‘illegals have broken in to our country and have no rights’ – so by that can we assume you are OK with vetted as genuine and safe asylum seekers then, accommodated in hotels at the public expense ?
I might be OK with small numbers, if vetted and genuine. It all depends how you define “genuine” and what your criteria are. I can’t see much alternative to imposing a very low annual limit.
A combination of both (costs and potential risk) I would say.
And you are right, a debate is needed.
At what point will there be a proper discussion about how the world deals with asylum seekers? I suggest that Europe absorbing all people from areas of conflict is not sustainable. The numbers are simply too high.
It causes major issues (perceived and real) in most European countries and the backlash is starting.
Scum.
Time for a change….. these people have lost all contact with reality …..when I put my car into the garage for a service and then see them running a taxi service with it, I change my garage. The Blob has lost all and any links with we taxpayers, they have completely forgotten who they work for and who pays them .
luckily we are so broke at least half of them will be given all the time they want, when they are sacked, to work out how that simple contract really works….the other half better catch on fast.
“Is the problem simply housing asylum seekers in urban hotels at public expense, or is it that some of the people being housed in these accommodations are unvetted and could pose a risk to the local community?”
The protesters have framed their objections in terms of ‘risk’, because that falls, just, within the bounds of a mainstream-media defensible reason for objecting local housing of ‘asylum seekers’ fleeing persecution from wartorn France or something.
Unfortunately, whilst that’s probably better than the usual weapons-grade apathy of the British public, it obfuscates the issue and plays into the hands of the government.
They are more than happy to see the argument played out just as a logistics issue, rather than it being explicitly defined as a refusal by the public to accomodate economic migrants entering the country illegally.
As to what to do about it – Reform seem to get it now and have some thoughts which even the MSM can’t pretend not to notice.
I have my doubts about Farage having the depth of belief and level of conviction needed to seriously dent the Establishment on this, but that’s all that’s on offer at the moment.
Oh dear, do you think its deliberate provocation on the part of the Government?
Absolutely.
The Epping show is a win win for Kneel and co.
“On no the Judge says we can’t use the hotel. Right Plan B – share the illegals across the country. Which is what they intended all along. Now they – the government – are obeying the law…😀😀”
Well what else did we expect? We know this government has no regard for us at all. We are a problem.
Off topic.. has anyone watched Eddington at the cinema?
It’s great. Set in May 2020 in small town America, it’s structured as a conventional Western, but the social observation is solidly anti Narrative. Lots of anti mask observations at the start of the film and ridiculing of BLM throughout.
Joaquin Phoenix and Emma Stone in star roles. A significant moment in change of vibe of mainstream luvvies maybe?
Not seen it but many thanks for the shout out- might go and see it
My local cinema sent me the synopsis but I assumed it would be awful
That’s the end of their careers then.
I think this is good news and what might be better news in the long term is that the government wins the case
Anyone on the fence or asleep will surely wake up at that point
The Hotel in Epping appears to be subject to a change if use under Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended)
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended)
In that it is being used with an element if care of the immigrants by the government, therefore the proprietors should apply for a change of use to an institutional care home of some form.
it is also no longer open as a hotel in the normal sense, So the government appears to be acting illegally, surprise, surprise!
Class C1 – Hotels Use as a hotel or as a boarding or guest house where, in each case, no significant element of care is provided
Permitted change to state-funded school and back to previous lawful use
At least we are now seeing the true motivations of our establishment. For any who previously had doubts then you can now set those aside. The population is waking up to the reality that the factors driving the mess that is now Britain have been intentionally forced upon the masses by our very own establishment, with all the mainstream parties aligning with it and a now politicised legal system to enforce it. It is one huge confidence trick that has done much damage to the country, so vote for change at the next election and put a stop to this nonsense.
It is the ECHR.that is not in the national interest. It brings no benefit to UK citizens or taxpayers
Cooper knows she’ll be kicked out of Parliament at the next election. And this issue is going to destroy the Labour Party.
They are digging the Labour Party grave.
Their mission is to abuse the Labour Party to get their assigned political tasks done or as much of them as possible.
Eventually the parasite kills the host unless they are symbiotic
Planning permissions are grounded in law. The argument of the government in this respect is thus still just “government ought to have the authority to ignore law as it sees fit.” Anything else submitted by government lawyers, insofar reproduced above, is just claptrap. In particular, The application for an interim injunction was “triggered by protests” and not genuine concerns about planning. Speculation about hidden motivations of people forcing the government to respect law are irrelevant. Laws have to be respected because they’re laws. There is no evidence of increased crime rate where migrants are housed. Irrelvant for the question if this particular use of a hotel conforms to planning permissions. Making the injunction permanent would set a “dangerous precedent” for other councils to potentially copy. Forcing the government to respect the law in Epping might indeed cause other councils to demand that the government also respects the law in their areas. That’s the point of it. The “hardship” caused to the 138 male asylum seekers in the hotel has not been considered. This hardship was caused by the government illegally housing them in this hotel. The perceived risk of housing migrants in Epping is “fuelled by dis-information on social media”.… Read more »
Very good
The council should appoint you to their legal team
This is the climax of Blair’s longerm plan to emasculate the English ‘somewheres’ by the globalist aristocracy ‘anywheres’ who so detested Brexit and act as a kind of world government/police force. The locals of Epping and their daughters have no human rights to safety, family and community because they are trumped by the right to enter Britain and stay whatever their ‘protected characteristics’. And we hear that Blair, who planned all this re-tribalising of England whatever acrimony and injustice it caused, is telling Trump how to arrange the governance of Gaza ! Wasn’t Tony behind the invasion of Iraq and massive disruption of the Arab world? And the Uniparty ‘heirs to Blair’ have nowhere to hide.
The previous ruling was a clear confirmation of the law on ‘change of use’ which is clear. This would usually require a risk assessment if there could be a public safety issue. In the case of the use of former hotels, the Home Office entered into a contract that a vendor could not legally provide. That’s the bottom line.
The consequences of a breach of the law are not a matter for the courts. Whether these consequences are unmanageable is a matter for the Home Office to deal with.