Do people on here understand that the injunction is not the end of the case? The injunction was interlocutory, it was only ever meant to last until the substantive trial. We will be back in a couple of months for round 2.
But pointing out what is actually happening on here is pointless in this echo chamber.
Yes, what the court has decided here is that the Home Secretary has a right to be heard in the case, as does the company that runs the hotel. Their interest is so obvious that it is remarkable that it was disregarded at first instance. Having admitted and heard from those parties they have reviewed the decision on the interim order which was granted in their absence and decided that the balance of interests does not favour the local authority.
The actual merits of the case will be decided at a forthcoming hearing on the evidence which this was not. The LA may still be right that the hotel does not have planning permission for its current use.
But ultimately the politics and optics are not good for the government, even though the decision seems legally correct
Oh agreed. They are forcing the presence of these asylum seekers on a hostile community and it is very likely that there will be further trouble one way or another and that some at least will blame the government for that.
Judge rules in favour of the Home Secretary and that the Bell Hotel Epping can still be used for asylum seekers.
Protests will now likely ramp up again
He hasn't yet but looks likely
The govts legal team made the govts position perfectly clear. The asylum seekers get priority over the local residents.
Delicious.
Government well and truly checkmated by this. As I said earlier, I do have some sympathy with their position, but sometimes events just don’t give you the best optics as a government.
It's the least worst option. You can't have decisions made by mob rule; we don't have anywhere else to put all the asylum seekers.
Probably true, but that doesn’t make it any easier for the government managing the political fallout from this.
The Atlantic reports Trump is ‘disappointed’ with Zelensky & Europe, calling their demands unrealistic. He just wants the war over ‘no matter how’, even if it means Ukraine losing land. Now he pushes for a Putin-Zelensky summit only if he’s at the table. To me, Trump is openly aligning with Putin, eroding any trust in the US government. https://x.com/olddog100ua/status/1961295032167629191
Putin won't accept any peace deal without gaining some Ukrainian territory anyway and Zelensky won't accept any loss of land beyond Crimea and maybe not even that.
The best that could be hoped for is a ceasefire on current lines of occupation
If we could help take territory off Russia, that would even up the negotiations. We’re too feart, though, because of the threat of nuclear war.
Well given that might lead to the death of most of our population in a nuclear war that is hardly surprising.
This is not the Crimean War when it might have been an option as nukes had not yet been invented
How do you think usage of nukes would help Russia, in the tactical or strategic sense?
Go on.
The answer is why Putin has not used them already.
If Putin thought he would lose the war outright he could well use at least a tactical nuke, as he knows he would lose the Presidency if he lost the war outright so would have nothing to lose
Indeed. The suggestion that Putin won't use nukes because he hasn't already used them is a logical fail. Of course, it's very unlikely he'd use them under the current circumstances, but if the time comes when Russia is losing badly, then the calculus may well change.
Wow.
Firstly, the time Putin may have used them is around April or autumn 2022. The former when it was clear that the war was going to bog down; the latter when the Ukrainians launched an offensive which retook vast tracts of conquered territory. I can only imagine how Putin must have felt as hammerblow after hammerblow fell on his fascist, imperialist regime. Now, he is more used to Russia's belittled position and repeated failures. There is no shock.
Secondly, as I've asked others, to zero reply: what would he gain from their use? Both tactical and strategic are unsuited to this war as it stands, particularly as all his WMD-trained troops and equipment are pushing up the sunflowers.
Thirdly, how much territory are *you* willing to give up because of your fear of his nukes? Because if you give him an inch because of that fear, he'll take the Baltics.
But you'll be fine, won't you?
Jesus, what a ludicrously emotive reponse to a couple of basic and pretty uncontentious facts.
Logically, there must a point at which Putin would use nuclear weapons. I'm not saying he's anywhere near or has yet been anywhere near that point, but it must exist, otherwise what is the point of a nuclear arsenal? And I'm certainly not saying that the west should back down in its support for Ukraine. Indeed, I didn't make any points about how this threat should be handled. If I had, I'd have said that the west should continue to help Ukraine to resist the Russian invasion and continue to sanction Russia, in the hope that Russia basically runs out of steam. But the fact of Russia's nuclear arsenal remains, and that needs to be borne in mind by any rational actor.
The policy of helping Ukraine to defend itself in the hope that Russia will settle for what it has gained has failed. Russia has demonstrated a much greater willingness to incur losses, a much greater ability to sustain its war effort, and much more success in obtaining material support from other countries, and it is banking on being able to outlast the West.
This is why it is sticking to its absurdly maximalist demands that Ukraine hangs over more territory in exchange for a halt to the fighting.
We need to support Ukraine in developing a strategy for victory, which will either succeed in defeating Russia, or at least put them in sufficient fear of defeat that they will call it quits.
Epping Council seem useless , how long does it take to deal with a planning application ?
The judges seem to be suggesting that mob rule shouldn’t be allowed to affect the law .
The original high court judge seems to have really screwed up making a number of errors .
No, the original high court judge's judgement was fine, Somani Hotels did not even submit an application for a change of use this year
Why was it classed as a change of use?
I'm sure the council wouldn't shy away from housing the homeless in the hotel?
It is a HOTEL not a migrant processing centre, the country would go mad if half the nations hotels ended up not being for visitors and tourists but only to house asylum seekers.
Hotels aren't homeless shelters either but private businesses
Judge rules in favour of the Home Secretary and that the Bell Hotel Epping can still be used for asylum seekers.
Protests will now likely ramp up again
He hasn't yet but looks likely
The govts legal team made the govts position perfectly clear. The asylum seekers get priority over the local residents.
Delicious.
Government well and truly checkmated by this. As I said earlier, I do have some sympathy with their position, but sometimes events just don’t give you the best optics as a government.
It's the least worst option. You can't have decisions made by mob rule; we don't have anywhere else to put all the asylum seekers.
A tad optimistic, you don't think the mobs are going to be coming out in even larger numbers in towns with hotels after this judgement? Military bases can be used to house asylum seekers
Dominic Casciani: On a strictly legal level this is a really important win for the Home Office - and to all intents and purposes it resets the situation.
Heh
Indeed, they have won a great legal victory today but I would not like to be the Labour pollster next week delivering his results to Sir Keir once the political winners are decided
Epping Council seem useless , how long does it take to deal with a planning application ?
The judges seem to be suggesting that mob rule shouldn’t be allowed to affect the law .
The original high court judge seems to have really screwed up making a number of errors .
No, the original high court judge's judgement was fine, Somani Hotels did not even submit an application for a change of use this year
Why was it classed as a change of use?
I'm sure the council wouldn't shy away from housing the homeless in the hotel?
It is a HOTEL not a migrant processing centre, the country would go mad if half the nations hotels ended up not being for visitors and tourists but only to house asylum seekers.
Hotels aren't homeless shelters either but private businesses
Farage is a deeply cynical and dishonest individual. WTF did this have to do with ECHR? The government has a contract for the use of this hotel. That contract may not be valid if the hotel does not have planning for its current use but right now they are entitled to implement their contract. ECHR has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Looks like Yvette has played a blinder. She won't have the headache of having asylum seekers spilling out onto the streets, but equally the main thrust of the judgement is that we are where we are because the previous judge and Epping council screwed up royally. Naturally, Farage and Jenrick are blaming Sir Keir personally, but you'd have to be pretty low IQ to swallow that.
Epping Council seem useless , how long does it take to deal with a planning application ?
The judges seem to be suggesting that mob rule shouldn’t be allowed to affect the law .
The original high court judge seems to have really screwed up making a number of errors .
No, the original high court judge's judgement was fine, Somani Hotels did not even submit an application for a change of use this year
Why was it classed as a change of use?
I'm sure the council wouldn't shy away from housing the homeless in the hotel?
It is a HOTEL not a migrant processing centre, the country would go mad if half the nations hotels ended up not being for visitors and tourists but only to house asylum seekers.
Hotels aren't homeless shelters either but private businesses
Financially it's a no brainer for hotels to take asylum seekers. 100% money guaranteed by G4S or Serco (Underwritten by the Home Office directly if either goes bust); 100% occupancy for several years, with either complete redecoration or enough in the contract to easily pay for it at the end of the contracted term. Compare that to running a hotel where you need to attract guests and have unknown occupancy ! I'd tell them as a management accountant to go for the immigration option every day and twice on sundays.
Farage is a deeply cynical and dishonest individual. WTF did this have to do with ECHR? The government has a contract for the use of this hotel. That contract may not be valid if the hotel does not have planning for its current use but right now they are entitled to implement their contract. ECHR has absolutely nothing to do with it.
When people whitewash Farage and claim him as an avuncular man of the people they underestimate the sheer underlying malevolence, which has always been there.
Epping Council seem useless , how long does it take to deal with a planning application ?
The judges seem to be suggesting that mob rule shouldn’t be allowed to affect the law .
The original high court judge seems to have really screwed up making a number of errors .
No, the original high court judge's judgement was fine, Somani Hotels did not even submit an application for a change of use this year
Why was it classed as a change of use?
I'm sure the council wouldn't shy away from housing the homeless in the hotel?
It is a HOTEL not a migrant processing centre, the country would go mad if half the nations hotels ended up not being for visitors and tourists but only to house asylum seekers.
Hotels aren't homeless shelters either but private businesses
Financially it's a no brainer for hotels to take asylum seekers. 100% money guaranteed by G4S or Serco (Underwritten by the Home Office directly if either goes bust); 100% occupancy for several years, with either complete redecoration or enough in the contract to easily pay for it at the end of the contracted term. Compare that to running a hotel where you need to attract guests and have unknown occupancy ! I'd tell them as a management accountant to go for the immigration option every day and twice on sundays.
Yes but on that basis they effectively become public sector, taxpayer funded sites NOT private businesses anymore and sad to say at increased risk from far right protestors
As #Syria’s economy slowly opens up amid U.S. sanctions removal, some hotels have begun taking credit card payments — doing away with the cash-only situation that’s been the norm for so long.
Looks like Yvette has played a blinder. She won't have the headache of having asylum seekers spilling out onto the streets, but equally the main thrust of the judgement is that we are where we are because the previous judge and Epping council screwed up royally. Naturally, Farage and Jenrick are blaming Sir Keir personally, but you'd have to be pretty low IQ to swallow that.
Yvette Cooper used taxpayer money - your money - to keep open a hotel housing illegal migrants.
The Government’s lawyers argued accommodating illegal migrants was in the “national interest”.
In court they said the right of illegal migrants to free hotels is more important than the rights of the British people.
Well, they are not.
The British Government should always put the interests of the British people first. Starmer’s Government has shown itself to be on the side of illegal migrants who have broken into our county.
But this is not a free pass for asylum hotels. Councils can and should still act to close hotels. If they don’t, residents will rightly ask, on whose side are they?
My team and @LawForBorders will continue to provide legal assistance to help protect communities.
There is no acceptable accommodation for illegal migrants. The Government should be prioritising Brits in need and deporting every illegal migrant, as the last Government should have done and I've argued for years.
Kelvin McKenzie responds 'No surprise Lord Justice Bean, a Labour Party member for 28 years, has in his Appeal Court judgment stopped the 128 migrants being kicked out of the Bell Hotel in Epping. The law and Labour are in lockstep. A migrant has more rights than a British citizen. A serious moment.' https://x.com/kelvmackenzie/status/1961423969774407718
Rabble rousing nonsense.
Actually it is the inevitable response and just repeated in a statement from Farage
This is a correct judgment, but absolutely a free pass to Farage and others and even the most loyal labour supporter must be concerned at the political fallout
gives the Nuthall East by-election result (with the party's spin, but I've not seen it elsewhere yet). The ward (on the edge of my old patch) is usually solidly conservative - quite well-off, but not very rich. The Browtowe Alliance is a local Notts split from Labour, likely to affiliate to the new party according to one member who I know.
That's interesting - a bit of slightly Greater Nottingham in Broxtowe, nearly all on an estate butting up against the Broxtowe Council Estate. Do they look down their noses at the Council Houses?
That area has horrible anti-wheelchair barriers on underpasses under the M1 and the Nuthall Traffic Island. I was somewhat in shock when I found those in "Nottingham", but they are not a high priority for me.
Way before your time, the parish church on the Broxtowe Estate was one of the first with a windmill on the top - that was back in about 1990.
Hard to generalise, but Greater Nottingham (and Broxtowe in particular) has everything from luxurious detached mansions (one street in Bramcote is in the top 10 for cost in Britain) to rough estates where just everyday living is difficult. It made Broxtowe a fascinating place to represent - I'd drive around at weekends visiting people with diverse problems in both kinds of home, and on the same day you'd get someone on the verge of eviction and someone worried about the look of a nearby park. (I was bewildered the other day by someone who thought MPs get driven around the constituency.) I found that around half the issues could be solved with vigorous intervention from my office.
Dominic Casciani: On a strictly legal level this is a really important win for the Home Office - and to all intents and purposes it resets the situation.
Heh
Indeed, they have won a great legal victory today but I would not like to be the Labour pollster next week delivering his results to Sir Keir once the political winners are decided
I expect the government to start sending back migrants to France next week in the one in one out deal . No point doing this before Parliament re-opens next week .
Yvette Cooper used taxpayer money - your money - to keep open a hotel housing illegal migrants.
The Government’s lawyers argued accommodating illegal migrants was in the “national interest”.
In court they said the right of illegal migrants to free hotels is more important than the rights of the British people.
Well, they are not.
The British Government should always put the interests of the British people first. Starmer’s Government has shown itself to be on the side of illegal migrants who have broken into our county.
But this is not a free pass for asylum hotels. Councils can and should still act to close hotels. If they don’t, residents will rightly ask, on whose side are they?
My team and @LawForBorders will continue to provide legal assistance to help protect communities.
There is no acceptable accommodation for illegal migrants. The Government should be prioritising Brits in need and deporting every illegal migrant, as the last Government should have done and I've argued for years.
Dominic Casciani: On a strictly legal level this is a really important win for the Home Office - and to all intents and purposes it resets the situation.
Heh
Indeed, they have won a great legal victory today but I would not like to be the Labour pollster next week delivering his results to Sir Keir once the political winners are decided
I expect the government to start sending back migrants to France next week in the one in one out deal . No point doing this before Parliament re-opens next week .
What has it got to do with parliament being in session?
Dominic Casciani: On a strictly legal level this is a really important win for the Home Office - and to all intents and purposes it resets the situation.
Heh
Indeed, they have won a great legal victory today but I would not like to be the Labour pollster next week delivering his results to Sir Keir once the political winners are decided
I expect the government to start sending back migrants to France next week in the one in one out deal . No point doing this before Parliament re-opens next week .
What has it got to do with parliament being in session?
He wants the holidays over with and as much attention as possible on the first deportations . If I’m wrong I’ll happily eat humble pie .
Farage is a deeply cynical and dishonest individual. WTF did this have to do with ECHR? The government has a contract for the use of this hotel. That contract may not be valid if the hotel does not have planning for its current use but right now they are entitled to implement their contract. ECHR has absolutely nothing to do with it.
When people whitewash Farage and claim him as an avuncular man of the people they underestimate the sheer underlying malevolence, which has always been there.
Farage is a shit, it's evident from a distance but even more apparent when you see how he is viewed by anyone who has interacted with him more closely.
Epping Council seem useless , how long does it take to deal with a planning application ?
The judges seem to be suggesting that mob rule shouldn’t be allowed to affect the law .
The original high court judge seems to have really screwed up making a number of errors .
No, the original high court judge's judgement was fine, Somani Hotels did not even submit an application for a change of use this year
Why was it classed as a change of use?
I'm sure the council wouldn't shy away from housing the homeless in the hotel?
The change of use was from a hotel to a house in multiple occupation. It is an essential characteristic of a hotel that you can book a room there for a few days, pay and leave. It is written a lot cleverer than that in the Planning Policy Framework obviously.
I can imagine that Rayner is too stupid to see the consequences but I guess Starmer will be cursing this ill-advised decision. How much more clearly could he have signalled he wanted the injunction upheld ? I supposed the planning consequences will come when the case itself is heard - presumably with planning lawyers taking that decision the actions of the council will be upheld, as they obviously ought to be. I don't suppose this decision is precedential it will be the decision in the case when that has been appealed which will be the precedent.
Wow, This will be big for planning lawyers. I can't even imagine all the implications for getting adverse planning decisions, at every level over-turned.
Kelvin McKenzie responds 'No surprise Lord Justice Bean, a Labour Party member for 28 years, has in his Appeal Court judgment stopped the 128 migrants being kicked out of the Bell Hotel in Epping. The law and Labour are in lockstep. A migrant has more rights than a British citizen. A serious moment.' https://x.com/kelvmackenzie/status/1961423969774407718
Rabble rousing nonsense.
Actually it is the inevitable response and just repeated in a statement from Farage
This is a correct judgment, but absolutely a free pass to Farage and others and even the most loyal labour supporter must be concerned at the political fallout
The judges are just applying the law, so no problem with that, but this emphasises how the law needs to change when we get a new government.
Kelvin McKenzie responds 'No surprise Lord Justice Bean, a Labour Party member for 28 years, has in his Appeal Court judgment stopped the 128 migrants being kicked out of the Bell Hotel in Epping. The law and Labour are in lockstep. A migrant has more rights than a British citizen. A serious moment.' https://x.com/kelvmackenzie/status/1961423969774407718
Rabble rousing nonsense.
Actually it is the inevitable response and just repeated in a statement from Farage
This is a correct judgment, but absolutely a free pass to Farage and others and even the most loyal labour supporter must be concerned at the political fallout
The judges are just applying the law, so no problem with that, but this emphasises how the law needs to change when we get a new government.
Yet the high court judge also applied the law and came to a completely different judgement, we have to accept that constitutional law in particular can be open to political elements in judgements as seen in the US.
Looks like Yvette has played a blinder. She won't have the headache of having asylum seekers spilling out onto the streets, but equally the main thrust of the judgement is that we are where we are because the previous judge and Epping council screwed up royally. Naturally, Farage and Jenrick are blaming Sir Keir personally, but you'd have to be pretty low IQ to swallow that.
The Atlantic reports Trump is ‘disappointed’ with Zelensky & Europe, calling their demands unrealistic. He just wants the war over ‘no matter how’, even if it means Ukraine losing land. Now he pushes for a Putin-Zelensky summit only if he’s at the table. To me, Trump is openly aligning with Putin, eroding any trust in the US government. https://x.com/olddog100ua/status/1961295032167629191
Putin won't accept any peace deal without gaining some Ukrainian territory anyway and Zelensky won't accept any loss of land beyond Crimea and maybe not even that.
The best that could be hoped for is a ceasefire on current lines of occupation
If we could help take territory off Russia, that would even up the negotiations. We’re too feart, though, because of the threat of nuclear war.
Well given that might lead to the death of most of our population in a nuclear war that is hardly surprising.
This is not the Crimean War when it might have been an option as nukes had not yet been invented
How do you think usage of nukes would help Russia, in the tactical or strategic sense?
Go on.
The answer is why Putin has not used them already.
If Putin thought he would lose the war outright he could well use at least a tactical nuke, as he knows he would lose the Presidency if he lost the war outright so would have nothing to lose
Indeed. The suggestion that Putin won't use nukes because he hasn't already used them is a logical fail. Of course, it's very unlikely he'd use them under the current circumstances, but if the time comes when Russia is losing badly, then the calculus may well change.
Wow.
Firstly, the time Putin may have used them is around April or autumn 2022. The former when it was clear that the war was going to bog down; the latter when the Ukrainians launched an offensive which retook vast tracts of conquered territory. I can only imagine how Putin must have felt as hammerblow after hammerblow fell on his fascist, imperialist regime. Now, he is more used to Russia's belittled position and repeated failures. There is no shock.
Secondly, as I've asked others, to zero reply: what would he gain from their use? Both tactical and strategic are unsuited to this war as it stands, particularly as all his WMD-trained troops and equipment are pushing up the sunflowers.
Thirdly, how much territory are *you* willing to give up because of your fear of his nukes? Because if you give him an inch because of that fear, he'll take the Baltics.
But you'll be fine, won't you?
Jesus, what a ludicrously emotive reponse to a couple of basic and pretty uncontentious facts.
Logically, there must a point at which Putin would use nuclear weapons. I'm not saying he's anywhere near or has yet been anywhere near that point, but it must exist, otherwise what is the point of a nuclear arsenal? And I'm certainly not saying that the west should back down in its support for Ukraine. Indeed, I didn't make any points about how this threat should be handled. If I had, I'd have said that the west should continue to help Ukraine to resist the Russian invasion and continue to sanction Russia, in the hope that Russia basically runs out of steam. But the fact of Russia's nuclear arsenal remains, and that needs to be borne in mind by any rational actor.
The policy of helping Ukraine to defend itself in the hope that Russia will settle for what it has gained has failed. Russia has demonstrated a much greater willingness to incur losses, a much greater ability to sustain its war effort, and much more success in obtaining material support from other countries, and it is banking on being able to outlast the West.
This is why it is sticking to its absurdly maximalist demands that Ukraine hangs over more territory in exchange for a halt to the fighting.
We need to support Ukraine in developing a strategy for victory, which will either succeed in defeating Russia, or at least put them in sufficient fear of defeat that they will call it quits.
Not to say you're right or wrong but we are going to be coming up to three years of exactly that sentiment ("we need to......succeed in defeating Russia or....[Russia] calls it quits...") and progress does not appear to have been made.
Yvette Cooper used taxpayer money - your money - to keep open a hotel housing illegal migrants.
The Government’s lawyers argued accommodating illegal migrants was in the “national interest”.
In court they said the right of illegal migrants to free hotels is more important than the rights of the British people.
Well, they are not.
The British Government should always put the interests of the British people first. Starmer’s Government has shown itself to be on the side of illegal migrants who have broken into our county.
But this is not a free pass for asylum hotels. Councils can and should still act to close hotels. If they don’t, residents will rightly ask, on whose side are they?
My team and @LawForBorders will continue to provide legal assistance to help protect communities.
There is no acceptable accommodation for illegal migrants. The Government should be prioritising Brits in need and deporting every illegal migrant, as the last Government should have done and I've argued for years.
This is the guy who boasted about opening more hotel properties to house asylum seekers, right? Just checking.
Totally different Robert Jenrick.
Hotels are a shit solution to the problem of where to put migrants to keep the rain off them. It's just that other solutions, which boil down to "can't we just build a giant catapult?" are even shitter.
If one were of a mind to believe an above average proportion of residents in these hotels is dangerous, this is probably in the short term the right outcome. The alternative would be having them spread out in HMOs all over the place, far harder to monitor and police, and probably more expensive.
Meanwhile the highly visible concentration of illegal migrants in these hotels will continue to focus political minds on solving the oversupply of illegal migrants.
Dominic Casciani: On a strictly legal level this is a really important win for the Home Office - and to all intents and purposes it resets the situation.
Heh
Indeed, they have won a great legal victory today but I would not like to be the Labour pollster next week delivering his results to Sir Keir once the political winners are decided
I expect the government to start sending back migrants to France next week in the one in one out deal . No point doing this before Parliament re-opens next week .
What has it got to do with parliament being in session?
Actually I expect Cooper will have to give a statement on the hotel crisis in the House on the return on Monday
Epping Council seem useless , how long does it take to deal with a planning application ?
The judges seem to be suggesting that mob rule shouldn’t be allowed to affect the law .
The original high court judge seems to have really screwed up making a number of errors .
No, the original high court judge's judgement was fine, Somani Hotels did not even submit an application for a change of use this year
Why was it classed as a change of use?
I'm sure the council wouldn't shy away from housing the homeless in the hotel?
It is change of use, but Epping failed to respond to the application in a year even though they had a statutory 8 week period
Epping council open to much criticism as well
The application was withdrawn then the hotel started housing migrants again without even submitting another application for a change of use
The first application was ignored by Epping even though it had a statutory duty to consider it in 8 weeks
Read the judges statement if you want to question the comments though you are hardly any independent voice when it comes to Epping
It was also a material change of use changing from a hotel to housing asylum seekers, in which case it would not have been covered by planning permission anyway and hence this injunction
If one were of a mind to believe an above average proportion of residents in these hotels is dangerous, this is probably in the short term the right outcome. The alternative would be having them spread out in HMOs all over the place, far harder to monitor and police, and probably more expensive.
Meanwhile the highly visible concentration of illegal migrants in these hotels will continue to focus political minds on solving the oversupply of illegal migrants.
Especially given the far right mobs outside them are likely to double in the next few days after this ruling
Someone on Epping council really needs to resign over this. If they'd have done this properly they would now be a glorious beacon to the anti-imigrant movement across Britain. Instead they've made that movement look hapless and incompetent, with Farage and Jenrick reduced to peddling flatulent conspiracy theories about Sir Keir and the ECHR. If this is the measure of the British Right then I'm starting to doubt whether Nigel will make it to being PM after all.
As he also points out High Court Judge Eyre was a former Tory candidate, both Eyre and Bean have been members of or affiliated to the Tories and Labour respectively.
Look at the US where you can largely predict Supreme Court judgements on constitutional matters based on which President appointed them and their party
If one were of a mind to believe an above average proportion of residents in these hotels is dangerous, this is probably in the short term the right outcome. The alternative would be having them spread out in HMOs all over the place, far harder to monitor and police, and probably more expensive.
Meanwhile the highly visible concentration of illegal migrants in these hotels will continue to focus political minds on solving the oversupply of illegal migrants.
Especially given the far right mobs outside them are likely to double in the next few days after this ruling
If one were of a mind to believe an above average proportion of residents in these hotels is dangerous, this is probably in the short term the right outcome. The alternative would be having them spread out in HMOs all over the place, far harder to monitor and police, and probably more expensive.
Meanwhile the highly visible concentration of illegal migrants in these hotels will continue to focus political minds on solving the oversupply of illegal migrants.
Especially given the far right mobs outside them are likely to double in the next few days after this ruling
Which will be completely counter productive given comments by the judges .
Someone on Epping council really needs to resign over this. If they'd have done this properly they would now be a glorious beacon to the anti-imigrant movement across Britain. Instead they've made that movement look hapless and incompetent, with Farage and Jenrick reduced to peddling flatulent conspiracy theories about Sir Keir and the ECHR. If this is the measure of the British Right then I'm starting to doubt whether Nigel will make it to being PM after all.
Someone on Epping council really needs to resign over this. If they'd have done this properly they would now be a glorious beacon to the anti-imigrant movement across Britain. Instead they've made that movement look hapless and incompetent, with Farage and Jenrick reduced to peddling flatulent conspiracy theories about Sir Keir and the ECHR. If this is the measure of the British Right then I'm starting to doubt whether Nigel will make it to being PM after all.
They got a High Court ruling in their favour which is more than any other council has got so far.
It won't be Epping Forest Council hit politically by this decision (note EFDC Epping Council is the Town Council), they stood up for their residents, it will be the Labour government who have not stood up for the majority view of the British people
Epping Council seem useless , how long does it take to deal with a planning application ?
The judges seem to be suggesting that mob rule shouldn’t be allowed to affect the law .
The original high court judge seems to have really screwed up making a number of errors .
No, the original high court judge's judgement was fine, Somani Hotels did not even submit an application for a change of use this year
Why was it classed as a change of use?
I'm sure the council wouldn't shy away from housing the homeless in the hotel?
It is change of use, but Epping failed to respond to the application in a year even though they had a statutory 8 week period
Epping council open to much criticism as well
The application was withdrawn then the hotel started housing migrants again without even submitting another application for a change of use
The first application was ignored by Epping even though it had a statutory duty to consider it in 8 weeks
Read the judges statement if you want to question the comments though you are hardly any independent voice when it comes to Epping
It was also a material change of use changing from a hotel to housing asylum seekers, in which case it would not have been covered by planning permission anyway and hence this injunction
You do trot out nonsense at times
The whole case is about the need for change of use which is a planning issue
You simply are blind to the the errors made by Epping which the judge was homing in on
The Atlantic reports Trump is ‘disappointed’ with Zelensky & Europe, calling their demands unrealistic. He just wants the war over ‘no matter how’, even if it means Ukraine losing land. Now he pushes for a Putin-Zelensky summit only if he’s at the table. To me, Trump is openly aligning with Putin, eroding any trust in the US government. https://x.com/olddog100ua/status/1961295032167629191
Putin won't accept any peace deal without gaining some Ukrainian territory anyway and Zelensky won't accept any loss of land beyond Crimea and maybe not even that.
The best that could be hoped for is a ceasefire on current lines of occupation
If we could help take territory off Russia, that would even up the negotiations. We’re too feart, though, because of the threat of nuclear war.
Well given that might lead to the death of most of our population in a nuclear war that is hardly surprising.
This is not the Crimean War when it might have been an option as nukes had not yet been invented
How do you think usage of nukes would help Russia, in the tactical or strategic sense?
Go on.
The answer is why Putin has not used them already.
If Putin thought he would lose the war outright he could well use at least a tactical nuke, as he knows he would lose the Presidency if he lost the war outright so would have nothing to lose
Indeed. The suggestion that Putin won't use nukes because he hasn't already used them is a logical fail. Of course, it's very unlikely he'd use them under the current circumstances, but if the time comes when Russia is losing badly, then the calculus may well change.
Wow.
Firstly, the time Putin may have used them is around April or autumn 2022. The former when it was clear that the war was going to bog down; the latter when the Ukrainians launched an offensive which retook vast tracts of conquered territory. I can only imagine how Putin must have felt as hammerblow after hammerblow fell on his fascist, imperialist regime. Now, he is more used to Russia's belittled position and repeated failures. There is no shock.
Secondly, as I've asked others, to zero reply: what would he gain from their use? Both tactical and strategic are unsuited to this war as it stands, particularly as all his WMD-trained troops and equipment are pushing up the sunflowers.
Thirdly, how much territory are *you* willing to give up because of your fear of his nukes? Because if you give him an inch because of that fear, he'll take the Baltics.
But you'll be fine, won't you?
Jesus, what a ludicrously emotive reponse to a couple of basic and pretty uncontentious facts.
Logically, there must a point at which Putin would use nuclear weapons. I'm not saying he's anywhere near or has yet been anywhere near that point, but it must exist, otherwise what is the point of a nuclear arsenal? And I'm certainly not saying that the west should back down in its support for Ukraine. Indeed, I didn't make any points about how this threat should be handled. If I had, I'd have said that the west should continue to help Ukraine to resist the Russian invasion and continue to sanction Russia, in the hope that Russia basically runs out of steam. But the fact of Russia's nuclear arsenal remains, and that needs to be borne in mind by any rational actor.
The policy of helping Ukraine to defend itself in the hope that Russia will settle for what it has gained has failed. Russia has demonstrated a much greater willingness to incur losses, a much greater ability to sustain its war effort, and much more success in obtaining material support from other countries, and it is banking on being able to outlast the West.
This is why it is sticking to its absurdly maximalist demands that Ukraine hangs over more territory in exchange for a halt to the fighting.
We need to support Ukraine in developing a strategy for victory, which will either succeed in defeating Russia, or at least put them in sufficient fear of defeat that they will call it quits.
Not to say you're right or wrong but we are going to be coming up to three years of exactly that sentiment ("we need to......succeed in defeating Russia or....[Russia] calls it quits...") and progress does not appear to have been made.
From our point of view it's going swimmingly.
Russia's armed forces are being chewed up at very little cost to ourselves.
Kelvin McKenzie responds 'No surprise Lord Justice Bean, a Labour Party member for 28 years, has in his Appeal Court judgment stopped the 128 migrants being kicked out of the Bell Hotel in Epping. The law and Labour are in lockstep. A migrant has more rights than a British citizen. A serious moment.' https://x.com/kelvmackenzie/status/1961423969774407718
Rabble rousing nonsense.
Actually it is the inevitable response and just repeated in a statement from Farage
This is a correct judgment, but absolutely a free pass to Farage and others and even the most loyal labour supporter must be concerned at the political fallout
I listened carefully to all of the judgement. Regardless of the politics, legally it was a no-brainer. I've never heard such a coruscating attack by an Appeal Court, not even delivered in particularly coded language, of the poverty of the legal reasoning of the initial judgement granting the injunction. If people want to find fault and sack judges, they should look at the judge who delivered the 19/8 judgement.
Epping Council seem useless , how long does it take to deal with a planning application ?
The judges seem to be suggesting that mob rule shouldn’t be allowed to affect the law .
The original high court judge seems to have really screwed up making a number of errors .
No, the original high court judge's judgement was fine, Somani Hotels did not even submit an application for a change of use this year
Why was it classed as a change of use?
I'm sure the council wouldn't shy away from housing the homeless in the hotel?
It is change of use, but Epping failed to respond to the application in a year even though they had a statutory 8 week period
Epping council open to much criticism as well
The application was withdrawn then the hotel started housing migrants again without even submitting another application for a change of use
The first application was ignored by Epping even though it had a statutory duty to consider it in 8 weeks
Read the judges statement if you want to question the comments though you are hardly any independent voice when it comes to Epping
It was also a material change of use changing from a hotel to housing asylum seekers, in which case it would not have been covered by planning permission anyway and hence this injunction
You do trot out nonsense at times
The whole case is about the need for change of use which is a planning issue
You simply are blind to the the errors made by Epping which the judge was homing in on
There was no application submitted by the hotel for that change of use this year when it was reopened for asylum seekers, hence leading to the protests
Kelvin McKenzie responds 'No surprise Lord Justice Bean, a Labour Party member for 28 years, has in his Appeal Court judgment stopped the 128 migrants being kicked out of the Bell Hotel in Epping. The law and Labour are in lockstep. A migrant has more rights than a British citizen. A serious moment.' https://x.com/kelvmackenzie/status/1961423969774407718
Rabble rousing nonsense.
Actually it is the inevitable response and just repeated in a statement from Farage
This is a correct judgment, but absolutely a free pass to Farage and others and even the most loyal labour supporter must be concerned at the political fallout
Ok, the inevitable rabble rousing nonsense then.
You can try to dismiss it but even you must admit the optics look awful for the government
I listened carefully to all of the judgement. Regardless of the politics, legally it was a no-brainer. I've never heard such a coruscating attack by an Appeal Court, not even delivered in particularly coded language, of the poverty of the legal reasoning of the initial judgement granting the injunction. If people want to find fault and sack judges, they should look at the judge who delivered the 19/8 judgement.
That judge will have public support, unlike this Court of Appeal judgement, you want riots spreading ten fold across the country, sack him. If Judge Eyre was sacked the average voter would conclude the judiciary is now run by and for the liberal left
What's the point of having Hotels if they are closed to the general public?
They’re private businesses. You may as well just abolish capitalism.
As I understand it, the original legal theory is that if you block book a hotel for a wedding (or conference), you don’t need special planning permission. So block booking doesn’t require special permission from the council.
Someone on Epping council really needs to resign over this. If they'd have done this properly they would now be a glorious beacon to the anti-imigrant movement across Britain. Instead they've made that movement look hapless and incompetent, with Farage and Jenrick reduced to peddling flatulent conspiracy theories about Sir Keir and the ECHR. If this is the measure of the British Right then I'm starting to doubt whether Nigel will make it to being PM after all.
They got a High Court ruling in their favour which is more than any other council has got so far.
It won't be Epping Forest Council hit politically by this decision (note EFDC Epping Council is the Town Council), they stood up for their residents, it will be the Labour government who have not stood up for the majority view of the British people
Re your first sentence which other council has started proceedings, and the ruling has been thrown out by the High Court anyway
I do agree however this is not a good look for the government and a gift to Farage
The Atlantic reports Trump is ‘disappointed’ with Zelensky & Europe, calling their demands unrealistic. He just wants the war over ‘no matter how’, even if it means Ukraine losing land. Now he pushes for a Putin-Zelensky summit only if he’s at the table. To me, Trump is openly aligning with Putin, eroding any trust in the US government. https://x.com/olddog100ua/status/1961295032167629191
Putin won't accept any peace deal without gaining some Ukrainian territory anyway and Zelensky won't accept any loss of land beyond Crimea and maybe not even that.
The best that could be hoped for is a ceasefire on current lines of occupation
If we could help take territory off Russia, that would even up the negotiations. We’re too feart, though, because of the threat of nuclear war.
Well given that might lead to the death of most of our population in a nuclear war that is hardly surprising.
This is not the Crimean War when it might have been an option as nukes had not yet been invented
How do you think usage of nukes would help Russia, in the tactical or strategic sense?
Go on.
The answer is why Putin has not used them already.
If Putin thought he would lose the war outright he could well use at least a tactical nuke, as he knows he would lose the Presidency if he lost the war outright so would have nothing to lose
Indeed. The suggestion that Putin won't use nukes because he hasn't already used them is a logical fail. Of course, it's very unlikely he'd use them under the current circumstances, but if the time comes when Russia is losing badly, then the calculus may well change.
Wow.
Firstly, the time Putin may have used them is around April or autumn 2022. The former when it was clear that the war was going to bog down; the latter when the Ukrainians launched an offensive which retook vast tracts of conquered territory. I can only imagine how Putin must have felt as hammerblow after hammerblow fell on his fascist, imperialist regime. Now, he is more used to Russia's belittled position and repeated failures. There is no shock.
Secondly, as I've asked others, to zero reply: what would he gain from their use? Both tactical and strategic are unsuited to this war as it stands, particularly as all his WMD-trained troops and equipment are pushing up the sunflowers.
Thirdly, how much territory are *you* willing to give up because of your fear of his nukes? Because if you give him an inch because of that fear, he'll take the Baltics.
But you'll be fine, won't you?
Jesus, what a ludicrously emotive reponse to a couple of basic and pretty uncontentious facts.
Logically, there must a point at which Putin would use nuclear weapons. I'm not saying he's anywhere near or has yet been anywhere near that point, but it must exist, otherwise what is the point of a nuclear arsenal? And I'm certainly not saying that the west should back down in its support for Ukraine. Indeed, I didn't make any points about how this threat should be handled. If I had, I'd have said that the west should continue to help Ukraine to resist the Russian invasion and continue to sanction Russia, in the hope that Russia basically runs out of steam. But the fact of Russia's nuclear arsenal remains, and that needs to be borne in mind by any rational actor.
The policy of helping Ukraine to defend itself in the hope that Russia will settle for what it has gained has failed. Russia has demonstrated a much greater willingness to incur losses, a much greater ability to sustain its war effort, and much more success in obtaining material support from other countries, and it is banking on being able to outlast the West.
This is why it is sticking to its absurdly maximalist demands that Ukraine hangs over more territory in exchange for a halt to the fighting.
We need to support Ukraine in developing a strategy for victory, which will either succeed in defeating Russia, or at least put them in sufficient fear of defeat that they will call it quits.
Not to say you're right or wrong but we are going to be coming up to three years of exactly that sentiment ("we need to......succeed in defeating Russia or....[Russia] calls it quits...") and progress does not appear to have been made.
Lest we forget Bob Woodward’s claim that the CIA had “exquisite intelligence” that led them to upgrade the risk of imminent nuclear exchange in autumn 2022 to 50%. No wonder Truss looked like a rabbit about to be squashed and was caught napping with the LDI pension crisis.
Anyone that says Putin would never use nukes fails to understand the psychology. The average Russian spent most of the 90s in the sincere belief that America was on the verge of a righteous attack on the “Evil Empire” at its moment of maximum weakness, a bust economy, chaotic armed forces and led by a drunk.
If Ukraine completely routed Russia’s army, such that Russia no longer maintains a credible conventional deterrence, there are circumstances from the Russian perspective when the use of a nuke somewhere in Ukraine becomes the logical route. It would restore credible deterrence to external attack, make the enemy an ungovernable mess, and most likely consolidate Putin’s power at a moment of weakness.
Was this risk really 50%? More? Less? I don’t know but neither do any of you. We haven’t seen the “exquisite intelligence”. Which makes any cavalier argument playing down the nuclear risk a rather A-Level student position.
If one were of a mind to believe an above average proportion of residents in these hotels is dangerous, this is probably in the short term the right outcome. The alternative would be having them spread out in HMOs all over the place, far harder to monitor and police, and probably more expensive.
Meanwhile the highly visible concentration of illegal migrants in these hotels will continue to focus political minds on solving the oversupply of illegal migrants.
Especially given the far right mobs outside them are likely to double in the next few days after this ruling
Someone on Epping council really needs to resign over this. If they'd have done this properly they would now be a glorious beacon to the anti-imigrant movement across Britain. Instead they've made that movement look hapless and incompetent, with Farage and Jenrick reduced to peddling flatulent conspiracy theories about Sir Keir and the ECHR. If this is the measure of the British Right then I'm starting to doubt whether Nigel will make it to being PM after all.
They got a High Court ruling in their favour which is more than any other council has got so far.
It won't be Epping Forest Council hit politically by this decision (note EFDC Epping Council is the Town Council), they stood up for their residents, it will be the Labour government who have not stood up for the majority view of the British people
Re your first sentence which other council has started proceedings, and the ruling has been thrown out by the High Court anyway
I do agree however this is not a good look for the government and a gift to Farage
The High Court ruled in favour of the Council, today the Appeal Court didn't
Yvette Cooper used taxpayer money - your money - to keep open a hotel housing illegal migrants.
The Government’s lawyers argued accommodating illegal migrants was in the “national interest”.
In court they said the right of illegal migrants to free hotels is more important than the rights of the British people.
Well, they are not.
The British Government should always put the interests of the British people first. Starmer’s Government has shown itself to be on the side of illegal migrants who have broken into our county.
But this is not a free pass for asylum hotels. Councils can and should still act to close hotels. If they don’t, residents will rightly ask, on whose side are they?
My team and @LawForBorders will continue to provide legal assistance to help protect communities.
There is no acceptable accommodation for illegal migrants. The Government should be prioritising Brits in need and deporting every illegal migrant, as the last Government should have done and I've argued for years.
This is the guy who boasted about opening more hotel properties to house asylum seekers, right? Just checking.
Totally different Robert Jenrick.
Hotels are a shit solution to the problem of where to put migrants to keep the rain off them. It's just that other solutions, which boil down to "can't we just build a giant catapult?" are even shitter.
By far the best solution is to let them work and sort out their own accommodation, like all other functioning adults.
That keeps them off the streets and increases GDP and tax revenue.
If they can't find work by themselves they can pick up rubbish for minimum wage. But not letting them work and housing them at huge expense is absolutely insane.
I listened carefully to all of the judgement. Regardless of the politics, legally it was a no-brainer. I've never heard such a coruscating attack by an Appeal Court, not even delivered in particularly coded language, of the poverty of the legal reasoning of the initial judgement granting the injunction. If people want to find fault and sack judges, they should look at the judge who delivered the 19/8 judgement.
That judge will have public support, unlike this Court of Appeal judgement, you want riots spreading ten fold across the country, sack him. If Judge Eyre was sacked the average voter would conclude the judiciary is now run by and for the liberal left
My powers have sadly waned since retirement, so I am unable to sack Judge Eyre, nor to incite ten folds of riots.
Kelvin McKenzie responds 'No surprise Lord Justice Bean, a Labour Party member for 28 years, has in his Appeal Court judgment stopped the 128 migrants being kicked out of the Bell Hotel in Epping. The law and Labour are in lockstep. A migrant has more rights than a British citizen. A serious moment.' https://x.com/kelvmackenzie/status/1961423969774407718
Rabble rousing nonsense.
Actually it is the inevitable response and just repeated in a statement from Farage
This is a correct judgment, but absolutely a free pass to Farage and others and even the most loyal labour supporter must be concerned at the political fallout
The judges are just applying the law, so no problem with that, but this emphasises how the law needs to change when we get a new government.
Yet the high court judge also applied the law and came to a completely different judgement, we have to accept that constitutional law in particular can be open to political elements in judgements as seen in the US.
He once stood as a Conservative candidate, I believe.
Kelvin McKenzie responds 'No surprise Lord Justice Bean, a Labour Party member for 28 years, has in his Appeal Court judgment stopped the 128 migrants being kicked out of the Bell Hotel in Epping. The law and Labour are in lockstep. A migrant has more rights than a British citizen. A serious moment.' https://x.com/kelvmackenzie/status/1961423969774407718
Rabble rousing nonsense.
Actually it is the inevitable response and just repeated in a statement from Farage
This is a correct judgment, but absolutely a free pass to Farage and others and even the most loyal labour supporter must be concerned at the political fallout
The judges are just applying the law, so no problem with that, but this emphasises how the law needs to change when we get a new government.
Yet the high court judge also applied the law and came to a completely different judgement, we have to accept that constitutional law in particular can be open to political elements in judgements as seen in the US.
He once stood as a Conservative candidate, I believe.
And Judge Bean was Treasurer of the Society of Labour Lawyers
Judge rules in favour of the Home Secretary and that the Bell Hotel Epping can still be used for asylum seekers.
Protests will now likely ramp up again
He hasn't yet but looks likely
The govts legal team made the govts position perfectly clear. The asylum seekers get priority over the local residents.
Delicious.
The national interest gets priority over local concerns. Quite right. Applies to NIMBYs everywhere.
What national interest?
I get the impression that there is quite a bit of glee, that the inhabitants of Epping are getting it in the neck.
I suspect that will be counter-productive.
No one wins . The sooner the hotels are no longer needed the better . Labour need to get a grip and make this the top priority aswell as tackling the boats . I doubt they want to be remembered as the handmaidens of delivering a Reform government..
Kelvin McKenzie responds 'No surprise Lord Justice Bean, a Labour Party member for 28 years, has in his Appeal Court judgment stopped the 128 migrants being kicked out of the Bell Hotel in Epping. The law and Labour are in lockstep. A migrant has more rights than a British citizen. A serious moment.' https://x.com/kelvmackenzie/status/1961423969774407718
Rabble rousing nonsense.
Actually it is the inevitable response and just repeated in a statement from Farage
This is a correct judgment, but absolutely a free pass to Farage and others and even the most loyal labour supporter must be concerned at the political fallout
Ok, the inevitable rabble rousing nonsense then.
You can try to dismiss it but even you must admit the optics look awful for the government
But that's exactly the problem. Nowadays for you and many others it's all about 'the optics', rather than what's right and just. Screw the optics.
Epping Council seem useless , how long does it take to deal with a planning application ?
The judges seem to be suggesting that mob rule shouldn’t be allowed to affect the law .
The original high court judge seems to have really screwed up making a number of errors .
No, the original high court judge's judgement was fine, Somani Hotels did not even submit an application for a change of use this year
Why was it classed as a change of use?
I'm sure the council wouldn't shy away from housing the homeless in the hotel?
It is change of use, but Epping failed to respond to the application in a year even though they had a statutory 8 week period
Epping council open to much criticism as well
The application was withdrawn then the hotel started housing migrants again without even submitting another application for a change of use
The first application was ignored by Epping even though it had a statutory duty to consider it in 8 weeks
Read the judges statement if you want to question the comments though you are hardly any independent voice when it comes to Epping
It was also a material change of use changing from a hotel to housing asylum seekers, in which case it would not have been covered by planning permission anyway and hence this injunction
You do trot out nonsense at times
The whole case is about the need for change of use which is a planning issue
You simply are blind to the the errors made by Epping which the judge was homing in on
There was no application submitted by the hotel for that change of use this year when it was reopened for asylum seekers, hence leading to the protests
You are blindly ignoring the judge's attack on Epping when they ignored the first application for change of use
If one were of a mind to believe an above average proportion of residents in these hotels is dangerous, this is probably in the short term the right outcome. The alternative would be having them spread out in HMOs all over the place, far harder to monitor and police, and probably more expensive.
Meanwhile the highly visible concentration of illegal migrants in these hotels will continue to focus political minds on solving the oversupply of illegal migrants.
Especially given the far right mobs outside them are likely to double in the next few days after this ruling
Yvette Cooper used taxpayer money - your money - to keep open a hotel housing illegal migrants.
The Government’s lawyers argued accommodating illegal migrants was in the “national interest”.
In court they said the right of illegal migrants to free hotels is more important than the rights of the British people.
Well, they are not.
The British Government should always put the interests of the British people first. Starmer’s Government has shown itself to be on the side of illegal migrants who have broken into our county.
But this is not a free pass for asylum hotels. Councils can and should still act to close hotels. If they don’t, residents will rightly ask, on whose side are they?
My team and @LawForBorders will continue to provide legal assistance to help protect communities.
There is no acceptable accommodation for illegal migrants. The Government should be prioritising Brits in need and deporting every illegal migrant, as the last Government should have done and I've argued for years.
This is the guy who boasted about opening more hotel properties to house asylum seekers, right? Just checking.
Totally different Robert Jenrick.
Hotels are a shit solution to the problem of where to put migrants to keep the rain off them. It's just that other solutions, which boil down to "can't we just build a giant catapult?" are even shitter.
By far the best solution is to let them work and sort out their own accommodation, like all other functioning adults.
That keeps them off the streets and increases GDP and tax revenue.
If they can't find work by themselves they can pick up rubbish for minimum wage. But not letting them work and housing them at huge expense is absolutely insane.
Or just process their claims quickly and fairly rather than having them sitting in hotels for months and months.
Kelvin McKenzie responds 'No surprise Lord Justice Bean, a Labour Party member for 28 years, has in his Appeal Court judgment stopped the 128 migrants being kicked out of the Bell Hotel in Epping. The law and Labour are in lockstep. A migrant has more rights than a British citizen. A serious moment.' https://x.com/kelvmackenzie/status/1961423969774407718
Rabble rousing nonsense.
Actually it is the inevitable response and just repeated in a statement from Farage
This is a correct judgment, but absolutely a free pass to Farage and others and even the most loyal labour supporter must be concerned at the political fallout
Ok, the inevitable rabble rousing nonsense then.
You can try to dismiss it but even you must admit the optics look awful for the government
But that's exactly the problem. Nowadays for you and many others it's all about 'the optics', rather than what's right and just. Screw the optics.
I am not even sure it is right to use hotels for this purpose and as for optics, you do know how politics works ?
Kelvin McKenzie responds 'No surprise Lord Justice Bean, a Labour Party member for 28 years, has in his Appeal Court judgment stopped the 128 migrants being kicked out of the Bell Hotel in Epping. The law and Labour are in lockstep. A migrant has more rights than a British citizen. A serious moment.' https://x.com/kelvmackenzie/status/1961423969774407718
Rabble rousing nonsense.
Actually it is the inevitable response and just repeated in a statement from Farage
This is a correct judgment, but absolutely a free pass to Farage and others and even the most loyal labour supporter must be concerned at the political fallout
Ok, the inevitable rabble rousing nonsense then.
You can try to dismiss it but even you must admit the optics look awful for the government
They do, but if we have a government that prefers optics to reality, we end up in even worse trouble.
And that's true, whatever the government's colour.
I listened carefully to all of the judgement. Regardless of the politics, legally it was a no-brainer. I've never heard such a coruscating attack by an Appeal Court, not even delivered in particularly coded language, of the poverty of the legal reasoning of the initial judgement granting the injunction. If people want to find fault and sack judges, they should look at the judge who delivered the 19/8 judgement.
Yes, Farage and Jenrick would be well advised to distance themselves from this case. Just say: 'Yes, Epping council were morally in the right but you can't expect to win in the current climate when your case has more holes than a colander. We need to up our game and we will!' That will probably garner more respect than whinging.
Epping Forest's MP responds 'This is a dreadful decision from the Court of Appeal, accepting the Labour Government prioritising the rights of illegal migrants over the rights and safety of the local people of Epping. The Bell Hotel needs to be closed urgently and we will continue to push for the Govt to act.' https://x.com/DrNeilHudson/status/1961434632764731546
I listened carefully to all of the judgement. Regardless of the politics, legally it was a no-brainer. I've never heard such a coruscating attack by an Appeal Court, not even delivered in particularly coded language, of the poverty of the legal reasoning of the initial judgement granting the injunction. If people want to find fault and sack judges, they should look at the judge who delivered the 19/8 judgement.
Yes, Farage and Jenrick would be well advised to distance themselves from this case. Just say: 'Yes, Epping council were morally in the right but you can't expect to win in the current climate when your case has more holes than a colander. We need to up our game and we will!' That will probably garner more respect than whinging.
Jenrick, certainly, given it was his idea in the first place.
I listened carefully to all of the judgement. Regardless of the politics, legally it was a no-brainer. I've never heard such a coruscating attack by an Appeal Court, not even delivered in particularly coded language, of the poverty of the legal reasoning of the initial judgement granting the injunction. If people want to find fault and sack judges, they should look at the judge who delivered the 19/8 judgement.
Yes, Farage and Jenrick would be well advised to distance themselves from this case. Just say: 'Yes, Epping council were morally in the right but you can't expect to win in the current climate when your case has more holes than a colander. We need to up our game and we will!' That will probably garner more respect than whinging.
Jenrick was out with the protestors, Farage may follow suit, whipping them up against the 'left liberal elite' ignoring them
Epping Council seem useless , how long does it take to deal with a planning application ?
The judges seem to be suggesting that mob rule shouldn’t be allowed to affect the law .
The original high court judge seems to have really screwed up making a number of errors .
No, the original high court judge's judgement was fine, Somani Hotels did not even submit an application for a change of use this year
Why was it classed as a change of use?
I'm sure the council wouldn't shy away from housing the homeless in the hotel?
It is change of use, but Epping failed to respond to the application in a year even though they had a statutory 8 week period
Epping council open to much criticism as well
The application was withdrawn then the hotel started housing migrants again without even submitting another application for a change of use
The first application was ignored by Epping even though it had a statutory duty to consider it in 8 weeks
Read the judges statement if you want to question the comments though you are hardly any independent voice when it comes to Epping
It was also a material change of use changing from a hotel to housing asylum seekers, in which case it would not have been covered by planning permission anyway and hence this injunction
You do trot out nonsense at times
The whole case is about the need for change of use which is a planning issue
You simply are blind to the the errors made by Epping which the judge was homing in on
There was no application submitted by the hotel for that change of use this year when it was reopened for asylum seekers, hence leading to the protests
You are blindly ignoring the judge's attack on Epping when they ignored the first application for change of use
Epping do not get a pass on this
The hotel still did not submit an application for change of use this year and had withdrawn their application last year anyway
Epping Council seem useless , how long does it take to deal with a planning application ?
The judges seem to be suggesting that mob rule shouldn’t be allowed to affect the law .
The original high court judge seems to have really screwed up making a number of errors .
No, the original high court judge's judgement was fine, Somani Hotels did not even submit an application for a change of use this year
Why was it classed as a change of use?
I'm sure the council wouldn't shy away from housing the homeless in the hotel?
It is change of use, but Epping failed to respond to the application in a year even though they had a statutory 8 week period
Epping council open to much criticism as well
The application was withdrawn then the hotel started housing migrants again without even submitting another application for a change of use
The first application was ignored by Epping even though it had a statutory duty to consider it in 8 weeks
Read the judges statement if you want to question the comments though you are hardly any independent voice when it comes to Epping
It was also a material change of use changing from a hotel to housing asylum seekers, in which case it would not have been covered by planning permission anyway and hence this injunction
You do trot out nonsense at times
The whole case is about the need for change of use which is a planning issue
You simply are blind to the the errors made by Epping which the judge was homing in on
There was no application submitted by the hotel for that change of use this year when it was reopened for asylum seekers, hence leading to the protests
You are blindly ignoring the judge's attack on Epping when they ignored the first application for change of use
Epping do not get a pass on this
The hotel still did not submit an application for change of use this year and had withdrawn their application last year anyway
No point in arguing with you - you are simply wrong not least the judge called out Epping as are Sky just now
Comments
That could be a potent attack.
This is why it is sticking to its absurdly maximalist demands that Ukraine hangs over more territory in exchange for a halt to the fighting.
We need to support Ukraine in developing a strategy for victory, which will either succeed in defeating Russia, or at least put them in sufficient fear of defeat that they will call it quits.
Hotels aren't homeless shelters either but private businesses
Illegal migrants have more rights than the British people under Starmer‘
Farage
https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1961425449797456097?s=61
Might work for Ref tho'.
Compare that to running a hotel where you need to attract guests and have unknown occupancy !
I'd tell them as a management accountant to go for the immigration option every day and twice on sundays.
Epping council open to much criticism as well
As #Syria’s economy slowly opens up amid U.S. sanctions removal, some hotels have begun taking credit card payments — doing away with the cash-only situation that’s been the norm for so long.
Here, the Beit al-Wali hotel, for example.
https://x.com/Charles_Lister/status/1961412354433822880
https://order-order.com/2025/08/29/judge-who-ruled-in-favour-of-home-office-was-treasurer-at-society-of-labour-lawyers/
"Robert Jenrick
@RobertJenrick
This is an extremely disappointing decision.
Yvette Cooper used taxpayer money - your money - to keep open a hotel housing illegal migrants.
The Government’s lawyers argued accommodating illegal migrants was in the “national interest”.
In court they said the right of illegal migrants to free hotels is more important than the rights of the British people.
Well, they are not.
The British Government should always put the interests of the British people first. Starmer’s Government has shown itself to be on the side of illegal migrants who have broken into our county.
But this is not a free pass for asylum hotels. Councils can and should still act to close hotels. If they don’t, residents will rightly ask, on whose side are they?
My team and @LawForBorders will continue to provide legal assistance to help protect communities.
There is no acceptable accommodation for illegal migrants. The Government should be prioritising Brits in need and deporting every illegal migrant, as the last Government should have done and I've argued for years.
https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1961422780110459189"
This is a correct judgment, but absolutely a free pass to Farage and others and even the most loyal labour supporter must be concerned at the political fallout
I just stopped bothering.
Genuinely it’s not intentional.
I can imagine that Rayner is too stupid to see the consequences but I guess Starmer will be cursing this ill-advised decision. How much more clearly could he have signalled he wanted the injunction upheld ? I supposed the planning consequences will come when the case itself is heard - presumably with planning lawyers taking that decision the actions of the council will be upheld, as they obviously ought to be. I don't suppose this decision is precedential it will be the decision in the case when that has been appealed which will be the precedent.
Wow, This will be big for planning lawyers. I can't even imagine all the implications for getting adverse planning decisions, at every level over-turned.
Abolish the Home Office and start again.
A new department, staffed with British patriots who believe in secure borders and mass deportations.
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/1961430063036928219
Read the judges statement if you want to question the comments though you are hardly any independent voice when it comes to Epping
No accusation, just allowing an inference to be drawn.
https://order-order.com/2025/08/29/judge-who-ruled-in-favour-of-home-office-was-treasurer-at-society-of-labour-lawyers/
Hotels are a shit solution to the problem of where to put migrants to keep the rain off them. It's just that other solutions, which boil down to "can't we just build a giant catapult?" are even shitter.
Meanwhile the highly visible concentration of illegal migrants in these hotels will continue to focus political minds on solving the oversupply of illegal migrants.
Look at the US where you can largely predict Supreme Court judgements on constitutional matters based on which President appointed them and their party
It’s a view, I guess.
It won't be Epping Forest Council hit politically by this decision (note EFDC Epping Council is the Town Council), they stood up for their residents, it will be the Labour government who have not stood up for the majority view of the British people
The whole case is about the need for change of use which is a planning issue
You simply are blind to the the errors made by Epping which the judge was homing in on
Russia's armed forces are being chewed up at very little cost to ourselves.
I suspect that will be counter-productive.
I do agree however this is not a good look for the government and a gift to Farage
Anyone that says Putin would never use nukes fails to understand the psychology. The average Russian spent most of the 90s in the sincere belief that America was on the verge of a righteous attack on the “Evil Empire” at its moment of maximum weakness, a bust economy, chaotic armed forces and led by a drunk.
If Ukraine completely routed Russia’s army, such that Russia no longer maintains a credible conventional deterrence, there are circumstances from the Russian perspective when the use of a nuke somewhere in Ukraine becomes the logical route. It would restore credible deterrence to external attack, make the enemy an ungovernable mess, and most likely consolidate Putin’s power at a moment of weakness.
Was this risk really 50%? More? Less? I don’t know but neither do any of you. We haven’t seen the “exquisite intelligence”. Which makes any cavalier argument playing down the nuclear risk a rather A-Level student position.
That keeps them off the streets and increases GDP and tax revenue.
If they can't find work by themselves they can pick up rubbish for minimum wage. But not letting them work and housing them at huge expense is absolutely insane.
Screw the optics.
Epping do not get a pass on this
A really smart statement would have found a way to remind her party of that...
And that's true, whatever the government's colour.
The Bell Hotel needs to be closed urgently and we will continue to push for the Govt to act.'
https://x.com/DrNeilHudson/status/1961434632764731546
NEW THREAD