'Manvers asylum seeker hotel riot will not stain our town'
That day, he watched as riot police scrambled to the scene, sirens and shouts echoing through the streets. A police helicopter circled overhead, mounted officers lined Manvers Way.The town, nestled in the triangle between Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham, was once the beating heart of the region's coal industry.Like many former mining communities, the area has a complex relationship with authority - including the police and media - a tension deepened in the wake of the Rotherham child abuse scandal.
On the morning of 4 August, members of anti-immigration and pro-immigration organisations gathered outside the hotel in Manvers for a peaceful protest.By early afternoon, the atmosphere had turned volatile. Pro-immigration protesters were led to safety by police.Mike, who is from Wath but now lives in Batley, says: "I remember seeing the images and I know the place well."I was a bit shocked by it all."He does not support what happened in Manvers but says the country has "an immigration problem that needs to be solved"."I don't know how we go about that, to be honest," he says."We're too full."
On the day, dozens of anti-immigration protesters wore balaclavas, while others had England flags and Union Jacks draped around their shoulders. Some stood topless, drinking from cans of beer, and some had even brought their children. Bins were set alight and pushed against fire exits, preventing those inside - including 25 hotel staff - from leaving.Bricks, fence posts, furniture and rocks were thrown at hotel windows and police officers. Smaller groups tried to tip over an occupied police van, while others made repeated attempts to breach the building, eventually managing to get inside.When it was all over, the cost of the damage had mounted to an estimated £1m.
More than 100 people - mostly men from Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham - have since been convicted in relation to the Manvers riot. More than a dozen youths, aged between 13 and 17, received referral orders.Some 64 police officers were injured - several seriously - as well as three police horses and one police dog.Steve Kent, chair of the South Yorkshire Police Federation, says many officers are still dealing with the physical and psychological effects."Some of the cops were at the (2001) Bradford riots and the (2011) London riots and they've said they've never known anything like the level of aggression and just viciousness of some of the behaviour that was put towards them on the day," he says."We had a flurry of officers (coming to us) at the time, but it's also since officers have been triggered by going to other disorder events at football."
Stand Up To Racism campaigner, Phil Turner, says his group was forced to retreat on the day for safety reasons."The level of violence on the day last year was such where I think they could and certainly would have wanted to kill people inside the hotel," Mr Turner, a former journalist, recalls.Despite the shocking scenes, Mr Turner says the support and "outpouring of solidarity" that followed the riot was encouraging."Forty years ago this was the heart of the mining strike, a very solidly working-class area where people stuck together," he says."I think it's something that we can rebuild."
The Manvers riot, described as one of the worst cases of civil disorder in the UK in recent history, was part of a wave of unrest across the UK last summer, which broke out following the mass stabbings in Southport.The perpetrator, who could not be named initially due to his age, had targeted a Taylor Swift-themed dance class and murdered Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and Bebe King, six.Rumours circulating on social media claimed the 17-year-old killer was Muslim; an asylum seeker who had recently arrived to the country by boat. In reality, he was born and raised in Wales to Rwandan Christian parents who had migrated to the UK in 2002.
Terri, who runs The Little Curiosity Shoppe in Wath, says misinformation and a lack of transparency over who was housed in the Manvers hotel escalated already growing tensions."I think that causes unrest," she says. "I think if people don't know, they then jump to their own conclusions."The Holiday Inn Express in Manvers was contracted to provide accommodation for refugees on behalf of the government in 2022, prompting protests in February 2023.By 2024, about 200 asylum seekers were being housed in the building.
None of the people who the BBC spoke to condone the summer violence but say they "can understand why it happened"."We're all fed up with having nothing," Pam says."You work all your lives and you can't get in to see a doctor, you can't get in to see a dentist. These people are coming over - who are all men - are walking around Wath."According to the Home Office, 109,343 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending March 2025. More than half were adult men and 11% were males aged 17 and under.Asylum seekers are not allowed to work and usually get an allowance of £49.18 per person per week for food, clothing and toiletries (or £9.95 per person if their accommodation provides meals) as well as access to free healthcare.They cannot choose where they live and are housed in either a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast.
Pam, like many others, feels the country is at breaking point. With proposed benefit cuts and the cost of living crisis, she believes the UK can no longer afford to support asylum seekers in the way it once did."We've just got to look after our own and I feel very sorry that it's got to this, but this country needs to have a complete overhaul," she says."It's just continually 'you can't afford this, this has gone up, cost of living, your benefits are coming down' - and then they're walking round in new clothes and it's not right."South Yorkshire Mayor Oliver Coppard agrees more must be done to tackle "the immigration crisis", calling for greater government support for regions like his that have hosted asylum seekers, refugees and migrants.
"I want those places to get support from the government to make sure that we have access equally in our communities, to opportunities, to jobs, to doctors' appointments, to school places," he says."We need a transport network that connects people up so that they can access opportunities outside of their community, and we need good homes, good houses for young people and education."To rebuild community trust, several grassroots initiatives received targeted funding, including Voluntary Action Rotherham.The non-profit organisation's strategic cohesion coordinator, Jonathan Ellis, says the charity currently offers weekly walks to celebrate Rotherham's green spaces and is planning to host several celebrations over the next few months."I think people feel more connected now than perhaps they did 12 months ago and this project is about keeping that cohesion going, keeping those community links developing," Mr Ellis says.
Saeed Sayed and Raja Khan, members of non-profit charity Rotherham Friends in Deed, say the riot was not a "real reflection" of the community.To them, the true character of the town lies not in the headlines, but in the acts of people's kindness and their shared belief that Rotherham can - and will - move forward, together."I have been in this town for about 50 years and I found it very, very welcoming," Mr Sayed says."Where I live I am perhaps one of the only two Asian families and there's a lot of love, respect and care for each other."I feel very confidently that whatever the challenges we'll rise through them."Mr Khan, who was born in Kashmir, says that while he enjoys returning to his birthplace, Rotherham is where his heart is."My home is Rotherham and the home of my children and grandchildren and hopefully great-grandchildren is Rotherham," he says."We love Rotherham. It is a great town and it's not going to be stained by what happened at Manvers."
Listen to highlights from South Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Purple pavement markings part of Mind the Grab campaign to tackle phone theft
Purple lines with the warning 'Mind the Grab' have been marked on London's busy Oxford Street to help tackle phone theft. The campaign, which is supported by the Metropolitan Police, Westminster Council and Crimestoppers, features the markings on the pavement at the central London location that is usually packed with shoppers, commuters and tourists. Theft hotspots in Westminster last year saw a mobile being stolen every 15 minutes and 77% of Britons view phone snatching as a significant problem in the UK, rising to 88% in large cities such as London, according to research commissioned by tech retailer Currys. The wording on the purple markings, which is inspired by London Underground's 'Mind the Gap' catchphrase, aims to remind pedestrians to step back from the kerb, keep their phone hidden and reduce their risk of snatch and grab theft. The Metropolitan Police said the campaign is part of its strategy to tackle phone theft. Superintendent Natasha Evans, the Met's local policing lead for Westminster, said: 'Officers are relentlessly pursuing criminal gangs intent on committing robbery and phone theft. 'We have increased patrols in hotspot areas to identify and deter perpetrators – and robbery has reduced by 20% in the West End since April. 'We are putting extra officers into central London to help drive forward our focus on reducing crime and bringing offenders to justice. 'We're also working closely with businesses in the area and support the campaign by Currys to encourage people to be aware of their surroundings to reduce the risk of becoming a victim.' The campaign is run by Currys and the University of London's Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research (ICPR), in an effort to raise awareness and cut down on the numbers of high street phone thefts. Aicha Less, deputy leader and cabinet member for children and public protection of Westminster City Council, said the campaign aims to raise awareness about phone thefts and promote simple measures to stay safe in public spaces, such as keeping valuables out of sight and planning routes home in advance. It is part of 'identifying the key crime and disorder issues facing our city and making the West End a safer place for visitors, residents and businesses,' she said. Ed Connolly, Currys chief commercial officer, said: 'Phone theft isn't just about losing a device, it's frightening, invasive, and cuts people off from their loved ones, their money and their daily lives. 'Enough is enough. It's time to draw the line on phone theft – that's why we've launched the Mind the Grab campaign – a bold pavement marking we believe can make a real difference by encouraging people to step back from the kerb.' Kate Johnston, director of business and fundraising at the independent UK charity Crimestoppers, said: 'Mobile phone theft is not just a statistic, it's a crime that leaves people feeling vulnerable and shaken.' She described the campaign as an 'innovative approach' which uses clear visual cues, and urged pedestrians to be vigilant. She said: 'Prevention is only part of the solution.
Times
25 minutes ago
- Times
Ignoring prison crisis won't make it go away
Of all the bin fires raging across government last summer that might have prompted Rishi Sunak to chuck it in and call an election, the problem of Britain's overflowing prisons was one of the fiercest. And now we learn just how fierce, thanks to a review that reveals jails repeatedly came within three days of being officially 'full' in the two years before the election, until ministers finally came to the rescue with a brilliant scheme simply to release criminals earlier. Labour ministers no doubt feel sore about it. It was they who ended up releasing offenders like Isaac Donkoh, a gang leader convicted of kidnapping and torturing a teenage boy; or Lawson Natty, convicted of manslaughter for killing a 14-year-old boy; or Jason Hoganson, released early in error and, within a day, back to assaulting his ex-partner. These were not the headlines with which a party in possession of a stunning victory wanted to launch its 'decade of renewal'. The government can now happily point to the review by Dame Anne Owers in arguing that the lucky breaks handed to Donkoh and co were at least a decade in the making, with more than a walk-on part for Tory cuts and the unfailingly cloddish machinations of one Chris Grayling, a name that shall serve for ever as a watchword for misbegotten numbskull-duggery. Dame Anne was the doyenne of the jailhouse under Blair, serving as chief prisons inspector from 2001 to 2010. And it's probably fair to say that the 'tough on crime' brigade would not share all her views. But her report reads as bland fact rather than polemic. Besides, she has been warning about a prison capacity crunch since the Blair days. The Tories trumpeted her first warning in early 2007, when David Cameron accused the then-government of having 'stuck its head in the sand'. They don't make sandpits deep enough for the Tory justice ministers and Treasury officials since then who have pretended to believe the prison population is not going to keep growing despite repeatedly adopting policies that fuel population growth and tougher sentencing. The result, as described by Dame Anne, is 'a cycle of prison capacity crises'. While the prison population rose most sharply under Labour, from 66,300 in 2001 to 85,002 in 2010, it has kept rising since, to 87,726 last year. Whereas there used to be more women, children and young men in jail, and more men serving short sentences, the past decade has seen fewer women and many fewer children locked up, with more capacity filled by older men serving longer sentences. The exception is the backlog of people sitting in jail while waiting for a court date, which now accounts for a fifth of prisoners, compared to a seventh in 2015. Despite promises to be tough on crime, the 2010 coalition found it convenient to adopt projections saying that more prison space wouldn't be needed. The Treasury had no intention of releasing cash to build prisons — and indeed, was keen to save money by selling them off and laying off experienced prison officers. First Ken Clarke and then Grayling both appear to have connived in the delusion, so that by 2017, the system was running with fewer than 1,000 free places. Under the radar, more criminals were tagged or detained at home under curfew rather than being jailed. For a short time, things stabilised, though another crunch was coming when Covid hit. Afterwards, with Boris Johnson's thousands of extra police officers on the beat and the courts jammed up, things started to spiral. Day-to-day work at the Ministry of Justice was taken over by all sorts of special committees and meetings, in which frazzled officials crunched the numbers to work out exactly how Donald Ducked the whole system was and then, having found it was indeed just days from catastrophe, sounding the alarm. In these emergency phases, officials, police and prison officers would kick off the first of several rounds of a sliding puzzle game at 5.30am each day, shunting prisoners frantically between police cells, crowded jails and court rooms, a task in which, as the review puts it, 'the marker of success was 'whether everyone got a bed last night''. The costs were wild: filling a proper prison cell costs the Treasury £150 a night, whereas a police cell costs £688, with the result that the government has spent £70 million and counting on not having enough jail space. The usual congratulations are due to the Treasury for its characteristic forethought in generating such staggeringly expensive savings. Obviously, something had to give, and that something was the enforcement of judge-given sentences. There were two chaotic early release schemes, the first at the end of the Tory government and the second at the start of Labour's. Already stretched probation officers scrambled to assess who could be released and when, under various overlapping criteria, sometimes at a few hours' notice — followed by a dash to arrange the services meant to help stop an ex-convict falling instantly back into a life of crime, like addiction treatment or temporary accommodation. Similar stress in the probation service means monitoring all this properly is basically impossible. Even if you are among those who believe in locking up fewer people, it is clear that a country with a growing population and decades of overcrowded jails needs more prisons. Less crowded jails are safer, better able to police violence and drugs and more likely to rehabilitate at least some of the population. So why haven't we been building them? It's a different face to the same old problem: we can't build anything. It has always been a bit more expensive to house people in prisons than houses, but the cost gap is now absurd. Per person housed, it costs about six times more to build a jail than it would to build them each a one-bedroom flat. There are environmental regulation, shortages of building materials and workers and so on, but even where big capital spending has been earmarked for prisons, it doesn't get spent because of a 'major block', as Dame Anne calls it, within the government's own control: planning. Even with prisons full and dangerous criminals being released prematurely to cope, it is still taking prison projects at least two years to get planning permission. Usually, it takes longer. Three major projects first proposed in 2020 only made it through the process with the help of central government rulings four years later. It does not take a statistician to see that at this rate, more offenders will go free earlier and earlier before anything changes. A few weeks ago, the Tories were out promising a 'zero-tolerance' approach to petty crime. Unfortunately for them, the country has zero tolerance for this dipstickery. There are neither enough prisons, nor probation officers nor court hours to punish all the people they want to put away. 'Tough on crime' requires building on time, and they didn't.
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves has driven Britain to the brink. Full-blown crisis will soon be upon us
Britain's fiscal reckoning has arrived. The £20bn 'black hole' has, according to one new estimate, doubled in size under Rachel Reeves's dubious stewardship. Most of the money we are now borrowing is going not towards servicing our debt, but the interest on that debt. Colossal off-the-book liabilities, such as public sector pensions, have been hidden from voters by successive governments. They are now falling due. For years, the country has behaved like a household hooked on payday loans. Now, the bills have come through the letterbox and we've no cash left to cover them. Even the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, traditionally Left-leaning, is warning that if the Chancellor is to remain within her fiscal rules, she must raise taxes or cut spending by £51bn. Not even the Office for Budget Responsibility can maintain the fiction that the current trajectory is sustainable. Reductions in spending are out of the question, as the ludicrous welfare row exposed. What many may not realise is that around 75 per cent of government expenditure is mandated – benefits, pensions, for instance – and cannot be avoided in the short-run. Only a quarter is discretionary – areas such as transport, or defence. This means that major spending cuts would require primary legislation, which feckless Labour backbenchers will never swallow. It also means that further tax rises, which Reeves in January insisted would not be necessary, are inevitable. No wonder asset managers are telling clients to prepare for 'very real, very targeted moves on people with portfolios, pensions and property'. Keir Starmer has refused to rule out further tax increases in the autumn Budget. Be afraid, be very afraid. How did we get into this mess? Not since 2001 has a chancellor presented a balanced Budget. Despite lip-service to fiscal probity, the desire to splurge has consistently outweighed the need for restraint. Lord, give me continence, but not yet. Politicians, of whatever stripe, have engaged in a collective delusion: that the Treasury is so awash with cash it is scrambling to find things to spend it on. Pay rises across the public sector? Green subsidies? A pointless railway to Birmingham? Bring it on. But the overall state of the public finances tells a grim story. In 2024-25, the state is projected to spend £1.2tn. Some £450bn of this will go on welfare, health and pensions – more than the entire take from income tax, National Insurance and VAT combined. The UK entered this century with debt at around 30 per cent of GDP; it's now pushing 100 per cent. The tax burden is at a post-War high, set to be around 37.5 per cent of GDP for the rest of this Parliament, yet core public services are crumbling and the crowd yells out for more. Polling suggests the public are closer to grasping our fiscal reality than politicians, with economic optimism now half what it was in July 2024. But even growing pessimism isn't enough to slake their thirst for more spending. Some 9.1 million people of working age are currently economically inactive. Over half of households are taking more from the state than they are putting in. As the number of net contributors shrinks, who, exactly, do people believe is footing the bill? More than two centuries ago, Adam Smith wrote: 'Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence... but peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice.' Peace is uncertain, the administration of our increasingly wonky justice has time lags measured in years, and taxes increasingly drag us down. Council tax on our homes. The licence fee. VAT on virtually every product we consume. Vehicle Excise Duty. Congestion charges, tolls, Ulez. The sugar tax. A Digital Services tax on any online orders or subscriptions. Income tax. National Insurance Contributions raised for employers, but which in the end the employee will pay. It's enough to drive us to – massively taxed, of course – drink. And the more convoluted the system becomes, the easier it is for governments to mask the scale of the extraction and the harder it is to scrutinise – or object. Taxes should be visible and just. Currently, they are neither. This is not by accident, but design. Worse still, the public has been fed a series of monstrous lies about tax-and-spend. That it is not only necessary for the state to plunder our earnings and assets, but moral. That squeezing the private sector to fund the public mysteriously delivers growth. That the 'rich' aren't paying their 'fair share', despite all the evidence to the contrary. That we could tax the 'wealthy' without punishing the middle classes. Of all Labour's pledges, none has unravelled faster than the self-defeating promise to shield 'working people' from tax hikes. They punished businesses, and since the start of the year, employment is down, unemployment is up, wage growth has stalled and vacancies are falling. They waged war on independent schools, and since January 50 have closed, with all the job casualties that brings. The affluent, as the Telegraph this week reports, have paid their fees in advance – a luxury poorer parents, those who strain every sinew to privately educate their children, cannot afford. The list goes on. Reeves's inheritance tax assault on family farms has triggered the worst collapse in rural businesses since 2017. Non-doms are fleeing almost as fast as small boats are arriving, taking with them billions in tax receipts, spending and investment. Labour said they would deliver the kind of 'growth' that would haul us out of the post-lockdown economic crisis, but are giving us stagnation. Even if they renege their manifesto pledge not to hike income tax, VAT or National Insurance, it might not be enough. There are major structural problems in our economy – a broken planning system, suffocating regulation – to which this Government has no answer. And, at some point, tax takes begin to destroy growth, with one study suggesting each 10 per cent rise in tax reduces the growth rate by around 1.2 per cent. We are completely boxed in. Politically, of course, breaking their tax triple lock would be a disaster. As Professor John Curtice tells me, it could prompt a tuition-fees moment – a betrayal that would be forever etched in the public's memory. Our overall approach to the public finances is self-evidently unsustainable. A retrenchment of state expenditure is coming at some point and the longer we wait the more painful it will be. We've lived in Neverland for too long. It's time to say no, we don't believe in fairies.
