Three more arrested in connection with protest outside Wirral hotel
The protests, which were met with counter-demonstrations, began following reports the Home Office is planning to use the Hoylake's former Holiday Inn Express as accommodation for men seeking asylum.
Merseyside Police said a 25-year-old man from the Sefton area had been arrested on suspicion of inviting support for a proscribed terrorist organisation.
Now, the police force has confirmed three more people were arrested.
Police said on Sunday, 3 August, a man, 28, from Wirral, was arrested on suspicion of a Section 5 public order offence (displaying threatening or abusive writing or signs).
A 30-year-old man from Wirral was arrested on suspicion of a Section 5 public order offence and possession of an offensive weapon in a public place
Another man, a 43-year-old from Wirral, was also arrested on suspicion of using threatening/abusive/insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear or provoke unlawful violence.
All three people remain in custody and enquiries remain ongoing.
Superintendent Karl Baldwin said: 'Everyone has the right to the protest. Nobody has the right to threaten, intimidate or break the law and we will continue to take action against anyone that attends a protest and breaks the law.'
In a statement, Wirral Council said they "object" to plans to "move existing occupants out" of the hotel and "move a new group in", but said "we don't have any authority to refuse: it's a government decision."
A spokesperson said: "We're still working with them and we're in close contact with Merseyside Police and other partners to monitor the situation so we're well placed to manage any issues.
'Ultimately the safety and wellbeing of everyone in the Hoylake community, including asylum seekers, is the top priority.'
The council added: 'And just a friendly reminder to finish…we live in a world where false or inaccurate information can spread really quickly.
"It can be damaging, even if information is shared in good faith, so please consider how reliable a source of information might be.
'If anything significant changes we'll let you know here, and we'll keep Hoylake residents informed along the way.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
'Fun and outgoing' Brit found dead in Holland ditch after house party
The public inquiry into the death of 20-year-old Plymothian Thomas Delafey was recently held at Exeter Coroner's Court. The young man was found dead in a ditch in the Netherlands after attending a house party. A 20-year-old man from Plymouth was tragically found dead in a ditch in Holland, just a week after attending a house party, an inquest has revealed. The public inquiry into the death of Thomas Delafey was recently conducted at Exeter Coroner's Court by area coroner Deborah Archer. The court heard from several witnesses following Thomas's untimely demise in June 2023, revealing that he had attended a bash in a house 20 miles from Amsterdam. However, he mysteriously went missing and his body wasn't discovered for several days after. Ms Archer highlighted that Truro-born Thomas had allegedly consumed some amphetamine and GHB at the party. Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) is medically used in the treatment of narcolepsy, but it's also abused as an illegal drug due to its euphoric, drowsy and relaxing effects. It comes after a mum who left work 'abruptly' was then found dead in a hotel room. The inquest heard that Thomas suffered a psychotic breakdown and experienced paranoia at the party after which he was dropped off at a local hospital in the city of Hoorn. His friend said: "He was really wired. He hadn't had any real sleep for a few days." However, Thomas didn't register at the hospital and was seen leaving the premises on CCTV footage — but his body wasn't found for a week after. Dutch police confirmed at the time that Thomas – also known as Taiga Akabane – had been located on a road called Maelsonstraat. The inquest was told that Thomas, who had distinctive bright hair and piercings, was later found submerged in a water-filled ditch approximately 100 to 200 metres from the hospital, reports DevonLive. His sister Holly shared: "He was a fine young man who was very well liked by his peers." She told the inquest that Thomas was "in good spirits and looking forward to the trip and excited". She described him as a social drinker who indulged in speed and cocaine at parties. The inquest heard how his friend searched for Thomas for hours without success, eventually reporting him missing to the police the next day. After his disappearance, and just before his body was discovered, Holly told PlymouthLive that Thomas was a "fun and outgoing person". She added that he lived life to the fullest and was adored and well-loved by everyone who knew him. Home Office forensic pathologist Dr Amanda Jeffery conducted a post mortem in the UK and stated that Thomas had suffered no obvious injuries. She said there was no evidence he had stumbled or fallen into the ditch and she could not confirm if he had drowned. She suggested that he would have passed away fairly soon after leaving the hospital in June 2023. She attributed his death to the combined effects of amphetamine use and immersion in water. Ms Archer recorded a conclusion of misadventure.
Spectator
8 minutes ago
- Spectator
To be a success, Starmer's migrant deal must pass tough tests
First came the Starmer-Macron handshake, sealing the UK-France migrant treaty. Following that was a series of Home Office stories about crackdowns on illegal working and smuggler gang adverts, filling the sleepy summer news pages. Then, the 21-page treaty itself was unveiled. And, finally, on Thursday morning Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, sombrely declared that the first migrants had been detained pending their return to France, with pixelated video footage of them supplied to broadcasters just in time for the evening TV bulletins. In terms of media handling, press coverage and communications, the one-in, one-out migrant deal with France has been impressively choreographed, with a drumbeat of related announcements, statements and policies building up to the launch of the plan. It has demonstrated that the government are taking action, rather than merely talking about taking action. It may also, at least for a few days, have slowed the bandwagon of Reform UK. But far tougher tests lie ahead. The main problem is that the scheme is unproven; indeed, it is a pilot, which means that things are likely to go wrong or not work as intended, as tends to happen when ideas are trialled. One obvious risk is that the French authorities refuse to accept a significant number of the migrants selected by the British for removal or delay making decisions about taking them. There are strict timescales laid out in the treaty, which says both countries have agreed to work towards an 'end-to-end process' of three months. It is also unclear how the one-in, one-out balance between returns to France of migrants on small boats and arrivals in the UK of asylum seekers will be achieved. There is a danger, for the government, that the process of requesting transfer to Britain from France is seen to be smooth and swift, acting as a magnet for refugees to apply, while the reciprocal returns arrangements become gummed up. Capacity in immigration detention centres, where there are currently only 400 spare beds, may limit the number of migrants who can be identified for return to France under the pact, particularly as the government continues to ramp up detentions and removals under other immigration powers. As constitutional experts have pointed out, the treaty was laid before parliament on Tuesday when neither the Commons nor the Lords was sitting and ratified by the government 24 hours later. That meant that the standard procedure for the scrutiny of international treaties by MPs and Peers, under which ratification can take place only after 21 days, was not followed. Ministers are permitted to bypass these rules in 'exceptional' cases, but whether it was lawful to do so for the one-in, one-out treaty is expected to form one of the main grounds of legal challenges against it that will inevitably be brought on behalf of at least some of the migrants chosen for removal to France. Their cases are also likely to revolve around the way officials selected them for deportation, ahead of others, and whether an individual's personal circumstances were sufficiently taken into account. The legal hazard for the Home Office is that some migrants will reveal background details about their treatment in their homeland, during their journey to British shores or at the hands of smuggler gangs that make the courts uncomfortable about their detention and imminent removal, potentially undermining the entire scheme. But there are a number of key factors that will work in the government's favour – and help them clear many of the hurdles. On the legal front, France is regarded as a 'safe' country, so human rights claims that migrants will not be treated properly or fairly are destined to fail. In contrast, the Rwanda scheme, introduced by the Conservatives, was blocked because the UK Supreme Court ruled that the east African state was not a safe place for migrants. Operationally, the Rwanda experiment provided Home Office civil servants with valuable experience in devising a large-scale removals programme. Dan Hobbs, director general of the migration and borders group, who led the planning, is now helping to steer through the accord with France. And the principle behind the new treaty – returning people who've arrived in the UK without permission to a safe country they've just travelled from – is likely to command broad public and political support which the government will try to capitalise on during its forthcoming court battles against migrants and campaigners. The biggest question, however, is whether the one-in, one-out deal will work in stopping, or at least substantially reducing, small boat crossings. It's been widely reported that only around 50 migrants will be returned to France each week, compared with an average of more than 800 who make the journey to Britain. At that tiny level of returns – one in 16, migrants who have risked their lives to get to camps in northern France will willingly take the chance that they might be sent back, while smugglers could even use the low return rate to promote their services. It could be that suggestions that returns will be in such low numbers are part of a subtle campaign of expectation management by the Home Office – a common practice among seasoned politicians and advisers. If returns were to exceed 50 per week, it would be viewed by some as a great success. A more likely scenario is that 50 is a figure which is considered to be achievable on practical grounds and acceptable to the French, who have their own major issues around immigration. The government deserves credit for putting the treaty in place 12 months after taking office. But unless the number of returns ramps up significantly, it is virtually impossible to see the one-in, one-out scheme acting as a deterrent, certainly on any meaningful scale. That means ministers must accelerate their work on other fronts to stem the crossings, bring order to the asylum system and move migrants out of hotels. A deal with countries in the Balkans for 'return hubs' to house asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected must be next on the agenda.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
HMRC has plenty of reasons to feel bad – being British isn't one of them
Has anyone called up the taxman recently? I expect you didn't get through as His Majesty's Revenue and Customs has been terribly busy re-educating itself. 'We are currently experiencing a high volume of calls which means we may take longer than usual to respond to your query. Unless it concerns the transatlantic slave trade, the opium wars or the looting of the Elgin – apologies, our bad – Parthenon Marbles.' Yes, HMRC has just held a seminar entitled Guilt of Being British – during the working day. Which we bankroll. On Wednesday, civil servants were able to log-in remotely in office hours to a 60-minute 'listening circle' run by the HMRC Race Network. No, please don't set fire to your self-assessment reminder just yet – there's more to come! The session, which was flagged up as 'powerful, interactive and reflective' promised to 'delve into themes of guilt, pride and identity, offering space for personal stories and cultural insights'. Dear Lord. Where to begin with this madness? I would say it beggars belief, but then we've all been reduced to beggars by punitive taxes that deliver worse public services with every year that passes. As for cultural insights, here's one; it's abundantly clear from various heated demonstrations across the country that Britain's generally mild-mannered taxpayers no longer want to watch billions of their hard-earned pounds spent on migrants. The Home Office paid a record £5.38 billion to cover the asylum system – £3.1 billion on hotel accommodation – in 2023-24, a 36 per cent increase on the previous year. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has pledged to end the use of hotels by 2029 but the National Audit Office has predicted that by then we will have to foot more than £4 million a day for asylum seeker housing, triple the original Home Office estimate. In short, there are a great number of reasons why our tax authorities ought to feel guilty, but – and I know I'm going out on a limb here – the suppression of indigenous pagan cultures in the 9 th century isn't one of them. I'll even give them a free pass on the Irish and Bengal Famines – if they'll just answer the phone and do their jobs. A workplace is for work. It is not a therapy hub – unless you are a therapist. Nor is it a suitable setting for colonial navel-gazing. Leave the inherited trauma and emotional baggage at the door please – oh, and listening circles are for little children. Then again, this whole virtue signalling farrago is so juvenile. I wouldn't be surprised if the entire department takes a nap after playtime – while the rest of us suckers slog our guts out to pay their salaries. Of the 60,000 people employed by HMRC, an estimated 0.1 per cent or less would have attended, according to a spokesman, who stressed the event would have had no impact on its call-handling. That's a shame, given the average waiting time is 14 minutes and 33 seconds – and one in five callers never gets through. I'd say there's another reason to feel guilt – just spare us the listening circle.
