Now MORE Councils weigh up legal action to stop asylum seekers being housed in migrant hotels after stunning 'victory' in High Court - as Nigel Farage calls for other areas to 'follow Epping's lead'
Yesterday, council leaders won the first step in their bid to have the Bell Hotel closed, after Mr Justice Eyre ruled the establishment must stop housing asylum seekers by September 12.
The hotel, owned by Somani Hotels Limited, became an epicentre for anti-immigration protest, with some turning violent, after a migrant resident was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.
Reform leader Nigel Farage has hailed the ruling a 'great victory', indicating the 12 councils led by his party would also consider legal challenges following the ruling.
Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Farage said: 'This is a great victory for the parents and concerned residents of Epping. Let it also be an inspiration to the rest of Britain. Now the good people of Epping must inspire similar protests around Britain.
'Wherever people are concerned about the threat posed by young undocumented males living in local hotels and who are free to walk their streets, they should follow the example of the town in Essex.
'Let's hold peaceful protests outside the migrant hotels, and put pressure on local councils to go to court to try and get the illegal immigrants out; we now know that together we can win.'
Now, Conservative-run Broxbourne Council in Hertfordshire has also announced it will be taking legal advice 'as a matter of urgency' on whether it could take similar action to Epping Forest District Council - which is also run by the Tories.
In a post on Facebook, Broxbourne Council said: 'Broxbourne Council will now take legal advice as a matter of urgency about whether it could take similar action.'
Elsewhere, South Norfolk District Council leader Daniel Elmer, which covers Diss town where a hotel housing asylum seekers has been subject to protests, said his council would not follow suit.
He said the council was using planning ruled to ensure families were being housed in the area rather than single adults males, meaning hotels would be effectively converted into hostels, and should require a change of use.
Two men have been arrested and charged in connection with a protest in July outside the hotel in Diss, which houses more than 40 children.
Cllr Elmer said: 'We make a big play about integration, and to replace families who have children in the local school system and have integrated into the local community would make no sense.'
'If we can punish people who have put up sheds in their gardens without permission, then we can take action against hotels being converted into hostels without planning consent.'
Border security minister Dame Angela Eagle said the Government will 'continue working with local authorities and communities to address legitimate concerns'.
'Our work continues to close all asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament,' she added.
Edward Brown KC also said the injunction would 'substantially interfere' with the Home Office's statutory duty in potentially avoiding a breach of the asylum seekers' human rights.
Edward Brown KC, for the Home Office, warned the High Court the move 'runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests'.
It would also 'substantially interfere' with the Home Office's legal duty to avoiding a breach of the asylum seekers' human rights, he said.
The barrister added: 'The balance of convenience can never favour a course of conduct that creates a real risk of interfering with fundamental human rights.
'If the injunction is granted by the court, it will substantially impact on the Home Secretary's statutory duties.
'The local authority should in fact have given some consideration to the wider public interest in this application.'
He added that the injunction bid 'causes particular acute difficulties at the present date'.
It comes after a series of protests in recent weeks outside Epping hotel in recent weeks, after, Hadush Kebatu, 41, from Ethiopia, was charged with sexual assault, harassment and inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity.
Raphael Pigott, defending, told a hearing at Colchester magistrates' court on July 17: 'I believe he is here as a refugee or asylum seeker, and that he arrived informally on a boat.'
It is alleged Mr Kebatu tried to kiss a schoolgirl as she ate pizza near a busy high street, and the next day attempted to kiss an adult near a fish and chip shop in the town centre, telling her she was 'pretty' while putting his hand on her leg.
He then encountered the girl again and tried to kiss her, a court was told. Mr Kebatu has denied the offences and is in custody.
A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences.
A series of protests have taken place outside the hotel since the alleged incidents.
There was violence outside the premises last month after 'anti-immigration' campaigners clashed with 'anti-racism' demonstrators.
Twenty-eight people have since been arrested in relation to disorder, and 16 of them have been charged.
Police chiefs have already described the unrest at The Bell as a 'signal flare' for another summer of disorder.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
White House rattled by one Smithsonian painting it claims proves Trump's ‘out of control' claims
The Trump administration claims a painting of refugees at the U.S.-Mexico border that once hung in a Smithsonian-affiliated museum is evidence that the institution is 'out of control,' the White House's latest criticism of the Smithsonian as it conducts a wide-ranging ideological audit of Washington's flagship museums. In a Thursday post on X, the administration shared an image of Refugees Crossing the Border Wall Into South Texas, a 2020 work from painter Rigoberto A. Gonzalez showing a family of four scaling the U.S.-Mexico border wall with a ladder. 'This is 'art' from the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery commemorating the act of illegally crossing the "exclusionary" border. This was even made a finalist for one of its awards,' reads a Thursday X post from the administration. 'This is what President Trump means when he says the Smithsonian is "OUT OF CONTROL." The work, one of the finalists in a 2022 open call for 'American portraiture today,' hung in the National Portrait Gallery between 2022 and early 2023. It is unclear if the painting is still in any Smithsonian-affiliated museums. The Independent has contacted Gonzalez, the Smithsonian, and the National Portrait Gallery for comment. 'For several years the news media have been reporting stories on the rising numbers of families, especially children, immigrating to the U.S., and the escalating violence on the border between the U.S. and Mexico,' Gonzalez, who was born in Mexico and now teaches at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, told a campus website of his work. 'This is too big a story to report through raw journalism... I believe that painting can evoke an authentic aesthetic experience that conveys meaning in people's lives and work as a catalyst for change." The White House did not answer questions from The Independent about how the painting came to the administration's attention, or whether the work was still hanging in the Smithsonian. 'Illegal immigration is bad and should not be glorified,' White House spokesman Davis Ingle said in a statement. 'Under the Trump Administration if you want to enter our country, you must follow our laws and go through the legal process.' Refugees and asylum-seekers seeking to enter the U.S. are in fact protected by law and not inherently considered illegal immigrants. The Trump administration has attempted to suspend refugee admissions into the U.S. and requests for asylum at the border, though a federal appeals court this month narrowed the asylum moves. The Gonzalez painting was mentioned in a 2022 New York Times piece that the administration has cited in its campaign to overhaul the Smithsonian, in which then-director of the National Portrait Gallery Kim Sajet spoke of her desire to include a broader range of individuals and artists in the longstanding museum, rather than the historic focus on the 'wealthy, the pale and the male.' Sajet stepped down in June. Critics lashed out at the administration for its criticism of the painting. 'It's a powerful portrait of a family making a hard decision to seek a better life,' Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, wrote on X. 'Imagine how fragile you have to be to not understand why this art has value — and how afraid you are of free speech.' The fracas over the painting is part of the administration's larger push to reshape the Smithsonian to be in line with the administration's view of history. A White House official helping lead the effort this week accused the institution's Washington museums of putting too much focus on slavery. 'The fact that our country was involved in slavery is awful. No one thinks otherwise,' Lindsey Halligan, special assistant to the president, told Fox News on Wednesday. 'But what I saw when I was going through the museum was an overemphasis on slavery. I think there should be more of an overemphasis on how far we have come since slavery.' Earlier this week, the president said his Smithsonian campaign, which was described to officials in a letter earlier this month, was part of a concerted effort to eliminate 'woke' ideology, just as he had from U.S. universities, a push the administration had previously largely described as an attempt to stop campus antisemitism. 'The Museums throughout Washington, but all over the Country are, essentially, the last remaining segment of 'WOKE,'' Trump wrote on Truth Social on Tuesday. 'The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future.' 'This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the president's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,' a letter to Smithsonian officials last week, viewed by The Wall Street Journal, states.
BBC News
21 minutes ago
- BBC News
4chan will refuse to pay daily UK fines, its lawyer tells BBC
A lawyer representing the online message board 4chan says it won't pay a proposed fine by the UK's media regulator as it enforces the Online Safety to Preston Byrne, managing partner of law firm Byrne & Storm, Ofcom has provisionally decided to impose a £20,000 fine "with daily penalties thereafter" for as long as the site fails to comply with its request."Ofcom's notices create no legal obligations in the United States," he told the BBC, adding he believed the regulator's investigation was part of an "illegal campaign of harassment" against US tech has declined to comment while its investigation continues. "4chan has broken no laws in the United States - my client will not pay any penalty," Mr Byrne began investigating 4chan over whether it was complying with its obligations under the UK's Online Safety in August, it said it had issued 4chan with "a provisional notice of contravention" for failing to comply with two requests for said its investigation would examine whether the message board was complying with the act, including requirements to protect its users from illegal content.4chan has often been at the heart of online controversies in its 22 years, including misogynistic campaigns and conspiracy are anonymous, which can often lead to extreme content being posted. 'First Amendment rights' In a statement posted on X, law firms Byrne & Storm and Coleman Law said 4chan was a US company incorporated in the US, and therefore protected against the UK law."American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an email," they wrote."Under settled principles of US law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes. "If necessary, we will seek appropriate relief in US federal court to confirm these principles."They said authorities in the US had been "briefed" on their response to Ofcom's statement concludes by calling on the Trump administration to invoke all diplomatic and legal levers to protect American businesses from "extraterritorial censorship mandates".Ofcom has previously said the Online Safety Act only requires services to take action to protect users based in the UK. UK backs down Some American politicians - particularly the Trump administration, its allies and officials - have pushed back against what they regard as overreach in the regulation of US tech firms by the UK and EU. A perceived impact of the Online Safety Act on free speech has been a particular concern, but other laws have also been the source of 19 August, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said the UK had withdrawn its controversial demand for a "backdoor" in an Apple data protection system - saying she worked with the President and Vice President to get the UK to abandon its days later, US Federal Trade Commission chairman Andrew Ferguson warned big tech firms they could be violating US law if they weakened privacy and data security requirements by complying with international laws such as the Online Safety Act."Foreign governments seeking to limit free expression or weaken data security in the United States might count on the fact that companies have an incentive to simplify their operations and legal compliance measures by applying uniform policies across jurisdictions," he 4chan does successfully fight the fine in the US courts, Ofcom may have other options."Enforcing against an offshore provider is tricky," Emma Drake, partner of online safety and privacy at law firm Bird and Bird, told the BBC. "Ofcom can instead ask a court to order other services to disrupt a provider's UK business, such as requiring a service's removal from search results or blocking of UK payments."If Ofcom doesn't think this will be enough to prevent significant harm, it can even ask that ISPs be ordered to block UK access." Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Lucy Connolly to speak out for first time since being released from prison
Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for stirring up racial hatred against asylum seekers online on the day of the Southport murders, is expected to speak out on Friday for the first time since being released from prison. The 42-year-old, wife of Conservative councillor Raymond Connolly, left HMP Peterborough on Thursday morning and it is understood she will be doing limited media interviews a day after walking free. She spent time with her husband, daughter and parents on the day of her release and was pictured walking her dogs in the evening, the Daily Mail reported. Ms Connolly was handed a 31-month sentence after she posted on X: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it.' She pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X and was jailed at Birmingham Crown Court in October last year. The former childminder, from Northampton, was ordered to serve 40% of her sentence in prison before being released on licence. It is understood that Ms Connolly was a passenger in a white taxi which left HMP Peterborough via the vehicle airlock, a set of two gates exiting the prison, shortly after 10am on Thursday. Her case has sparked debate, with some criticising her sentence as excessive. Reacting to her release, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Connolly's sentence was 'harsher than the sentences handed down for bricks thrown at police or actual rioting'. In a post on X, Ms Badenoch compared Ms Connolly's case with that of Ricky Jones, a suspended Labour councillor who was found not guilty of encouraging violent disorder at an anti-racism rally in the wake of the Southport murders. Writing on X, Mrs Badenoch said: 'Juries are a cornerstone of justice, but we shouldn't have to rely on them to protect basic freedoms. 'Protecting people from words should not be given greater weight in law than public safety. If the law does this, then the law itself is broken – and it's time Parliament looked again at the Public Order Act.' Reform UK leader Nigel Farage described Ms Connolly's case as a 'symbol of Keir Starmer's authoritarian, broken, two-tier Britain'. A bid to challenge her sentence at the Court of Appeal was dismissed in May, which was described by Mr Connolly as 'shocking and unfair'. The Northampton town councillor, and former West Northamptonshire district councillor, said his wife had 'paid a very high price for making a mistake'. But Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer defended it earlier this year. He was asked in May about Ms Connolly's case after her Court of Appeal application against her jail term was dismissed. Asked during Prime Minister's Questions whether her imprisonment was an 'efficient or fair use' of prison, Sir Keir said: 'Sentencing is a matter for our courts and I celebrate the fact that we have independent courts in this country. 'I am strongly in favour of free speech, we've had free speech in this country for a very long time and we protect it fiercely. 'But I am equally against incitement to violence against other people. I will always support the action taken by our police and courts to keep our streets and people safe.' Ms Connolly was arrested on August 6, by which point she had deleted her social media account, but other messages which included further racist remarks were uncovered by officers who seized her phone. The post was viewed 310,000 times in three and a half hours before she deleted it.
