Fears over Perth hotel protest as far-right 'emboldened'
Sharing the protest, The Great British National Protest page stated "save our children, for our future," which echoes the name of the Falkirk group calling itself Save Our Future & Our Kids Future but continues to deny having any far-right links.
Less than 100 previously turned out in Perth after false claims were spread throughout the community, however anti-racism campaigners now believe far-right actors are "emboldened" and are calling for trade unions and other campaigners to mobilise against the rising threat.
READ MORE: 'This rhetoric leads to firebombs': Humza Yousaf issues warning over asylum debate
While the court ruling that asylum seekers be removed from a hotel in Epping, Essex was won by the council against the hotel over the breach of planning rules, Reform UK and far-right protesters are taking the injunction as a "victory" for them. Nigel Farage has stated that the Epping community "stood up bravely, despite being slandered as far-right, and have won".
The Bell Hotel in Epping was the site of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was housed at the hotel was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.
At the protest in Perth on Saturday 9, protesters had gathered a handful of locals with fabricated tales that up to an extra 250 people were to be accommodated in the city. Perth and Kinross Council went on to deny the rumours.
Protesters are again rallying, and Perth Against Racism is hosting a counter-demonstration to begin at 10am, while far-right protesters will gather, at the Radisson Hotel.
The primary things aim of the counter-demonstrations is for campaigners to put themselves between the far-right demonstration and the hotel.
READ MORE: English councils consider legal bids to remove asylum seekers from hotels
In a statement, Stand Up to Racism (STUR) Scotland — who is supporting local campaigners — said that "it is critical that we gather in numbers to say refugees welcome".
One organiser in Perth told The National: "What we're really keen to reiterate is Perth is a city of sanctuary. We have City of Sanctuary status, which means anyone that's coming into our city should be treated with warmth, respect, understanding and empathy about what they've been through.
"And we're proud of that."
Several private WhatsApp groups have been set up by the groups to organise, and this is concerning the community as to who is behind the protests as far-right actors piggy-back on local concerns.
Referring to Falkirk and that a member of Patriotic Alterative took the mic, the organiser said: "As soon as Saturday came, the organisers lost control of the other protesters. If they come to our city, you can't control them. I'm quite worried about it."
The group added: "It is more important than ever that we turn up loud and proud to show there is no place for lies, violence and bigotry in our society. Bring along your family and friends to show what real community means."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
4 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Boarding school pupils ‘were abused by paedophiles', inquiry finds
Findings on the Keil School in Dumbarton, West Dunbartonshire – which closed in 2000 – were delayed until the conclusion of the prosecution against a former physics teacher who was branded a 'prolific' paedophile. William Bain admitted 11 charges and was jailed for nine years in June at the High Court in Glasgow, after a criminal investigation was sparked by evidence at the SCAI in 2021. In a report published on Wednesday, chair of the inquiry, Lady Smith, condemned the school's failure to investigate Bain and said it was a 'disgraceful abdication of responsibility' which allowed predators 'free rein', including another recently convicted paedophile ex-teacher. Bain, of Crieff, Perthshire, was described as a sadist by detectives and the scale of his abuse of pupils aged between 11 and 14 was deemed 'horrendous', following his sentencing on June 30. Lady Smith found that school leaders carried out a 'cover-up' to protect their reputation and hailed the 'fresh prosecutions' of Bain and another recently convicted paedophile, following evidence heard at the inquiry. She warned that further abusers could be prosecuted as a result of the SCAI. The findings are part of SCAI's Boarding Schools case study, including Loretto School, Gordonstoun and Merchiston Castle School. READ NEXT: Residents oppose this to be built near Ibrox Stadium Keil School was established by philanthropists to educate rural boys and moved to Dumbarton in the 1920s, where it became an environment where pupils 'were expected to endure violence and suffer in silence', according to the SCAI. From the 1950s until the 1980s, abuse was 'normalised', with prolific abuser Bain remaining at the school until it closed in 2000 and other offences carried out by paedophile English teacher David Gutteridge in the early 1990s. Both men were house tutors and the SCAI condemned a lack of oversight. Bain, who worked there for 23 years, was previously convicted in May 2016 of offences at Keil and jailed for six-and-a-half years, while Gutteridge was jailed last year for indecent assault of a pupil at the school, set up by the Mackinnon-Macneill Trust. In her report, Lady Smith said that a headteacher was responsible for a 'cover-up', while abusers such as Bain had 'free rein on a daily basis'. Lady Smith said: 'Protection of the reputation of the school was prioritised over the interests of children, that was a disgraceful abdication of responsibility. The prevailing culture allowed two paedophiles to operate without fear. 'William Bain sexually abused some children on hundreds of occasions, on an almost daily basis. The abuse Bain perpetrated persisted for years, despite concerns arising early on, after a parent complained.' She branded an investigation 'inadequate' and said parents were falsely reassured. Boarding school pupils 'were abused by paedophiles', inquiry finds READ NEXT: Police report identifies 'growing threat' from Glasgow and Edinburgh gang violence Lady Smith said: 'The problem was covered up by headmaster Christopher Tongue and other senior staff. Despite parents being assured that reports would go on record, this did not happen. Tongue's successor was never told about it.' Gutteridge, who taught at Keil from 1989 to 1991, abused a pupil, having 'carefully engineered the circumstances', according to the SCAI. He was jailed for 17 months following a conviction for indecent assault at Forfar Sheriff Court in September 2024. But his predatory behaviour towards teenage boys predated Keil and in 2015, he was jailed for 18 months after being convicted of two charges of indecent assault at Harrow Crown Court, committed in England in the 1980s. Other staff physically abused pupils, justifying it as 'officially sanctioned punishment', including a housemaster remembered for his 'sadistic brutality' and 'mass beatings', including using the belt, according to the SCAI. Lady Smith said: 'Keil was a school with inadequate senior leadership and a lack of the most basic of child protection systems.' She branded it a 'remarkable example of naivety and false optimism trumping reality', which resulted in children being abused. Lady Smith added: 'The cases of Bain and Gutteridge are examples of a significant outcome. 'Fresh prosecutions followed exposure of their behaviour through the inquiry's investigations and evidence – demonstrating that those who abuse children in care may find it catching up with them decades later.' Responsibility for running boarding houses was left to senior boys appointed 'chiefs', who controlled squads of junior boys, with some staff considering themselves 'immune from management', a report from the inquiry said. Governors of the Mackinnon-Macneill Trust 'failed to challenge the situation' and have since apologised for the abuse, according to the SCAI. Lady Smith said: 'I would encourage anyone who has relevant information on any aspect of our work to get in touch with our witness support team. We want to hear from you.' On Wednesday, nuns from a Catholic order, Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul, said that children were abused in the care of their establishments for deaf and disabled children. Sister Eileen Glancy, speaking about St Vincent's School for the Deaf and Blind in Glasgow, told a hearing of the inquiry in Edinburgh: 'We'd have to accept some children were abused.' She added: 'Children weren't as well protected as they should have been.' A former pupil of St Vincent's, using the pseudonym Gordon, said in a witness statement that he told his mother about abuse from nuns, and was punished after she contacted the police. The man said that he told his mother on two occasions, and said: 'The physical abuse used to shock me as these were Christians. We lived with fear and intimidation all the time.' He said: 'My mum spoke to a nun and challenged her about the treatment of children. I know the nun told my mum it wasn't true and I had been a bad boy. 'After that, I was assaulted again and my mum told the police, but nothing happened.' Gordon alleged that he was subjected to sexual abuse as well as physical violence, including having his head 'batted against a desk'. He said that the nuns and a priest were 'hypocrites', and that the school felt like a 'prison' as it was surrounded by 15-foot walls – but there was no alternative, as it was the only school for deaf children. Gordon said: 'There was so much cruelty at St Vincent's and none of us could understand that, the Sisters were supposed to be so holy and caring but were so cruel. This was a period of suffering for all deaf children of my generation. We all suffered, we were all terrified. 'I would like to see charges brought against the people who were responsible.' The inquiry continues.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Solving the asylum question is suddenly even more urgent
What next? As ministers digest the High Court ruling on the use of a hotel in Epping to house asylum seekers, they have very limited options in front of them, none of them good ones. The High Court should not be attacked for making a ruling that takes no account of politics or even practicalities, for that is not its job. It has, though, made a bad situation very much worse. It is hardly helpful to anyone, in such circumstances, for Nigel Farage to exploit a delicate and sometimes combustible situation by calling for more peaceful protests. From bitter experience, we know how such demonstrations can degenerate into minor disorder, or worse. In fact, given the force of the High Court judgment, there is even less need for such protests now. Instead, Mr Farage and his deputy, Richard Tice, as usual, are playing on the fears of people and behaving in a way that is irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst. Mr Farage's interventions in the riots last year only added to the campaign of disinformation underway, and most recently was made to apologise for claiming that the Essex police had 'bussed in' counter-demonstrators in Epping. The Conservatives, mesmerised by the rise of Reform UK, are in a constant losing battle to out-Farage Farage, and they should know better than to propagate myths about asylum seekers living in 'offensively luxurious' conditions, which was today's unhelpful sideswipe from former Tory MP Damian Green. The shadow home secretary Chris Philp and the shadow communities secretary James Cleverly should bear their share of the blame for the mess the asylum system is in, and offer some constructive alternatives and call for calm. They will not recover as a serious alternative party of government until they too come up with a plan for the asylum system. The leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, often talks of such a thing, but it is yet to be seen. Meanwhile, her undeclared rival, Robert Jenrick, appears to be constantly dialling up tensions. The position is serious. Were the Bell Hotel the only place to be affected by the ruling, then it would not be such a challenge to relocate its 140 residents by the date set by the court of 12 September. However, the judgment also sets a clear precedent, albeit largely based in planning law, for the end of the use of hotels to provide emergency housing. It does so with near-immediate effect. That means some 32,000 individuals will need to be rehoused, at absurdly short notice. Already, local authorities controlled by Reform UK and the Conservatives are expected to bring their own cases, which, as the Home Office lawyers warned the High Court, will make the dilemma of finding shelter for them even more acute. In practice, too, it will encourage many more local protests and increase the pressure on police forces to maintain order. One other immediate effect will be to increase the pressure in areas where Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green councils may still try to stick to a 'refugees welcome' policy. This only creates a sense of unfairness that the task of finding shelter for the immigrants is not being properly shared across the country. And, in any case, all, including the refugees and other migrants affected, agree that using hotels is a far from ideal solution in any case. Contrary to some of the anti-refugee propaganda, these hotels, whatever their nominal star ratings, are unsuitable for long-term residence, and are not the lap of luxury. Concierge is not available. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, they are given shelter and a minimal allowance to stave off destitution, some medical attention and, courtesy of some councils, access to some recreational activities. They are not cosseted in the way some seem to imagine. There is talk of the migrants being placed in flats, which would be relatively expensive, student accommodation, and houses of multiple occupation (HMOs). These create their own problems, particularly because the tendency will be for the irregular immigrants to be moved in disproportionate numbers to parts of the country where rentals are relatively low. The effect there will be to push rents up for the locals, and create more friction in host communities. It may also prompt more action by some local councils to frustrate the strategy, such as using their powers to block the conversion of houses across large areas into HMOs under Article 4 of the town and country planning acts. Even where HMO accommodation is found for families or smaller groups of asylum seekers, they will be more vulnerable to any aggressive demonstrations organised by neighbours alarmed by extremist misinformation about them. Such incidents will be much harder for the police to control. It may be that some form of emergency legislation will be required to delay the implementation of such High Court orders, although that in itself may not be constitutional. The only course then open to government is to redouble its efforts to process the backlog bequeathed to them by the previous administration, speeding up the grant of leave to remain for genuine refugees, or issuing deportation orders in expedited fashion for rejected claimants. It will take too long to build vast detention centres, while the old army barracks that have been commandeered in the past have been found to be completely unsuitable. The High Court has listened to the representatives of the people of Epping Forest and made its decision, and it is right that the judges should do so. Citizens have a right to have their cases heard impartially and have their grievances aired. The courts will no doubt soon be issuing many similar orders. Yet there are other people with a stake in these cases. Perhaps the most lamentable aspect of this latest episode in the migration crisis is that the voices of the immigrants themselves have been so rarely heard, and their plight disregarded. They have their human rights, too, enforceable by law – though many would cheerfully seek to deny them that. Indeed, the tendency in the media has been to demonise these fellow human beings as malevolent monsters determined to wreak crime and havoc in whatever neighbourhood they find themselves bussed to. Whether refugee or economic migrant, they are entitled to be treated properly in a civilised society, and not portrayed, as cynical politicians pretend, as an 'invasion' of 'fighting-age' men. They are not an alien army, but individuals who want a better life. Many would have preferred to stay put, were it not for war, persecution, famine and poverty. In a land such as Britain, with severe labour shortages, they have much to contribute, as have previous waves of immigrants. They could help to fix the 'Broken Britain' we hear so much about, and do the jobs that need doing. Yet they are all too often regarded as terrorists, rapists and murderers. The police at the hotel demos fare hardly any better, berated as 'paedo-defenders' and verbally and physically abused for doing their duty and preserving the King's Peace. The wider challenge for ministers now is to persuade the public that they are doing all they can to restore order to the asylum system – and to rebuild confidence in it. That task just got a lot more urgent.
New Statesman
4 hours ago
- New Statesman
The Epping ruling deepens Labour's immigration nightmare
Photo byThere is one clear political winner from the Epping asylum hotel ruling: Nigel Farage. True, the technical victor, as so often in English life, may be the Town and Country Planning Order (the owners of the Bell Hotel failed to apply for new planning permission). But that's not something Farage felt obliged to mention, hailing 'a great victory for the parents and concerned residents of Epping'. That's a message that will resonate with an electorate increasingly wondering whether to gamble on the Reform leader (Farage's party has led every opinion poll since May). It was the Bell Hotel that became an emblem of a dysfunctional model after one migrant living there was charged with sexual assault (a second asylum seeker was arrested last week). Confronted by the case between Epping council and the hotel's owners, Home Office lawyers sought to intervene, warning that any injunction could 'substantially interfere' with the department's statutory duty to house asylum seekers and risked 'acting as an impetus for further violent protests'. But the judge, who acknowledged that recent arrests 'form a basis for the local concern', ruled that Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell Hotel, 'sidestepped the public scrutiny and explanation which would otherwise have taken place if an application for planning permission or for a certificate of lawful use had been made'. The Home Office is barred from appealing and now has less than a month to find alternative accommodation for the hotel's residents. But this practical challenge could be far outweighed by the potential unravelling of the asylum hotel model. Farage has vowed that the 12 councils controlled by Reform will explore similar legal action to Epping, and shadow home secretary Chris Philp has said he would welcome other local authorities doing the same (Labour accuses the Tories of 'rank hypocrisy', noting that Philp was the first immigration minister to move asylum seekers into the Bell Hotel and that Robert Jenrick was the second). Labour knows just how politically toxic the asylum hotel policy – emblematic of the UK's profligate outsourced state – is. Aides speak with authentic outrage of the 'absolute wreck' of a system they inherited as the Conservatives' doomed Rwanda deportation scheme saw processing ground to a halt. The number of asylum seekers accommodated has fallen from a peak of 56,042 in 400 hotels in September 2023 to 32,345 in 210 hotels (with costs falling from £3bn to £2.1bn), and the government intends to end their use entirely by the time of the next election in 2029. But even before yesterday's ruling, some in Labour were warning that far faster action was required. Last month, one influential MP told me that the government should 'requisition Duchy of Lancaster land and build temporary Nightingale accommodation' (along the lines of the hospitals constructed during the Covid-19 pandemic). That same MP now blames a 'vacuum of leadership' for leaving the courts to rule on what voters see as a 'moral and political matter'. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe For Labour, the painful irony of the ruling is that it comes just as the government is trying to tell a better story on immigration. Last month, ministers agreed a 'one in, one out' asylum deal with France that they hope will deter Channel crossings and only today announced a new agreement with Iraq to return illegal migrants. Instead, Labour is left to rue the slow breakdown of a system that it did not design but must now own. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Zarah Sultana reveals a fault line in Your Party] Related
