logo
Mums & children dressed in pink peacefully protest outside controversial migrant hotel before yobs clash with cops

Mums & children dressed in pink peacefully protest outside controversial migrant hotel before yobs clash with cops

The Sun3 days ago
MOTHERS and children dressed in pink protested outside Britain's most controversial migrant hotel yesterday — before masked yobs hijacked the event and clashed with police.
Demonstrators chanting 'Save our kids and women' shut down a busy road outside the four-star Britannia International Hotel in Canary Wharf, East London.
5
5
5
They were among 200 anti-migrant marchers waving flags, including a giant St George's Cross, and calling for an end to small boat crossings.
Last night, the Met Police issued a Section 42 dispersal order, in effect banning protests outside the hotel for 28 days.
Videos online showed officers removing protesters after hotel residents claimed they faced 'distress and alarm' from demonstrators outside.
One officer told a protester: 'You have to leave now and you're not to return within 28 days.
'If you don't comply with that, you will be arrested.'
Earlier, women had performed a conga while a line of police guarded the 40 or so asylum seekers who were moved in under cover of darkness at 1.30am on Saturday.
But the protest threatened to boil over shortly after 3pm when two men in balaclava masks threw red and white smoke flares.
The pair were held and searched by police but released back into the crowds.
Other masked thugs then stormed into the crowd, setting off flares.
Yobs disguising their identities were surrounded by police as the women and children in pink dispersed.
Protesters and police scuffle outside Thistle City Barbican Hotel
Skirmishes broke out between officers and the masked demonstrators, all dressed in black, with at least one man led away in cuffs.
After being held back from female protesters, the crowd of about 25 flare-wielding yobs instead charged towards metal fences set up around the perimeter of the hotel.
They then began to chant: 'Let us through.'
Protester Kim, 60, a resident of the area and part of the mothers' gathering, branded the violence disgraceful.
She said: 'It ruined the atmosphere. I don't want to see that and I don't want my kids to see it either.
'If that was one of my children I would be embarrassed. This was meant to be a peaceful protest for women and children.'
We're concerned for our women and children. We don't know who these people are, what beliefs they hold and if they have a criminal background elsewhere. Our women and children do not feel safe, and that's why we don't want them here
Sun source
The £425-a-night, 500-room hotel — said to have 'superb views over London' — was designated for asylum seekers two weeks ago.
It meant tourists turning up with pre-existing bookings were turned away at the entrance by Home Office -contracted security guards.
Yesterday, more footage went viral showing delivery motorbike drivers attempting to leave the hotel and being surrounded by protesters.
It is thought the deliveries were for hotel staff and residents.
Re-posting footage of the hotel ­yesterday, Tory MP and Shadow Cabinet minister Neil O'Brien blasted: 'Joke regime. We must end it all.'
One mother at the protest told The Sun: 'We're concerned for our women and children. We don't know who these people are, what beliefs they hold and if they have a criminal background elsewhere. Our women and children do not feel safe, and that's why we don't want them here.'
5
Local resident Jen, 28, told The Sun: 'I don't mind the fact they're immigrants, I am one myself.
'Everybody has their reasons to move but we're not happy with how we weren't informed.'
A Met Police spokeswoman said: 'Officers are deployed in the vicinity of the Britannia International Hotel in Canary Wharf.
'At one point, officers intervened after flares were let off in the crowd.
'Several people were searched. No further flares were found and there were no arrests.
'Officers remain in the area to provide reassurance to local residents and businesses, to ensure that any further protest takes place peacefully, and to respond to any incidents.'
But the use of the flash financial district hotel, one of about 210 in use for asylum, was previously branded an 'insult' to taxpayers.
The total asylum hotel bill is more than £3billion a year.
Home Office officials have rented 400 rooms at the Britannia for £81-a-night, meaning the Canary Wharf bill alone will cost up to £226,000 a week.
It was first reported at the end of July that the luxury four-star hotel — said to be 'the perfect base for a city break' — would be used to house migrants.
Last week, workers were seen hauling beds and mattresses into the hotel for the arrival of hundreds of asylum seekers.
Footage shared online caught all-male asylum seekers, most dressed in grey tracksuits, getting off a coach in the dark on Saturday.
'Insult' to taxpayers
The first arrivals were led into the hotel to be given rooms. They were aided by the masked security guards.
A Met Police spokeswoman confirmed at least one arrest was made outside the hotel.
She said: 'One man was arrested on suspicion of assaulting an emergency worker after an officer was pushed. He was taken into custody.'
Nationwide protests on Saturday led to nine arrests. Residents in Islington, North London, gathered at the Thistle City Barbican hotel under the banner, 'Thistle Barbican needs to go — locals say no'.
A rival group from Stand Up To Racism, supported by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, formed a counter-protest.
Seven arrests were made related to breaching Public Order Act conditions. From inside the hotel, men, believed to be migrants, blew kisses.
On Friday night, a man was arrested on suspicion of attempted arson after a packet of lit firelighters was thrown at police at the Stanwell Hotel, Spelthorne, Surrey.
National protests were sparked after Hadush Kebatu, 38, an Ethiopian asylum seeker at the Bell Hotel, in Epping, Essex, was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old, which he denies.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How Gordon Brown's ‘baby bonds' failed to raise a nation of investors
How Gordon Brown's ‘baby bonds' failed to raise a nation of investors

Times

timean hour ago

  • Times

How Gordon Brown's ‘baby bonds' failed to raise a nation of investors

Rachel Reeves wants stubborn savers to embrace investing to earn better returns and boost the economy. The chancellor is looking to rip up red tape to let banks to nudge savers towards the stock market, and is also considering cutting back the cash Isa allowance to ensure more of our savings are invested. However, the New Labour chancellor Gordon Brown also had an ambition to create a healthier savings culture, and it did not exactly turn out as he had hoped. Brown wanted to raise a generation of investors by giving every baby at least £250 to kickstart the habit. When detailing the policy in his 2003 budget, he said: 'The child trust fund symbolises the difference between those who believe in modernising the welfare state and those who wish it to wither away. 'At age 18, on the basis of historic rates of return, the child trust fund will accumulate assets that will enable all young people to have more of the choices that were once available only to some.' The tax-free scheme was designed to encourage parents to invest for their children's future, and all babies born between September 1, 2002 and January 2, 2011 were eligible. In all, 6.3 million accounts were opened, and the government paid £2 billion into the accounts, which could be accessed from 18. Yet child trust funds were scrapped by the coalition government in 2011 and many have since been lost or forgotten. Some investors have even been locked out of their funds. The first children with funds turned 18 in September 2020. The latest available data shows the total value of the funds is about £9 billion. While up to 2.8 million accounts have now matured, of these, about a quarter (670,000) have not been claimed. On average it's estimated that each young person could have an account worth about £2,000. A further study revealed that most of the accounts did not have any money paid into them between April 2023 and April 2024, suggesting they've been abandoned as a savings vehicle. Maike Currie, an investment and savings expert who worked for Hargreaves Lansdown until recently, said: 'Child trust funds were a victim of the age of austerity after the 2008 financial crisis. 'On reflection, they were always doomed to fail — starting with the elaborate name. Many people were put off, thinking these were the preserve of trust fund babies, while others simply did not know about them. 'This simply reiterates the importance of awareness and education if you're to reignite a nation of investors. If the government today fails on getting this right, they will have another flop on their hands with disastrous consequences.' Education about these accounts was lacking — and remains the case, as shown by a trip by Money in April to one school where many pupils had no idea they had a child trust fund. The initial sum of £250 was doubled to £500 for low-income families. Children had a second payment when they reached seven. However, in 2010, the initial payment was reduced to £50, or £100 for lower-income families, and the second payment at seven scrapped. The first payment was abolished entirely in 2011. New parents were also invited to choose a home for the free cash. They could invest it in the stock market (either choosing the investments themselves or selecting a stakeholder version where the investments were chosen by the provider) or choose a savings-style account where interest was paid. If an account was not opened by the child's parent, HM Revenue & Customs set up a stakeholder account on the child's behalf. Many parents never engaged with the scheme. HMRC stepped in on behalf of 1.7 million parents (28 per cent) who failed to find a home for the £250 within the required 12-month period. All HMRC-allocated accounts were investment-based. According to the Share Foundation, a charity that helps to trace unclaimed funds, more than £400 million is sitting unclaimed in HMRC-allocated accounts. More than half of the unclaimed accounts worth £274 million belong to young adults on low incomes. About 55,000 trust funds mature every month and the charity forecasts that nearly £1 billion will be unclaimed for low-income young adults by the end of this parliament. Gavin Oldham from the Share Foundation said: 'Since September 2020, when the first account holders started turning 18, child trust fund owners have been able to withdraw funds or transfer savings into an adult Isa. 'Yet there's an enormous amount of money sitting unclaimed by youngsters, who could use it to go towards tuition fees, a first home or simply to kickstart their own savings for the future.' The charity has matched more than 85,000 young people with their child trust funds, recovering more than £165 million for young adult account owners. The accounts will continue to mature until 2029, when the last children to get a fund will turn 18, but the worry is that many won't be reunited with their money. • NatWest says stolen £8,500 child trust fund is not its problem There were many other criticisms of the scheme. For example, the investment options were limited and expensive. A parliamentary report highlighted that investment charges for managing the funds were 'very high'. Another issue is that no provision was made for children with disabilities who were unable to manage their own finances. A report has previously suggested 80,000 such young people were unable to access their funds without their families going through the Court of Protection — a process that can be costly and time-consuming. If the amount in the fund is relatively small, the legal fees might outweigh claiming the cash. Analysts have looked for positive outcomes. There was some evidence to show that the accounts appeared to have led some parents to open savings accounts for older siblings who did not benefit. However, it found the scheme did not have a statistically significant effect on the rate of savings for children overall. Education is essential when it comes to encouraging people to invest. Many prefer to keep their savings safe in risk-free cash accounts, where they are unlikely to keep pace with inflation. If you have long enough to ride out the ups and downs of the stock market, investing usually results in a much higher return. A £100 monthly investment into the average global equity fund for the past 18 years (£21,600) would today be worth about £52,800, according to analysis by the investment platform AJ Bell. The same £100 a month saved in an average child's savings account over the last 18 years at 2.93 per cent would today be worth about £28,465, according to Moneyfacts. That's 85 per cent less than if the money had been invested. Currie said: 'Education, awareness and ease are the cornerstones to creating a nation of investors or to put it differently: there needs to be a seismic shift in trust, ease and confidence. 'In the UK, investing is still associated with gambling — people must understand that when you're investing you're owning real assets and the potential for future growth. It's also about getting to grips with the concept of risk and understanding different levels of risk — and the hidden risks of holding too much cash against a backdrop of inflation and longer lives. These are big hurdles to overcome to establish a culture of retail investing in the UK.' • How to get a nation of savers investing Laith Khalaf from AJ Bell said that the UK had a long way to go before reaching the investing culture in the US. Khalaf said: 'The US has been a leader in terms of financial products such as unit trust funds, exchange traded funds, trackers and self-invested personal pensions. As a result there is a greater familiarity with investments and probably a greater risk appetite amongst everyday Americans. That's positive for US investors and stocks over the long term, but it's not without its risk.' In the UK there's perhaps not enough risk being taken, with many people holding large sums of cash and never considering the stock market. Khalaf said: 'At least £100 billion is sitting in cash Isa accounts held by savers with £20,000 or more in cash, but no stocks and shares Isa investments. 'The chancellor's efforts to ignite a retail investing revolution are therefore well met. Getting more people to invest in the stock market will be positive for their long-term wealth and for the economy as a whole. In particular a regular investment plan can help reassure those who don't like the full thrills and spills of the stock market because it leads to a smoother journey.' He added that some things needed to be addressed to encourage investing. 'For example, it's nothing short of bizarre that the Treasury wants people to invest in domestic stocks but charges stamp duty of 0.5 per cent on UK share purchases. An investor can buy shares in a US company like Apple with no stamp duty to pay, but if they buy £10,000 of London-listed AstraZeneca shares, they will pay the government £50 for the privilege.' • The Share Foundation is campaigning for the government to start automatically releasing unclaimed CTF funds once account holders turn 21.• You can search for lost CTF funds using a free HMRC-linked search tool. Have your national insurance number to hand. Tayo Olutunde, 22, received a £2,500 windfall last year when he decided to check whether he had a child trust fund account. Tayo, who lives in Leeds and is studying accounting and finance, watched a TikTok video that prompted him to check with his parents about a child trust fund. They remembered setting one up and contributing to it for a time but couldn't remember with which bank. Olutunde said: 'As a family we moved a lot, including abroad. The contributions would have stopped when we went abroad and the paperwork was lost. I came across the Share Foundation who helped me locate where my account was — with NatWest. 'It took a long time to access the money because I didn't know which address was registered with my account, so I kept failing security. Eventually I got through and found I had £2,400. I was shocked.' Olutunder decided to spend about £400 on a holiday to Italy to celebrate his 21st birthday and invested the rest. But he said more needs to be done to educate young people about the world of investing. He said: 'I have a friend who also located his child trust fund recently. He spent most of it on a fast car, which I'm not sure is the best use of the money.' Scott and Julie James were thrilled to receive the £250 from the government for their daughter Holly when she was born in 2009. The couple, who live in Glasgow, decided to invest the sum to start building a nest egg for her future. Scott, 54, who works as a company director, said: 'The government was giving away free money which was great. Sadly the rest of the scheme wasn't quite so impressive. We wanted to invest the money, knowing that stocks and shares perform better than cash over the longer term. 'But at the time we opened the account, there wasn't a huge number of companies to choose from, and those that did offer child trust funds had a limited investment choice and the charges were high.' They opened an account anyway and it was topped up with money from grandparents. But when junior Isas were launched two years later, Scott felt they offered a bigger range of investments and lower charges, so they started saving in one of those accounts instead. Scott says they are still saving for Holly, now aged 16, perhaps to help with a first property purchase or whatever she might need in adulthood. He said: 'The child trust fund was a nice try, but it just didn't work.

Labour wrong to give 16-year-olds the vote, says former supreme court judge
Labour wrong to give 16-year-olds the vote, says former supreme court judge

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Labour wrong to give 16-year-olds the vote, says former supreme court judge

Labour should not give 16-year-olds the vote while it blocks them from accessing adult content online, one of Britain's most senior former judges has warned. Lord Sumption, a former justice of the Supreme Court, criticised Sir Keir Starmer's decision to extend the franchise to 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds at the next general election and said the limit should have remained at 21. He accused the Government of a 'crude' attempt to increase the number of Labour voters, although said much of the new electorate will vote for Nigel Farage's Reform UK. Lord Sumption is a retired judge and was considered one of Britain's most important barristers. He is now a notable historian of the mediaeval period. 'I think that it is a mistake to lower the voting age to 16,' he told the Policy Unstuck newsletter. 'I would actually not have reduced the voting age below the age of 21. I think it's a fairly crude attempt to change the electorate so as to introduce a large number of people whom Mr Starmer thinks will vote Labour. 'He may be wrong about that. The polls suggest that quite a lot of them will vote Reform. 'And quite a lot of those who might, last year have voted Labour will vote for Jeremy Corbyn's party. So, he may end up stabbing himself in the back.' He added that there was a tension between the Government's policy and the newly-enforced Online Safety Act, which bans under-18s from accessing adult content online. Tech firms, which have been threatened with huge fines for breaching the rules, have begun to enforce them by stopping underage people from listening to explicit music online or reading some innocuous social media posts. 'The reality is that there are many things that we do not allow 16-year-olds to do,' Lord Sumption said. 'For example, under the Online Safety Act, they can't access significant parts of the internet. I don't have an objection to that in itself. 'But that's some indication of where we think that the boundary lies between responsible adulthood and childhood.' New polling by the research firm More in Common finds that a majority of parents of 16 and 17-year-olds say they should not be able to vote. Fourteen per cent of the parents polled said their child would vote for Labour, while the same proportion said they would vote for Reform. One percentage point less – 13 per cent – think their child would vote for the Green Party. Sir Keir pledged to lower the voting age to 16 when he ran to be Labour leader in 2020, allowing children to cast a ballot in general elections for the first time ever. Sixteen and 17-year-olds are already allowed to vote in elections for the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales. Among the population more generally, 70 per cent of people think that teenagers are too immature to vote. That view is especially popular among people who voted for Reform last year and the over-75s.

Bank of England poised to cut interest rates on Thursday
Bank of England poised to cut interest rates on Thursday

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Bank of England poised to cut interest rates on Thursday

The Bank of England is poised to cut interest rates on Thursday despite a growing divide between its policymakers over the dangers to the economy from high inflation and rising unemployment. In a development that will ease pressure on households and businesses, City forecasters expect the central bank to announce a quarter-point cut, its fifth rate reduction in a year. Financial markets predict an almost 100% chance of a quarter-point cut from 4.25%, the same as the last reduction in May. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, will welcome the cut as Labour comes under pressure over its economic management and growing questions about potential tax rises at her autumn budget. Ministers have sought to claim credit for the Bank reducing its base rate four times since August last year, arguing that it had been able to do so only after Labour had worked to 'restore stability to the economy'. Publishing research before the rate decision at midday on Thursday, the party said a family buying a typical home was now paying almost £1,000 a year less on their mortgage than in July 2024, when the Conservatives left office. Figures from the property website Rightmove showed that a typical first-time buyer's mortgage payment was now almost £100 a month less than a year earlier. However, a fifth rate cut will highlight the dangers facing the economy amid a worsening slowdown, as households and businesses grapple with tax rises, stubborn inflation, and global uncertainty created by Donald Trump's tariff war. Analysts expect the vote on rates from the Bank's nine-strong monetary policy committee to be split, exposing tensions at the heart of Threadneedle Street over the best course of action to keep fast-rising consumer prices in check while also safeguarding jobs and growth. City investors are predicting a three-way split, with the external economists Alan Taylor and Swati Dhingra favouring a bigger, half-point cut amid concern about rising job losses. Most of the MPC members, including the governor, Andrew Bailey, are expected to vote for a quarter-point reduction. Huw Pill, the Bank's chief economist, could split from his colleagues to join the external economist Catherine Mann in voting to keep rates unchanged owing to concerns that inflationary pressures are mounting. Analysts believe that divisions have become more entrenched since the Bank last produced economic forecasts in May. Threadneedle Street will update its outlook on Thursday. Michael Saunders, a former MPC member who is now at the consultancy Oxford Economics, said the committee's split was understandable. 'You have weak growth, rising unemployment and inflation well above target; those signals go in opposite directions [for a rate decision],' he said. 'Different people will put different weights on them. It is not sign that they are more argumentative than other committees [in the past], just that they face a greater disparity between growth, unemployment and inflation.' Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Interest rate cuts support economic growth by lowering borrowing costs for businesses and households. However, bolstering economic activity can stoke inflationary pressures. 'Monetary policy remains quite tight. Fiscal policy is tightening, and the budget may include further tax hikes later this year. Trade policy uncertainty remains high, deterring investment and hiring.' China diverting cheap exports from the US to the UK during Trump's tariff war could also reinforce downward pressure on inflation, he added. Labour has come under pressure from business leaders blaming Britain's recent economic weakness on Reeves raising employment taxes in her first autumn budget, which firms warned would force them to cut jobs and put up prices. Official figures show unemployment has crept higher in recent months, while the economy shrank in April and May. Inflation has risen by more than expected, reaching 3.6% in June – significantly above the Bank's 2% target. Business surveys this week have shown a slowdown in the service sector and a collapse in construction output. Labour said cheaper mortgage rates available today – with the average two-year fixed rate falling to 4.52% – had saved borrowers £81.69 on average each month. The Treasury minister James Murray said: 'Labour's urgent task when we took office was to restore stability to the economy after 14 years of Tory failure. Since we came into office, rates have been cut four times, and that's putting more pounds in the pocket of homeowners through cheaper mortgages.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store