Five men charged after violent protests outside Essex hotel
There have been a series of demonstrations outside the Bell Hotel in Epping since asylum seeker Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, was charged with sexual assault after an incident earlier this month in which he is alleged to have attempted to kiss a 14-year-old girl.
Kebatu denied the charge when he appeared at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court on Thursday.
Essex Police said the protests began peacefully but 'escalated to the point of disorder and criminal damage'.
The force added that Jonathan Glover, 47, of Springfields, Waltham Abbey, Stuart Williams, 36, of Duck Lane, Thornwood, Epping, Keith Silk, 33, of Torrington Drive, Loughton, and Dean Smith, 51, of Madells, Epping, have been charged with violent disorder and are due to appear at Chelmsford Crown Court on August 18.
Williams and Smith have been remanded in custody, while Glover and Silk are on conditional bail, the force said.
A fifth man, Joe McKenna, 34, of Highcliffe Road, Wickford, is charged with failing to remove a face covering when told to do so and remains on bail until a hearing at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court on September 24.
Chief Superintendent Simon Anslow said: 'As I've consistently said throughout our policing of this matter, this isn't about preventing or limiting people's lawful right to express their views and protest.
'Those who exercise this right in a peaceful manner have nothing to worry about.
'This is about preventing violent disorder and keeping the public safe.
'We will not hesitate to make arrests when criminality takes place.
'We remain impartial at all times and have legal responsibilities to ensure peaceful protest is facilitated.
'Our priority during the policing of each protest is the safety of everyone there, and we've used tried and tested public order tactics to achieve this.'
The officer said on Monday that the cost of policing the incidents in Epping over the last week had reached £100,000.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The trivial schoolyard spat with heartbreaking consequences: What Harvey Willgoose's classroom murder reveals about Britain's knife crime epidemic
It is a case chillingly reminiscent of the Netflix series Adolescence, in which a bullied schoolboy shatters his family's life by stabbing a classmate in an unexpected eruption of violence. But while this year's hit drama led to a national conversation about online radicalisation, the murder of teenager Harvey Willgoose in February raises far darker questions about the state of schooling in Britain. The trial of the pupil who fatally stabbed 15-year-old Harvey in a school courtyard in Sheffield has laid bare the extent to which knife culture has crept into the classroom, allowing once trivial student disputes to turn deadly. And there are now fears this frightening trend has been too readily allowed to take root in corners of our education system – with the school at the centre of the case accused of ignoring critical warnings that its pupils were coming to class armed. A 15-year-old boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was yesterday convicted of Harvey's murder following a five-week trial at Sheffield Crown Court. Unusually, the teenager had denied murder, arguing instead his actions that day were manslaughter due to a loss of self-control; the 'end result of a long period of bullying, poor treatment and violence', as his barrister put it. A jury was unconvinced. The teenage killer's story has proved so alarming precisely because it does not conform to the all-too-familiar script of the country's knife crime epidemic. It was not an act of gangland revenge, nor a drug dispute, nor the horrifying crescendo of a feud between two violent young offenders. Indeed, it was little more than a schoolyard spat - but one turbocharged by the spectre of knives in their adolescent psyches. The fear of knives; the status on offer to those carrying one. Another unusual feature of the case was that the victim - Harvey - barely featured in the whole sorry tale until virtually the moment he was stabbed. To understand the violence of that day, the trial spent much time tracing the long, lonely spiral of the boy who wielded the knife. There was no dispute he had been bullied for many years. From primary school through to secondary school, he was serially targeted over a medical condition. On one occasion, he was beaten up so badly that he was taken to hospital. 'It makes me not confident, I'm upset all the time,' he told a jury from the witness box. One teacher who spoke to the boy last year spotted, with eerie prescience, the impact this bullying appeared to be having on his state of mind. 'I made an assumption: I said since the incident where (the defendant) was badly hurt he changed, he has become more reactive and angry perhaps because he doesn't feel safe and wants to prove he is strong,' the teacher said. He described how the boy stayed quiet for a moment, before replying sheepishly: 'Yes.' This was all complicated by a tough home life. His mother struggled with mental health issues, leaving him to do all the cooking and cleaning. He claimed his father would often beat him for minor indiscretions. As he got deeper into secondary school, a shift seems to have taken place. Suddenly, his school record started to feature more and more references to knives. On one occasion, he and his friends were reprimanded for joking about stabbing each other, on another he was placed in seclusion for the 'dangerous use of craft knife during a DT lesson'. Put simply, the evidence presented at his trial suggests that he and his friends had started to think that having a knife was cool. The allure was perhaps obvious. After years of humiliation, it offered a quick and easy way to claw back respect, status and a long-forgotten sense of personal safety. He was soon searching frequently online for knives, swords, machetes and various other weapons over the course of last year. He used his parent's bank card to order himself a replica knife from the popular video game Assassin's Creed. At some point last autumn, the boy bought a small axe - by his account, from another pupil in school - which he then smuggled into class hidden in his trousers. He would boast about his new weapon to his friends and ask other students to feel the outline of it through his clothes. His mother would eventually find the axe in his gym bag and alert the school, who called the police in December last year. An officer was dispatched to give the boy a lecture about the dangers of carrying weapons, but was met with blank denials. The school, for reasons that are unclear, did nothing. But it was only when the latest in a long line of school tormenters entered his life that his new obsession became truly dangerous - a violent classmate with links to older boys willing to mete out brutality on his behalf, who we will call Pupil A. In a very real sense, Pupil A was the true target on the day Harvey died. He had begun casting a shadow over the defendant's life towards the end of last year. Two of his friends were ambushed in town by Pupil A's associates, while Pupil A listened over the phone. He became convinced a similar fate awaited him. Significantly, it was after a scuffle with Pupil A in mid-January that the defendant ordered his eventual murder weapon. It was into this combustible situation that Harvey fatefully inserted himself over the weekend before he was killed. Harvey had actually once been friends with the defendant, but, since he only attended school for 20 days that academic year due to a series of personal struggles, did not see him much. For a boy who had so long struggled to fit in, friendship with someone as popular as Harvey must have seemed a lifeline. Ms Willgoose, who had no prior knowledge of the boy, was left with the impression he was in 'awe' of Harvey after hearing the evidence at trial. It no doubt made his sense of betrayal all the more visceral when, that weekend, Harvey decided to express support for Pupil A on social media. In a group chat with other pupils, Harvey threatened to fight anyone that had a problem with him and began arguing 'non-stop' with the defendant, the trial heard. Ms Willgoose believes this was cynically exploited by the defence to suggest, wrongly, that her son was a violent bully. 'He used to big himself up, but he wasn't a fighter,' she said. 'Harvey was a bit of a busybody and it cost him his life.' His intervention could not have been worse timed. Unbeknownst to him, the defendant had recently entered a state of intense paranoia after seeing Pupil A's violent cronies loitering in his neighbourhood, staring at him. It meant that, when both boys went to school on the morning of Monday, February 3, only one went armed. It was the defendant's first day back since Pupil A's alleged stabbing threat and teachers knew his history with weapons. The risk he might arm himself was clear. Tragically, no search was carried out, with assistant head teacher Morgan Davis happy to accept the boy's word he had not 'brought anything with him'. 'If you've got a reason to ask, you've got a reason to search, as far as I'm concerned,' Ms Willgoose said. A series of escalating confrontations took place between Harvey and the defendant that morning, culminating in them squaring up in a science class. Then, when Harvey left the class, he told teacher Eleanor Kidder the defendant had been pretending to take something out of his trousers. He was 'acting like he had a knife', as he put it to a friend. The teacher, however, made no attempt to raise the alarm - something Ms Willgoose finds particularly hard to understand. 'Harvey took himself out of the science lesson as soon as this child walked in and he told the teacher 'the way he's acting, it's as though he's got a knife' and within that hour, Harvey was stabbed to death,' she said. 'How many warnings have they had?' Ms Kidder's failure to escalate Harvey's concerns would be seized upon by the defendant at trial as he denied acting like he had a knife that morning. He said: 'Why wouldn't Ms Kidder report it? Because that's a big thing to be accusing me of.' What happened next, by the defence's telling, was a boy snapping after years of bullying. Harvey's aggression, they said, was simply the final straw. Prosecutors argued it was as an act of retribution for Harvey's betrayal. At 12.15pm, Harvey approached the defendant in the school courtyard to confront him and could be seen on CCTV pushing his shoulder. A split second later, the defendant was clutching a five-inch hunting knife. He lunged at Harvey, twice. The first stab alone proved enough. It was dealt with such ferocity it broke through a rib and pierced his heart. Somehow, the entire confrontation had lasted just nine seconds. Harvey collapsed to the floor and slipped into unconsciousness. Haunting CCTV released yesterday by police showed the defendant then retreating inside and waving around his murder weapon. Seeing the footage from that day proved particularly hard for Harvey's family during the trial. His mother would leave the court when it played, while his father quietly wept. But, despite how he tried to portray her son, Ms Willgoose said she felt no hatred towards the defendant. 'I'm not angry, because when you see him, he's just a child,' she said. 'Maybe it's the mother in me. He's been let down as well.' The school is now facing accusations that it failed to properly stamp out troubling signs of knife culture among its pupils. The Mail has learnt that a concerned parent contacted All Saints as far back as October 2024 after hearing the defendant had been showing other pupils an axe in school. But the school apparently failed to take any action against the pupil, with no reference made to it in his official school record, despite the parent being told the matter would be investigated. The revelations suggest the school was aware of the killer's dangerous fixation with weapons months earlier than previously realised - but failed to act. Ms Willgoose also accused the school of attempting to minimise the knife scare on January 29. A letter about the lockdown incident sent to parents by headteacher Sean Pender - and seen by the Mail - makes no mention of knives. 'A lot of these schools are academies, they're a brand, and when anything's found, it's shoved under the carpet,' she said. The conclusion of the boy's trial, however, will be far from the end of the story for All Saints Catholic High School, or the police. A serious case review - an official inquiry which typically involves multiple agencies such as schools and social services - is now due to examine the circumstances of Harvey's death. The police watchdog has also confirmed it has asked South Yorkshire Police to investigate a complaint 'in relation to the actions and decision-making by officers regarding the alleged offender prior to the incident'. 'A complaint was also made regarding the actions of a South Yorkshire Police officer following the incident on 4 February,' the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said in a statement, adding this complaint too would be investigated by the force. Harvey's family hope the serious case review can provide answers about what more could have been done to save their son. 'There's been no winners here. There never are any winners,' Ms Willgoose said. 'We're never going to be happy again. I've got to live with this. You've got to carry on without our Harvey. It's horrific.' Steve Davies, CEO of St Clare Catholic Multi Academy Trust which includes All Saints Catholic High School, said: Harvey's death was an unimaginable tragedy for all, and one that understandably gives rise to a number of questions from his family and others. 'Now that the trial has finished, a number of investigations aimed at addressing and answering these questions will be able to proceed. 'We will engage fully and openly with them to help ensure every angle is considered and no key questions are left unresolved.'
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Targeted by the right, Britain's asylum hotels are places of fear and disorder. Bad political decisions made it so
A broad section of Britain's right has spent the summer behaving as if it would like a repeat of last year's racist riots. As politicians and commentators cry 'tinderbox Britain' – are they warning us, or willing it on? – far-right extremists have been actively trying to stoke violence. This year, they have pinned their hopes on asylum hotels, an issue where public fears over crime, immigration and the welfare state conveniently converge. In some places, far-right activists have piggybacked on protests prompted by local grievances. The most significant this year was in Epping, Essex, after an alleged sexual assault by an asylum seeker led to demonstrations that turned violent when they were joined by members of various far-right groups. A similar pattern has unfolded in London's Canary Wharf, after untrue rumours that some of the Epping hotel residents were being moved there. In other cases, far-right activists have themselves organised the protests. A call has gone out among their online networks for gatherings this weekend in several parts of England. It is unlikely – though not impossible – that the end result will be on the scale of the riots we saw last summer, since that was triggered by a shocking act of murder followed by widespread misinformation and conspiracy theories about the identity of the killer. But anti-fascist campaigners I've spoken to believe it may cause lower-level disturbances like those seen in Epping and in Knowsley, Merseyside, in 2023, and it will certainly help ensure that asylum hotels remain a contentious topic for many months to come. One question, however, often goes unanswered: why are asylum seekers being accommodated in hotels in the first place? Before 2020, the phenomenon hardly existed, yet by its peak in 2023 there were more than 55,000 people in hotels, waiting many months to have their asylum claims processed. (Today the number has dropped to about 30,000.) For some, the answer will be: 'because there are too many people seeking asylum in the UK and we don't have the resources to support them'. This is misleading. Although Britain has seen higher numbers of asylum applications in recent years, according to Oxford University's Migration Observatory they are not exceptional when compared with those of other European countries. Yet the UK relies on costly hotel accommodation far more heavily than any of its neighbours. A series of actions by both Labour and Conservative governments since the turn of the century has brought us to this point. The first was the decision by Tony Blair's government to make people seeking asylum heavily reliant on state support. Until mid-2002, asylum seekers could take up jobs if they had to wait more than six months for an initial decision on their asylum claim. Much of the press disliked this, saying it allowed asylum seekers to take other people's jobs. So the government in effect banned them from working. (In many other European countries, people seeking asylum are still allowed to work after a waiting period.) If a government bans people from working then it needs to provide them with essential support, unless it is happy for them to starve to death on the streets. At first, accommodation was largely provided by local councils' housing departments. But politicians took a second decision, which was to privatise the accommodation. This began in the late 2000s, but the really important step was taken by David Cameron and Nick Clegg's coalition government. In 2012, as part of the coalition's wider austerity drive, asylum accommodation was outsourced to the same profit-driven contractors that now run many of our public services. The contractors often failed to provide decent housing or value for money and the government had to rewrite the contracts. Even then, problems persisted: by the end of the decade, it was becoming increasingly common to house asylum seekers in 'contingency accommodation' such as short-term lets and hotels. The third decision, taken by the governments of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, was to sabotage the asylum system itself. During the first Covid lockdown in 2020, people seeking asylum were placed in hotels – which, at the time, were largely empty anyway – for public health reasons. This coincided with a rise in the number of people crossing the Channel by small boat, as opposed to stowing away in lorries as they had largely done previously. (Many people who choose such routes do so because they do not have the option of a safe resettlement scheme, such as the one the UK has offered to Ukrainian refugees.) The Conservative government encouraged hostility towards small boat journeys, describing them as an 'invasion'. Instead of moving asylum seekers out of hotels and into more suitable accommodation when the pandemic subsided, it kept them there while it built prison-like encampments as an alternative. (These schemes mostly never got off the ground.) At the same time, it allowed a backlog of asylum applications to grow – and then tried to ban many asylum seekers from claiming asylum at all, saying it would instead deport them permanently to Rwanda. (That scheme never got off the ground either.) All the above has led to more asylum seekers living in more hotels for longer, in more parts of the country. At its root, it is a story of public penny-pinching and market forces causing a problem that is then made worse by politicians promising a quick fix or finding a convenient scapegoat. If that sounds familiar then perhaps it's because it's a story we also find in our hospitals, schools and wider communities. This could be an occasion to ask what has gone wrong with the state more generally, and to talk about what could be done to make it work better for everyone. Keir Starmer's government has promised to end the use of hotels by 2029, by investing in the asylum system and reducing small boat journeys. But if it is unwilling to have that wider conversation, then the right is ready with its own seductive, destructive answers. Daniel Trilling is the author of Lights in the Distance: Exile and Refuge at the Borders of Europe and Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of Britain's Far Right
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Police outnumber anti-migrant protesters outside Islington hotel
Police officers outnumbered anti-migrant protesters outside a hotel in Islington where a protest was being held in support of refugees on Friday 8 August. Around 80 anti-racism demonstrators from Stand Up to Racism turned up outside the London hotel, where asylum seekers are believed to be housed by the government. 'Immigration has brought a great growth and diversity to Britain. And we are richer for the people that have come here,' said Claudia Webbe, a former MP for Leicester East who was in attendance at the demonstration. An increased police presence is expected over the weekend amid concerns that anti-asylum seeker protests and counter-protests could lead to violence and disorder.
