Essex council asks High Court to remove migrants from hotel
Epping Forest District Council applied on Tuesday for an interim High Court injunction to prevent the Bell Hotel being used to accommodate asylum seekers.
The council is requesting that the ban take effect 14 days after the injunction is approved.
It is citing "the clear risk of further escalating community tensions" and calls for the present situation "to be brought under control" urgently.
The council is also requesting a declaration that using the Bell Hotel to house asylum seekers is not the same as using it as a regular hotel, and therefore is not permitted under planning rules.
"The current situation cannot go on. If the Bell Hotel was a nightclub we could have closed it down long ago," said Cllr Chris Whitbread, leader of Epping Forest District Council.
"So far as the council is aware, there is no criminal record checking of individuals who might only have been in the country a matter of days before being housed at the hotel."
Cllr Whitbread pointed out there are five schools and a residential care home within the vicinity of the hotel, and that the use by the Home Office of the premises for asylum seekers could further escalate community tensions that are "already at a high", as well as "the risk of irreparable harm to the local community".
"This will only increase with the start of the new school year. We are frustrated that the Home Office continues not to listen," he said.
Weeks of protests
Demonstrations began on 13 July after an asylum seeker was charged with allegedly attempting to kiss a 14-year-old girl.
An Ethiopian man, who had only recently arrived on a small boat, has been charged with three counts of sexual assault of a girl.
Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, denies sexual assault and is due to stand trial this month.
Essex Police recently implemented dispersal orders before some protests, allowing officers to order anyone suspected of causing anti-social behaviour to leave the area.
The force said 25 people have been arrested in connection with the protests, and a total of 16 people have now been charged.
'Unprecedented' levels of disruption
Epping Forest council said it has resorted to this latest action due to the "unprecedented levels of protest and disruption" in the community.
The protests have placed the police "under severe pressure", as additional police officers had to be drafted in from other forces, it said.
Read more:
At a recent council meeting in July 2025, Epping Forest councillors voted unanimously to call on the Home Office to "immediately" close the Bell Hotel. They also called for the phased closure of the Phoenix Hotel in North Weald, which is also providing temporary accommodation for asylum seekers.
"We are doing this on behalf of our local community. We are a small district council. We have tried to help the Home Office see the situation cannot go on, but central government is not listening," Cllr Whitbread said.
"We should not have to take this fight to the High Court, but we are left with no choice. It is now up to the judge," he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After deadly protests, Kenya's Ruto seeks football distraction
Whether in a sports jersey or a suit, Kenyan President William Ruto is casting himself as a model supporter of the national football team as an international tournament provides respite from recent bloody protests against his regime. In June and July, the east African country, usually known as a beacon of calm in the turbulent Horn of Africa region, saw violent anti-government protests that left 65 dead, according to a police watchdog. While the protests have disappeared from the streets, many of the issues -- police brutality, a troubled economy -- have not. But thanks to football, public anger against Ruto's administration seems to be fizzing out. Kenya is co-hosting the African Nations Championship (CHAN), with its national team winning both on and off the pitch -- a stark contrast to their historically dismal performance -- while Ruto coattails on their success at every turn. He was in the stands cheering their inaugural game and in the dressing room making promises to the players. At the start of the tournament, he promised each Harambee Stars player, as the national team is called, one million Kenyan shillings (about $7,740) for every win, and half that for a draw. He later raised the reward to 2.5 million shillings plus a two-bedroom house if they beat Zambia in Sunday's quarter-finals. Ruto's strategy appears to be paying off. While public gatherings for months were dominated by "Wantam" chants -- to mean he will be a one-term president -- energetic Kenyan fans are now filling stadiums with "One Million" shouts, referencing the presidential bonuses. "Most people are happy that the national team has been rewarded for their performance," Bernard Ndong, sports editor and anchor at one of Kenya's biggest stations, told AFP. But not everyone was convinced by Ruto's sudden, and generous, attitude to the players, he added. "Some skeptics are wondering where that money is coming from and whether it's also a subtle way for him to endear himself to the people through football." Just a few weeks before the CHAN games kicked off, Ruto called on police officers to shoot and maim violent protesters, remarks that sparked public outrage. - 'Soft-power tactics' - But the tournament now "offers Ruto respite" even as his administration faces allegations of other "mega corruption scandals," observed a column in the Standard, a daily critical of the president. According to analyst Chris Sambu, CHAN "is not just a sporting event; it is a calculated opportunity where soft-power tactics, national pride, and targeted public engagement intersect to blunt criticism and reopen channels of support." It offers Ruto a strategic opening to reposition his image and tie it to moments of pride and economic hope, rather than recent political controversies, Sambu said on X. Enthusiastic Kenyan fans without tickets have breached security to enter stadiums, angering the Confederation of African Football (CAF) and resulting in hefty fines for the country. Ruto has promised to install screens around the city so everyone can watch the games. "It is the Harambee Stars who have reunited the nation," he said to the players on Monday. "I am proud that thanks to your talents, the nation stands tall, united, and inspired." "Sport and politics are powerful tools," Ruto supporter Amina Muchiri, 44, told AFP, adding that after a shake-up by the youth-led protests "this is the best chance to get to them through these boys who are also Gen-Z". Elias Makori, a former sports editor at Kenya's Nation newspaper and now on the CHAN committee, judged it a "clever" move by Ruto. "It's a good comeback against the Gen Z unrest, but how long it can be sustained is another question," Makori added. The CHAN is limited to players from domestic national leagues, unlike the African Cup of Nations which is open to Africans playing for clubs abroad. aik-rbu-jf/mnk/gv
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Palestine Action's violent criminality is not lawful protest
Faced with the intolerable scenes of suffering and devastation in Gaza, people across the country are feeling desperate and angry about what is happening and many have joined protests on the street. Each month, the police work with organisers to facilitate safe, lawful protests, and will continue to do so. Over the last 18 months, hundreds of thousands of people have joined pro-Palestinian protests, while only a tiny minority have been arrested for breaking the law. Protest and free speech are an important part of our democracy and those freedoms will always be protected. So anyone who wants to protest against the catastrophic humanitarian situation and crimes against humanity in Gaza, to oppose Israel's military offensive, or to criticise the actions of any and every government, including our own, has the freedom to do so. The recent proscription of the group Palestine Action does not prevent those protests, and to claim otherwise is nonsense. That proscription concerns one specific organisation alone – a group that has conducted an escalating campaign involving not just sustained criminal damage, including to Britain's national security infrastructure, but also intimidation, violence, weapons, and serious injuries to individuals. The clear advice and intelligence given to me earlier this year from the UK's world-leading counter-terrorism system, based on a robust assessment process, was that Palestine Action satisfies the relevant tests in the Terrorism Act 2000 and should be proscribed. Some may think it is just a regular protest group known for occasional stunts. But that is not the extent of its past activities. Nor does it reflect disturbing information given to me that covered ideas and planning for future attacks. Many of those important details cannot yet be publicly reported because of criminal proceedings. But if stunts were the only concern, its proscription would never have been considered in the first place, and it certainly wouldn't have become the unanimous recommendation to ministers from the cross-government security expert review group. Palestine Action has claimed responsibility for – and promoted on its website – attacks that have seen those allegedly involved subsequently charged with violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, actual bodily harm, criminal damage and aggravated burglary. Charges that include, in the assessment of the independent Crown Prosecution Service, a terrorism connection. Many people will also know about the attack on RAF planes at Brize Norton, but fewer will have read about the Jewish-owned business in north London badly vandalised in the dead of night by masked men just three weeks before. Or the attack on a Glasgow factory that caused the sentencing sheriff to say: 'Throwing pyrotechnics into areas where people are being evacuated could hardly be described as non-violent.' 'For a home secretary to ignore all the security assessments, advice and recommendations on Palestine Action would be irresponsible' Or the 'underground manual' that encourages the creation of cells, provides practical guidance on how to identify targets to attack and how to evade law enforcement. These are not the actions of a legitimate protest group. For a home secretary to ignore all those security assessments, advice and recommendations would be irresponsible. Protecting public safety and national security are at the very heart of the job I do. Were there to be further serious attacks or injuries, the government would rightly be condemned for not acting sooner to keep people safe. Public protests on the Gaza crisis will continue through the summer, and the overwhelming majority of those involved do not and will not endorse violent and criminal tactics. That is why the proscription of this group is not about protest or the Palestinian cause. In a democracy, lawful protest is a fundamental right but violent criminality is not. Some of those holding placards in direct support of Palestine Action may not know the kind of organisation they have been promoting: its violence, intimidation, or future plans and aspirations. But that is all the more reason why no one should allow desperate calls for peace in the Middle East to be derailed into a campaign to support one narrow group involved in violence here in the UK. Because it is those calls for peace that should be the most urgent focus now. Each day the humanitarian crisis in Gaza worsens, the conditions for hostages deteriorate, the prospects for peace are diminished, and the scenes of children being shot and starved get ever more horrific. An immediate ceasefire, release of the hostages and urgent humanitarian aid are vital. So too is the pathway the prime minister has set out to the recognition of a Palestinian state, now supported by Australia and Canada as well as France. Yvette Cooper is home secretary. Photograph by @FLO360aero
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Proscription was disproportionate – and has had a chilling effect
Last month I was granted permission by the high court to legally challenge the proscription of Palestine Action. The judge said the ban was arguably unlawful on the grounds that it was disproportionate with rights to free speech and protest, and that the home secretary failed to consult Palestine Action or any human rights organisations. As my barristers argued, the proscription has had a chilling effect on thousands of people across the country. Examples include a former headmaster arrested for displaying a Private Eye cartoon, and protester Laura Murton being accused by police of potentially committing a terror offence by displaying a Palestine flag and a placard that said 'Free Gaza'. Even the UN human rights commissioner, Volker Türk, agrees the proscription is 'disproportionate and unnecessary'. The impact on free speech is evident even as I write this piece. I'm given less latitude to counter the home secretary's claims than she is afforded to advance them. Her decision to proscribe gives her a higher degree of control of the narrative, as many papers will be reluctant, for legal reasons, to publish a piece that may make the readers sympathetic to Palestine Action's aims. So all I am allowed to say on that is contained within my first witness statement. But I must do at least this. It is important that readers understand our case. As I explained to the court, Palestine Action 'take direct action against Israel's arms trade in Britain'. We 'put our bodies in the way of a military machine perpetrating genocide'. In my view the campaign has been effective, so I believe weapons firms and the Israeli embassy lobbied hard for ministers and police to crack down on Palestine Action. However, proscribing a domestic direct action group has sparked outrage. So far, more than 700 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act for holding signs, while opposition to the ban is growing across the political spectrum. To save face, it seems to me the government has resorted to a smear campaign. Rather than solely litigating the case in the courts, they're also trying to litigate it in the media, where hard facts are swapped for soundbites. Their newest claim refers to supposed evidence of 'disturbing' plans and ideas. Yvette Cooper failed to reference any such evidence in court ahead of the 'permission hearing' to challenge the ban, instead launching the claims on TV. These allegations are not supported by the security assessments disclosed by her own department, and don't match the facts. The assessment to proscribe Palestine Action was made in March 2025, but it seems Cooper delayed proscription until the most politically convenient moment. If there were 'disturbing plans' and serious concerns of national security, why wait four months? Even Keir Starmer weighed in, making reference to 'Jewish-owned' businesses. The intention seemed to be to imply that Palestine Action was antisemitic. In reality, it targeted dozens of companies associated with Israel's biggest weapons producer, regardless of the identities of the owners. This fact is known by the government, yet they continue to weaponise antisemitism. I believe the idea behind the government's statements is to deliberately mislead the public and parliament. The group was banned due to 'serious property damage for a political cause', not because of racism or alleged violence against people. It is false to claim the organisation had violent intent against people. The home secretary's own security assessments say the direct action group didn't advocate violence or pose a threat to life. Cooper's attempt to justify her decision by misleading the public shows only what a huge political misstep she has made. Her political career will be marked by the most draconian attack on our civil liberties in a generation. Huda Ammori was co-founder of Palestine Action and is challenging its proscription in court Photograph by Antonio Olmos
