The high court stopped use of the Bell hotel in Epping to house asylum seekers, prompting jubilant reaction from rightwing figures, tabloids and local residents. The legal finding was procedural: the owning company did not notify the council of intended use, rather than a broad prohibition on housing asylum seekers. Hotels currently accommodate about 30,000 people in roughly 200 sites while claims are processed. The Home Office's plan to phase out hotels by 2029 is disrupted, and the Bell must be emptied by 12 September. The ruling forces urgent reallocation into local authority housing and has intensified public anger toward refugees.
When the high court ruled this week that the Bell hotel in Epping could no longer be used to house asylum seekers, the triumph of anti-migrant zealots looked a little unwarranted, or at least premature. Nigel Farage hoped loudly that the ruling would provide inspiration to others across the country. Tabloids and GB News called it an all-caps VICTORY, while Epping locals popped champagne on the hotel's doorstep.
Meanwhile, the ruling itself felt impermanent and technical more than principled. The judge ruled that Somani, the company that owns the Bell, had not notified the council of its intended use; it was hardly an endorsement of the general proposition, memorably spelled out by Robert Jenrick recently, that men from backward countries who broke into Britain illegally pose an active threat to his daughters.
Within 24 hours, the Home Office's plans on migration have been put into disarray. It is obliged to house asylum seekers while their claims are being heard, and at the end of March there were 30,000 people living in about 200 hotels. The plan had been to phase out hotels by 2029, a date that made no sense unless its real aim was to kick the whole issue into the next term.
Collection
[
|
...
]