The actual judgment is here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Epping-Forest-DC-v-Somani-Hotels-Final-Judgment-2.pdf
So all it takes is a little rightwing shit-stirring and the courts surrender.
But a few hundred thousand people protesting a genocide are completely ignored.
Not really. This is why I linked the judgement. The judge writes in detail are what aspects of, and to what extent, lawful protest and unlawful actions can be relevant to such a decision, and he says it is of low weight.
The factors to which he ascribes a high weight are that:
- upholding planning regulation is important
- the hotel deliberately took the risk that they might be breaking planning regulations
- he thought the council’s argument that it was a breach of planning rules was strong (although this is a judgement for interim relief, not the final judgement).
Having read it, it still sounds insane. The risk if interim relief were not granted but the changes at the hotel turn out to require planning permission with respect to those three factors are that the breach goes on for a bit longer. The risk if it were granted but the changes turn out to be lawful is that over a hundred people are turfed out, the government has to find a yet-more expensive way of accommodating them, something which may be impossible if the relevant factors of this case become precedent in others.
That’s really informative, thanks. I agree with your assessment.
Why can’t we just set up a tent camp on a Scottish island? We aren’t obligated to give them much. The Bibby Stockholm was also a good idea.
Why the needless cruelty? Surely Britain should treat potential refugees better.
Tom Nicholas has a video on the Bibby Stockholm that I’d recommend.
Why the needless cruelty?
To discourage the funding of people traffickers, putting them on small boats and sending them across from France.
Surely Britain should treat potential refugees better.
Depends what they’re fleeing from. Afghanistan? Nigeria? Iran? Sure.
France? Albania (unless someone is at risk due to apostasy or homosexuality/trans identity, etc) No.
A large portion of these people are just economic migrants - and ones who don’t respect our laws at that, considering they’re trying to weasel their way into our compassion as “refugees”. They see our compassion as something to be taken advantage of. They see how good it is that we give them hotels, excursions and spending money. That we have useful idiot “human rights lawyers” advocating to continue doing this. That’s why they come over in droves, to take advantage of us.
There are a portion of people who come over from unsafe countries and valid visas, or find themselves here when they would be endangered back at home, and claim asylum out of desperation. I don’t even oppose giving people like these hotels and free classes.
There are also of course people who want to migrate within the legal framework and the laws. I fully respect these people and they should be treated with dignity like anyone else on this land.
But anybody who comes across in a rubber dinghy or over the Irish border has already shown full and complete disregard for our country and can sit and think about it on a “prison vessel” until they decide to return home voluntarily, or actually somehow do get approved. I don’t even want to label these people as “immigrants” or “refugees”. It tarnishes and stigmatises the name of actual legitimate immigrants and refugees. Now “asylum seeker” and even “immigrant” can be stigmatised to just mean these people.
Depends what they’re fleeing from. Afghanistan? Nigeria? Iran? Sure.
How are they supposed to get into the country? Unless you have some kind of programme, like what Ukrainians or Hongkongers have, then there’s no way for these people, who are very poor, to enter the country legally. So, unless you share the left wing position of opening safe routes to these people, this is effectively a position of denying any refugees from these countries.
A large portion of these people are just economic migrants
People in hotels can’t work, they can only start to work if their asylum application is accepted. People who have their applications rejected don’t gain the right to work and are given notice to leave the country voluntarily, lest they be deported to their country of origin by the Home Office.
They see how good it is that we give them hotels, excursions and spending money
There’s even a section in the video addressing this point, but just to reiterate, the conditions for people in these hotels are abysmal. That’s not to mention when Blackshirt cosplayers arrive outside the hotel to try to burn it down.
That we have useful idiot “human rights lawyers” advocating to continue doing this
Talk about glass houses, parroting the most blatant of right-wing propaganda designed to distract you from real issues and instead focus on a couple 10s of thousands of people crossing the Channel. Also, putting human rights lawyers in scare quotes is a very bad look.
But anybody who comes across in a rubber dinghy or over the Irish border has already shown full and complete disregard for our country and can sit and think about it on a “prison vessel” until they decide to return home voluntarily, or actually somehow do get approved.
Most have their claims accepted, either initially by the Home Office or by a court overruling the Home Office’s rejection. This is an incredibly callous thing to say and makes me question your sense of morality.
How are they supposed to get into the country?
Through programmes, or if it’s a case where, let’s say they came over as a student or another legal immigrant, etc.
People in hotels can’t work, they can only start to work if their asylum application is accepted.
Their intention is that it will be usually.
There’s even a section in the video addressing this point, but just to reiterate, the conditions for people in these hotels are abysmal.
Should think about that before boarding a rubber dinghy.
Most have their claims accepted
It shouldn’t be if they’re coming from a safe country.
This is an incredibly callous thing to say and makes me question your sense of morality.
My logic is simple: if someone is coming to the UK from a safe country, then they aren’t a refugee.
