.
ER Editor: We had reported earlier on the outcry surrounding the iconic Bell Hotel in Epping, where protests were taking place to get the migrants out. A temporary court ruling had allowed the local council of Epping to do just that by September 12. The UK Home Office, however, stepped in to make an appeal, which we published HERE. Now, a new High Court ruling has overturned the order to remove the migrants, thereby allowing the govt to continue using hotels to house them as a matter of policy. On a community level, it’s back to square one. But is it really a failure for local people? Yes and no.
Daily Sceptic has this by law professor Dr. David Grogan, which digs down more into the legal details of the case —
The Court of Appeal’s Decision to Keep Epping’s Migrant Hotel Open Has Made Civil Disorder More Likely, Not Less
This legally-oriented article makes a hugely interesting point, one which goes AGAINST the Govt —
The first reason for this is that it puts the Government squarely on the hook for its failed asylum policy and its weakness and pusillanimity in that regard. The judiciary, it seems likely, is not going to let politicians off the hook by ordering asylum hotels to close. These facilities are going to remain as visible testimonies to the utter failure of the political system to get to grips with the crisis at the borders. And this is as it should be: this is a political problem, caused by failures of politicians, and it requires political solutions. It is not a matter to be settled in courtrooms.
Indeed. And further —
If anything, with the hotels remaining open, we are now due for yet more protest, yet more anger, and yet more public resentment over this issue. In the long-run this makes a political resolution, in the form of a change of government, much more likely. But in the short-run it will make for much more disruption and protest – and, sadly, an increased possibility of genuine violence – rather than less.
A reminder that Saturday, September 13 is a huge day of protest in the UK.
********
UK Asylum Disaster Worsens With New Court Ruling
G. CALDER for THE EXPOSE
Just weeks after the High Court dealt a devastating blow to the government’s asylum seeker policy by ruling that an Epping hotel must be emptied by 12 September, the Court of Appeal has now swung the pendulum back in Whitehall’s favour.
As of 29 August, it has been ruled that ministers can in fact continue using hotels to house tens of thousands of asylum seekers, despite what previously felt like a victory for protestors against the UK asylum crisis.
From Epping to Everywhere
In our previous article, “Is This the Beginning of the End for UK Asylum Hotels?”, we explored how the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex marked a turning point for the country. Epping Forest Council won an unprecedented victory, forcing the Home Office to empty an asylum seeker hotel on the grounds that proper planning permission had not been granted to repurpose the venue for such a use. The ruling was celebrated locally and nationwide as proof that communities had the power to push back against a system imposed upon them.
However, the government’s new appeal has reversed that trajectory. On Friday 29 August, judges granted the Home Office permission to continue using hotels, including the Bell Hotel in Essex, to house asylum seekers. Lord Justice Bean said the original High Court ruling failed to consider the challenge of relocating the migrants, adding “the judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system”
By doing so, the planning-law route that campaigners had hoped would spark wider challenges has been closed off. Downing Street may be relieved, but for local councils, it’s despair. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said it “puts the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of the British people”.
Victory in the Courtroom, Defeat on the Streets
The government continues to insist that hotels remain a “temporary necessity” in the asylum system, with migrants’ claims taking months to process and having no alternative sites ready for the next few years. For communities though, it seems to have landed like a hammer blow.
In North Yorkshire and the Midlands, demonstrations have intensified. “Homes for Brits First” and “We Weren’t Asked” appear on placards, summing up the general attitude of local citizens. Residents continue to voice concerns about unaffordable housing, stretched GP surgeries, and lack of consultation in decisions that change their communities. To most, the case is not about legal technicalities, but rather about being excluded from key decisions that reshape their towns, and their lives, overnight.
One protestor told Sky News: “It’s not fair. We can’t afford housing for our own people. We can’t get GP appointments. Yet the government pays millions to put them up in hotels”.
The Bill Everyone Pays, But Nobody Agreed To
The financial cost is one of the key issues. At the most recent count, over 32,000 asylum seekers were living in UK hotels, costing £5.75 million every single day, totalling more than £2 billion annually. Considering that this is being paid while libraries, bus services and social care budgets are being slashed, the sense of injustice in nationwide communities is palpable. Taxpayers are paying more, receiving less, and not getting a say in their local economies being flipped upside down.
Party Reactions to Fallout
- Labour ministers insist hotels will be phased out completely by 2029, but critics say the deadline is too far away. Yvette Cooper, Home Secretary, faces intensifying pressure as Channel crossings soar
- Conservative leaders like Kemi Badenoch have seized on the anger, previously calling the original Epping ruling a “victory for mums and dads”, and painting Labour’s appeal win as proof that the government has abandoned ordinary families
- Reform UK continue to gain ground, framing themselves as the only party serious about ending crossings and closing hotels
Nobody Wins
Asylum seekers remain trapped in limbo. They can’t work, they’re caught in the crossfire, and they wait months for their application decision. Communities feel ignored and imposed upon. Taxpayers foot the entire bill. And the government, whoever is in power, continues to insist that the hotel model is only temporary.
But, after years of this “temporary” measure, there is still no end in sight – especially thanks to the Court of Appeal’s 29 August decision.
Legal Win, Political Timebomb
The Epping ruling to empty the hotel by 12 September was supposed to be a watershed moment, allowing communities a chance to claw back control and force a rethink of the system. Friday’s appeal has now flipped the narrative. Legally speaking, the government can carry on as they were, unaffected by the planning-law solution that was put on the table. Politically though, the backlash continues to intensify.
Billions are drained from the public purse, angry protests grow outside hotels around the country, and the UK is no closer to solving its asylum crisis. The Court of Appeal has now set the stage for a prolonged stand-off between Westminster and the people on the ground.
The asylum hotel saga is far from over. In fact, with this latest ruling, it may just be starting all over again.
Final Thought
The courts may have made their decision, but the UK is no closer to a proper answer. How long can a “temporary fix” last before it becomes the system itself? The cost feels unsustainable for residents, the limbo is endless for asylum seekers, and the government continues kicking the can down the road. With every new ruling, the UK is simply deferring an inevitable reckoning – one that it can’t avoid forever.
Join the Conversation
Should communities have a say over these decisions, or is this a national problem requiring national solutions? Was the Court of Appeal right to allow hotels to continue? If hotels are off the table, then where do the 32,000+ asylum seekers go? Share your view on what the UK asylum policy should look like.
Source
Featured image source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/29/court-of-appeal-revokes-ban-on-epping-hotel-bell-housing-asylum-seekers
********
Published to UK Reloaded from Europe Reloaded
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply