.
ER Editor: More theatre to wake up the normies, more frustration to show the ‘elite’ Justice system, as well as the Government, thoroughly out of touch with local people. It really doesn’t get more obvious than this. And we believe pretty much every part of this Epping migrant story should be categorized as ‘what we are being told’.
********
Asylum Seekers Can Continue Being Housed in Bell Hotel, Judge Rules – As He Denies High Crime Rate Among Asylum Seekers
WILL JONES for DAILY SCEPTIC
Ethiopian Hadush Kebatu, 41, was found guilty and jailed for multiple counts of sexual assault before being mistakenly released, re-arrested and finally deported.
Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) took legal action against the hotel’s owner, Somani Hotels, claiming that housing asylum seekers there breaches planning rules.
Its lawyers said the housing of asylum seekers is a “material change of use” and has caused “increasingly regular protests”.
The Home Office intervened in the legal case, telling the court the council’s bid was “misconceived”.
Mr Justice Mould dismissed the claim today and said in a judgment that it is “not a case in which it is just and convenient for this court to grant an injunction”.
The Conservatives said a court ruling that asylum seekers can continue to be housed in the Bell Hotel in Essex was a “slap in the face to the people of Epping”.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: “This is a dark day for local democracy and a slap in the face to the people of Epping.
“A Labour Government has once again put the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of British citizens.
“The people of Epping have been silenced in their own town. Their council fought for them, their voices were ignored.”
Referring to the Home Office’s intervention in the case, he said: “Labour’s lawyers fought tooth and nail to keep this hotel open.”
EFDC was granted a temporary injunction earlier this year following protests outside the hotel, which would have stopped 138 asylum seekers being housed there beyond September 12th.
But this was overturned by the Court of Appeal in August, which found the decision to be “seriously flawed in principle”.
EFDC then sought a permanent injunction through a three-day hearing last month.
Mr Justice Mould said: “I give due respect to the claimant’s judgement that the current use of the Bell as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers constitutes a material change in the use of those premises, which requires planning permission.
“Nevertheless, I have not been persuaded that an injunction is a commensurate response to that postulated breach of planning control.
“The breach is far from being flagrant. Conventional methods of enforcement have not been taken.
“Taking a broad view, the degree of planning and environmental harm resulting from the current use of the Bell is limited.
“The continuing need for hotels as an important element of the supply of contingency accommodation to house asylum seekers in order to enable the Home Secretary to discharge her statutory responsibilities is a significant counterbalancing factor.”
The judge said the council’s desire to “find a swift resolution” to public disorder and community tensions after protests began in July was “understandable” but “it did not follow” that an injunction was appropriate.
He continued: “Public opposition to the development of land, even if that opposition manifests itself in street protests, is not in itself evidence of planning of environmental harm generated by the development to which there is such strong objection. (ER: Cue, bigger protests?)
“The police have a panoply of powers to manage and regulate street protests and to enforce public order.”
Mr Justice Mould said Epping Forest District Council had not called evidence to support an argument over the propensity of asylum seekers to commit crimes or take part in anti-social behaviour.
He continued: “In my judgement, in order to begin to consider whether there is any force or substance in that contention, I should need to see an evidence-based and clear and statistically sound analysis of the relative incidence of criminal and anti-social behaviour amongst asylum seekers, as a defined cohort of persons, in comparison to a properly defined cohort of the settled population.
“There is no such evidence before the court.
“The fact that persons accommodated in asylum accommodation pursuant to sections 95 and 98 of the 1999 Act from time to time commit criminal offences or behave antisocially provides no reliable basis for asserting any particular propensity of asylum seekers to engage in criminal or anti-social behaviour.
“Persons who are members of the settled population also commit crimes and behave antisocially from time to time.”
Worth reading in full.
Source
Featured image source: https://www.lepetitjuriste.fr/judging-in-the-united-kingdom-a-mans-job/
************
••••
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.
Leave a Reply