If one believed Reform UK, GB News, the right-wing corporate media and the Tories, one would be a damned fool.
In a ruling that delivers a stinging rebuke to Epping Forest District Council, a High Court judge has thrown out the local authority’s attempt to evict asylum seekers from the Bell Hotel, simultaneously dismantling the council’s central argument that the newcomers pose a threat to the community.
The case, which saw the council pitted against the hotel owner and the Home Office, has collapsed after Mr. Justice Mould found the council’s claims to be not only “misconceived” but entirely unsupported by evidence.
A Case Built on Prejudice, Not Proof
The council’s legal battle hinged on a claim that housing asylum seekers at the hotel constituted a “material change of use.” However, the core of their argument to the public has often leaned on a more insidious narrative: that the presence of asylum seekers leads to increased crime and anti-social behaviour.
This claim was left in tatters by the judge. In his ruling, Justice Mould stated that the council had failed to provide any “evidence-based” or “statistically sound analysis” to back its assertion. He delivered a powerful dose of logic and fairness, pointing out a simple truth that the council seemed to ignore.
“The fact that persons accommodated in asylum accommodation… 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 such behaviour,” he said. He added, with stark clarity, “Persons who are members of the settled population also commit crimes and behave antisocially from time to time.”
In other words, the judge ruled that the actions of a tiny minority cannot be used to stigmatise an entire group of vulnerable people. The council’s attempt to portray asylum seekers as having a particular “propensity” for crime was exposed as a prejudiced generalisation, not a fact-based position.
A Pattern of Failure and Political Blowback
This is not the first time the council’s campaign has been found wanting. An earlier temporary injunction was also overturned by the Court of Appeal, which found the decision to be “seriously flawed in principle.” This latest defeat confirms a pattern of a local authority pursuing a legally baseless and socially divisive course of action.
Despite this, the ruling has sparked predictable political theatre. Conservative Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp called the decision a “dark day for local democracy” and a “slap in the face to the people of Epping,” falsely claiming a “Labour government” was responsible. In reality, the judgement was made by an independent judiciary reviewing the evidence—or lack thereof—presented by the Conservative-run council. Mr Philp’s comments, made while the Home Office—a government department—intervened against the council, appear deliberately misleading.
The Truth Prevails
The real story here is not one of a community under threat, but of a council that chose to peddle fear without facts. While the council claimed to speak for its residents, its arguments could not withstand the scrutiny of a court of law.
Justice Mould’s ruling reaffirms a fundamental principle of British justice: that decisions must be based on evidence, not on prejudice or political expediency. By highlighting the “continuing need” for contingency accommodation and the Home Office’s statutory duty, the judgement places the housing of asylum seekers—people fleeing persecution and conflict—within its proper, humanitarian context.
The people of Epping were not “silenced” by this ruling. They were, however, failed by a council that presented them with a fictional threat, a strategy that has now been conclusively and embarrassingly exposed in a court of law.
A Life of Luxury—Not!
And as for the garbage that asylum seekers live in 5-star hotels and luxury – it is all absolute nonsense spouted by racists, i.e., right-wing propagandists.
