Injunction over asylum seekers hotel risks further protests, UK government says

Migrants wade through the sea in an attempt to board a dinghy leaving the coast of northern France to cross the English Channel to reach Britain. (Reuters)
Short Url
Updated 29 August 2025
Follow

Injunction over asylum seekers hotel risks further protests, UK government says

LONDON: The British government argued a court ruling requiring asylum seekers to be temporarily evicted from a hotel risks sparking further chaotic protests outside the residences housing them, as it appealed against the decision on Thursday.
Last week, the High Court in London granted a temporary injunction to stop asylum seekers from being housed in the Bell Hotel in Epping, about 32 km northeast of London in the county of Essex.
The building had become a focal point of sometimes violent demonstrations by anti- and pro-immigration groups after an Ethiopian asylum seeker was charged with sexual assault offenses, and opposition lawmakers have called for more protests and legal action to have all such hotels closed down.
According to a regular tracker of voters’ concerns, immigration is now the biggest issue amid anger over record numbers of asylum seekers arriving in small boats across the Channel, including more than 28,000 this year.
On Thursday, the hotel owners and the British government sought permission to appeal against the injunction granted to the local authority on 
planning grounds.
Lawyers for the government argued that the High Court judge had failed to consider the significant national impact the ruling would have. They suggested that Epping Council, run by the opposition Conservatives, was seeking to exploit nationwide tensions over immigration for political gain.

BACKGROUND

Britain currently houses about 30,000 migrants in more than 200 hotels across the country.

“Epping’s planning concerns appear to be disproportionately targeted toward asylum accommodation, which suggests that its motivation is not solely, or even principally, the integrity of its planning regime,” the lawyers said in a written submission to the Court of Appeal.
“The granting of an interim injunction in the present case runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further protests, some of which may be disorderly, around other asylum accommodation.”
They also argued that any closure of hotels would put pressure on the system to house the thousands of asylum seekers waiting to have their cases determined. Britain currently houses about 30,000 migrants in more than 200 hotels across the country.
Earlier this week, Nigel Farage, leader of Britain’s anti-migration Reform UK party, which is leading in opinion polls, announced a plan to repeal human rights laws to allow for mass deportations of asylum seekers, which he said was needed to prevent “major civil disorder.”
Pro-migrant groups say far-right groups and opportunistic politicians are deliberately seeking to exploit and inflame tensions for their own ends.
Critics say that housing asylum seekers in hotels, often young men who are not allowed to work, puts the local community at risk, and point to recent incidents where some migrants have been accused of serious crimes, including the rape and sexual assault of young girls.
This week, an Ethiopian asylum seeker went on trial, accused of sexually assaulting a teenage girl and another woman in Epping, accusations he denied.


Trump takes unconventional approach to communicating to the public about war in Iran

Updated 57 min 58 sec ago
Follow

Trump takes unconventional approach to communicating to the public about war in Iran

  • The communications strategy opened Trump to criticism that he hadn’t done enough to explain the rationale and objectives of the war

Typical of an unconventional presidency, the Trump administration waited more than 48 hours to make any live, public communication to the American people about why it had decided to go to war with Iran.
President Donald Trump discussed why he launched the attack prior to a White House ceremony honoring military heroes on Monday but took no questions from reporters. Earlier in the day, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine briefed journalists at the Pentagon.
The two days previous, Trump delivered two pretaped statements that were released on Truth Social, the social media site owned by the president’s media company, and granted telephone interviews to more than a dozen journalists — several of which produced fragmented responses that, to some, clouded as much as they cleared up.
The communications strategy opened Trump to criticism that he hadn’t done enough to explain the rationale and objectives of the war, even as the American military suffered its first casualties. By contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has teamed with the US against Iran, delivered two statements the day the war began and addressed reporters Monday at the site of a missile attack that killed nine people. The Israeli military has held multiple press briefings each day.
“The American people need a commander in chief, and he has been absent in that role,” Rahm Emanuel, White House chief of staff under President Barack Obama, said on CNN Monday. Emanuel, a Democrat, is contemplating a run for the presidency in 2028.
An unconventional strategy leads to criticism
Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for The New York Times, wrote on social media that “after Trump launched a new war on Iran, he did not rush back to the White House to make an Oval Office address to rally the nation as other presidents have done. He stayed at Mar-a-Lago to attend a glitzy political fundraiser.”
That post provoked a response from Steven Cheung, White House communications director. “Imagine being a reporter so consumed with Trump Derangement Syndrome that he wants President Trump to mimic the failed policies of the past. The truth is that President Trump spent the majority of his time monitoring the situation in a secure facility, in constant contact with world leaders, and made multiple addresses to the nation that garnered hundreds of millions of views. He also took dozens of calls with reporters.”
The calls included one with Baker’s colleague at The Times, Zolan Kanno-Youngs. Trump’s mobile phone number is known to many of the reporters who cover him, and the president often takes their calls for on-the-spot interviews. Besides The Times, he spoke in the aftermath of the attack to journalists for ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, CNBC, Fox News Channel, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, Axios, Politico and an Israeli television station.
Most of the calls were brief and marginally illuminating; Politico’s Dasha Burns said Trump answered but said he was too busy to talk. The public couldn’t hear what Trump said in the interviews and was dependent upon what the journalists chose to report on the conversations.
“I spoke to President Trump today and he told me that the operation in Iran is going to go very fast,” Libby Alon, a reporter for Channel 14 News in Israel, wrote about her interview on X. “It’s doing very well, and (will) make the people of Israel very happy, and the people of the world very happy.”
The Times reported that in its six-minute chat, Trump “offered several seemingly contradictory visions of how power might be transferred to a new government — or even whether the existing Iranian power structure would run that government or be overthrown.”
In one of his two conversations with Trump, ABC News’ Jonathan Karl said when he asked about the death of Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the president said: “I got him before he got me. They tried twice. Well I got him first.” CNN’s Jake Tapper went on the air minutes after his conversation Monday, saying Trump told him “the big one is coming soon,” an apparent reference to a future attack.
Asked for comment, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said: “President Trump is the most transparent and accessible president in American history. The American people have never had a more direct and authentic relationship with a president of the United States than they have with President Trump.”
Hegseth briefing concentrates on friendly reporters
Pentagon reporters learned late Sunday about Hegseth’s briefing. Reporters from The Associated Press, Reuters, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel and Stars & Stripes were permitted into the briefing room, but Hegseth did not call on them. Instead, he took questions from NewsNation and Trump-friendly outlets like the Daily Caller, Daily Wire, One America News and the Christian Broadcasting Network. Most mainstream news outlets left their regular stations at the Pentagon last fall rather than agree to Hegseth’s rules restricting their work.
Hegseth denounced the “foolishness” of people wanting to know details of the operation in advance, such as whether Americans would commit to more than air power, and said the operation would continue as long as it took to achieve objections. He initially ignored NBC News’ Courtney Kube when she called out a question: “President Trump put a four-week time limit on it. Are you saying he’s wrong?”
Later, Hegseth denounced Kube for asking “the typical NBC sort of gotcha-type question. President Trump has all the latitude in the world to talk about how long it might take — four weeks, two weeks, six weeks, it could move up, it could move back. We’re going to execute at his command the objectives he set out to achieve.”
Unlike Pentagon briefings in past administrations, reporters were given assigned seats, with the Trump-friendly outlets seated in front. Jennifer Griffin, Hegseth’s former colleague at Fox News Channel who left the Pentagon with other reporters after not accepting his new rules, was seated in the last row.