Adil Ray faces calls to be 'SACKED' as 'car crash' Chris Philp ITV GMB row explodes over migrant hotels: 'Totally BIASED!'

The ruling came following legal action by the local council, resulting in Mr Justice Eyre granting Epping Forest District Council a temporary injunction against the Bell Hotel, requiring all residents to vacate by September 12.

The decision comes after weeks of protests and demonstrations outside the Essex hotel, prompting the council to argue that Somani Hotels Limited, which owns the property, had breached planning regulations by using the premises for asylum accommodation rather than its intended purpose as a conventional hotel.

**ARE YOU READING THIS ON OUR APP? DOWNLOAD NOW FOR THE BEST GB NEWS EXPERIENCE**

The government's attempt to intervene in the proceedings was rejected by the judge earlier on Tuesday, and Somani Hotels has announced its intention to appeal the decision.

Mr Ray and Mr Philp debated what the Labour government should do next, with Philp making the claim that the previous Conservative government's Rwanda plan could've helped.

Mr Ray was in disagreement. "You talk about Rwanda. That cost this country £700million. And I don’t even know whether we got any of it back," he fumed. "I’m told Rwanda’s refused to give any of that back. That is a ridiculous amount of money."

The ITV star went on: "Only three went to Rwanda, and they went voluntarily, and the High Court ruled it wasn’t a safe country. Your plans didn’t work. Let me put it to you now. If they’re not in hotels, what would you do now?"

READ MORE LIKE THIS:

• Kate Garraway sparks fiery debate after 'car crash' ITV GMB clash with Labour MP in asylum hotel row: 'DESTROYING him!'
• BBC Newsnight 'bias' fury as guest fumes Epping hotel ruling a 'FAILURE' in 'unchallenged' rant: 'BBC needs to be held to account!'
• ITV GMB fans outraged as guest pleads 'get a new flag' after slamming 'white supremacist' St George's cross: 'Obviously HATES our country!'

Philp replied: "Well, let’s take each of your points in turn. So on Rwanda, the scheme never actually started. The first flight was due to take off just about three or four weeks after the general election.

"There were court challenges, as you say, both in Strasbourg and in the Supreme Court, actually, here in the UK. And we had to pass a law through parliament to basically deal with those legal challenges.

"That’s why the start was delayed. But the scheme never actually started because Labour then cancelled it just after the election. Now, I think it would have worked because a similar scheme worked in Australia. And I’ve already explained how, if you’re an illegal immigrant in France, and you know if you cross the Channel, you’re going to wind up in Rwanda, you’re almost certainly not going to bother attempting the crossing. That’s why it worked in Australia."

Focussing on the cost, Philp was able to add: "Now, on the cost point, yes, it did cost several hundred million pounds to get it set up and to then run it. But if you measure that against the money that Labour is now spending on the asylum system, on hotels and flats, and goodness knows what else, that is costing several billion pounds per year.

"So while, yes, you’re right, £700million is a lot of money, if by spending that you stop the crossings and thereby save billions and billions of pounds a year, that is obviously worth doing."

Mr Ray hit back: "But you’re forgetting that the High Court and the Supreme Court, they said it was an unsafe country. Are we really going to say, well, asylum seekers - and a lot of them are genuine, we know, and we’ve got to start telling these facts, that 70 to 80 percent of them are genuine asylum seekers leaving war-torn countries...

"Are we seriously saying as a country of Britain, our British values are that we would send them to a country that is unsafe, where we know they shot down refugees in the streets in that country who were begging for food. So we would say, as Britain, we’ll send you there?"

Mr Philp answered: "Well, a few points to answer. So first of all, the people crossing by small boat obviously are not departing from a war zone; they’re leaving France. Now, they’ve got very often traveled through not just France -"

Mr Ray promptly interrupted: "We don’t have enough time, but you know they have every right to come here!"

As Mr Philp tried to protest and insist he be allowed to finish, Mr Ray ploughed on: "They don’t have to stop at the first country. We know that is not true. They have every right to be here. We have a long history of refugees coming to this country. We would never have any coming here if we said stop at your first country. Everyone’s got a neighbouring country. We would never have any refugees here."

"These are mostly young men who could easily claim asylum in France," Mr Philp eventually fired back, but Mr Ray was undeterred: "Of course, they can speak English. Some of them work with our Afghanistan military, Mr. Philp. And they were left there. We’ve seen that with the MI6 situation, that their lives have been further exposed. So we have a duty to look after these people."

Attempting to find common ground, Mr Philp replied: "Yeah, we do. And we have brought over directly 25,000, I think even more than that, Afghans who worked with British forces. We have discharged that moral obligation. We’ve welcomed 200 thousand and something Ukrainians, a couple of hundred thousand people from Hong Kong -"

Mr Ray interjected again: "But we put on a separate scheme for Ukrainians! I’m glad you mentioned the Ukrainians. We’ve put on a specific system and scheme. They could go to the next country next to them, Poland, and get a visa and come here. We’re not offering the same to Afghanistan or Syria, or Iraq."

"Well, actually, let me correct you," Mr Philp defiantly said. "Actually, we did offer a scheme like that to people in Syria during the civil war -"

But his answer was cut short as Mr Ray cut back in: "Nowhere near as big as 200,000. And we didn’t ask the people of Britain to budge up and open up a spare room for them and pay them to do it, did we?"

Mr Philp responded, although Mr Ray continued to speak over him. The Tory MP said: "So where there are genuine crises, including Syria, you were wrong a minute ago to say we didn’t welcome Syrians, we set up bespoke routes.

outrageous behaviour from @adilray this morning. Shouting out the guest saying we hardly have time then kept interrupting him and wouldn't let him speak. @GMB this behaviour isn't on and you need to sack this man and do better!!!!

— Mr_Honda (@PaulHondaa) August 21, 2025

"You’ve also got routes like refugee family reunion. We should be able, the British Parliament and the elected government, should be able to decide who we would like to prioritise. And we chose to prioritise people involved in the Syrian Civil War."

The discussion continued in a similar vein as they moved on, but for hundreds of viewers at home, the manner of the interview left plenty to be desired.

Social media was soon awash with complaints from viewers who were furious with how Mr Ray conducted the discussion, with many branding him "rude", "biased", and even calling for his "sacking".

"Outrageous behaviour from @adilray this morning," one X user fumed. "Shouting over the guest, said we hardly have time, then kept interrupting him and wouldn't let him speak. @GMB this behaviour isn't on, and you need to sack this man and do better!!!!"

A second echoed: "That was so uncomfortable to watch. It was the Adil show! What is the point? We all know his view, at least. Totally biased. MP had no chance of giving his answers."

Elsewhere, another ranted: "@adilray did not ask @CPhilpOfficial anything, he continually shouted over him, making points irrelevant to the interview, not letting Chris speak. Chris would have been within his rights to just end the interview.

"I have never seen a more blatant attempt at political point scoring and lack of respect shown for a guest than was demonstrated by Ray today. He is meant to be an independent interviewer; instead, he sounded like a Guantanamo Bay interrogator!"

A fourth added: "Absolutely awful interview. Adil needs to go. It was awful to watch, and no point in the shadow Home Secretary coming on TV. This was the Adil Ray show, not Good Morning Britain."

And a fifth concurred: "Adil has obviously not been impacted by immigration! This interview was outrageous! Adil was biased, not impartial and does not speak for the majority of the UK, which is changing at such a vast rate due to ‘uncontrolled’ mass immigration!"

Meanwhile, other critics levelled their complaints at both men. "Adil Ray and Philp together. Another car crash of an interview. No wonder GMB figures are nosediving!!" a sixth argued.

Mr Ray did receive some support, however. "Rwanda is NOT a safe country. I note again a lot of hot air from CPhilp. No real answers," one viewer argued.

While a second, despite the aforementioned furore, felt Mr Ray didn't push hard enough. "So did we actually get an answer on the alternative to hotels? Come on Adil you've completely allowed him to derail the interview and not actually answer the question," they hit out. (sic)