In what is a blow to the local people of Epping, who are anxious over the presence of small-boat migrants at the three-star Bell Hotel, the Home Office has won its Court of Appeal case – meaning that the asylum seekers can remain at the establishment.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling overturns the High Court’s order to have the 138 male asylum seekers removed from the Bell Hotel by Friday, 12 September (4pm), with the Home Office and the hotel arguing that the removal of the men could damage the UK’s asylum accommodation system.
While the Home Office may consider its successful appeal to reverse the decision of the High Court to have male small-boat migrants relocated from the Bell Hotel a victory, it is anything but. It is responsible for both border security and public safety – and the small-boats emergency and its destabilising effects in many parts of Britain show that its performance is far from stellar on these fronts.
Under Labour prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, the number of small-boat migrants who have arrived in the UK has sailed past the milestone of 50,000 – which, according to some data sources, is the equivalent of four Epping towns.
Keir Starmer has betrayed mothers and their daughters. This decision will be felt beyond Epping - Rakib EhsanThe latest immigration statistics show that for the first half of this year, seven in ten of the nearly 20,000 small-boat migrants are males aged 18 to 39 years – many originating from parts of the world where behaviours and attitudes towards women and girls can be best described as primitive and uncivilised.
If the Home Office were as motivated over tackling the small-boats crisis as it was when it came to challenging the High Court’s ruling over the asylum seekers at The Bell Hotel, we wouldn’t be seeing such catastrophic illegal-immigration figures.
The Home Office’s handling of events regarding Epping is the perfect illustration of ‘post-national legalistic governance’.
Under this model of ruling the country, the individual rights of foreign nationals (including single unattached males who have entered the UK without official permission) trump the collective security of law-abiding British citizens (including teenage girls attending high school).
A central belief under the model of governance is that Britain has a fundamental internationalist duty, under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the 1951 Refugee Convention, to maximise global welfare – even if it risks being at the expense of national well-being and domestic standards of living.
This philosophy does not only exist among members of the British liberal political establishment, but also within the judiciary, education system, healthcare sector, and the so-called ‘progressive’ legacy media.
British parents have a responsibility to keep their children as safe as possible – but the state to which they pay their taxes has a duty to provide a wider social and cultural environment where the risks to the safety of their kids are minimised.
In terms of its management of the ongoing small-boats crisis, the UK Government – especially the Home Office – is failing miserably when it comes to prioritising social cohesion and public order in modern Britain. In particular, it has let down the mothers of Epping, who remain concerned over the welfare of their daughters.