Orla Minihane, vice-chairwoman of Epping Forest Reform UK has said the people of Epping have been left "furious" at the Home office for putting migrants before local taxpayers.
"I'm absolutely furious I can't tell you," Ms Minihane - who is also a Reform UK election candidate - said following a protest outside the Bell Hotel.
"The people of Epping are absolutely beside themselves."
She said that 135,000 taxpaying residents in Epping Forest were being told their interests matter less than those of 138 asylum seekers housed at the hotel.
She said that 135,000 taxpaying residents in Epping Forest were being told their interests matter less
|GB NEWS
Speaking to GB News: “I’m absolutely furious I can’t tell you. Last night we went to the hotel, we had a protest outside.
"The people of Epping are absolutely beside themselves.
“There are 135,000 taxpaying citizens in Epping Forest, yet the Home Office seems to think that 138 illegal migrants trump the rights of those thousands of taxpaying people.
"I’ve never heard anything so ludicrous.
“And it’s not just about Epping. Is that what the Home Office thinks about every single taxpaying person in the UK?
"Is that what they think of us that we come second to the thousands of illegal migrants who have broken into this country and are being housed at our expense?
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
- Ed Davey demands APOLOGY from Nigel Farage as he blames 'Brexit' for migrant crisis: 'They caused this problem!
- 'No one is listening!' Stephen Dixon fumes in heated migration row with GB News guest
- Yvette Cooper argues rights of asylum seekers are more 'in the public interest' than rights of Epping community
“We’re supposed to just suck it up and say, ‘Okay, that’s fine their rights come before ours’? It’s outrageous.”
Government lawyers have asserted in Court of Appeal proceedings that asylum seekers' "fundamental human rights outweigh Epping council's planning enforcement interests."
The Home Office legal team maintained that the two public interests at stake are "not equal" and possess "fundamentally different" characteristics.
Court documents revealed the Government's position: "Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area," while the Home Secretary represents nationwide interests and parliamentary obligations.
Court documents revealed the government's position
| GETTYThe submission acknowledged Epping's planning enforcement concerns as legitimate but emphasised: "However, the [Home Secretary's] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights."
Edward Brown KC told judges that providing accommodation for asylum seekers served the "national interest."
Home Office representatives acknowledged their eleventh-hour intervention in the case was "unsatisfactory," having contacted the court just before the original ruling was due.
The Government maintains that Mr Justice Eyre erred in granting the injunction on August 19 without allowing Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to participate in proceedings.