Labour sparks fury over appeal against Epping migrant hotel ruling: ‘Sick joke!’ | Politics | News
Tories said Labour’s decision to object to an immigrant hotel decision was a “sick joke”. The EPPING Forest Region Council took a temporary precautionary measures to prevent asylum seekers hosted at the Bell Hotel in the town of Essex, in the center of the protests, at the beginning of this week.
The government said that the Supreme Court would appeal to allow it to intervene in the case. If the movement succeeds, the temporary precautionary measure decision will explain the way of a wider attractiveness.
But the shadow house secretary Chris Philp said, “This decision is a sick joke to the British people.” He said.
He continued: “EPPING BELL Hotel was a victory for the local people, governed by a conservative council for the community. This is the difference of conservatives in the delivery of local government.
“In the opposition, the worker worked hand in hand with activist lawyers to sabotage conservative migration plans. Nothing has changed in the government. It is completely wrong for the workers’ government to open their Bell hotel. The government does not listen to the people or courts.
“Instead of trying to keep illegal immigrants in expensive hotels, conservatives would remove all illegal arrivals, place a real deterrence, and make towns such as EPPING never go into this position again.”
The local authority, accommodation site, was accused of trying to kiss a 14 -year -old girl who denied a asylum seeker, after being in the center of protests in recent weeks.
Secretary of Security Dan Jarvis said: “This government will close all shelter hotels and cleanse the complex we have inherited from the previous government.
“We have committed a commitment that we will close all shelter hotels until the end of this parliament, but we need to do so regularly. And that’s why we will object to this decision.”
Before the trial was delivered on Tuesday, the Ministry of Interior lawyers asked the Minister of Interior to intervene in the case by referring to the “important impact” that carried out their legal duties to asylum seekers.
They argued that the act of asylum seekers in a short time would lead to “certain acute challenges” for the government.
However, the proposal was rejected by Mr. Justice Eyre, who said that the participation of the department was “necessary”.
The decision questioned the future of immigrant hotels where more than 30,000 asylum seekers are currently hosted.
