On the information I have it seems the question of migrant hotels seems simple. Not in respect of the protests but the legal aspect.
As I understand it, the case rests on change of use under original planning law for the business.
If that is the case, wouldn’t a solution be for the government which actually pays the hotel to make individual payments to each migrant on condition that they then pay there own bills at the hotel, just like any traveller, or long stayer? I am sure there are others who practically live in such hotels if they have nowhere else or prefer it and can afford it. If nothing else it would spike the guns of all the local authorities trying to jump on the bandwagon.
Alternatively, there could be Immigration Processing Centres where these folks are housed and contained until HMG can find out who they are and their backgrounds.
They’ve already committed an offence under Section 24 of the Immigration Act (1971) by landing on British soil without authorisation.
They’d be safe and the British subjects living nearby would be safe as well.
The core reason for this situation is that pre-Brexit they could be sent back across the Channel as under EU rules they should seek asylum in the first EU nation in which they arrive.
That could have continued, but the Last Lot declined to sign up for some Protocol or other on the grounds that it would mean “accepting EU rules” or some such nonsense.
The French also offered to let the UK set up a Processing Centre at Calais, but Boris declined that too.
And yes I think the Tories also didn’t put enough resources into processing claims expeditiously, preferring to spend dosh on Daily Mail reader-pleasing things like sending everyone to Rwanda.
Why Labour have not got their skates on to reinstate the pre-Brexit arrangements I have no idea.
As for building Processing Centres I assume that would cost billions and take several years to do. Hotels might need planning permission changes to be used as asylum-seeker hostels, but imagine the Nimbyist hoohah with planning objections if a Processing Centre was scheduled to be built within range of any retired Colonels from Tunbridge Wells.
The problem with hotels/hostels is that the residents aren’t contained, allowing them and the locals to come into contact, often with very unfortunate, but entirely predictable consequences.
Except it wasn’t really a problem before 2020. Before then, we were part of the Dublin Regulation. Brexit caused the UK government to also withdraw from the Dublin Regulation (they didn’t have to) so that we could ‘take back control’ of our borders. That is what has caused the problem of migrants coming over from France in boats.
Abandoning the Dublin agreement had obvious and forseeable consequences. The arrogance of Johnson believing, as he was prone to with many things, that the UK could go it alone without help just made the situation worse. There are no words in the English dictionary to really describe my utter hatred of Johnson.
But Farage………..oleaginous, I think is a perfect description of him. Ugh, makes my skin crawl.
Me too, equally for Farage. I went so far as to google his family history before he withdrew the ridiculous promise to deport British born children of illegals. Turns out it was his grandfather or 1 further back that was German. Still a good plan to send him there anyway though.
I don’t think that any of you has mentioned the planning side of the hotels though, if the migrants are not imprisoned and can come and go as they please, why not let them be ordinary paying guests with the money used that presently goes to the hotels directly? Seems to me it would avoid court actions at a stroke.
Because I imagine that some of them would not pay their bills, and also I suspect it would be an administrative nightmare to keep track of who was at which hotel, issue their money etc.
Much easier to just pay a hotel direct an amount for X number of people per month.
Perhaps continue the system set up for Ukrainians where they were housed with volunteers who got a contribution to costs? By all accounts it worked very well. In general one refugee in a family situation causes no problems at all. It’s when you squeeze together many 10s of people in a facility that offers nothing that problems arise.
Of course putting them in old forces housing wouldn’t be acceptable as the housing was already unfit for our armed forces?
If these people have been living in the jungle or other appalling conditions surely nearly anywhere with sanitation and running water should be acceptable.
After all if they are fearful of their lives in their home countries, being safe, housed and fed is what asylum is meant for.
I raised £10,000 pounds for victims of torture and gave Reiki to asylum seekers, but things have got out of hand now, largely because our government closed down many of the centres abroad where people could legally claim asylum before coming to UK.
I don’t know if such places exist, but presumably if they do and are unoccupied then they can’t be used if they are unsafe (asbestos etc) or unhygenic, or uneconomic to heat or maintain?
I think even asylum seekers would come under health and safety regulations for where they can be housed, even if bad housing was better than what they had before.
I’m sure it’s not your intention but your comments do rather sound as if you’re happy for…
…(not a term I like) to be dumped in conditions that would not be acceptable to, say, you or I.
Surely treating those fleeing persecution as equals would be a big step towards gaining their trust, which is important. The current behaviour towards asylum seekers does completely the opposite.
