To think this is why Reform will win the next election “Epping hotel asylum seeker mistakenly released”

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2d5rl36vgo

Police have launched a manhunt after a former asylum seeker who sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl was mistakenly released from prison.
Ethiopian national Hadush Kebatu, who arrived in the UK on a small boat, was jailed for 12 months over the attack in Epping, Essex, last month.

Wow - we agree on something 😀

Firstly, I don't know if they've confirmed the numbers for the Crowborough site, but it's very big and won't be anywhere near as cramped as living on a ship.
Google Earth shows loads of space between the existing buildings, so it would be easy to have more put up if necessary.

I think having people living on boats for what are likely to be long periods is unacceptable, inhumane and unhealthy. Any contagious illness spreads like wildfire on a ship and it can't be good for asylum seekers' mental health, either, especially since they may have already experienced trauma.

As for "wealthy" properties, I suspect that most of the properties on that part of the forest are protected by alarms etc, as is common for £1m-plus detached properties in rural areas, especially those as close to open countryside as these are. The current residents are unlikely to be coming home on foot late at night after working a shift at a care home.

While the way immigration in the country is handled is an issue I always hope people don't vote on a single issue and look at the range of policies and direction of travel indicated by the party. In the case of Reform Nigel Farage has indicated that he is "open to anything" when it comes to the NHS including US style private health insurance. This would be a catastrophe for the people of the UK.

I think this is excellent news. I've long argued that the problem with housing asylum seekers is that the load hasn't been spread evenly. The poorest areas with the poorest resources have been leaned on heavily; it was always going to lead to discontent. More affluent areas MUST take their fair share. This will help turn the temperature down on the whole debate.

Why not? It’s barracks and could be bunks or whatever. 900 men is a lot anywhere. You’ll get similar issues with contagious illness, boredom and no work leading to substandard behaviour.

It’s interesting that Labour can get your support for this and something as cramped was inhumane. Just shows how spin works.

It likely won’t tbf, it’ll probably up the temperature. People are not keen on hundreds of men housed nearby.

Well we'll certainly see if the liberal elite will put their money where their mouth is...

Interesting. I suspect it will up the ante by fermenting more discontent in a new demographic. Typically, the wealthier have benefitted most from immigration: it means cheap services (plumbers, cleaners, childcare, etc), a great choice of cuisine and does not impact on their ability to access shared resources, as it may in a deprived community. I suspect there will be limited tolerance for any anti-social behaviour of the type that has been reported following the use of a military base in James Cleverly’s constituency in Essex iirc.

Labour's spin seems to have also worked on themselves. They were always dead against using military camps etc.

I was being slightly tongue in cheek, as I suspect an element of nimby-ism will come into effect. I think the lib dems mp for skye has already declared the use of barracks in his constituency as being an "odd choice". Strange how it's perfectly fine and acceptable for asylum hotels in poorer areas, not so much when we're talking of affluent places. My point remains, wealthier areas DO need to carry some of the load - why on earth not?

I agree absolutely @ForestBath - I cannot think of a single justification not to do so, but I am interested in whether the so-called liberal elite will maintain their generally pro-immigration stance if the use of the base is not trouble-free. My own anecdotal experience of asylum seekers being placed close to us, in a naice area, was that the family groups and children were welcomed with open arms and many people wanted to help. Their replacement by single men - as was inevitable, given the demographics of those entering the UK - was less rosy. It created lots of local complaints about anti-social behaviour and public resentment. There is very little for young unemployed men to do, whatever their background, in a small village.

The plan was meant to be smash the gangs, Starmer was sure of it.

If that’s gone and it’s 900 or so men in barracks it’s going to bite Labour again. Apart from a few who say great no matter what they do, even if it’s the same as something they said was inhumane, the increasing majority won’t buy it.

Placing large numbers of refugees in any one area is clearly going to create local controversy amongst those that support the idea and those that are against it. It also creates controversy from those tax payers who do want to fund it and those that don't. It also doesn't help with integration having a large number of refugees in one camp.

I think a far better idea is a voluntary option like they did for Ukrainian refugees of offering up your spare room in your own home to refugees perhaps with some support from the Government.

No one can object because each individual is making their own decision to house these refugees. The dispersal and family home helps with integration. And lastly it saves the taxpayer money.

https://refugeesathome.org/

I agree. Part of the problem is that they've been taken to the already run down areas, such as run down seaside towns, run down ex-industrial towns, etc which were already suffering real problems of poverty, unemployment, crime, etc. They did the same with "bussing" newly released prisoners to seaside resorts such as Blackpool and Morecambe in the 90s to fill up the run down boarding houses that no one wanted to stay in - same resort, increases in crime and anti-social behaviour.

Starmer will be dusting off the Rwanda plan next. Perhaps they should have taken a breath and properly thought about things before scrapping the military camps and Rwanda plan within days of winning power just to appease their sixth form debating society standard of backers!

Yep. I wonder if the same posters will be selling that in for them after declaring it inhumane.

I don't know what's going to happen. I'm extremely worried about what Reform would do to abortion rights, workers' rights, disability allowances, the NHS, etc. I also worry that if Reform were elected, racists would start to see themselves as the majority and feel emboldened to harass BAME people.

But I also don't see how the UK's current approach can continue. We've already reached the stage where a fun run organised by a London mosque has brazenly banned women. Young girls are being sexually harassed by asylum seekers on their way to school. The Casey Report showed decades of institutional denial about the racial aspect of grooming gangs. After the Manchester Arena bombing, a security guard testified that he was suspicious of the bomber, but he was afraid to approach him in case he got called racist.

I'm angry that this situation has been allowed to spiral out of control and create this false dichotomy. We shouldn't be in a position where we're having to choose between two extremes. I feel as though the people in charge have abdicated their responsibilities over the last few decades.

Yes why didn’t they keep it going. At least it may have been a deterrent

If Starmer really has given up on decreasing crossings that decision will likely cost him the next GE.

I agree, but what can he do? All of the potential solutions - Rwanda, hostile environment tactics, ECHR withdrawal or reform - are antithetical to him (and to most Labour MP's). Labour was not elected because the nation's politics swung left, or because their policies were especially popular, but because people rightly felt that the Tories did not deserve to win.

Starmer seems to have no idea how to address his unpopularity, so he's dabbling in a few crowd-pleasers (like the plans discussed on this thread) whilst his MP's and cabinet colleagues seem duty-bound to hobble those efforts at every turn.

Meanwhile, there has been no improvement in the quality or integrity of government - Angela Rayner's tax affairs, Tulip Siddiqi embroiled in fraud allegations, that housing minister who section 21'ed her tenants and then hiked the rent, Haigh's resignation after pleading guilty to fraud years previously. I have no desire for a Reform government, but even I can appreciate that the two main parties have run out of road, largely because of their own incompetence and lack of integrity.

But by expressing those exact concerns you will be labelled as a racist and a Reform supporter (even if you aren't).

Looking at the most recent polls we are seeing: Reform on around 30%, Labour and Conservative on around 17%, Liberals and Greens on around 15%.

If an election were to take place on those figures then clearly Reform would win. But my takeaway from the recent Caerphilly election is that voters will vote tactically to prevent a Reform victory.

Thus leading to a Labour/ Lib Dem / Green coalition where the price from the Greens is a much further shift to the left (shared by many Labour supporters). The Liberals not having any real policies apart from "we're not the other guys and they're bad" will happily make up the numbers for a seat in power.

The ego of the Conservatives under Badinoch would prevent them taking a junior role in any coalition with Reform.

Reform might win because the asylum seekers keep murdering people.
Like the dog walker in Uxbridge stabbed to death by an Afghan National yesterday. 2 others, including a child, stabbed.

I don't think they will because such murders will be explained away as isolated and that the vast majority of migrants don't murder and that you are clearly far right and racist for pointing this out.

And lastly maybe having innocent dog walkers being stabbed to death is a price worth paying for showing "compassion " to refugees and not having Reform in power.

You see the problem you are having is that the left base their views on emotion and the right base their views on facts. Pointing out facts to a person that has already formed their opinion on emotion is never going to change their minds.

It’s not worth it for this to be the outcome for a dog walker trying to help 😓

Was he an asylum seeker? I don't think the media have said have they?