‘All Bell Hotel Migrants Are CRIMINALS’ | Asylum Seekers THANK Starmer For Overturned Injunction

The Court of Appeal has overturned an injunction blocking asylum seekers from staying at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex.

Lord Justice Bean said the High Court ruling had errors, noting it ignored the impact on accommodation capacity. Asylum seekers can now remain at the hotel beyond 12 September, though a full trial is set for October.

The Home Office is now allowed to join the case. Reactions were split, with Kemi Badenoch calling it a “setback” and Nigel Farage blaming the ECHR.

Ministers say the aim is to close asylum hotels in an “orderly way.”

Have you got a story? Email tips@talk.tv

Click here for more from Talk https://talk.tv

If you need any help visit: https://talk.tv/helplines

Subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/talktv?sub_confirmation=1

#news #politics #uk #immigration

of the best political commentating voices in the country. He is also the host of the Fire at Will podcast. He is Mr. Will Kingston. Good morning, sir. Oh, good morning, mate. There were shades of Robin Williams in that introduction. The Good Morning Vietnam. I loved it. I’m into it. I’m excited. Well, fantastic. I know you’ve had your shots of espresso this morning to keep get you going. Thank you for joining us in the early hours of the morning to share your views. Nowhere I’d rather be. I’ve had a few shots of coffee. Now I’m I’m heavily caffeinated, ready to go. Well, here we go. Well, let’s get into our first story, which is, you guessed it, more about the eing protest. Now, what amazes me here is a leading story in the Telegraph quoting, ladies and gentlemen, one of the illegal migrants in the hotel in Eping. And this is his quote. I want to thank you. I want to thank say thank you to Sakir Stalmer and his government. I am delighted with the news. Wow, this is really amazing. That’s Khadam Muhammad, a resident of the Bell Hotel. Quoted on the Telegraph, it was also mirrored in Yahoo News as well. He also wanted to say that they’re not criminals despite the fact that there’s one person uh currently charged with three accounts of sex accounts that they deny. He also says, and we must feel sorry for this individual, the noise and protests are bad. We can’t leave the hotel and have been told don’t speak to protesters. Well, Will, guess what? The people are angry and mad because a hotel that help is meant to help fuel the tra local trade industry through hospitality, retail, leisure is taken out of surface stuff with 138 individual young men and then some of whom have gone on to commit crimes that are currently being investigated and in fact even charged. I mean well I see that he’s think on the right side of history here. Yeah. Well make no mistake they are all criminals. They have entered the country illegally. That makes them criminals. If they wanted to seek asylum in France, they could have done so. If they wanted to seek asylum in any number of the safe countries between Somalia and France, they couldn’t could have done so. They didn’t. As a result of that, that means that they are shopping around to determine, well, which, you know, benefits package is better. Is it the, you know, silly French government’s incredibly attractive benefits package or if it’s the silly UK government’s incredibly attractive benefits package? This is shopping around as an economic migrant. It doesn’t make you It makes you a criminal in my eyes. Well, absolutely. Like you say, I’m so bored of hearing people saying, “Well, they’re not illegal migrants. They’re asylum seekers. They’ve not broken the law.” Well, yes. Entering a country throughout without a visa and throughout a point check is an illegal act. If I was to try and do that into America, I would rightfully be detained. If I was to do that in to Brazil, Argentina, other countries in uh around even mainland Europe, guess what? People would say, “No, no, no. There is a point of entry which you need to go through.” And that’s how in some cases you can claim asylum if you’re legitimate. But as you say, these are predominantly men coming by a small boat choosing to pay smuggling gangs. No one’s forcing them choosing to pay thousands of smuggling gangs to get to the UK, enjoy their phone, enjoy their accommodation, enjoy their three meals today. But you know what? We saw Ryland Clark getting pillared for speaking truth on this morning, ZV’s flagship program. And in fact, the mirror, you won’t be shocked, Will, has decided to fact check Ryland Clark and say that he was horribly wrong with all the things he said and what a nasty man he is. Yeah. And we’ll get to Ryan Clark in a moment, but there’s just another thought that I have on this Somalian bloke, and that is the fact that he is listening to Karma, that he’s on top of the political movements in the United Kingdom, I think, is is fascinating. And it goes to show that the messages that you send as a government of this country have a direct impact on the actions of smugglers and on the actions of the people who are trying to enter. And this is the key thing. There has not been clear and unambiguous messaging to people smugglers and more importantly to these illegal migrants to say if you come to this country illegally, you won’t be allowed to say. I know that Kiss Dama now belatedly on social media is starting to talk tough. Uh but they don’t believe him. They don’t believe him. they know that he’s a soft touch. Uh, and I think the Australian experience who actually did get on, they did get on top of this problem, the first thing you’ve got to understand is that the messaging that you put out, the symbols that you send to these people is so incredibly critical in the outcomes that you’ll get. And unfortunately, for too long, the UK hasn’t understood that. I find it really funny when I see the tweets from Karma where they’ve taken a few photos clearly at some detention center like probably a year ago saying, “You come to this country illegally, you will be uh got rid of.” And the ratios on those tweets are quite extraordinary. The British people are simply not buying what he’s selling. Especially when this is the same man who gives his big reset, I don’t know which one we’re on now. I’m in reset 50 maybe, but big reset speech to take on Nigel Farage on immigration. Says that we’re an island of strangers. He finally says something the public actually agree with him on and then months later goes, “Oh, I regret using those words.” And by the way, I didn’t even read the speech that I gave that big day. And then it was when see then once the U-turn got backlash went no no no no no no wait a second the sentiment was what I felt. I just didn’t mean the exact island strangers. So you U-turn on the U-turn to only end up and we’re back where we are which is you’re the biggest fence sitter wobbler about and the splinters in his bottom must be extraordinary. Yeah. Well put the the tragedy for the United Kingdom is this is a man who is just so illquipped for the moment. There was 14 years of Tory government. Obviously, we we’ve talked about the challenges that government faced and and the failures of that government, but the fact of the matter is in effectively a two-party system, you know, one party gets to go for a period, then another party gets to go. So, Labour were going to go in regardless of how good or bad the Tories were. But the shame is that at this particular moment in UK history, you needed someone who is willing to actually cut taxes to go for growth, not just say they’re going to go for growth. You needed someone who is tough on immigration. You needed someone who is, you know, not this sort of bureaucrat administrative nothing but who actually had conviction. You needed a Thatcher type of person, but instead we’ve got the person who is just so fundamentally out of touch with the mood of politics pretty much across the Western world now in 2025. Well, do you not think, will that remember their landmark landmark deal with France, one in one out as it build, although we know that’s one out 17 in. And by the way, just for listeners, you do the math. That’s a 94% chance of staying in the United Kingdom if you come via small boat. To the point where I think one uh paper reported that someone had come over via small boat recently, saying they had applied to the uh oneinone out scheme, hadn’t heard back, so thought, well, I’ll just chuck my money into a smuggler and come across instead. And lo and behold, they’re now safely in UK shores, probably in some fancy fourstar hotel. Yeah, that’s right. Well, this is the thing. All of the measures that they are talking about when it comes to illegal immigration are tinkering around the edges. One in, one out. You know, we’ll pay France to to try and stop some migrants coming over. We’ll move people from hotels to HMOs. This is all tinkering. And if you tinkering, you’re not going to change anything. Everyone knows that the way that you solve this problem is detain then deport. Uh and then saying to anyone who is around the world, if you come to this country illegally, you will never stay. But because this is not in the DNA of the Labour Party, because their base are so fundamentally opposed to the concept of borders, because they hate the idea of the country full stop, uh they’re never going to do the tough work that is required to actually solve the problem. And the people know that. And isn’t it amazing with Labor? We’ve seen Graeme Stringer, Labour MP, come out saying we should just leave the ECHR. He was a Brexiter. I think Graeme Stringer is old Labor. What I mean is the Labour party that knows actually how to win elections because it’s socially small C conservative. Yes. economically more center left, leftwing, but ultimately I think is the type of thing that can charm the British public. Then you’ve got Stevie M, another Labour MP in Manfield saying we need a Rwanda style deal. The irony of that wasn’t lost on me. Then Lord Blunkett and Jack Straw, both again former Labour home secretaries and justice secretaries very much. I think Lord Blunket sometimes is more conservative than some conservative home secretaries coming out and saying at the very least we should suspend elements of the ECR for a period of time as Germany have done for example to allow us to tackle the migration crisis. And we know straight away what does Karma do? come out and say, “We are defenders of the ECR, despite the fact that France ignores it, Spain ignores it, Italy ignores it, Germany ignores it well many more times than we do because they understand that if they want to even have a political chance of surviving, they’ve got to put their people first.” But this is interesting, right? Because, you know, this Labor government doesn’t seem to have any conviction, any guiding ideology, any principle, and Star is the embodiment of that. But to the extent that he does have something that binds his worldview together, it is international human rights law. It is globalism. That’s what he spent his career doing. That is the only thing I can see that really he is passionate about. And here’s the problem. That is the one thing that is stopping us from solving this problem. That’s the one thing which is holding the United Kingdom back. this bizarre international law framework that most countries don’t give a toss about because they know that ultimately the whole world doesn’t work that way. International human rights law is basically the geopolitical equivalent of socialism. It’s the idea that everyone should do their bit and we know that socialism doesn’t work economically and it certainly doesn’t work geopolitically. Well, absolutely. And then we go to the fact that we’ve had obviously this uh complaint now put in about Lord Justice David Bean the allegation against him and the complaint’s gone to the judicial conduct investigations office alleging apparent bias. Steven Barrett Casey who says Bean should not have sat on the appeal points out the fact that Lord Justice Bean is the ex-chair of the Fabian Society former treasurer and office holder of the society of labor lawyers. God, he sounds like a right laugh. And his role, he also had a leading role in founding Matrix Chambers, which uh Steven Barrett Casey says uh characterizes and is associated with pro- migrant advocacy. Now, again, just for listeners and viewers sake, there’s no alleged wrongdoing at this moment in time as simply an investigation will now be undertaken following a complaint that has been made. But of course, there’s very serious questions here about the neutrality of our judiciary. Again, the UK has a proud tradition of trusting the the judiciary. But time and again, particularly in migration cases, we’re seeing lawyer after lawyer who’s now a judge coming up and having made decisions that simply don’t add up. Last week, I had someone a reporter from the Sun in here saying how one judge who had been pro uh a part of a a legal system that said helped asylum seekers be able to stay in this country went on to say that we should not deport a Jamaican convicted rapist after serving a sentence because he could face persecution at home. Well, not our problem. Certainly not the victim’s problem. That’s a him problem. And then we’ve now got here Lord Justice Bean, Labour Party member, Labour Party activist. In fact, former Labour parliamentary candidate, it just reeks. Why do you think that in the United States the battle for Supreme Court nominations is the most important thing that happens in their political cycle? Of course, uh lawyers and of course judges are going to have biases. That’s, you know, human nature, unfortunately. But here’s the thing. The problem is twofold for the UK. Number one, it is obvious that there is a particular left international liberal elite bias amongst now the majority of the judiciary. So there isn’t that balance that you would find. But number two, the legal framework that Blair created and the conservatives then ran with unfortunately has put more and more power into the hands of those judges. So you know in the US you have elected judges. So there is some accountability because their judiciary is more political. The UK wasn’t meant to be like that. UK’s meant to put power overwhelmingly in the hands of elected politicians, but this blare move to now make judges the arbiters of so many of these issues means that you now have these liberal lefty uh well I was going to say politicians and to some extent they act like politicians with the difference being they are not accountable to the people. Is a classic example. No, exactly. And this is the problem, isn’t it? that we want to see the uh the judiciary neutrality because therefore it’s important the judiciary has a role in making sure that the executive, the prime minister, the government are held accountable in the interests of the people. The problem is so many decisions appear to be made against the interests of the people. And this is the thing if you stop and think about it, this is why these things like the human rights act and the ECR are so dangerous because you can interpret them any way you want. If you look at the way to your point that the ECHR has been interpreted, I’m trying to recall some of those provisions. You know, the right the right to uh uh economic well-being I think is one. You know, you can interpret these things in any which way you want. You know, I remember the one my favorite, you know, you know, morbid way was that parent who said that his kid didn’t like Bulgarian chicken nuggets. And, you know, that was, you know, that was apparently a good enough excuse. So of course you know this is open to interpretation and that’s why you’ve got to take that interpretation avenue away from these judges but do you not feel convinced will we’ve heard over the summer that I vet Cooper whilst busy interailing and of course that politicians are entire to a holiday I just like to poke fun at interailing sounds like a gap year with Ed Balls but Iet Cooper apparently is busy looking at article 8 in particular of the ECR and Labour’s going to come back with some plan to take it because because that’s going to solve it isn’t it will they’re going to be really tough on is article 8. Are you convinced that they’re going to go far enough to be able to carry on the mass deportations that Karma is claiming credit for despite the fact I think out of the 35,000 I think the biggest chunk have been people who have voluntarily gone back and they’ve chosen to inform the home office that they’ve chosen to take themselves back. I think around 8,000 have actually been enforced. Many of whom are, I think, are returns agreements that have already been put in place by other governments. Yeah, I have my doubts, Jonathan. I have my doubts. And again, I go back to what I said earlier, tinkering around the edges. Uh the thing which I find incredibly frustrating about this whole conversation is that this country has done more for human rights, the concept of human rights than any other. This has a proud history of human rights going back to Magna Carta. Uh you’ve got a thousand years of common law precedent which protects every single right that you can hear in uh in in the ECR. And you’ve got these stupid lefties who will say, “Oh, well, if reform wants to get rid of the UCR, that means they want to get rid of freedom of speech. They want to get rid of, you know, all, you know, they want to allow torture, all this sort of stuff.” It is protected under the common law of the United Kingdom. You don’t need a globalist body to tell you about human rights when you’re the country that came up with the concept of human rights. Well, I couldn’t agree with you more, Will, and I’m sure the listeners will, too. And ladies and gentlemen, we want to hear from you.