On 13th July 2025, a protest outside the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex set off a surge of anti-migrant demonstrations across the country after an asylum seeker being housed there was charged with the sexual assault of a local girl. From Liverpool to Clacton, with the former resulting in 11 arrests, these demonstrations have been simultaneous with large scale counter protests. The debate is volatile, with media coverage often heightening division over immigration, pitting facts against fears and headlines.
While the UK has seen anti-immigration protests before, the current wave originated in Epping. The catalyst was the accusation—and subsequent 4th September 2025 conviction—of asylum seeker Hadush Kebatu for sexually assaulting a local teenager, which sparked protests at the Bell Hotel where he was housed with 140 others. This incident ignited national anger that is deeply intertwined with the growing use of hotels for asylum accommodation, a practice that has surged since 2020. Legally obligated to house asylum seekers, the Home Office resorted to hotels after exhausting traditional facilities under the weight of a massive backlog—111,100 individuals awaiting a decision as of June 2025, with 32,000 now living in 200 hotels nationwide. The Epping protests triggered a legal showdown. Although the local council secured a High Court injunction to clear the hotel, the Court of Appeal swiftly overturned it as “seriously flawed,” reaffirming the Home Office’s authority. Emboldened by the case, at least 30 other councils are now considering similar challenges, leading to a major High Court hearing in October. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has warned against such “piecemeal court decisions,” advocating for an “orderly” end to hotel use. However, the government’s aim to close all asylum hotels by 2029 raises a critical question: with no surplus of affordable housing and small boat arrivals increasing, what will become of the 32,000 asylum seekers currently residing in them? The system remains under severe and growing pressure.
As anti-asylum demonstrations have spread across the country, they have been met with significant arrests for public disorder, harassment, and assault—including 11 in Liverpool, 6 in Epping, and 3 in Worcester. They have also been met by large counter-protests. In Falkirk, for example, anti-migrant demonstrators faced Stand Up To Racism (SUTR) activists bearing signs like “Nazi scum off our streets” and “Refugees are welcome.” In fact, at most of these events, pro-refugee protesters significantly outnumbered anti-asylum groups. In Epping, the origin of the protests, some 300–400 anti-migrant demonstrators were met by around 2,000 counter-protesters. Despite prominent media coverage of anti-immigration rhetoric, it would be easy to assume opposition to tolerance represents the national mood. Yet the numbers tell a different story. Repeatedly, counter-protesters have mobilised in far greater strength, suggesting that a broad swathe of the public continues to extend a welcome to those seeking refuge. However, immigration remains a top public concern, and 31% say their area is providing more than its fair share of refugee accommodation. The asylum system is mired in crisis, mishandled by successive governments—fuelling hostility too often directed at vulnerable claimants rather than the political failures that caused the crisis.
This anger is nothing new. For years people across the country have grown resentful of how many immigrants are settling in the UK. In 2024 net migration figures were 431,000. Whilst this is down by nearly 50% from the previous year, immigration numbers to the UK from non-EU countries accounts for 81% of long-term net migration. This has led to a perception amongst areas of the British public that British culture is being overridden by foreign nationals coming in. YouGov polls reveal that 63% of the British public believe immigration into the country to be too high, whilst 32% believe this has been bad for the country. However, the reality is that the UK accepts less than 2/3 of the number of asylum seekers that our European counterparts accept.
Nonetheless, anti-asylum protesters have expressed genuine concern for their community’s safety, fearing a massive influx of ‘undocumented’ people in local facilities—a misconception, as all asylum seekers are documented by the Home Office during their claims process. GB News highlighted these fears during the Epping protests by interviewing local resident Lindsey Thompson, who stated: “When it happens on your doorstep, you feel it. You feel less safe… you see women not able to walk their dog, not able to walk past the Bell Hotel”. For many, it is not just ideological opposition to immigration, but a palpable sense of danger. These anxieties are amplified considerably by far-right agitators on social media, whose messaging is often algorithmically favoured, enabling wider reach and deeper radicalisation. Figures like Nigel Farage, who describes asylum seekers as an “invasion” and advocates “mass deportations”, and Tommy Robinson, who circulates unverified videos aimed at framing migrants as threats, leverage platforms like X and Telegram to spread disinformation—especially during local protests. Such content frequently evades fact-checking, particularly on X, allowing misinformation to spread unchecked. This digital agitation is compounded by segments of the mainstream press, which disproportionately highlight crimes involving migrants despite available evidence showing no indication that there is any correlation that ethnic or cultural background has any influence on their likelihood to commit a sexual or violent crime. As populist voices are inflated and sensationalised, the line between fact and narrative blurs, emboldening residents to voice their concerns in increasingly aggressive ways and turning public debate into a dangerously volatile space.
The heightened hostility has left immigrant and asylum communities—already among the most vulnerable—open to vicious attacks. The Guardian spoke to Khador Mohamed, an asylum seeker from Somalia at the Bell Hotel, who described residents locking themselves in their rooms during protests. “People call you scumbags sometimes and they throw cans of soda at you,” he said. “I wasn’t expecting this in England. I thought it would be friendlier”. This harassment, aggression, and racist rhetoric signals an issue at breaking point, fracturing communities with fear. While some protesters express genuine anger over immigration, and outlets like GB News frame this as a debate over “legitimate concerns,” the racist undercurrent in these protests is undeniable. To dismiss this reality is to normalize the intimidation and deepen the marginalization felt by targets of this hostility across the country.
The events at Epping’s Bell Hotel have become a painful national mirror, reflecting deep-seated public anxieties and a political system that has catastrophically failed its asylum process. While some protesters’ fears are genuine, however misinformed, the narrative has been co-opted by far-right agitation and media sensationalism, directing anger at a documented and vulnerable group. Yet, the significant presence of counter-protesters offers a crucial counter-narrative: that tolerance remains a powerful force in Britain. The true conflict, therefore, is a three-way clash between public fear, public goodwill, and political failure. Until the government competently addresses the systemic collapse at the heart of the asylum system—moving beyond rhetoric and hotel placements—the cycle of protest, counter-protest, and harassment will continue, leaving the nation more divided and everyone unsafe.
Add comment
Comments