Essex publican Adam Brooks explains why moving migrants around the county will do little to abate the fury felt
The Government says it wants to end the use of asylum hotels. Fine.
Most people would welcome that, but simply replacing hotels with even bigger migrant accommodation centres in former military barracks is hardly solving the problem.
Labour ministers will unveil plans to expand the use of former military sites to house thousands more asylum seekers.
Many local residents were led to believe these sites were temporary.
Once again, ordinary people are the last to be consulted and the first to deal with the consequences.
If you live in Westminster or the wealthy parts of North London, this isn’t your problem.
If you live near one of these barracks, it most certainly is.
People living around sites such as Wethersfield have raised concerns for months about pressure on local services, public safety and the character of their communities.
Shopkeepers in Chelmsford have told me about persistent shoplifting, groups of young men loitering in the town centre and women feeling intimidated.
We’ve seen rapes, sexual assaults and even murders from asylum seekers.
Residents around the Bell Hotel in Epping have repeatedly complained about antisocial behaviour, including men defecating on the local streets and the common.
It would be common sense to secure the sites so these men cannot wander local towns and cities.
But no, the Left won’t have that. Whether ministers like hearing these accounts or not, they deserve to be listened to rather than dismissed.
The Government insists everyone housed in the asylum system is subject to security checks.
But the reality is that many arrivals reach Britain without identity documents, making full verification difficult until claims are investigated.
That uncertainty is precisely what worries many local people.
Most of those arriving on small boats are young adult men. That isn’t an opinion.
Many residents quite reasonably ask why communities should suddenly absorb hundreds or even thousands of single men, often from countries with very different cultures and experiences, without their consent.
Some will be from militia groups or even terrorist organisations.
Last autumn, during the legal battle over the Bell Hotel in Epping, Government lawyers argued that the impact on asylum seekers carried greater legal weight than objections from local residents under the relevant legal framework.
That argument struck a nerve. Many people heard one message loud and clear: Your concerns and your rights come second to these men's.
Government exists to protect the public and represent the people who elected it.
Even the way this latest announcement has been handled raises questions.
Ministers chose to release the plans at a time that limited parliamentary scrutiny.
The Commons Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, criticised the approach, arguing MPs representing affected communities should have had the opportunity to question ministers properly.
If the Government truly believes these policies are in the national interest, why not defend them openly in Parliament?
As long as tens of thousands continue crossing the Channel illegally, our Government will keep scrambling to find somewhere to house them.
Hotels become barracks. Barracks become former RAF bases. Temporary becomes permanent.
Communities are expected to adapt while ministers promise that next year will somehow be different.
It won’t. The only lasting solution is to stop the boats, speed up removals for those with no legal right to remain, remove the free housing and free money, and restore public confidence that Britain’s borders are being controlled.
Mass deportations are a must for me, coupled with a deterrent like Rwanda.
Most people have sympathy for those fleeing genuine persecution, particularly women and children.
But this isn’t that. It’s clearly just men coming here for what they can get, and our Government is providing it with a cherry on top.
They simply want safe communities, secure borders and a Government that puts the interests of its own citizens alongside its legal obligations.
That shouldn’t be a controversial demand. It should be the starting point of any immigration policy.
Britain is being forcibly altered in front of our eyes, we have no say.
To top it off, we are paying for it. The majority have had enough. That doesn’t make us far right.