Police make three arrests during the protest

The Court of Appeal arrested three people during a protest outside the Bell Hotel in Epping on Friday after overturning a temporary prohibition, which stopped the shelters from being kept there.

Essex police said that men were arrested on suspicion of separate offenses – one for violent disorder, one to attack a police officer, and the other to driving. Two police officers were injured, although not seriously.

Assistant Chief Constable Glenn Powelin said that while most of the protesters had safely participated, “the right to protest does not involve the right to object”.

The court’s decision means that 138 asylum seekers living in the hotel will not be forced to leave by September 12.

Talking about the court’s court’s decision, Lord Justice Bean stated that the initial prohibition – issued by the High Court – was “seriously severely flawed”.

The Epping Forest District Council, who received the prohibition, says that this bell will not take its case against the use of the hotel in the Supreme Court.

In a statement, the Essex police said they had also implemented a spread order for the area around Bell Hotel by Saturday morning.

ACC Powelin said: “My constant arguments for those who want their voice to be heard, please do it safely and peacefully.”

Epting made headlines since the protest started in July outside the hotel.

The tension had increased and arrested after the stay of a refugeer Later several crimes were accused of crimes A 14 -year -old girl is also involved in sexual attacks.

Police say 28 arrests have been made in connection with the disorder outside the hotel.

As the protesters gathered outside the hotel on Friday evening with banners and union Jacks and England flags, emotions were mixed on High Street.

Laura Fraye, whose mother lives in the applying, thought that the latest decision would be “very upset”.

“It’s a shame, but let’s hope that this is the right decision and things calm down,” he said.

Her mother, Boney Pitsun said that she agreed with him when she “wouldn’t stand” with those protesters.

“It is harmless – it’s not touchable, they are not harming anyone,” he said.

His daughter said: “I think if people do not listen, they will protest.”

The Epting Forest District Council, run by Conservative, won a temporary prohibition against the hotel in the High Court earlier this month, stating that shelters could not live there.

This is the prohibition that has been overturned in the appeal court, which means that migrants can remain.

Kerry Gilroy, who has been living in the city for 20 years and runs a Facebook group, called EPING for Everback, said: “My group has really upset and disturbed with protests and vitriolic statement – and untruths are spreading about those who seek refugees.

“We really wanted to try to change and change the story and show that the protesting people do not represent the applying. So far it has really received positively.”

She said she was pleased with the latest court’s decision “It gives them continuity to the people in the hotel, but it is very nervous to me because I think there will be trouble … but I’m really happy that the rule of the crowd is not allowed to take the rule”.

He realized that the council is “wasting money” by extending its claims, which has seen it a conflict with the labor government.

He said, “Those people are being heard in their matters and finally that hotel will be empty.”

Holi Whitbred, Conservative Councilor of Epting West, said Friday’s news was “deeply disappointing and would feel like betrayal for many”.

“The council committed to use every legal and diplomatic route from the first day,” he said.

He said “We are taking advice about what else we can do”.

Soni Mead, a resident of 29 -year -old Ipping, said that the latest decision “can put people on a little edge – it’s a strange time and a strange world we are living”.

She had mixed feelings and just wanted to feel safe.

His mother, 61 -year -old, said: “I am a little mixed about the shelter seekers.”

Asked his response to the appeal decision, he said: “I don’t think people will be very happy in Eating.”

Some other people voiced their disappointment over the new decision.

One woman said: “I don’t agree because we do not take care of our own people, before we take care of others – our former person and everyone, and they are also homeless, so give them benefits.”

Steve Turway 36, said that it was “completely unfair – all protests – I think they think they [asylum seekers] It is worth living here, they have the right to come here and I think the reactions of all the people around here are disgusting – it has jumped like a bandwagan “.

His partner Sara said: “I think the ongoing battle and how big applings are entangled in all this, it is really upset.”

Mr. Turway said: “It’s not good – but I don’t know what the answer is.”

A full High Court is expected to hear a permanent prohibition for the bell in mid -October.

After Friday’s decision, the government Has underlined It wants to shut asylum hotels in “systematic ways”, while saying that it is working to relieve pressure on the system.