Signs for a migrant hotel should not have been covered up & Govt must be open about crisis
BRITAIN'S migrant hotel crisis gets more bizarre by the day.
It is outrageous that signs for a four-star Hilton Hotel have been covered up after asylum seekers moved in.
Is it to deter protests from a furious local community or to hide the embarrassment of offering luxury lodgings beyond the reach of many taxpayers to all-male illegal arrivals?
The turreted Doubletree by Hilton in West London was converted into migrant accommodation in November as part of a deal with the Home Office.
Its website shows pictures of luxury rooms which in other Hiltons could go for up to £260 a night and boasts of a gym and top-class restaurant.
But of course they are no longer available to the public.
Sir Keir Starmer has vowed to close down migrant hotels, used by roughly 32,000 asylum seekers, by the end of the current Parliament in 2029.
The policy, first introduced by the Tories, has caused national outrage, as yesterday's protests up and down the country showed.
But the Government needs to be open about this crisis.
Peter Kyle complained to social media firms about posts critical of asylum hotels.
Now we see hotel signs being covered.
Secrecy is never the right policy in the face of enormous costs to the taxpayer.
And the legitimate concerns of voters footing the £4million-a-day bill cannot be covered up as easily as a hotel sign.
Moment bus full of asylum seekers are 'snuck into' 4-star London hotel under cover of darkness despite UK-wide protests
1
Glorifying terror
This is the grim reality of the war-torn territory that Sir Keir Starmer is proposing to recognise as a state — without even insisting Hamas disarms.
These fanatics are not only entrenched in Palestinian life but they are bringing up the next generation to revere Israeli-hating terrorists.
They are determined to wipe their neighbour off the map.
Why should Britain give them sovereign status?
Think again, Sir Keir.
Our goalden girls
OUR Lionesses have been a beacon of light amidst the summer's economic gloom.
The PM is right to hint at honours for their stunning Euros triumph.
Last week they each got a winner's medal.
Now give them some bling from the King.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
43 minutes ago
- BBC News
The History Hour Russian revolutionaries and Japan's record breaking rollercoaster
Available for over a year Max Pearson presents a collection of this week's Witness History episodes from the BBC World Service. Our guest is Dr Lara Douds, Assistant Professor of Russian history. We start in 1907, the men who would go on to lead the Russian Revolution met in London for a crucial congress marking a point of no return between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Then, in 2000, the launch of Steel Dragon 2000 at Nagashima Spa Land in Japan, becoming the world's longest rollercoaster at nearly 2.5 km in length. Next, the political assisination of Juan Mari Jauregui, a retired Spanish politician and long-time campaigner for independence, by Basque separatists in 2000. Plus, how in 1986, during a world record attempt and publicity stunt, one and a half million balloons were released as a storm rolled over the city. Finally, the story of Chuquicamata, Chile's abandoned mining town after its 25,000 residents left due to pollution concerns . Contributors: Henry Brailsford - British journalist Dr Lara Douds - Assistant Professor of Russian history Steve Okamoto - rollercoaster designer Maixabel Lasa - widow of Juan Mari Jauregui Tom Holowatch - project manager of BalloonFest '86 Patricia Rojas - former resident of Chuquicamata (Photo: Lenin giving a speech in Red Square. Credit: Universal)
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Time will tell whether new Scottish left-wing party has the legs
In fact, having spoken to both Phil and other enthusiasts, SLA seems at a pretty embryonic stage right now. However, they are having a crunch meeting tomorrow with members of Collective, the London-based English grouping which shares much of the same left-wing agenda. One of the people coming north for the summit is Karie Murphy, who was head honcho at Jeremy Corbyn's office before being seconded to run Labour's 2019 election campaign. Labour subsequently had their worst result since 1935. Karie, a former nurse, now self-describes as a 'political strategist'. Although they are apparently not formally part of the Corbyn/Zarah Sultana combo which launched a new party somewhat messily the other week, Collective's website does not hide its admiration for the former Labour leader. READ MORE: John Swinney brands Gaza as 'genocide' for first time as Fringe show disrupted They assert that Collective 'has captured a renewal of socialist ideas and political energy that was generated under [[Jeremy Corbyn]]'s leadership of the Labour Party. It is driven by the spirit of 'Corbynism' that can now be seen in the UK-wide mobilisation, at all levels, in opposition to Labour's rightward and authoritarian turn.' Rightward and authoritarian it may be, but there's little evidence of enthusiasm for Scottish independence, which Phil Taylor describes as one of the core principles of the new movement in Scotland. Corbyn once described indy as 'not a priority', while Keir Starmer now says it can't happen at all while he's PM. Otherwise, the list of causes the Scottish Left Alternative embraces echoes to a large extent the mantra adopted by Collective in terms of support for workers, for Gaza, an assault on the climate emergency and corporate greed. Which means more than an element of crossover with the Greens. In Taylor's view, new leadership in the Greens in both England and Scotland means that the party will be readier to accept new kids on the political block. We shall see. Thus far, all is not sweetness and light amid the Greenery. He also says that in conversations within Scotland, he's found that many people are prepared 'to leave their political baggage at the door'. The other question mark is whether or not they can make a dent in SNP support or woo back those who defected/returned to Labour the last time round. The [[SNP]] too are in the midst of internal warfare, with their leader proposing one strategy and impatient footsoldiers an entirely different one. Half of his party thinks independence needs a much stronger focus, while the other half believes getting public services right will matter more to the Holyrood electorate. At the moment, Mr Swinney seems inclined to ride both horses at once which is fine, so long as you don't fall off. The other possible bone of contention between north and south is the SLA's declaration that it will support both women's rights and those of the LGBT+ community. Of late, that issue has also made a jagged split in tartan ranks. There is no doubting Taylor's sincerity, but perhaps a question mark over his naivety. It's one thing to suggest that there are many folks on the London left who just don't understand Scotland; quite another to hope they will jettison their long-standing beliefs in the value of Unionism on the say-so of a newly registered Scottish counterpart. There will be a second meeting of SLA adherents in early October which is coming perilously close to next May's Scottish elections. And, not at all incidentally, it will take place a week before the [[SNP]] gather for their 91st conference in Aberdeen. Taylor concedes that Collective is rather more motivated by the 2029 election than next year's Holyrood variety but sees no reason why that needs to matter. In his opinion, inclusivity and transparency will be the hallmarks of the new movement in Scotland. and Collective will be relaxed about any divergence in the electoral cycle or the attendant strategies required. Yet setting out a stall for an election some four years distant is a totally different proposition from one which has to get a serious act together in a matter of months. Plus, there is no guarantee that tomorrow's summit between Collective and Scottish Left Alternative will be an entirely harmonious affair, given the known areas of likely controversy. I reminded Phil that new parties have an unfortunate habit of rising without trace, but his optimism for the notion of a Scottish Left Alternative is unshakeable. There is no doubt that many erstwhile Labour voters are downright scunnered with the party just a year into its current five-year stint; the question is whether they will scamper off into this 'electoral vehicle' or whether they will merely switch allegiance to the Scottish Greens or the [[SNP]]. Much will ride on what conclusions the [[SNP]] conference reaches (or perhaps is allowed to reach). And whether or not Scottish Labour remember the Scottish bit. Mr Swinney's latest suggestion of a constitutional convention would have had rather more merit in late 2014 when the indy troops were licking their wounds and desperate for some kind of balm. Since then, there have been many trigger points to advance independence which were ignored from a great height – Mr Swinney will remember them well as he was embedded in the leadership team at the time. One straw in the nationalist wind is the notion of reprising 'both votes SNP'. As I never tire of explaining, this is a surefire route to handing seats to Unionist parties as the imperfect hybrid proportional system we use was devised to give list options to parties who failed to have their vote share properly reflected in parliamentary numbers. It has meant, inter alia, that some of those most hostile to independence for Scotland and, for that matter, even to devolution, are able to rest their posteriors on Holyrood seats. Though 2011 might have been a triumph, it was also an aberration. All parties – especially one in power for a long time – are liable to fall out with each other, a fate which may also await a fledgling one too. After all, if there's one thing the left excels at, it's contriving to split. After which, implosion generally follows. It's also difficult to see how a Corbynite cadre based in London can offer the hand of solidarity and friendship to a similar would-be mass movement in Scotland, but one wedded to self-determination even if they share an interest in most of the other named causes, like wealth taxes and 'welfare not warfare'. Mr Taylor insists that the Scottish end of the equation is bottom-up and organic and most certainly not a mere branch office of the English operation: 'It will not be a franchise of a UK initiative.' That's an admirable ambition, and one which makes it rather more distinctively Scottish than Anas Sarwar's fiefdom. Yet you do wonder if the Scottish tail will be permitted to wag the English dog. Anyway, some of the mist will have cleared by close of play tomorrow. Then we will find out if we have a serious new player in the game, running up and down the left wing, or whether this is yet another false dawn for people of a lefty persuasion. Watch this space.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Keir Starmer's Palestine recognition speech full of colonial arrogance
This week, three-quarters of a century later, the British Prime Minister affirmed the enduring truth of Sayegh's words. In the same breath that Keir Starmer declared statehood to be the inalienable right of the Palestinian people, he confirmed that British recognition will hinge on the actions of the Israeli state: Only if Benjamin Netanyahu and his government continue their campaign of ethnic cleansing will Britain join 147 other countries in recognising [[Palestine]] as a sovereign nation. Speaking in front of two large Union Jacks, the Prime Minister acted with the same colonial arrogance that motivated the British colonisation of Palestine in the early 20th century. Justifying that occupation before the Peel Commission in 1937, Winston Churchill said: 'I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time … I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.' READ MORE: Police remove pro-Palestine protesters from John Swinney's Edinburgh Fringe show Keir Starmer would never say such things. However, for as long as Britain uses Palestinian statehood as a bargaining chip and simultaneously supplies material aid to abet Israel's crimes, the Prime Minister channels Churchill's imperial logic: Dehumanise the Palestinians in order to justify the denial of their right to self-determination. In Gassan Kanafani's novella, Returning To Haifa, Said, the protagonist, asks his wife, Safiyya: 'Do you know what homeland is? It is where nothing like this happens.' Since October 2023, the Palestinian homeland has been decimated – 70,000 tonnes of explosives have been dropped on the Gaza Strip; 4000 buildings have been demolished in the Occupied West Bank. The conditions necessary for human habitation of that homeland have been systematically erased too. Gaza, the UN acknowledges, is now 'the hungriest place on earth'. As the direct consequence of intentional decisions by a nuclear power, the mass starvation of Gaza is, as Professor Adam Tooze points out, 'quite unlike that anywhere else in the world'. In Yemen, Sudan and Haiti – among the places where hunger is most acute – the share of the population at risk is between 49% and 57%. In Gaza, the share is 100%. The declared objective of Israel's genocide is to deny the Palestinian people even the hope of a homeland. Last week, the British state served that aim, conferring the right to decide Palestine's future not to the land's people, but to its illegal occupier. Deploying the language of universal human rights to strip the Palestinian people of their agency, Keir Starmer's duplicitous designs offer Benjamin Netanyahu an olive branch. By delaying any decision regarding recognition until the UN General Assembly meets in September, the British government has afforded the Israeli government six more weeks of impunity. Keir Starmer will only recognise Palestine as a last-ditch attempt to salvage what little faith remains in the 'rules-based international order'. To do so would involve committing the cardinal sin of humanising a population whose erasure the British state has licensed, supported and participated in for decades. If the British state is to concede that Palestinians, like the rest of the world, have the right to self-determination, then Keir Starmer and his Cabinet have a series of uncomfortable questions to answer. To this day, imperialism's serial dispossession of the Palestinians has rested on the explicit understanding that they do not enjoy the same rights as the rest of us. The question of recognition – and Keir Starmer's attitude to it – forces this contradiction to the surface for all to see. Since last year's General Election, the question of Palestine has posed serious challenges to the Labour leader's premiership. Confronted by a mass movement to end Israel's genocide, the Prime Minister has taken every possible step to evade accountability – including the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Last week's announcement is no different. The foreign policy of the British state – which has conducted more surveillance flights over Gaza than even Israel – is not, as far as our government is concerned, up for debate. Indeed, Britain's subjugation to the United States is such that the interests of imperialism have always sat outside the realms of our democracy. By cynically gesturing toward recognising the Palestinian state, Keir Starmer hopes to ease popular domestic pressure while not straying from the broad position of the Trump administration. The Palestine solidarity movement can have no truck with such colonial parlour games.
