Councillor ‘reported to cops for racial hatred' after asking if homeless vets will get same support as migrants in hotel
Cllr John Edwards claims he was "smeared" after he questioned Bracknell Forest Council's decision to house more than 300 Afghan migrants in four-star hotels in favour of hard-hit locals.
5
5
5
The independent councillor, who serves on Sandhurst Town Council, was reportedly put under investigation after he called for more clarity when hundreds of Afghans were placed in local hotels.
He was allegedly reported by Labour councillor Cherise Welch, who accused him of "stirring up hate" after he suggested that key information was being withheld from Berkshire residents.
But it has since been revealed that the Government secretly relocated thousands of Afghans to the UK following a major Ministry of Defence email blunder.
Writing on his Facebook in April, Cllr Edwards called for the migrants to be treated with "respect and dignity", but admitted he was worried for the knock-on effect for desperate residents.
He said: "Bracknell is resettling over 300 Afghans in a local hotel—and I don't believe residents are being told the full story.
"I'm increasingly concerned that key information is either being withheld or presented in a way that makes it difficult to see how unfair this scheme is.
"I want to make it clear that everyone arriving on this scheme must be treated with respect and dignity. But I also believe it's completely reasonable to ask what impact this scheme will have on our area.
"If the money is there to house Afghans in a four-star hotel, why aren't any of the Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative councillors asking why this hasn't been provided for Bracknell's veterans or residents first?
"As a Town Councillor, I felt compelled to look into this and speak up, because no other elected representative was."
In response, Cllr Welch suggested the post was "complete nonsense", adding she had reported him to "the MOD, Council and local police".
Others accused the concerned councillor of "spreading far-right propaganda" and targeting "specific ethnic groups".
Speaking to the MailOnline, Cllr Edwards explained he had not been contacted by the police, but said his reputation had been harmed, despite his claims of a cover-up turning out to be true.
He added: "The council has fuelled a narrative that I'm spreading hate and misinformation, despite my claims being true.
"Another councillor has said publicly they have reported me to the police for stirring racial hatred.
"It's stressful and potentially very harmful to my reputation.
'It's a way to smear and silence me, and it has a chilling effect which amounts to, 'disagree with the council and you will be call a racist'."
He posted pictures of the interior and exterior facilities in the hotel, blurring out the background to conceal the location.
But he was also accused of identifying the hotel by posting the images, which he strongly denies.
Earlier this month, it emerged that almost 20,000 Afghans had been secretly relocated to the UK after a major Ministry of Defence error.
The February 2022 leak was caused by a Special Forces soldier who accidentally shared a list of 18,714 people who had applied to flee to Britain in the wake of the 2021 Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.
The list also included names of their individual UK sponsors including SAS and MI6 spies and at least one Royal Marine Major General.
The clumsy click has potential to be the most expensive data breach in history.
A total of 18,714 Afghans were included on the secret list, many of whom arrived via unmarked planes which landed at Stansted airport.
Although Defence Secretary John Healey has said that the cost of relocating the Afghans and their families will total £400 million, the final cost could be even higher.
The information was kept a secret for 18 months through a superinjunction used by the MoD – the first time one had been used by the Government against the press.
Around 100,000 were put at risk of Taliban death squads when their names or loved ones were revealed in 2022 — with the blunder then 'covered up' by the gagging order.
Almost 900 Afghans on the 'kill list' email leak are ready to sue — with lawyers saying thousands more are poised to join them.
Legal sources claimed victims whose lives were endangered could be entitled 'to five-figure payouts'.
Councillor Welch has been approached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ministers must summon the courage to right an ‘obvious injustice'
The very judges who handed out 'unfair' indefinite prison sentences have joined The Independent 's campaign to resentence thousands of offenders who are still trapped by a law that was abolished in 2012. Sir John Saunders, a former High Court judge, tells us that he would apologise to offenders he sentenced to imprisonment for public protection (IPP) terms. 'I should say I'm really sorry this has happened; it's extremely unfair,' he said. 'I didn't want to be party to unfairness. I would feel very bad about it, I would apologise to them.' The sentences, described as an 'obvious injustice' by one former senior judge, were introduced by David Blunkett as home secretary in 2005 in an attempt to deal with a small number of offenders who might continue to be a danger to the public. Such prisoners were given no release date, were subject to stringent assessment before being let out, and were then liable indefinitely for recall to prison if they broke the conditions of their release. However, the sentences were used more often than Lord Blunkett intended, and the psychological effects of indefinite detention caused more problems than it solved. Lord Blunkett now describes the policy as his 'biggest regret'. The law was repealed by the coalition government in 2012, but it continued to apply to the thousands of prisoners still serving IPP sentences. Victims of the scandal, whose tragic cases have been taken up by The Independent, include Leroy Douglas, who has served 19 years for stealing a mobile phone; Thomas White, who set himself alight in his cell and has served 13 years for stealing a phone; and Abdullahi Suleman, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for a laptop robbery. The Independent supports a plan put forward by an expert panel convened by the Howard League for Penal Reform, which calls for IPP prisoners to be given a release date within a two-year window at their next parole hearing. They should, in effect, be resentenced and treated henceforth on the same basis as all other offenders. James Timpson, the prisons minister, says: 'We have significantly improved support for these offenders, with greater access to rehabilitation and mental health support. There is more work to do as we reduce the number of IPP offenders in custody, but we will only do so in a way that protects the public.' We understand why ministers in successive governments have been reluctant to go further. They are fearful of the consequences if someone released from an IPP sentence goes on to commit a serious offence. And they are right to make the protection of the public the highest priority. But that will not be achieved by the continued indefinite detention of 2,500 prisoners who were unlucky enough to be sentenced at the wrong time. Especially when a greater risk to the public is probably posed by the early release of prisoners to free up space in our overcrowded prisons. Simon Tonking, the former recorder of Stafford, told The Independent that the Labour government should use its majority to end the injustice by taking up the Howard League's proposals: 'Virtually everybody who has had any professional dealings with IPP knows that it is unjust and now is the time to act.' It is no use for former ministers such as Lord Blunkett and Alex Chalk, the former justice secretary, calling for justice to be done after they have left office. It is up to Lord Timpson, his boss Shabana Mahmood and ultimately Sir Keir Starmer to do the right thing while they can.
The Guardian
12 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on car finance scandal redress: mis-sold loans demand action, not excuses or spin
With its ruling in the car finance case, the UK supreme court sent a clear message: some motorists purchased vehicles with deals that were indeed unfair, but it's not the judiciary's job to redraw the boundaries of consumer protection law. That burden, the justices suggested, rests with regulators and elected governments. This reasoning is in line with a major speech in June by the court's president, Lord Reed, who argued that judges aren't policymakers – and shouldn't be. He led a bench that nonetheless upheld a finding of unfairness in the case of the factory supervisor Marcus Johnson. The court flagged the danger, defined the threshold – but stopped short of imposing redress itself. Now, the baton has been passed. Millions could get payouts if the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) follows the court ruling with its proposed redress scheme, now out for consultation. The regulator admits what courts and campaigners have long suggested: that hidden commissions and opaque contracts were endemic, and that consumers were misled on a large scale. It may be 2025, but the roots of this scandal stretch back decades. More than 90% of new car purchases are financed, and for years, buyers weren't offered the best deal – just the one that earned the broker the biggest cut. Last October, the court of appeal saw hidden commissions as tantamount to bribes – secret incentives to push pricier loans. Banks had been on the hook for potentially £40bn in compensation had that view prevailed. But the supreme court disagreed. Dealers aren't fiduciaries, it said. They're not priests or doctors. They're salespeople and everyone knows it. The Treasury had tried, and failed, to intervene on behalf of banks that feared big payouts. The supreme court dismissed that petition with waspish brevity. Rachel Reeves may argue she was guarding financial stability, but it is not a good look to be siding with lenders over misled consumers, especially when there is a strong case to suggest regulators had been asleep at the wheel. The FCA now admits that many firms broke the rules. It plans a compensation scheme covering loans dating back to 2007, including both discretionary and some non-discretionary commission arrangements. The potential bill? At least £9bn, and possibly double that. Most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation. The court's refusal to stretch the law to encompass issues of trust wasn't a shrug; it was a signal. The law allows unfairness to be addressed. But the heavy lifting must be done by the state. This episode lays bare a deeper malaise. Britain's credit system often runs on skewed incentives and asymmetric information. Brokers pose as advisers but act as commission-driven salespeople. In Mr Johnson's case a £1,650 hidden commission – a quarter of the car's price – went undisclosed. That's not a quirk; it's economics' classic lemons problem. In car finance, consumers didn't know how much brokers were pocketing or how that skewed the deal. Without trust or clarity, quality suffers – and everyone overpays for 'lemons' (duds). The court of appeal did focus minds; and failing to interpret the law robustly in the face of clear wrongdoing is itself a judicial choice. The supreme court smartly redirected the narrative. The regulator is stirring. Ministers must now support a consumer-facing system of redress and not shield the City from the consequences of its own mis‑selling. The public will be watching.
The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Ministers are stoking fear and anger with anti-migrant rhetoric
As we mark the anniversary of riots that swept across the country last year, we remain severely concerned about the way in which political rhetoric is being used to demonise migrants, and 'understanding' those who are causing yet more fear at hotels – rather than the experiences of those who came here seeking safety (Epping asylum hotel protesters 'upset for legitimate reasons', minister says, 24 July). We work with people who were left terrified in their own homes by the riots. We are saddened to see violence continuing – and escalating – including at hotels, such as in Epping and other areas, the recent riots and bonfire burnings in Northern Ireland, and a rising threat of far‑right agitation. Ministers saying that they 'understand the frustrations' of those outside hotels only emboldens those who seek to spread hate and division, and leaves migrant communities in fear for their Ramadan Director, Migrant Voice Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
