EXCLUSIVE Villagers revolt over chaos brought to their leafy Windsor idyll by a hotel-turned-asylum hostel
Almost 100 residents of upmarket Datchet, Berkshire, crammed into a village hall to demand the Manor Hotel be banned from taking taxpayers' cash to house migrants.
In a heated gathering attended by MailOnline, they insisted that the Manor should be transformed back into a venue for weddings, Christmas dinners and tourist parties.
One man stormed out after dubbing the hotel a 'cr*p hole' which had been run-down for years because the owners failed to spend money on repairs.
There were further spiky exchanges following claims that owners MH Hotels are advertising for regular guests again after an asylum contract with the Home Office ended.
Some residents urged their neighbours to give the company's bosses Sam and Mandip Gill their 'trust' and 'support' despite the years of controversy.
But angry opponents pointed out that the Gills had not attended the public meeting to explain their plans and had simply just 'taken the money and ran the hotel down'.
The summit arranged by Datchet Parish Council was the latest twist in a long-running saga sparked after asylum seekers were moved into the mock Tudor landmark.
Desperate villagers have vented their fury at an emergency meeting over 'chaos' brought to their leafy Windsor idyll in Berkshire by a hotel-turned-asylum hostel
Residents complained about groups of young, single migrant men hanging around the chocolate box village's green just five minutes' drive from Windsor Castle.
The Gills have also used the hotel as a homelessness hostel and the venue found itself at the centre of fears about crime, drug-taking and other anti-social behaviour.
Just last month, MailOnline revealed how the owners of £2million properties in the Berkshire village were now desperate to move - but were trapped because buyers showed no interest.
The last asylum seekers were moved out ahead of the Home Office deal running out on May 29, and neighbours say cleaners and decorators have been working inside the property.
It is understood that the Gills have completed the renovation of a number of rooms, launched a new website and advertised rooms on Booking.com.
The brothers are due to meet parish councillors later this week to discuss their plans and some residents told the public discussion they should be given the chance to restore the hotel to its former glory.
But one resident, who gave her name as Jackie, said: 'They ran the hotel down during the pandemic and then just took money. It is on them to win us back.
'They will only get us back on board by being honest and open and involving us - so that we trust them to run the hotel and put it back on the map.'
Another resident, a cab driver called Suzanne, said: 'I don't understand why the hotel can't be an ordinary hotel.
'We're five minutes from Windsor and there must be people who want a room.
'I don't understand why they have to go for the immigrants and the homeless when we have enough going on in Datchet. What is wrong? Why can't it be a hotel again. '
A man called Satish said before the residents trusted the owners, they should look for something more 'black and white' which would guarantee they honour their promises.
'My only point is that we need to have something more black and white to indicate that it is not going to happen again and we get asylum or homeless.
'The owners are commercial people and don't have any allegiance to the town so they might well pick a different contract tomorrow which is more beneficial to them.
'We need something from the council or the authorities which keeps things going in the direction we want them to go.'
Another male homeowner added: 'It's all very well looking forward but we also need to look at what's happened.
'We had unvetted, mostly men, living in a hotel just across from a school. Many parents I've spoken to privately were very concerned.
'We had people loitering in front of the school. so we need to acknowledge the mistakes that have been made and we need to know what we can do to prevent this happening again.
'Because I for one do not want unvetted people male or female living across from the school.
'We don't know who they are, where they come from or what their background is unfortunately not everyone comes from good places.
'We don't know what they have seen or done and that has an impact on how they behave.'
Alison Whelan, the parish council's communications officer, said: 'In the past, the Manor Hotel has been a community and business asset.
'It has operated as a public hotel, supporting tourism, events and local businesses.
'I provided local employment and boosted the high street economy just through being there.
'Over the last five years, we have had a restricted use and this has had an economic impact. We've experienced a decline as village centre and the High Street has become less than it was.'
Parish councillor Ian Thompson told the meeting: 'Previously, the Manor Hotel was a village hub, several groups had meeting at the hotel, plus business interfaces, events, Christmas dinners, wedding receptions.
'What was a thriving "wedding village economy" has now been destroyed either by closure or reduced income.'
The Mail reported in April this year how the accounts for MG Hotels, who were approached for comment, showed that shareholders' funds had soared from £309,000 in 2019 to £2.8million in 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
3 hours ago
- The Sun
Oisin Murphy interview was a car crash and in attacking the media he is behaving like he is above criticism
AS Al Pacino famously said, 'just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in'. Or something like that. Everyone was beginning to move on with their lives after 10 pretty relentless days of Oisin Murphy drink-drive chat, until he agreed to be interviewed on Sky Sports Racing on Monday night. 1 I stumbled across the video while scrolling on Twitter, sandwiched between a post about fantasy football and a tweet (or should that be a hoot?) about owls. Standard. Like the rest of my feed, the interview with Matt Chapman at Windsor should have been pretty mundane stuff. After all, there is a tried-and-tested playbook for sports stars, celebrities or politicians when answering questions about a misdemeanour on the record. You know the sort of thing I'm talking about: 'I'm incredibly sorry, it was a huge error of judgement. I'm going to change,' etc etc. Then Oisin began talking, and the first thing to come out of his mouth was: 'There was going to be a lot said in the media and it's important not to allow the media to bully you too much.' Is he for real? Everything I've read and heard so far about this depressing case has, categorically, been fair comment. Despite everything that's happened during his turbulent career, he still behaves like he is above criticism. He is not just the four-time champion jockey, he also is a role model. His actions will rightly be scrutinised and he will be held to account, whether he likes it or not, just like other people in similar positions of privilege. When asked by Chapman about the well-being of the female passenger who was in the Mercedes he crashed into a tree while over the limit, he said: 'There was a lot of misinformation in the press, much of it spread by your colleagues. Fortunately she is very well.' What a crock of s***. To my knowledge, there was never any reporting in the British press about the condition of the girl outside of the initial police report. She was not named by the police or in court therefore she wasn't identified by the media, let alone speculation printed or broadcast about her injuries, or lack thereof. When dealing with criminal matters, there are legal guidelines the media have to work within. Nothing before, during or after the court case would have been published without the OK or advice from lawyers, so where is his evidence of misinformation? This was a lame Donald Trump tribute act. You can't just shout 'fake news' because you aren't a fan of what's being said. At first, I thought he was possibly conflating (or even confusing) the actual media and social media. Mind you, he emphasised to Chapman 'your colleagues'. It did not appear to be a slip of the tongue. He added: 'Not everyone wants one to achieve, there's a lot of jealousy, particularly in the media, but I worked all my life to ride good horses and I'll continue to do that.' Who exactly is jealous? I stopped being jealous of other's achievements when I was 13-years-old. He didn't offer an apology but there was a degree of contrition in the interview — he said he'd been having counselling and it had been a 'nightmare' for all involved. He thanked the BHA, his support network and said he was the only person who could stop his career progressing. He's not wrong. So why go after the press? As soon as you deflect and begin involving other people you are, by definition, refusing to take full responsibility or ownership of your actions. And that is the only way to deal with a situation like this. Also, who the hell is advising him? Prince Andrew's PR team? Greg Wallace, perhaps? You play this sorry saga with a straight bat, even if you don't care about what's happened, and those around him should have told him as much. You don't come out playing shots and blaming others. It sounds like he is getting professional help, which is clearly a positive, but he has not stated publicly since the accident his intention to give up alcohol. He doesn't need to look far for inspiration — look what Richard Hughes achieved in the saddle when he knocked drink on the head. Dealing with addiction requires commitment, you have to be in it for the long haul and prepared to confront your problems. Believe it or not, Oisin, everyone in this sport thinks you are a supreme talent and they want you to sort yourself out. But you are not the victim in this case. It'll be interesting to see if he fulfils his media obligations the next time he wins a big race on a Saturday. Questions will continue to be asked because, judging by this car crash of an interview (pun intended), it appears he's learned little.
BBC News
5 hours ago
- BBC News
Melton Mowbray man prosecuted over 'nightmare' overgrown garden
A man has been prosecuted after repeatedly failing to clear his "nightmare" overgrown Borough Council said Richard Bates, of New Street in Melton Mowbray, was originally approached in September 2024 over the overgrown vegetation in his front garden, which was followed by formal warnings and a fixed penalty workers eventually ended up clearing the site, which the authority dubbed a "nightmare", and uncovered a rat's nest as part of the Leicester Magistrates' Court on 9 July, the matter was found proved in Bates's absence, and he was fined £500, ordered to pay a contribution of £500 towards the council's costs of £1,157.10 - and a victim surcharge of £200. The council added Bates - who was found proved of failing to comply with a community protection notice - would be recharged for the cost of the Sarah Cox, portfolio holder for corporate finance, property and resources at the council, said: "Even with support from our teams, the resident failed to adhere to the conditions set out to him, forcing us to take necessary action to keep the area clean and free of pests."We take issues such as anti-social behaviour very seriously. "If a supportive approach fails, we will not hesitate to enforce and act to keep our communities a safe and thriving place to live."
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Telegraph
The Afghan heroes left behind while bogus asylum seekers flock to Britain
Jamaluddin, not his real name, worked 'shoulder to shoulder' with British troops fighting the Taliban. A former colonel in the Afghan army, he is now living in hiding in a village north of Kabul, in fear of his life and attempting to stay one step ahead of the Taliban forces trying to hunt him down. His name was on the list of Afghans applying for asylum in the UK, whose details were leaked inadvertently, and with catastrophic consequences, by a British soldier working out of Special Forces headquarters in central London. Speaking by mobile phone, Jamaluddin is, by turns, petrified and furious. Not just at his abandonment by the British Government, but by a chaotic system that refused him asylum while allowing thousands of Afghans who falsely claimed they worked with British troops, and their families, into the UK. 'Among those evacuated, maybe only 20 per cent were genuine people who worked with British forces in Afghanistan and whose lives were in danger,' says Jamaluddin. 'They left behind colonels, commanders and deputy commanders of battalions while their drivers, cooks, gardeners, masseuses and shoe polishers were evacuated and are in Britain now.' There may be some hyperbole in his claims. He can be excused for that. But his claims are grounded in truth. The Government, behind the scenes, acknowledges that the 'vast majority' of the Afghans it has let in under various official resettlement schemes made bogus claims. 'Complete chaos' 'People who never said hello to a Briton and cannot even speak English are in Britain now,' says Jamaluddin. 'We had a driver who used to steal bullets and grenades that the UK and others gave to us and sell them to the Taliban – he took him and 150 of his family members with him to Britain. He is not a good person. He was evacuated during the chaos that was created after we heard about that leak. 'There are also people who took 70, 40, 50 family members with them to Britain: mother-in-law, fourth cousins. I know someone who took his sister's husband's brother's son's in-laws. It's complete chaos.' Official Ministry of Defence (MoD) figures disclosed to The Telegraph show that one single 'principal' allowed into the UK because of ties to the British military brought 22 dependents with him. That is a very big family. It is not hard to see how extended families even bigger than that may have slipped through the net. Jamaluddin says: 'People who had higher ranks added hundreds of people, friends and relatives to the list and took them out. I also know lots of people who had not even fired a single bullet but are in Britain now because they said they were in the army, and Britons fell for it. 'I cannot get my head around it. In one base, there was a guy whose job was to serve tea for people who would visit the base or clean tables. He is in Britain now, but the deputy commander of the same base is now hiding in Afghanistan. 'There are many of us who worked shoulder to shoulder with British forces still here, while our drivers and cleaners with a bad background are walking around London.' The mess has been exposed – and certainly highlighted – in the wake of a two-year court battle between the MoD and a number of newspapers, including The Telegraph. A super-injunction prevented the media from reporting the leaking of the spreadsheet, containing the names of nearly 24,000 Afghans who claimed to be working with British troops and were entitled to relocate to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap). Ministers 'panicked' Jamaluddin was one of the minority of people on the list whose claim for asylum was genuine. The data breach occurred in February 2022 and fell quickly into the hands of the Taliban, but journalists first learnt of it 18 months later in August 2023. The super-injunction – the very existence of which could not be reported – covered up the MoD's blunder, but also the extraordinary scramble to put in place a secret scheme to get Afghans on the list out of their home country and to the UK, seemingly regardless of whether their asylum claim was bogus. According to official documents, which were only revealed once the injunction was lifted on Tuesday, more than 16,000 Afghans were relocated to the UK because of the data breach. About 25,000 more are waiting in the wings. The cost of the data breach was put at £7bn but later revised down, although the financial cost has become something of a muddle. The Government estimated needing at least £20,000 per year per eligible person, with additional costs for health and education, to rehome them. The evacuation was done in secret. Parliament was not told, and neither were communities in places like Bracknell in Berkshire and Larkhill Army Camp in Wiltshire, which accommodated many of the Afghans. On average, each principal applicant brought with them seven family members. Some many more. Inside the MoD, the problems of rehousing large numbers of people secretly were vexing. One former official told The Telegraph: 'There were families made up of mid to high teen numbers. We certainly found that the many two, three and four-bed houses we had in the defence estate were often inadequate for the need and explored whether we'd need to knock two houses into one.' Another former senior official insisted that the MoD had wanted to keep the evacuations to married couples and their children, but the courts 'kept forcing us to accept much wider family members'. Baroness Cavendish, a Tory peer and former adviser to David Cameron, claimed that ministers had been seemingly 'panicked by the number of family members arriving'. Writing in the Financial Times, she said that in 2023 'several central and local government officials told me that the size of Afghan family groups was making it very difficult to find them places to live'. Godsend for bogus claimants One MoD paper, now reportable, that was circulated in March 2024 and became a part of the super-injunction court bundle, showed that before the leak officials were only allowing 10 per cent of additional family members to come in with eligible principals. In other words, Afghans trying to bring extended family into the UK were thwarted nine times out of 10. But after the leak, the ' increased risk ' left officials estimating that 55 per cent of extended family would need to be allowed in. The leap was huge. For bogus claimants, the data breach was a godsend. Suddenly, they could get to the UK and at a far swifter speed; ministers were alarmed that the Taliban were tracking them down. But the rush also meant genuine claimants have been left behind. Jamaluddin cannot understand it. 'Ah, brother, for the sake of God, what kind of process is this?' he says from his hideout. 'What kind of justice is it? What kind of human right is it? What kind of democracy is it? 'Everyone, I think, should know about it – how the real people were left behind and criminals were evacuated. You may want to laugh, but it's our reality.'
