Epping: Labour Declares War on the British People

As I wrote earlier this week, Tuesday’s temporary High Court injunction against the housing of illegal immigrants at the Bell Hotel, Epping was supposed to be a victory for the British people. “The battle is over, now it’s time to win the war” I said, with the ill-deserved confidence of a Keir Starmer underwear photoshoot. This is not the first time (as my girlfriend will readily confirm) that I have been somewhat premature in my exclamations. Regrettably, the battle has not been won. Home Secretary, Yvette ‘refugees welcome’ Cooper, has successfully appealed against the injunction via the Court of Appeal, with illegal migrants set to remain for the foreseeable future.  

Not only is this the stupidest move by any government in living memory (do not be deceived by my boyish good looks, I’ve been around), it’s a declaration of open warfare against the British people. Cooper’s 11^th hour Hail Mary ought to alert us to three unquestionable realities:

1. Prioritising the sexual proclivities of illegal immigrants to Britain over the genuine and founded concerns of the native population, means that Starmer’s government is no longer even pretending not to be anti-British.
2. When rape victims have less state-protection that their would-be rapists, two-tier justice is not only undeniable – it’s an understatement. 
3. As I have often argued previously, civil war is upon us – it’s just that only one side is fighting. After Cooper’s intervention, we must conclude that one side in this civil war has the additional backing of the State. 

Not even the traitor’s traitor, Tony Blair, had the balls to show this much open contempt for the British people. There’s a reason why the Andrew Neather line “rub the right’s nose in diversity” is so oft-quoted – that’s because Blair and his acolytes understood: you can betray the plebs to your heart’s content, but you cannot get away with taking the piss out of them while doing so. Blair hid his treachery in his overemphasis of the benefits of mass immigration: 

“A recognition of the benefits that controlled migration brings not just to the economy but to delivering the public and private services on which we rely.”

Or his ‘vision’ of Britain: 

“A country of different cultures and different faiths mixing together is the right one… migrants had made Britain ‘stronger’.”

Indeed, you can go back eight centuries and still discover that the absolute rulers of the time knew better than to mess with the people. A reasonable précis of King John’s signing of Magna Carta, might go something like this: “Noblesse oblige dictates, one has to at least pretend that the plebs have rights”. 

Starmer’s government however, is cut from a different cloth. It is hardly surprising that the Home Office went all-in against the Bell Hotel injunction. Cooper and her ilk know only too well that if Epping’s case were successful, it would undermine the entire illegal migrant scam. The government would then be forced to employ an unthinkable no-nonsense approach to the migrant crisis: A) either deport the freeloading scumbags as any normal country would, or B) allow the daughters of rich bastards to get raped in the name of ‘diversity’. Doesn’t really bear thinking about, does it?

While he did not use exactly the same language, the aptly-named Lord Justice Bean echoed my sentiments on Friday: 

“If an outbreak of protest enhances a case, this runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further protests – some of which may be disorderly – around asylum accommodation. There is a risk of encouraging further lawlessness.”

Furthermore:

“The judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system.”

Removing the legalese: 

“Mohammad and his mates (Muhammad, Mohammed, Mohammad, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamad, Muhamed, Mohamud, Mohummad, Mohummed, Mouhamed, Mohammod, and Mouhamad) are busily engaged in the cultural enrichment (gang rape) of your daughter. You are a little bit miffed about this, and want the authorities to stop it. The trouble is, if the government restricts the extra-curricular activities of this particular Mohammad and his mates, there might follow the unreasonable expectation that they uphold the law in other areas of the country – and we can’t fucking have that, can we?!”

The most damning statement in the proceedings, was the admission that the rights of illegals trump those of their prey. Here again was Lord Justice Bean, reading as if he had a gun to his head: 

“The Court of Appeal grants the Home Secretary’s application for permission to appeal against the decision dismissing her application for party status, and further grants the Home Secretary intervenor status in the litigation between the Council and Somani. The Home Secretary has clear statutory duties towards asylum seekers in this country under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. These include the duty to provide support to them, and their dependents, and to prevent destitution among this cohort.”

The entire video can be watched here:

“Clear statutory duties towards asylum seekers in this country”, implies that the Home Secretary does not have those duties towards the native population. 

Naturally, it should come as no surprise that the Lead Judge, Lord Bean, is a long-standing Labour supporter, former treasurer of the Society of Labour Lawyers, and former Chairman of the Fabian Society. What were the odds? 

For my money, the salient point of Epping is not that the government was successful, but that they were prepared regardless to openly defend the rights of (disproportionately) dangerous illegals against the expressed wishes of the British people. Which makes the following impossible to ignore: 

1. The government already knows about the heightened risk such individuals pose.
2. They don’t care how many innocent little girls are raped as a consequence.
3. The only possible conclusion then, is that this government wants this to happen. 

Nobody sensible wants conflict in Britain. But there are some situations which leave one scant alternative. Starmer’s government is offering us the following Hobson’s choice:

1. Cringe, obey, say nothing, and watch your country dismantled, your children raped, and your people made foreigners in their own nation, while you yourself are blamed for it.
2. Disobey, speak out, protest, and they will lock you up regardless while continuing to do whatever they want. 

Here’s a better question to ask yourself: is it a shock that Reform UK is currently polling at 35%, almost as much as Labour and the Tories combined? Britain it seems is still a two-party system; it’s just that now the establishment position is treachery, while patriotism is a radical alternative. 

Here’s another question: having declared war on the British people, exactly how long will Keir Starmer be allowed to cling to power? 

 

 

Frank Haviland is the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West and The Frank Report, which you should probably subscribe to.

 

If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!