A bad judgment with even worse political optics.

There’s really only one big political story in the UK today and that’s the decision of three judges at the Court of Appeal to quash the judgment of a lower court that said that illegal migrants could no longer be housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping in Essex. There was jubilation from Britons when the original judgement ruled that the migrants, at least two of whom are now charged with serious sexual offences, had to go.

The Labour Government appealed this lower court judgement in the Court of Appeal and won the case. The result of this win, in front of a panel of judges some of whom as others have pointed out, have liberal/left leanings, might well comply with the letter of the law, but it is terribly bad optics for the Government.

The judgement will do nothing to stop mounting numbers of allegations and some seemingly well founded claims that there is a two tier justice system in the United Kingdom. The win for the government may end up being somewhat pyrrhic with the indigenous population and those integrated and settled migrants seemingly again taking second place to the needs and wants of migrants including illegal migrants of the type housed at the Bell Hotel and other similar establishments.

This judgement will not stop the accusations of two tier justice. Some of the comments made during this case such as the judges, saying that siding with the residents of Epping would ‘incentivise’ further protests and by the Home Office lawyers who said that the migrants concerns are above those of locals will give pour further petrol on an already building pyre of social anger about migration.

I do hope that there is a way for Epping Forest District Council to appeal this matter to a higher court. This is because this judgement, which to a certain extent I expected as so much is politically at stake because of it, puts the rights of illegals to be fed, housed and pampered above the rights of local people not to have their children raped or otherwise attacked by the residents of the Bell Hotel.

This case will fuel even more anger not just about growing concerns about what is seen to be a two tier justice, policing and administration set up, but also about migration and especially illegal migration in general. The Government may have won this particular case but the Government is not coming out of this looking very good. It’s coming across to the public as if the government is more concerned with people who really shouldn’t be here and who are too often involved in crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour than those who are suffering from the behaviour of the migrants.

If the Government wanted to be unnecessarily hated and for good reason then they could have done little better than to bring a case like this. If the Government thinks that this judgement will spell the end of the protests about housing the illegals in hotels or dispersing them quietly into homes in multiple occupation, then I believe that they may be mistaken.

It is quite possible that what this judgement will do is to both spread and intensify anti-invader protests. Those who wanted these invaders out of Epping used the legal system to try to achieve redress but that call for redress for the people of Epping has been refused. It’s quite possible that being denied justice like this those angry at what has been done to them, their families and their towns and cities by the policy followed by both Labour and Conservative governments of housing invaders in hotels, will make the demonstrations more angry and attract more angry people.

Legally the government may have won this case or rather this round of the case, but they have lost big time in the court of public opinion. Someone once said that it is not enough to just merely be not ‘bent’ or corrupt, a person needs to show that they are not bent and never ever give the impression to anyone that for the right inducement they would be bent. This is not what’s happened here. Although the judgement itself may be legally sound and honest it gives the impression of being bent and that’s not going to go down well with the public who are already angry at Britain’s decimated economy, its crumbing public services, its high cost of living and the government’s idiotic energy policies. That background and that context is not a good pool for a government to be swimming in. This case and the almost inevitable aftermath and the equally almost inevitable martyrs that the aftermath might create is a death sentence for the Labour Party. I can’t see them getting back in in 2029, or earlier if the international money markets wise up to how unbelievably weak and crappy the British economy truly. Labour have also lost large sections of the working class vote along with the far left and the semi-traitorous Islamist votes, these voting blocs will flock to the ‘Jezbollah’Your Party vehicle. They’ve currently got the public sector worker vote sewn up but who knows if they can hang onto that? Not every Labour voting public sector worker is a manager with a plush office living in a community untouched by the antics of the invaders, many are much lower level workers who will have the same fears for their families due to excessive levels of and inappropriate types of migration. The nurses who fear for their daughters coming home from school, college or work are far more numerous even in Britain’s bloated public sector than the public sector management types and may vote because of their fears and ignore their management’s DEI nonsense pronouncements. Labour have lost much of the private sector working class vote and Labour’s migration policies and perceived hatred of indigenous Britons could lose them a significant chunk of the public sector vote as well.

The Appeal court case was a win for the government. However it is also a lose as now more people are firing up their anger circuits because of it.