Jamie Mcyver is with me, reform UK
counselor on Eping Forest District
Council. Jamie, great to have you with
us this afternoon. This is a blow for
Eping Forest.
>> Well, this is a blow for the moms of
Eping, the parents of Eping who have
been peacefully protesting week in week
out which forced the council to take
action. We saw that in the remarks
today. So, peaceful protest does make
your council respond because we were
told early in the year the council done
everything possible to get the hotel
closed. And then of course it turns out
there was this option which had a week
ago appeared to be successful. Um so
absolutely right that those moms did
that peacefully with with parents and
their own children attending. Um I'm
gutted for them. I'm gutted for them
because they've been called all sorts by
the media. They've been called far
right. Even their own local counselor in
Eping has has name called them. And what
you have now seen is a huge
disappointment for those people. But
it's genuine concerned parents who I'm
feeling for this evening whose children
go back to school next week who are
genuinely concerned for the safety of
their children who have to walk past.
>> What are they what are they concerned?
>> They are concerned because the people
that live in that hotel, the unvetted
men that live in that hotel hide in the
bushes, wait on benches where the
children go after school. And there are
numerous, and I've heard this directly
from the students of this school,
numerous encounters of inappropriate
behavior from the unvetted men that live
in that hotel. That hotel is around the
corner from a school. Now, we can debate
all day the national debate. Um, and I'm
quite furious that the government has
used the ECR against its own people
today. What a what a sorry state of
affairs. That hotel, the protest here is
the fact it is around the corner from a
school. And at every protest, we walk
from the hotel to the school to prove
how quickly you can do it. And just
yesterday, we did it, but this time not
in the road. We did it round the back
because that's the route that the people
that live there, the illegal migrants,
that's the route that they use. They are
not asylum seekers.
>> They are seeking asylum. So therefore,
they are asylum seekers.
>> And asylum seeker is somebody that goes
from a dangerous country to a safe
country. Are the countries that border
Britain are not
>> Come on. They overnight in France, which
is a safe country. I'm not having this
part of the problem.
>> Hold on, hold on. Are they seeking
asylum entering the country illegally?
What do they do? Economic migrants,
>> what do they do? Twothirds of the people
that come on boats are found to have
valid claims for asylum. So, that's
important to say as well. All I'm saying
is somebody who they're not valid. I'm
sorry. I mean, the home office decides
they're valid. You can say I don't trust
the home office. That's fine. But the
according to the official process and
the official tribunals and the rulings,
twothirds of people who come here on
small boats are found to be valid
refugees. But in the real world, they've
gone from a dangerous country to a safe
country and then another safe country
and overnighting in safe countries and
coming to Britain as economic migrants
because they're safe. They're in a place
of safety when they leave the dangerous
country.
>> Just got to be clear. If you come here
and you claim asylum, I think it's very
valid to describe you as an asylum
seeker.
>> Not if you've entered the country
illegally on a small boat. You're an
illegal.
>> International law doesn't doesn't
specify that you can't claim asylum.
>> We could debate this all day. They are
in my view, they are in the view of most
of the British people, they are illegal
migrants. They are not asylum seekers.
And this is a sad thing because there
are people that genuinely do claim
asylum and they come to Britain for a
reason. Genuine asylum seekers. And I'm
afraid I do not buy the argument that
those unvetted men in those hotels that
have entered the country illegally are
>> The reason they're unvetted is obviously
because we're taking so long to vet
their applications
because we don't know who they are. They
throw their documentation in a channel.
>> No, they we they come here and they
apply and then we take two years to
process their applications. That's why
they're unvetted.
>> Irrelevant of how long it could take two
weeks. It's not because if
>> we don't know who they are because they
make it up on the spot in many cases.
>> If it was processed in two weeks, they
wouldn't be unvetted, would they? They
would have been vetted quickly.
>> How can you vet somebody when you don't
know who they are?
>> Because they have to provide all sorts
of evidence and documentation.
>> But they don't cuz they throw it in the
channel.
>> And the ones that throw it in the
channel, if they can't prove who they
are, won't have an asylum claim upheld.
>> And who do we think these people are
when they do that?
>> What do you mean?
>> Well, when when when people come to this
country illegally, say on a small boat,
and they throw their documents in the
channel,
>> as some of them do,
>> as many of them do.
>> Some of them do. Yes. And when they
arrive to this country and we then have
to so-called vet them, are they vetted
before they go to a hotel?
>> But that's my point. No, because it's
taking so long to process their claims.
>> Yes. And and they are unvetted men in
our community. Yeah, of course they are.
All I'm saying is when Well, we're not
because I'm saying the only reason they
are unvetted, you're sort of making out
it's their fault they're unvetted. I'm
saying the reason
Hold on. The reason they're unvetted is
because the government takes so long to
vet them. That's why they're unvetted.
>> Then do you trust Would you trust the
government's vetting process? Yes,
generally I don't see any reason not to.
>> How are we supposed to know if these
people have got criminal convictions in
their countries if they're fleeing
countries that don't even have
democracy, don't even have rule of law
because security checks are carried out
on people who are granted asylum status
here.
>> But I sorry I mean it's a separate
debate, but I don't think for Okay, I'm
very happy to have that conversation. If
they're leaving a country such as, for
example, Afghanistan, are we suggesting
that the uh government records of that
country are in any way going to be
accurate? Are we going really saying
that? Well, then what what's your
argument that we shouldn't take anybody
impoverished country?
>> They need to be arrested because they're
entering the country illegally, detained
and deported, which is why
>> every single person that enters this
country illegally.
>> I believe if you enter this country
illegally,
>> uh the argument of women and children is
a very very difficult one and it's very
obvious why. Very obvious why. Um, I do
believe that it is reckless for a
government to say that if you put your
child on a boat to come across the
channel and you put your child in danger
like that from a safe country, France,
let's be real about that. Um, I think
it's reckless to encourage that
behavior. So, I think
>> so yes, you would you would deport women
and children has to be there. It can't
be off the table in my
>> So, if they go back to Afghanistan and
they're going to be stoned or they're
going to be publicly whipped or they
were going to be killed, well, this is
the point you send them back regardless.
>> This is the point. They should stay in
France or other parts of Europe. If they
do come to Britain, you would want to
see them sent back to Afghanistan
regard.
>> There has to be a deterrent.
>> So that's a yes.
>> Is that a yes?
>> Jamie, you're supposed to be the
straight talking party. Is that a yes or
no? Is that a yes or no?
>> Our our policy, Reform UK's policy is
outlined this year.
>> You would you would send women and girls
potentially back to their deaths in
countries like Afghanistan. Yes.
>> The party hasn't said that.
>> Yes. What do you say? Yes or no?
>> My personal view is there has to be a
deterrent. And it doesn't mean say it.
Listen, it doesn't have to be that they
get sent back to Afghanistan. And I
think this is the point when all when
the media create the hysteria on this
topic.
>> So where do you send them?
>> They have to go to a safe country and
that might well be by the way there is a
thing called legitimate asylum which I
don't believe is when you enter a safe
country from another safe country. There
are legitimate cases of asylum that we
should slightly run out of time. I just
want to ask you about Nigel Faraj's
suggestion this afternoon. Your party
leader. Illegal migrants have more
rights than the British people under
Star. Um what does that mean?
>> Well I think it means exactly that. the
government were more concerned about the
welfare of asylum seekers than they were
about the safety and well-being of women
and girls in Eping. And that is a
disgrace. And that is the that that just
sums up this government and why they
need to be out of office as soon as
possible.
>> What rights do asylum seekers have in
Britain that British people don't?
>> Uh they we have you have to look at
exactly what Nigel said and what he is
referring to is the fact that have more
rights than the British people. So what
rights do they have that you and I don't
as British people? is the government has
put their safety above.
>> But that's not what he says. He says
they have more rights here than we do.
So what rights are they?
>> Women and girls in Eping have the right
to freedom of movement, but their
freedom of movement is restricted
because they are scared to walk past
that hotel.
>> The illegal migrants in that hotel are
not.
>> Therefore, they have more rights than
British people here.
>> I I I believe that is absolutely right.
And this is how and also let's just be
well, we know this many of them are
working.
>> They can't really use the NHS. They
don't have access to
>> Excuse me. They have doctors come to the
hotel for them.
>> They don't have access to the NHS like
you and I do. So the idea
>> Who are those doctors then? They're NHS
doctors. That's wrong.
>> They don't They don't have access. I'm
saying the NHS. They have a better
service.
>> They don't have the same sort of access
that you and I do to the NHS. You'd
agree on that. They don't they can't go
they can't go and make they can't go and
make appointment with a doctor in the
way that you doctor comes to them weekly
checkups.
And you think they have that regular
medical checkups are better than
>> you know how many people have
misdiagnosed the access to the entire
NHS.
>> How many British people have
misdiagnosis in this country? You can't
get a doctor's appointment in this
>> Anyone coming has more rights than you
and I is completely and utterly false.
>> And it's absolutely right. And Nigel to
point it out and we need to stop
avoiding the truth. The truth is why the
avoidance of the truth is why this
country is in such a
>> The truth is that you and I with British
people presumably with a British
passport. Jamie, I can't speak for you.
I haven't come to you. have far far more
rights than anybody coming here to
claim.
>> You're a young man. I'm a You're a young
man. I'm a young man, I believe. Does a
doctor come to you weekly for a health
check?
>> I I have access to the entirety of the
NHS. Does a doctor come to you weekly?
>> I have the right to work. I have the
right to claim benefits if I lose my
job. We have all sorts of rights that
none of those people have. Say once
more, Nigel Farage's claim that anybody
coming here on a small boat has more
rights than you or I is just false.
>> Nigel Farage is correct and I've seen it
for my own eyes. I'm a local counselor.
I have the anecdotal experience of my
residents who can't get a doctor's
appointment, yet people in those hotels
do. That is wrong and it is two double
standards and it has to be called out
and Nigel is right to call it