The chief constable of Essex Police has dismissed calls to resign over the force’s handling of the Epping protests after footage emerged of officers escorting pro-migrant activists to an asylum seeker hotel where violent clashes erupted.
Ben-Julian Harrington rejected calls from Reform UK leader Nigel Farage to step down and firmly extinguished claims his officers had given a higher level of protection to pro-migrant protesters.
Asked if he would resign, he told a press conference today: ‘No, I am not [resigning]. I am not going to do that. This is not about me, this is about the communities of Essex.’
He added: ‘The issue is not about my resignation. The issue is about an effective police operation that keeps the communities of Epping safe…’
The Bell Hotel, in Epping, Essex, has been the centre of a string of violent demonstrations after an asylum seeker was arrested and charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl in the town eight days after arriving in the UK.
Essex Police had initially denied it had brought Stand Up to Racism activists to the hotel before ugly clashes broke out with anti-migrant protesters on Thursday.
But after being shown footage of officers leading the group from a nearby station to outside the hotel, the force then backtracked and admitted it had provided a ‘foot cordon’.
Nigel Farage called for Chief Constable Harrington to resign, saying the footage is ‘absolutely disgraceful’ and ‘heads must roll’.
The Reform UK leader later posted footage allegedly showing pro-migrant protesters being ‘bussed’ to the demonstration in police vans but Essex Police said this was ‘categorically’ untrue.
The force explained that pro-migrant protesters were given a ‘foot cordon’ on their way to the protest and those who were ‘clearly at risk of being hurt’ later on were ‘escorted by vehicle’.
Facing a barrage of questions today, Chief Constable Harrington rejected claims his officers had given a higher level of protection to pro-migrant protesters.
‘No, I don’t accept that,’ he said. ‘The only protection that officers are doing is to those lawful and law-abiding people, whether they are in that accommodation, whether they are the people of Epping or whether they are people who are standing there with placards and banners wishing to make a very important and legitimate view, whichever your views about it.
‘Where officers have intervened that is because there has been disorder…We are not being partial in any way, shape or form.’
The chief constable also dismissed claims pro-migrants were ‘bussed’ to the hotel’, explaining: ‘There has been some accusations in the media that we drove people to the protest. That is not true.
‘We have not driven anybody to that protest. People made their own way there… we did take people away for their safety and the safety of everyone there.’
He agreed that officers had walked alongside counter-protesters when they made their way to the Bell Hotel in scenes which prompted violence and attacks on both demonstrators and police.
‘People have the freedom of assembly and freedom of speech,’ he said. ‘They have a duty to exercise their right to assembly and protest.
‘People came of their own volition, walked to the protest. In order to ensure and understand the threat we had officers there and they walked alongside them so they could intervene and prevent crime.’
He added: ‘The issue of whether or not they [asylum seekers] should or shouldn’t be there [in hotels] is not a matter for the police.’
Asked about comments made by the likes of Mr Farage and others who have been accused of stoking demonstrations, he said it was ‘not the police’s job to clamp down on elected politicians.’ However he warned they should be careful if their comments lead to violence.
‘All I’m asking is people are responsible for what they say and consider the real-world consequences. Where people commit crimes online we will apply the law. Where people have their views where I or others disagree I appeal for people to be responsible and consider what they say.’
Mr Harrington said that colleagues in forces across the country had been discussing with the Home Office issues around housing asylum seekers in hotels.
He added: ‘What is unacceptable is the people who have come to Epping and committed violence, attacked people at the hotel, attacked officers, damaged property and caused fear and disruption to the people of Epping.’
Four people have now been charged with violent disorder, with one charged with failing to remove a face covering when directed to do so.
Two people have been arrested on suspicion of criminal damage, one on suspicion of having an article with intent to cause damage and one on suspicion of using threatening words or behaviour.
Protests have since spread to other parts of the country, with more than 150 gathering outside The Park Hotel, in Diss, Norfolk on Monday after the Home Office announced plans to change it from housing asylum-seeker families to single men.
Meanwhile, last night Metropolitan Police officers were forced to surround a four-star hotel in Canary Wharf after protesters gathered outside in response to Government plans to house migrants there.
The demonstration in London’s financial district place took place outside the Britannia International Hotel, which Tower Hamlets Council has confirmed the Government intends to use for asylum seekers.
Tuesday’s action marks the latest anti-migrant protest, with Sir Keir Starmer warned Britain could face a second ‘summer of riots’ if Labour fails to get a grip on migrant hotels.
Trouble first broke out in Epping last Thursday after Ethiopian asylum seeker Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in the town by attempting to kiss her. He denies the charges.
The protest started peacefully, but descended into frenzied violence when anti-migrant demonstrators clashed with counter protesters and police.
A spokesman for Essex Police said: ‘There are claims on social media that Essex Police officers ‘bussed’ protesters to the protest outside the Bell Hotel on Thursday 17 July.
‘This is categorically wrong. Officers did provide a foot cordon around protesters on their way to the protest, where they and others were allowed to exercise their right to protest.
‘Later some people who were clearly at risk of being hurt were also escorted by vehicle away from the area for their safety. To reiterate, we categorically did not drive any counter-protesters to the site on any occasion.’
