Your Local Bobby security are patrolling Essex streets for a trial period (Image: Tim Merry)
Once the archetypal English cathedral town, Chelmsford was known for its historic centre, bustling high street and leafy parks. But today, women and elderly residents say they feel intimidated by groups of asylum seekers and report wider anti-social behaviour, including by locals, such as loitering and drinking in the street, shouting and fighting. Migrants are bussed into the city from nearby accommodation at a nearby airbase, MDP Wethersfield. The Express met with Reform UK’s leader of Essex County Council, Peter Harris, who said the Government needs to “step up” to protect Brits from being harassed by migrants.
He walked around the high street with a pair of security staff, clad in red vests and sporting body-worn cameras, after the launch of a £150,000 scheme — “Operation Vanguard”. Guards also patrol Braintree and Colchester, where migrants are bussed in daily from accommodation at a nearby airbase, MDP Wethersfield.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Cllr Harris said that there have been 15 recorded incidents of crime, including the sexual assault of a nurse at Broomfield Hospital. Shoplifting and harassment has also taken place, he added.
“They’re making women and children very, very uncomfortable,” Cllr Harris said. “Countless messages have been sent to me to say thank you.”
Peter Harris is leader of Essex County Council (Image: Tim Merry)
Exasperated Linda Sheppard, 72, who worked for the NHS in diagnostic imaging, seemed visibly shaken when recalling recently getting “bad vibes” from one man who was watching her in the street.
She said: “I can’t take my usual route. You go with your animal instinct that says: ‘Danger. Beware.’”
The former NHS worker added that men hang around in groups and said of the new measures: “I think it’s a very good thing.”
“I complained to the police maybe on three separate occasions,” she added. “I felt intimated. These guys walk about in threes, so there’s three and then another three.
“It worked up to 12 one day. I’m ecstatic that they’ve done something about it. We wouldn’t need it if they didn’t allow them to stay here.”
The local, who lives in sheltered housing, said her elderly neighbours do not come into town in the afternoon.
Cllr Harris said: “It’s okay for people to say: ‘Well, we’re not scared.’ Well, good for them. But what about the people that are scared?
“And I think that’s the thing: how many assaults, how many sexual assaults do we have to wait for before the Home Office step up and do something about it? I wasn’t prepared to wait. Let’s take the action first.”
He told the Prime Minister, Andy Burnham: “Stop the boats and detain and deport.”
Cllr Harris did a patrol with security (Image: Tim Merry)
Cllr Harris added: “And the first thing you can do to protect the women and children of Essex is actually keep the gates of Wethersfield closed. There’s lots for them to do. It’s almost like a holiday camp; I’ve seen it. There’s no reason for these guys to come out.”
Valerie McDevitt, 71, who used to work in the town’s leisure centre, said: “If they have people on the streets, it’s handy, but I don’t feel threatened by [the asylum seekers] at all. We’ve had a lot in the cathedral grounds and I walk through them all the time.”
Tony Woolnough, 60, used to work in security before being assaulted on the job. He said: “I’d rather the money be spent on actual police officers. Security have very, very limited powers.”
He is not worried about the migrants, adding the only crime he notices is drug-related. As Cllr Harris walked in the town centre, a woman could be heard saying: “Biggest waste of money you’ve ever spent.”
A man shouted: “P*** off. You’re not welcome here. B***** off.”
Tony Woolnough would rather see police on the streets (Image: Tim Merry)
Conservative MP for Braintree, Sir James Cleverly, said: “I have regular meetings with Essex police and have joined them in patrol around Braintree.
“The best way to alleviate the concerns of local people is the prompt and permanent closure of Wethersfield asylum centre.
“I opposed the centre when Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman proposed it but was overruled.
“When I was Home Secretary, Essex had more police officers than at any point in its history. Fully warranted officers with real arrest powers, not private security guards, are the right way to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour.”
Chelmsford’s Liberal Democrat MP, Marie Goldman, said: “This is a costly gimmick. Private security guards are not subject to the same accountability, held to the same standards, nor given the same powers as sworn officers – and their use risks drifting towards a dangerous two-tier policing system.
“Instead of stoking division in our communities and funnelling taxpayer cash into private security contracts, Reform UK should be properly resourcing Essex Police, restoring visible community policing, and ensuring our local forces are able to keep every neighbourhood safe.”
Reform UK Council Issues Andy Burnham a Seven-Word Demand Over Migrant Concerns
Britain’s increasingly heated debate over migration has moved from Westminster into local communities, with a Reform UK-led council in Essex demanding stronger action from Prime Minister Andy Burnham over concerns surrounding asylum accommodation. The controversy centres on the Wethersfield accommodation site and the experiences of residents in nearby towns. Reform politicians have argued that people living in the area should not feel intimidated or unsafe, while police and government officials have stressed that there is no evidence of a general rise in crime linked to the asylum seekers.
The seven-word demand reported in connection with the controversy is straightforward: “Stop the boats and detain and deport.” It reflects Reform UK’s broader position that the government should take much stronger action to prevent irregular migration across the English Channel and remove people who do not have a legal right to remain in Britain. The slogan is politically powerful, but implementing such a policy would involve complicated legal, diplomatic and administrative questions.
The immediate controversy concerns groups of male asylum seekers accommodated at the former military base at Wethersfield in Essex. The site has become a focus of local concern because of its scale and because asylum seekers are sometimes seen in nearby communities. According to recent reporting, Essex County Council has introduced a temporary private-security operation in response to complaints from residents about gatherings of asylum seekers and perceived anti-social behaviour.
The council’s operation, known as “Operation Vanguard”, involves six private security guards patrolling Braintree, Chelmsford and Colchester between 10am and 6pm. The three-month operation is expected to cost approximately £118,000 plus VAT and is funded from a community improvement budget. The stated purpose is to reassure residents and deter anti-social behaviour rather than to replace the police.
The decision demonstrates how migration policy can have consequences far beyond the national border. When large numbers of asylum seekers are accommodated in one location, their presence can become highly visible in surrounding towns. Local residents may encounter groups of people who have little connection to the community and who are unable to work while their asylum claims are being processed. Even where no crime occurs, unfamiliarity and uncertainty can contribute to anxiety.
Some residents interviewed in recent coverage have said that women and elderly people feel uncomfortable around groups of male asylum seekers. Reports have also referred to concerns about loitering, drinking, shouting and fighting in public places. These reports are part of the political debate, but they should not automatically be interpreted as proof that asylum seekers as a group are responsible for crime. Indeed, Essex Police has said that crime associated with the migrants is low, while the Home Office has stated that it has no evidence of increased crime resulting from the presence of asylum seekers at the site.
This distinction is particularly important. There is a difference between residents feeling unsafe and evidence demonstrating that a particular group has caused an increase in crime. Both issues can be discussed, but they require different responses. Perceptions of insecurity can justify measures designed to improve reassurance and community relations, while allegations of criminal behaviour require evidence and appropriate investigation.
Reform UK’s argument focuses on the government’s wider immigration policy. The party has consistently called for a significant reduction in irregular migration and stronger enforcement against people who enter Britain illegally. Its politicians argue that the existence of large asylum centres is a symptom of a system that has failed to control Britain’s borders.
From this perspective, the ultimate solution is not simply to place more security guards in towns. Reform politicians argue that the government should prevent small boats from reaching Britain, detain people who have no legal right to remain and remove those whose claims have been rejected.
The government takes a different approach. Burnham’s administration has argued that reducing the number of people crossing the Channel is central to addressing pressure on the asylum system. Burnham has previously said that small-boat crossings have fallen significantly year on year and has defended the government’s strategy. Reform UK has challenged those claims and argued that individual days with large numbers of crossings demonstrate that the problem remains serious.
The disagreement therefore involves competing measurements of success. A government can point to a year-on-year reduction in crossings, while an opposition party can point to continuing arrivals and the costs associated with accommodating them. Both observations can be true at the same time.
Another complication is that stopping new arrivals does not immediately solve the existing asylum backlog. People who have already reached Britain still require their claims to be assessed. Some will eventually be granted protection, while others may be refused and become eligible for removal. Until those decisions are made, the government may have legal responsibilities to provide accommodation and basic support.
This is one reason why the use of former military facilities has become an important part of the government’s strategy. Large sites can accommodate significant numbers of people and may allow the government to reduce reliance on hotels. However, concentrating large numbers of asylum seekers in one location can create tension with surrounding communities, particularly when residents believe that they were not sufficiently consulted.
The same issue has appeared elsewhere in England. In Piddington, Oxfordshire, residents recently held a symbolic referendum protesting against plans to accommodate up to 1,250 male asylum seekers at a nearby former military site. The vote was overwhelmingly against the proposal, although it had no legal power to alter the government’s decision.
The Piddington protest and the situation around Wethersfield reveal a common theme: local communities increasingly want a greater role in decisions about asylum accommodation. Residents may accept that Britain has obligations towards people seeking protection while still questioning why their particular community should accommodate a large number of people.
For central government, however, distributing asylum accommodation across the country is also difficult. If every local authority could veto accommodation within its boundaries, the government could struggle to provide enough places. This creates a tension between local consent and national responsibility.
Security is another important part of the debate. Private security guards can provide a visible presence and reassure residents, but they do not possess the same powers as police officers. They cannot investigate crimes or exercise the full range of statutory policing powers. Consequently, a security operation can supplement rather than replace ordinary policing.
The cost of such measures is also politically relevant. Spending more than £100,000 on temporary security patrols inevitably raises questions about who should pay. Supporters can argue that the expense is justified if it reassures residents and prevents disorder. Critics can ask whether the same money would be better spent on police resources, community services or faster processing of asylum applications.
There is also a wider question about the restrictions placed on asylum seekers themselves. People waiting for their claims to be processed generally face significant limitations on their ability to work. This can leave large numbers of adults with considerable amounts of unstructured time. In towns close seeker awaiting a decision is not necessarily an illegal immigrant, and an allegation concerning one individual should not automatically be to asylum accommodation, residents may consequently see groups of people spending time in public spaces during the day.
Some critics argue that allowing asylum seekers to work while waiting for decisions could reduce frustration and dependence on government support. Others argue that changing the rules could create incentives for people to enter Britain specifically to seek employment. The question therefore connects migration policy with labour-market policy as well as asylum law.
Another issue is the language used to describe migrants. Phrases such as “illegal migrants” or claims that migrants are “harassing Brits” can become politically powerful, but they can also obscure important distinctions between people with different legal statuses and individual circumstances. An asylum seeker awaiting a decision is not necessarily an illegal immigrant, and an allegation concerning one individual should not automatically be attributed to an entire group.
This does not mean that complaints from residents should be ignored. If people experience harassment, intimidation or anti-social behaviour, those complaints should be investigated regardless of Burnham personally. As prime minister, he is responsible for national migration policy, but many of the immediate problems associated with asylum accommodation are experienced at the alleged offender’s nationality or immigration status. The principle should be equal treatment under the law.
The controversy also places pressure on Burnham personally. As prime minister, he is responsible for national migration policy, but many of the immediate problems associated with asylum accommodation are experienced at local level. Councillors therefore have an incentive to demand action from central government when residents complain.
The Reform-controlled Essex council’s intervention illustrates how immigration has become a major issue in local government. Councils are increasingly involved not only in providing services but also in responding to public concerns about asylum accommodation. This can bring local authorities into direct political conflict with central government.
Ultimately, the dispute is about more than one asylum centre. It raises fundamental questions about how Britain should manage irregular migration, how asylum seekers should be accommodated, how quickly claims should be processed and how much influence local communities should have over national migration decisions.
A successful policy would need to address several issues simultaneously. Britain would need effective border controls, efficient asylum processing, appropriate accommodation, lawful removal procedures and adequate policing. It would also need mechanisms for communicating with local residents and responding to legitimate concerns without encouraging hostility towards entire groups of people.
The seven-word Reform UK demand security. At the same time, Essex Police has reported low levels of crime associated with the asylum seekers, and the Home Office says there is no evidence of increased crime caused by the migrants. captures one side of the argument: “Stop the boats and detain and deport.” It expresses the party’s preference for a much tougher approach to irregular migration. The government, however, argues that the problem requires a broader strategy involving border enforcement, international cooperation and reform of the asylum system.
The available evidence also shows why the debate should be approached carefully. Residents have reported feeling intimidated, and the council has responded with additional security. At the same time, Essex Police has reported low levels of crime associated with the asylum seekers, and the Home Office says there is no evidence of increased crime caused by the migrants.
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding Wethersfield demonstrates how Britain’s migration debate has become deeply connected with everyday life in local communities. For some residents, the presence of large groups of asylum seekers has created anxiety and concerns about public spaces and safety. Reform UK has used those concerns to demand tougher national action from Andy Burnham.
Yet the evidence does not support treating all asylum seekers as a source of crime or harassment. Individual allegations should be investigated individually, while broader claims should be tested against reliable crime and policing data.
The challenge for the government is therefore to combine effective immigration enforcement with lawful asylum procedures and proper support for communities hosting asylum accommodation. For Reform UK and other critics, the key question is whether the government is moving quickly enough to reduce irregular migration. For local residents, the immediate concern is whether they can feel safe and heard in their own communities.
Whatever political position people take, the debate ultimately requires more than slogans. It requires evidence, transparent decision-making and practical policies capable of addressing both the concerns of residents and Britain’s legal responsibilities towards people seeking protection.