Piddington women descended on Parliament today (Image: Tim Merry/Staff Photographer)
Labour’s bid to “silence” women terrified by the asylum housing crisis is identical to the treatment of grooming gang victims, ministers were told. Andy Burnham and Shabana Mahmood were accused of using “class as a weapon” to ignore warnings they will “suffer” at the hands of men “from cultures where women are treated worse than animals”.
Nine women from Piddington descended on Parliament on Wednesday to demand Labour shelves plans to house 1,256 asylum seekers next to the Oxfordshire village. They insisted ministers must “get a grip” of the “out of control immigration” crisis. But hundreds of MPs symbolically voted for the proposal, despite widespread public outrage, and rejected calls to leave the European Convention on Human Rights.
Shadow Women’s Minister Joy Morrissey launched a scathing attack on proposals to house migrants at MoD Bicester, declaring the men will “blight” the area.
She said: “The Government has said middle-class areas need to bear their fair share. Using class as a new weapon to silence concerns. It is a dangerous, lazy approach from a Government that is supposed to unite our country.
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.
“This isn’t about class, race or anything else that the party opposite wants to use to silence those speaking up. That technique was used to silence rape gang victims in our cities and towns and it’s appalling Labour has not learned from that scandal. This is about women speaking up about fears for their safety and their children.”
More than 1,200 migrants will be housed next to Piddington (Image: Shutterstock)
“The Prime Minister should listen, the benches opposite should listen. They know these women and their communities will suffer.
“They know this because we already have proof. Communities across this land have seen their women’s and girls’ lives ruined.
“Ruined by a fundamental failure from this Government to protect them from the threat posed by men who come here illegally.”
The nine Piddington women – Samantha Phillips, Deborah Swift, Victoria Hubbocks, Gina Perkin, Jo Haw-Cook, Sandra Innes, Melise Witkin, Christina Gower and Louise Brooker – sat in the front row of the public gallery as they watched MPs tear Labour’s plan to shreds.
They then met with Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, just weeks after she visited the village.
The Tories used their Opposition Day to force Labour MPs to hear concerns about the Government’s asylum plans.
But Labour MPs symbolically voted for the Piddington proposals. Only the Conservatives and Reform voted against them.
Piddington villagers warned they could become “victims in a similar way to the grooming gang scandal”.
Victoria Hubbocks told the Daily Express: “I see comparisons on our campaign and the grooming gang scandal in one important respect: women raised serious concerns, both for themselves and for the country, yet too often felt ignored and unheard by those in positions of power.
“I had hoped that the government would take the lessons of history seriously and ensure that the same mistakes were not repeated. However, the fact that no Labour backbench women remained in the chamber to listen to the opposition debate has left me deeply concerned.
“When women raise legitimate concerns about issues that affect both their lives and the wider country, those concerns deserve to be heard, acknowledged and taken seriously, regardless of political affiliation.”
Fellow villager Sandra Innes said: “Our concerns are being completely dismissed and marginalised.
“If that continues then we could end up in a situation where women and children become victims in a similar way to the grooming gang scandal.
“How many times do we need to be ignored before something serious happens?”
Kemi Badenoch meets Piddington women (Image: Tim Merry/Staff Photographer)
Ms Morrissey told the Daily Express after the vote: “Labour’s female MPs today put their party before British women and girls. By not even turning up to the debate on Piddington they showed total contempt for the legitimate concerns that women and girls have for their safety.
“The Lib Dems not even bothering to vote was equally shameful. The Conservatives are clear – we will always put women and girls before illegal migrants.”
Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman also condemned female Labour MPs for failing to turn up for the debate.
She said: “They [the women of Piddington] are angry, and they feel like no one in Government is listening to them. And these people are not far-right thugs.
“The women that I met, and indeed the men, many of them are elderly pensioners. Some of them are widowed and living alone.
“Many of them are parents speaking on behalf of their children. And this small rural village is fighting against the British state to protect itself.
“It is a scandal that no one in this government is willing to listen.”
Labour wants to house more than 1,200 migrants on the site for at least 10 years.
The villagers of Piddington voted 285 to 26 to “secede from the UK and pursue self-determination” over the plans to house up to 1,256 asylum seekers in the former Ministry of Defence garrison half a mile from the village.
Local campaigners are demanding that the scheme be halted until full ecological surveys are completed to determine the potential presence of some of Britain’s rarest and most protected bats and newts on the site.
But Tory MP Dr Kieran Mullan told MPs: “At the heart of this debate is whether women have a legitimate, reasonable concern to be worried about the people that are being placed in their communities.
“And I’m afraid to say that I do think the culture of the people very often placed in these constituencies is inferior to ours.
“I’m not afraid to say our culture, when it comes to women and girls, has a lot to do.
“But it’s significantly better than the culture towards women and girls in countries like Eritrea, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a whole range of countries.
“It’s perfectly reasonable for women who are being asked to live alongside huge numbers of people coming, unvetted, from those countries to be concerned and have worries, and we should not be afraid to call that out.
“This has nothing to do with racism.”
Mr Mullan told MPs 46% of married women in Iraq have faced “spousal violence” and that between 70 and 90% of women in Pakistan have faced domestic abuse.
He added that in Afghanistan “more than 90% of the population think that spousal physical abuse is justified.”
The Shadow Justice Minister added: “We have a culture of football hooliganism in this country.
The Channel migrant crisis has become a women’s safety issue (Image: Getty)
“Predominantly white people engage in football hooliganism in this country,
“I’m happy to say that. It doesn’t make me racist towards white people, and it doesn’t make you racist towards other cultures when you point out their issues and their problems.”
Numerous MPs highlighted the leaflets – exposed by the Daily Express – telling migrants not to rape or beat women.
Ms Morrissey added: “The village of Piddington does only have 350 people but the 1,300 migrant men will be a blight on their small village. Men from cultures where women are treated worse than animals.
“Men that the Government decided need a leaflet asking them to not rape women and girls.
“It isn’t just their values being different from ours. It is taking advantage of nature, our values, and our culture.
“Men who will pay no notice to a gently worded leaflet trying to encourage them to understand our cultural values. These men don’t care about our values. They are here to take advantage of our welcoming culture.”
Home Office minister Anna Turley had earlier said that the way asylum seekers have been housed until now has been wrong, but said a final decision on Piddington had not been made.
“For too long, the way in which we house asylum seekers has not been fair,” she said.
“Billions of pounds have been spent putting them up in hotels while communities have seen these hotels, often at the centre of their towns or cities become a symbol of a broken asylum system.
“Areas where housing costs are low, and which are already left behind were asked to bear more than their fair share.”
She added: “While the Home Office has submitted a planning application to use MoD Bicester site for asylum accommodation, no final decision has been made.”
She praised Piddington campaigners for an “incredibly imaginative and very forceful” campaign.
Labour Is Trying to Silence Us on the Migrant Crisis – Just Like Grooming Gang Victims Were
Britain’s debate over immigration has become increasingly heated, with critics of the Labour government accusing ministers of failing to listen to public concerns. The controversy has also revived painful questions about the treatment of victims of grooming gangs, whose experiences in several towns exposed serious failures by authorities. For campaigners and opposition politicians, the two issues raise a common question: are uncomfortable concerns being addressed openly, or are people who raise them being dismissed?
The comparison is politically explosive. Immigration policy and child sexual exploitation are distinct issues, and they should not be treated as interchangeable. However, both have generated arguments about institutional accountability, public trust and whether authorities respond quickly enough when people report problems.
For Labour, the challenge is to demonstrate that criticism is being heard, investigated and answered rather than simply rejected. For its opponents, the challenge is to support legitimate scrutiny without turning complex social problems into blanket accusations against entire communities.
The Growing Anger Over Immigration
Immigration remains one of the most contentious issues in British politics. Concerns range from small-boat crossings across the English Channel to asylum accommodation, housing shortages and pressure on local services.
Reform UK and other critics argue that successive governments have failed to establish an immigration system that the public considers effective and properly controlled. They point to the continued arrival of people through irregular routes and demand stronger enforcement, faster asylum decisions and the removal of individuals who have no legal right to remain in Britain.
Some local communities have also expressed frustration about the use of hotels and other accommodation for asylum seekers. Residents may worry about the effects on public services, the suitability of accommodation arrangements and whether local authorities have been adequately consulted.
These concerns deserve clear answers. Governments should explain how asylum accommodation is commissioned, what it costs, how applications are processed and what safeguards exist to address problems.
However, the presence of asylum seekers in a community does not, by itself, establish that crime or disorder will increase. Claims about particular incidents must be assessed using reliable evidence, and individuals should not be blamed for the actions of others who share their nationality or immigration status.
The government must balance effective enforcement with legal obligations and fair treatment. If ministers want to restore public confidence, they need to explain both what the system is achieving and where it is failing.
Are Critics Being Silenced?
The accusation that Labour is attempting to silence critics has become part of the wider political struggle over immigration.
Opposition politicians and campaigners sometimes argue that people who question government policy are too quickly labelled intolerant or extremist. They contend that this can discourage residents from raising concerns about accommodation, public spending, crime or the management of local services.
There is an important distinction between challenging an argument and attempting to suppress it. Politicians are entitled to dispute claims they consider inaccurate, while members of the public should be able to raise legitimate concerns without facing intimidation.
At the same time, public debate must distinguish between criticism of government policy and hostility directed at individuals because of their background. A robust discussion of immigration does not require the generalisation that migrants are responsible for every problem facing a town or city.
The government should respond to evidence, publish relevant information and explain its decisions. If a claim is incorrect, ministers should provide facts that demonstrate why. If a criticism identifies a genuine failure, they should explain what action will follow.
Simply dismissing public frustration risks deepening mistrust. But repeating an allegation without evidence does not make it true either.
The strongest democratic response is transparency, open debate and accountability.
The Painful Legacy of Grooming Gang Scandals
The reference to grooming gang victims carries particular weight because investigations into child sexual exploitation in several English towns revealed devastating failures by individuals and institutions.
Victims and survivors have described how their allegations were not taken seriously, how opportunities to intervene were missed and how some professionals failed to protect children from repeated abuse.
Independent inquiries and official investigations have examined failures in policing, social care and local government. Their findings have highlighted problems including poor information-sharing, inadequate investigations and occasions when victims were treated with suspicion rather than support.
These failures caused lasting harm. Survivors have had to fight for recognition, justice and answers about why authorities did not act sooner.
The central lesson is that institutions must never allow fear of controversy, reputational damage or political sensitivity to take precedence over protecting children.
Where officials ignored warnings, failed to investigate allegations properly or treated victims unfairly, those failures should be acknowledged and addressed. Accountability should include examining individual decisions, institutional practices and whether existing safeguards were sufficient.
The experiences of survivors should not be reduced to a rhetorical weapon in party politics. Their suffering deserves recognition in its own right, regardless of which party is in government.
What the Two Debates Have in Common
Immigration policy and grooming gang scandals are different in their nature and consequences. One concerns the management of migration, borders and asylum; the other concerns serious criminal abuse and failures to protect vulnerable children.
Nevertheless, the debates can intersect around the question of institutional trust.
In both cases, members of the public may ask whether authorities have been honest about problems, whether complaints have been investigated and whether officials have been held accountable for mistakes.
The lesson from past failures is not that every allegation should automatically be accepted. It is that allegations should be assessed fairly, evidence should be examined thoroughly and people raising serious concerns should receive an appropriate response.
In cases of child sexual exploitation, this means putting the safety and welfare of children first, protecting survivors from further harm and ensuring that investigations are not compromised by prejudice or political pressure.
In immigration policy, it means providing accurate information about arrivals, asylum decisions, accommodation costs, removals and the pressures faced by local services.
Transparency can help prevent rumours from filling gaps in official information. Clear procedures can also make it easier for the public to distinguish verified facts from speculation.
Labour Faces Questions About Accountability
For the Labour government, the political consequences of these debates depend partly on whether ministers can demonstrate that they are listening to communities and responding to legitimate concerns.
On immigration, that means setting out clear objectives, explaining the practical limits of government action and publishing meaningful information about progress. If policies are not working, ministers should be prepared to acknowledge the problem and explain what they intend to change.
On child sexual exploitation, the priority must be protecting victims, supporting survivors and ensuring that the failures identified by inquiries lead to practical improvements.
That includes effective cooperation between police, social services, schools and other relevant organisations. It also requires clear routes for reporting concerns and confidence that allegations will be investigated without improper interference.
Public confidence is unlikely to improve if people believe that institutions are more concerned about protecting their reputations than addressing failures.
However, accountability should be based on evidence rather than assumptions about the motives of every official or politician. A government may reject a particular allegation because it is unsupported, not because it wants to silence criticism. The distinction must be established by examining what happened and how authorities responded.
The Role of Political Opposition
Opposition parties have an important role in scrutinising government decisions. They can question ministers, demand the publication of information and draw attention to problems that might otherwise receive insufficient attention.
On immigration, opposition politicians may challenge the effectiveness of border enforcement, the cost of asylum accommodation or the pace of decision-making. On grooming gangs, they can demand that recommendations from inquiries are implemented and that survivors receive appropriate support.
Such scrutiny is most effective when claims are specific and evidence-based.
Broad accusations may generate headlines, but they can make it harder to identify the precise failure that needs correcting. Similarly, presenting different problems as though they were identical risks obscuring the particular responsibilities and safeguards required in each case.
Political leaders should therefore explain exactly which decisions they believe were wrong, what evidence supports their criticism and what alternative action they propose.
That approach gives voters a clearer basis on which to judge both the government and its opponents.
Protecting Free Debate While Rejecting Scapegoating
A healthy democracy requires the freedom to challenge government policy, including on subjects that provoke strong disagreement. People should be able to question immigration levels, demand better border controls and criticise the management of public services.
They should also be able to demand answers when authorities fail to protect children or respond appropriately to allegations of abuse.
But free debate carries responsibilities. Claims about individuals, communities and institutions should be grounded in evidence, and criticism should not become an excuse for harassment or collective blame.
The same principles apply to public officials. They should not use accusations of prejudice as a substitute for answering legitimate questions. Equally, critics should not assume that every disagreement demonstrates an attempt at censorship.
The public deserves an environment in which serious concerns can be raised, investigated and discussed without intimidation or distortion.
A Test of Public Trust
The accusation that Labour is trying to silence critics reflects a broader concern about whether politicians and institutions are prepared to confront uncomfortable issues.
The history of grooming gang scandals shows the consequences of failing to listen to victims and respond properly to warnings. It also demonstrates why independent investigations, clear accountability and effective safeguarding are essential.
The immigration debate presents a different set of challenges, requiring transparent administration, fair enforcement, accurate information and an honest assessment of the pressures facing communities.
Neither issue is served by suppressing legitimate questions. Nor is either served by treating allegations as proven facts before the evidence has been examined.
For Labour, restoring confidence means demonstrating that criticism can lead to answers and, where necessary, corrective action. For opposition parties, effective scrutiny means presenting evidence, identifying specific failures and offering workable alternatives.
Ultimately, public trust depends on more than political statements. It depends on whether people can see that their concerns are taken seriously, that institutions act when problems arise and that those responsible for failures are held accountable.
The experiences of grooming gang survivors must never be forgotten or diminished. Their treatment provides a powerful reminder of the human cost when institutions fail to listen. That lesson should strengthen the case for transparency and accountability across public life, while ensuring that each issue is examined on its own facts and merits.