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 bitter, with campaigners and local residents questioning whether their concerns about asylum accommodation, small-boat crossings and community safety are being taken seriously by politicians. Some critics of the Labour government have drawn comparisons with the experiences of grooming-gang victims, arguing that uncomfortable questions about public policy and institutional failures must not be dismissed simply because they are politically sensitive.
The comparison is powerful, but it also raises important questions about evidence, accountability and the responsibilities of public officials. Are legitimate concerns about immigration being heard? Are people who raise difficult questions being treated fairly? And what lessons should political leaders draw from previous failures to listen to victims of serious crimes?
These issues deserve careful examination without assuming that every criticism of government policy amounts to censorship or that the circumstances of different communities and victims are identical.
Communities Want Their Concerns Taken Seriously
Across Britain, immigration remains a contentious political issue. Small-boat crossings across the English Channel, pressure on asylum accommodation and questions about the cost of supporting people awaiting decisions have all contributed to public frustration.
For residents living near asylum hotels or other accommodation facilities, the debate can feel particularly immediate. They may have questions about local services, public spending, consultation, policing and how concerns about safety are investigated.
Some residents believe decisions affecting their communities have been made without adequate explanation or consultation. Others argue that local authorities and national government have failed to provide timely information about the arrangements being introduced.
These concerns should not automatically be dismissed as hostility towards foreigners. People can reasonably ask how public money is being spent, whether local services have sufficient capacity and what procedures exist for reporting and investigating alleged misconduct.
At the same time, individual incidents should not be used to suggest that migrants as a group pose a threat. Most people seeking asylum are not accused of crimes, and allegations against individuals must be assessed on the evidence rather than their nationality or immigration status.
The government’s responsibility is to explain its decisions, provide accurate information and ensure that legitimate complaints receive appropriate attention.
The Comparison With Grooming-Gang Victims
The reference to grooming-gang victims invokes one of Britain’s most serious public-policy failures. In several towns, including Rotherham, investigations established that children had suffered extensive sexual exploitation and that authorities had failed to protect them adequately.
Victims and survivors have described how their reports were ignored, how their credibility was questioned and how institutions sometimes failed to act when warning signs were present. These failures caused lasting harm and undermined confidence in public authorities.
The lessons are clear: allegations of serious abuse must be investigated properly, victims must be treated with dignity, and officials must not allow fear of controversy or reputational damage to prevent appropriate action.
However, the comparison between those failures and current disputes about immigration policy should be made carefully. Grooming-gang cases involved specific crimes, identifiable victims and documented failures by institutions. Disagreements about asylum accommodation, protests or government communication do not automatically establish equivalent wrongdoing.
The meaningful connection is the principle of accountability. Whether the subject is child protection or immigration policy, authorities should listen to credible concerns, investigate evidence and explain their decisions transparently.
That principle does not require treating every allegation as proven. It requires ensuring that concerns are assessed fairly rather than ignored because they are politically uncomfortable.
Is the Government Trying to Silence Critics?
The accusation that Labour is trying to silence critics is serious. To evaluate it fairly, it is necessary to distinguish between genuine restrictions on lawful expression, political criticism and efforts to address threats, harassment or unlawful conduct.
A government may face criticism for the way it responds to demonstrations or public objections. Residents may feel that their concerns are being dismissed, while campaigners may argue that official statements focus too heavily on the tone of protests rather than the underlying problems.
But a disagreement with the government, an unfavourable response from a minister or criticism of a protest does not, by itself, prove that the government is attempting to suppress legitimate speech.
Evidence would be needed to establish whether people were unlawfully prevented from expressing their views, whether public authorities applied rules inconsistently or whether specific individuals faced unjustified penalties for peaceful activity.
The same standards should apply regardless of political affiliation. Peaceful criticism of government policy is an important part of democratic life, and public authorities should protect lawful expression while responding appropriately to threats, violence and harassment.
Labour, like any government, should be willing to explain how its decisions affect local communities and why particular policies are necessary. If residents believe they have been treated unfairly, there should be clear routes for complaints, review and public scrutiny.
Immigration Policy Must Be Open to Scrutiny
The practical challenges surrounding asylum accommodation are not solved by dismissing criticism or by exaggerating the risks associated with migrants.
Local communities need reliable information about accommodation arrangements, the responsibilities of contractors and authorities, the availability of support services and the procedures used to investigate alleged offences.
Where problems occur, officials should acknowledge them and explain what corrective action is being taken. Where allegations prove unfounded, authorities should also communicate that clearly, without encouraging suspicion towards an entire group.
The government must balance several responsibilities: maintaining an orderly asylum system, complying with legal obligations, protecting vulnerable people and responding to the reasonable concerns of residents.
This balance can be difficult, particularly when local services are under pressure. But transparent decision-making and meaningful consultation can help reduce mistrust.
Ministers should also provide clear information about the progress of asylum applications, the cost of accommodation and the removal of people who have no legal right to remain. Public confidence is more likely to improve when claims can be checked against published evidence.
What Political Leaders Should Learn From Past Failures
The experiences of grooming-gang victims demonstrate the damage that can occur when institutions fail to listen. They also show why public confidence cannot be restored through slogans alone.
Victims need accessible reporting systems, proper investigations and officials who take allegations seriously. Communities affected by government decisions similarly need meaningful channels through which to raise concerns and obtain answers.
But accountability must be based on evidence. It would be wrong to use the suffering of grooming-gang victims as a political weapon without respecting the specific circumstances of their experiences. It would also be wrong to assume that every dispute involving immigration demonstrates a deliberate attempt to silence the public.
The more constructive lesson is that institutions must be willing to confront uncomfortable facts, acknowledge mistakes and correct failures regardless of which political party is in power.
That means publishing relevant information, explaining the reasoning behind decisions and allowing independent scrutiny where necessary. It also means resisting attempts to turn complex problems into blanket accusations against migrants, residents or public officials.
The Need for Honest Debate
Britain needs a debate about immigration that is both open and responsible. Residents should be able to question government policy without being automatically labelled prejudiced. Migrants and asylum seekers should not be treated as collectively responsible for the actions of individuals. Victims of crime must be heard, and allegations should be investigated according to established procedures.
Political leaders have a responsibility to lower the temperature without avoiding difficult questions. That requires acknowledging legitimate public concerns, correcting misleading claims and explaining the limits as well as the benefits of government policy.
If ministers believe criticism is based on inaccurate information, they should respond with evidence. If residents identify genuine failures, those failures should be investigated and addressed. If unlawful behaviour occurs, the law should be applied fairly.
The comparison with grooming-gang victims ultimately raises a question that extends beyond party politics: can institutions be trusted to listen when the subject is controversial and the consequences of getting it wrong are serious?
The answer depends on whether authorities demonstrate transparency, consistency and a willingness to learn from mistakes. Britain cannot afford a system in which difficult questions are ignored, but neither can it afford a debate in which allegations are treated as established facts without proper examination.
A democratic society should make room for both public scrutiny and individual rights. That is the standard against which Labour’s actions, and those of any future government, should be judged.