A weekend of protests and counter-protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers began last night, with dozens expected today. It comes as Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has vowed “mass deportations” of illegal immigrants if his party wins the next general election.

Saturday is set to see more demonstrations across major towns and cities in England, organised under the Abolish Asylum System slogan, with at least 33 planned over the bank holiday weekend.

The protests are expected in Bristol, Exeter, Tamworth, Cannock, Nuneaton, Liverpool, Wakefield, Newcastle, Horley, Canary Wharf, Aberdeen and Perth in Scotland, and Mold in Wales.

Counter-protests – organised by Stand Up To Racism – are also set to be held in Bristol, Cannock, Leicester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Wakefield, Horley and Long Eaton in Derbyshire.

It comes after Friday night saw the first demonstrations of the weekend, including one outside the TLK hotel in Orpington, south London.

Dozens of protesters could be heard shouting “get them out” and “save our children” next to the site, while counter protesters marched to the hotel carrying banners and placards which read: “Refugees welcome, stop the far right.”

The Metropolitan Police said a large cordon was formed between the two groups and the hotel, and later confirmed that no arrests were made.

Abolish Asylum System protests were also held in Altrincham, Bournemouth, Cheshunt, Chichester, Dudley, Leeds, Canary Wharf, Portsmouth, Rhoose, Rugby, Southampton and Wolverhampton.

Tensions around the use of the hotels for asylum seekers are at a high after statistics showed there were more than 32,000 asylum seekers currently staying in hotels, marking a rise of 8% during Labour’s first year in office.

Regular protests had been held outside the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, which started after an asylum seeker housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl on 10 July.

In the wake of those protests, Epping Forest District Council sought and won an interim High Court injunction to stop migrants from being accommodated there – a decision which the government is seeking permission to appeal.

Read more:

Who says what on asylum hotels
18 councils pursuing or considering legal action to block asylum hotels
Migration stats going in the wrong direction
Labour may have walked into political trap over Epping hotel

Farage vows ‘mass deportations’ if elected

Meanwhile, Nigel Farage has told The Times there would be “mass deportations” of illegal immigrants if Reform UK wins the next general election, vowing to remove the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights and other international agreements to facilitate five deportation flights a day.

When asked by the newspaper whether that would include Afghan nationals at risk of torture or death, he said: “I’m really sorry, but we can’t be responsible for everything that happens in the whole of the world.

“Who is our priority? Is it the safety and security of this country and its people? Or are we worrying about everybody else and foreign courts?”

Minister of State for Border Security and Asylum Angela Eagle said in response that the Reform UK leader is “simply plucking numbers out of the air, another pie in the sky policy from a party that will say anything for a headline”.

She added: “This Labour government has substantially increased returns with 35,000 people removed from the country in the last year alone, a huge increase on the last government.

“We are getting a grip of the broken asylum system. Making sure those with no right to be here are removed or deported.”

Labour has pledged to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this parliament in 2029.

Conservative MP and shadow home secretary Chris Philp also accused Reform UK of recycling Tory ideas on immigration.

“Nigel Farage previously claimed mass deportations were impossible, and now he says it’s his policy,” he added. “Who knows what he’ll say next.”

Home Office stops Norfolk hotel

It comes after South Norfolk Council said it had been told that the Home Office intends to stop housing asylum seekers at the Park Hotel in the town of Diss – which has also seen demonstrations over the last month.

Protests broke out there after officials said they would send single men to the hotel rather than women and children. The hotel’s operator had warned it would close if the change was implemented.

A Home Office spokesperson said on Friday that “we are not planning to use this site beyond the end of the current contract”.

In response, Conservative council leader Daniel Elmer said: “The Home Office thought it could just impose this change and that we would accept it.

“But there is a right way of doing things and a wrong way, and the decision by the Home Office was just plain wrong.”

He added that while “I welcome the decision, in reality it does mean that the women and children who we fought so hard to protect will now be moved elsewhere, and that is a shame”.

Has the government just walked into a giant political elephant trap by attempting to reverse the Epping hotel ruling?

Already on the back foot after a judge ordered the Bell Hotel to be emptied of asylum seekers, the Home Office is now being attacked for trying to appeal that decision.

“The government isn’t listening to the public or to the courts,” said Tory shadow home secretary Chris Philp.

The politics is certainly difficult.

Government sources are alive to that fact, even accusing the Tory-led Epping Council of “playing politics” by launching the legal challenge in the first place.

The fact Labour councils are now also considering claims undermines that somewhat.

After all, the party did promise to shut every asylum hotel by the next election.

Figures out this week showed an increase in the number of migrants in hotels since the Tories left office.

And now, an attempt to keep people in a hotel that’s become a flashpoint for anger.

That’s why ministers are trying to emphasise that closing the Bell Hotel is a matter of when, not if.

“We’ve made a commitment that we will close all of the asylum hotels by the end of this parliament, but we need to do that in a managed and ordered way”, said the security minister Dan Jarvis.

The immediate problem for the Home Office is the same one that caused hotels to be used in the first place.

There are vanishingly few accommodation options.

Labour has moved away from using old military sites.

That’s despite one RAF base in Essex – which Sir Keir Starmer had promised to close – seeing an increase in the number of migrants being housed.

Back in June, the immigration minister told MPs that medium-sized sites like disused tower blocks, old teacher training colleges or redundant student accommodation could all be used.

Until 2023, regular residential accommodation was relied on.

Read more from Sky News:
Rise in migrants staying in hotels
Town ‘changed’ by immigration
Explainer: Where can migrants stay?

But getting hold of more flats and houses could be practically and politically difficult, given shortages of homes and long council waiting lists.

All of this is why previous legal challenges made by councils have ultimately failed.

The government has a legal duty to house asylum seekers at risk of destitution, so judges have tended to decide that blocking off the hotel option runs the risk of causing ministers to act unlawfully.

So to return to the previous question.

Yes, the government may well have walked into a political trap here.

But it probably had no choice.

The US Justice Department has released a transcript of an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell – the jailed ex-girlfriend of paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Maxwell, who is reported to be keen on a presidential pardon, said in the interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche last month that she never saw US President Donald Trump in an “inappropriate setting”.

According to the transcript, Maxwell said: “I never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way. The president was never inappropriate with anybody.”

Maxwell also recalled knowing about Mr Trump and possibly meeting him for the first time in 1990, when her newspaper magnate father, Robert Maxwell, was the owner of the New York Daily News.

“I may have met Donald Trump at that time, because my father was friendly with him and liked him very much,” Maxwell said, according to the transcript.

Maxwell said her father was fond of Mr Trump’s then-wife, Ivana, “because she was also from Czechoslovakia, where my dad was from”.

She was sentenced in the US in June 2022 to 20 years in prison following her conviction on five counts of sex trafficking for luring young girls to massage rooms for Epstein to abuse. She has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn her conviction.

Epstein, 66, was found dead in his cell at a Manhattan federal jail in August 2019 as he awaited trial on sex trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide.

Trump ‘was always very cordial’

His case has generated endless attention and conspiracy theories due to his and Maxwell’s links to famous people like royals, presidents and billionaires, including Mr Trump. No one other than Epstein and Maxwell has been charged with crimes.

Mr Trump knew Epstein socially in the 1990s and early 2000s. During Maxwell’s trial in 2021, Epstein’s longtime pilot, Lawrence Visoski, said Mr Trump flew on Epstein’s private plane several times. Mr Trump has denied flying on the plane.

Maxwell, 63, said in her interview with the Justice Department that she never saw Mr Trump receive a massage.

She told Mr Blanche that Mr Trump “was always very cordial and very kind to me”, adding: “And I just want to say that I admire his extraordinary achievement in becoming the president now.”

Read more: All we know about Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘friendship’

Maxwell denies introducing Epstein to Prince Andrew

Maxwell also denied in the interview that she had ever introduced Prince Andrew to Epstein, and that the Duke of York could not have had sex at her house with Virginia Giuffre.

Ms Giuffre, who died in April, sued the Duke of York for sexual abuse in August 2021, saying Andrew had sex with her when she was 17 and had been trafficked by Epstein.

The duke has repeatedly denied the claims, and he has not been charged with any criminal offences.

In March 2022, it was announced Ms Giuffre and Andrew had reached an out-of-court settlement – believed to include a “substantial donation to Ms Giuffre’s charity in support of victims’ rights”.

Maxwell told the Justice Department: “I did not introduce [Epstein] to Prince Andrew or to Sarah Ferguson. That is a flat untruth. I’ll start with that.”

She insisted Epstein and the duke met separately, and said “I think Sarah [Ferguson] is the one that pushed that”, before saying that allegations Andrew had sex with Ms Giuffre were untrue, as she was at her mother’s 80th birthday celebrations in the countryside outside the city.

She then claimed Ms Giuffre’s allegation that she and Andrew had sexual contact in the bathroom of Maxwell’s London flat was not true, as the room was not big enough.

She also claimed that an image of her standing alongside Andrew with his arm around Ms Giuffre’s waist was “literally a fake photo”.

The release of the transcript comes after Mr Trump has faced criticism from Republican supporters and Democrats over his Justice Department’s decision not to release further details relating to Epstein, after the now US president promised to do so during the election.

Read more: What you need to know about Trump, Epstein and the MAGA controversy

The Justice Department previously said a review of the Epstein case had found “no incriminating ‘client list'” and “no credible evidence” the jailed financier had blackmailed famous men.

In the transcript of the department’s interview with Maxwell, Epstein’s former girlfriend said that she is not aware of any Epstein ‘client list’.

After her interview in July, Maxwell was moved to a minimum-security prison camp in Bryan, Texas, by the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) after she was held at a low-security prison in Tallahassee, Florida, that housed men and women.

The Texas camp houses solely female prisoners, the majority of whom are serving time for non-violent offences and white-collar crimes.

Neither Maxwell’s lawyer nor the BOP gave a reason for the move.

Maxwell’s legal team have maintained that she was wrongly prosecuted and denied a fair trial, and have floated the idea of a pardon from Mr Trump.

Read more from Sky News:
Tour bus crash kills and injures several people
Trump critic has home raided by the FBI

The president said earlier this month that “nobody” had asked him about pardoning Maxwell, but insisted that he has “the right to do it”.

Mr Trump said: “I’m allowed to do it, but nobody’s asked me to do it. I know nothing about it. I don’t know anything about the case, but I know I have the right to do it.

“I have the right to give pardons, I’ve given pardons to people before, but nobody’s even asked me to do it.”