In the Sussex town of Crowborough, known for being the home of Arthur Conan Doyle, a divide has erupted amongst its 20,000 citizens over the housing of 600 asylum seekers at the town’s army training camp.
Why the anger?
Controversy surrounding the use of hotels came to a head following the prosecution of an asylum seeker for sexual assault while being housed at The Bell Hotel in Epping. This led to protests demanding the removal of asylum seekers from the hotel, escalating to a high court case from Epping Forest District Council. Whilst the case was lost, meaning asylum seekers continue to reside there, Epping represents a significant spark in the debate around housing migrants.
The government has committed to ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by 2029, forcing the Home Office to search for new properties. In attempts to cut costs it has deemed army training camps and barracks as suitable to house asylum seekers fleeing war, persecution and violence. The decision was starkly opposed by the Green Party with Zack Polanski commenting, “an army barracks is a totally unacceptable place to house people seeking asylum. We need to treat people with humanity and dignity”.
With no public consultation and presumably little critical thinking into public reaction, Crowborough army training camp was selected as an accommodation site. This led to the emergence of “Crowborough Says No”, a resident protest group campaigning against the decision.
Crowborough says No
Driving into Crowborough Leisure Centre car park, the meeting point for the “Crowborough Says No” protest on 23 November 2025, I was greeted by tweed shirts, gilets and flat caps. It was as though the pitchforks of an uprising had been erased and replaced with St George’s flags and egregiously large Union Jacks; there was a palpable atmosphere of intimidation in the air.
Like a marathon, numbers were handed out to supporters to stick to their backs. This was said to be a visual representation of the 600 refugees set to be housed at the camp.
Xenophobia or concerned citizens?
Speaking with residents it became clear there were two supposed strands of opposition. Concern was voiced for the practical delivery of the housing policy and the impact this may have on local services.
Rosie, Crowborough resident, told me “The immigrants are one matter, the biggest concern for me is how this process has been undertaken. There has been no consultation with the people in the town”.
Underpinning the argument of protesters was a sense of not being heard, with one local describing the situation as a “chaotic absence of clear direction and policies”.
However, scratching the surface, it appears a second, far more divisive view interlocks the debate. As my interviews progressed, deeper opinions became apparent as Rosie suggested, “They shouldn’t be here in the first place. I think entering a country illegally is not acceptable and they should be sent back, claim asylum somewhere else”.
This was a view echoed by many protesters I spoke to. A resident named George went as far as to say, “I’d send them straight back”.
“Even if they’re at threat of death and persecution?” I asked.
“It’s not really our problem, why should we look after them?” he replied.
Tied up in nationalist symbols
As the protest moved through the streets of Crowborough, chanting began. In a twist of the cheesy classic “Three Lions”, UKIP leader Nick Tenconi led the bellowing of “You’re going home, you’re going home. You are going home”. This encapsulated the atmosphere of the protest. The march was tied up in nationalist symbols, awash with flags and even a grown man dressed as St George playing the bongos.
There was an anti-asylum seeker sentiment among many that went far deeper than concerns for community safety or strain on public services.
Addressing the rally at Chapel Green, Tenconi declared that the “cancer destroying Britain is left wing fascism”. He then added, “I say, patriots, that our bloodline is the bloodline of strength and courage”, illustrating the movement’s decline into far-right extremism, platformed by “Crowborough Says No”.
Whilst “Crowborough Shield”, a self-described “non-political” group, did not attend the speeches, attempting to illustrate their apparent impartial stance, they did provide stewards and even “third party social media” for the protest.
A win for the far right
Asylum seeker housing has been a failure on all fronts. The Home Office’s commitment to the use of army training camps and barracks appears to be nothing more than an attempt to appease an anti-immigration sentiment. There is no practicality to the initiative, and the government knows that.
In March 2024, the National Audit Office released a report stating the Home Office large sites programme will cost £1.2 billion, meaning it will set the government back £46 million more than using hotels.
If this were to be approached with pragmatism and compassion, the Home Office would seek to create legal routes for asylum seekers via embassies and allow them to work, living in the UK whilst their application is processed.
At the heart of this proposal is a nationalistic rebranding of the Labour Party. It’s an attempt to get Reform supporters on side and prove Starmer is tough on immigration. Instead, it’s become yet another divisive tool gifted to the far right to distract from the real issues grinding Britain down.
The “Crowborough Says No” protests have moved beyond their opposition to the use of the army training camp. They have become a symbol of nationalism and anti-asylum seeker rhetoric.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
