Passions shout in the street, but the judgment must rest upon reasons that can be explained to friend and opponent alike. One set of reasons speaks for property, local planning and the predictable ordering of common life. Another speaks for the duty, now woven into domestic law through instruments such as the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, not to expose people to serious harm by sudden eviction. The court has tried to strike a balance between these claims, favouring temporary security for the asylum seekers while hinting that the current use of the Bell Hotel cannot continue forever. The wise course for ministers is to lower expectations on every side, admit their own part in creating this tension, and design a stable scheme that does not rely on perpetual exceptions.