Portsmouth councillor's asylum speculation slammed as fearmongering and clickbait

Over the course of a week, speculation surrounding the building's use gained momentum, partly fuelled by Cllr Madgwick’s posts on social media. However, local estate agents Your Move have since confirmed that Roebuck House will provide 58 private one- and two-bedroom flats and was never intended to be used as accommodation for asylum seekers.

On 15 March, Cllr Madgwick posted a video on Facebook in which he speculated about the building's future. His caption asked: “Are 100s of migrants on their way to Cosham? I think so.”

By 19 March, this claim was debunked, with both Your Move and the Home Office confirming that Roebuck House had never been under consideration for housing asylum seekers. Instead of retracting his statement, Cllr Madgwick posted a follow-up video, in which he implied that public backlash had forced the landlord to change their plans.

In the video, Madgwick presented an email from a landlord representative, stating that the building would be privately let due to “social media attention and negative press”. However, the email does not suggest that the building's intended use had ever been different, simply that information could not be disclosed earlier due to commercial sensitivity, a standard practice in the housing sector.

Despite this, Madgwick claimed that the “proactive” opposition from local residents had pushed the landlord to make the decision to let the property privately. In his video, he stated: “The client’s been authorised to put it on the residential sector,” and went on to say: “Thanks to residents being really proactively against it, the landlord’s made a decision and that decision is it’s going to be private residential property.”

In the comments section of the video, Madgwick further speculated that the landlord had likely considered migrant housing, claiming he was “99.9 per cent confident” of this. He added: “He probably saw all the hassle over the week. As a business they’d have analysed the outcomes and made a decision to respond proactively.”

Madgwick also pointed to a recently refused planning application for a 2.4m-high perimeter fence with a security gate, suggesting this was "bang to rights" that asylum accommodation had been planned. However, a Your Move spokesperson clarified that the fence was intended to improve security for private tenants.

Samantha Dean, lettings manager at Your Move, responded directly to Madgwick’s claims, stating: “It’s not true.” She confirmed that the flats are high-end apartments aimed at professionals, not asylum accommodation.

“We were unable to disclose this information until both sides had agreed to our terms and prices,” Dean added. “I hear he’s trying to claim it as a win, but that was never the company’s case.”

Dean further stated that asylum accommodation "was never under consideration".

Anti-racism campaign group Stand Up to Racism (SUTR) also criticised Madgwick for spreading what they termed “dog-whistles, fearmongering and baiting the far-right”. The group accused him of attempting to “save face” in his 19 March video after the evidence against him became “insurmountable”.

SUTR also mocked Madgwick’s narrative, suggesting that if his version of events were true, it would represent “the fastest corporate decision-making and multimillion-pound deal in history” or, that he had “made it all up to stir up racism for cheap clickbait.”

The group also warned about the impact of such misinformation, pointing out that while “refugees are not a threat to us”, the “far-right spreading lies and hate,” alongside “opportunist politicians encouraging misinformation”, has already contributed to incidents of racial violence.

In response to criticism, Madgwick claimed his words had been "continually misrepresented" and clarified that, after eight years of uncertainty, social media pressure had finally provided "an answer" on Roebuck House’s use.

He described this as a “positive outcome” but lamented that it took a “social media frenzy” to prompt action. He also stated that the “victory” was the result of residents demanding an answer, which he said would not have been necessary if government agencies had “responded with straight answers".

Regarding Stand Up to Racism, Madgwick dismissed them as a “divisive hate-filled group with sometimes extreme ideologies” and said he didn’t recognise them as a “credible entity", adding that he had no intention of responding to them.

A PIP member revealed that the party has invited Stand Up to Racism (SUTR) to meet and discuss their differences on several occasions, but has received no response.