RNLI Lifeboats Packed With Migrants Refused Access to Two Ports
Two RNLI lifeboats carrying more than 100 migrants were refused permission to land at both Portsmouth and Southampton after rescuing people from a large dinghy in the English Channel, prompting questions about the decisions made by port authorities and adding another chapter to the growing controversy surrounding the charity’s role in migrant rescues.
The incident happened on Sunday, when two RNLI crews responded to a large small boat carrying around 120 people.
After the migrants were taken aboard the lifeboats, requests were made to bring them ashore at two nearby ports.
Those requests were refused.
The boats subsequently travelled to Eastney, in Portsmouth’s Langstone Harbour, where the migrants were eventually brought ashore.
The landing was followed by a major protest, with demonstrators blocking the road outside the RNLI station and police officers facing disorder.
The episode has since become a political flashpoint, with questions being raised about why the lifeboats were directed away from two ports and whether the subsequent confrontation could have been avoided.
Requests to Southampton and Portsmouth Were Refused
The RNLI has said it is trying to understand why its request to access the two ports was denied.
A spokesperson for the charity said it was disappointed by the nature of the communication with its crews, describing them as volunteers who give their time to save lives at sea.
According to reports, the two RNLI vessels involved were from Bembridge and Yarmouth.
They had responded to a “mega-dinghy” that had travelled across the Channel from the French coast.
The boats were heavily loaded, and the migrants were eventually transferred onto the two lifeboats.
The first requests concerned Southampton and Portsmouth.
Both declined.
The boats then continued towards Eastney, where arrangements were made to bring the migrants ashore.
The circumstances have led to criticism from different sides, although the organisations involved have offered differing explanations for what happened.
Southampton’s Explanation
Associated British Ports, which operates Southampton, said it had received an enquiry about landing the rescued migrants.
However, the company said the port did not have suitable reception facilities available.
It also argued that Southampton was not the closest port in circumstances involving a safety-of-life-at-sea emergency.
ABP said that if Southampton had been the closest suitable port, or if the relevant authority had issued a formal direction, it would have played a role.
According to the company, neither situation applied in this case.
That explanation is significant because it suggests the refusal was based on operational considerations rather than a decision to prevent migrants from entering the port because of their immigration status.
Nevertheless, the RNLI has indicated that it wants further clarification about the decision.
What Happened at Portsmouth?
The situation at Portsmouth was more complicated.
The BBC reported that the King’s Harbour Master at Portsmouth declined a request from the Coastguard to allow the migrants into the harbour.
The harbour authority itself did not comment directly on operational matters.
The decision meant that the RNLI vessels changed course and eventually brought the migrants ashore at Eastney.
Langstone Harbour Master said the people had been recovered onto two RNLI vessels near the Nab Tower.
Because the vessels were heavily loaded, they would have had to travel at relatively slow speed towards Langstone Harbour.
The decision to use Eastney subsequently became a major issue because of the geography of the location.
There is only one road leading in and out of the narrow peninsula.
That made it possible for protesters to block vehicles transporting the migrants away from the landing site.
Protesters Blocked the Road
Once the migrants were brought ashore, anti-migration protesters gathered around the area.
Reports indicated that up to 200 demonstrators were involved.
Many wore dark clothing and some wore balaclavas.
The protesters blocked the road used by coaches transporting the migrants away from the harbour.
The resulting confrontation continued for hours.
Police officers formed lines around vehicles and faced attacks during the disorder.
According to ITV News, officers were pushed from motorcycles and had stones and bricks thrown at them.
The police response involved riot shields and a significant deployment of officers.
The incident demonstrated how quickly a maritime rescue operation had developed into a major public-order operation.
RNLI Volunteers Become Targets
The controversy did not end when the migrants were taken away.
RNLI volunteers who participated in the rescue subsequently became targets of online criticism and abuse.
Photographs and names of volunteers were circulated by protesters on social media.
Some demonstrators labelled the rescuers “traitors”.
The RNLI strongly condemned the targeting.
Chief executive Peter Sparkes said the charity’s volunteers and their families had been subjected to online and, in some cases, physical abuse.
He said misinformation surrounding the RNLI’s work had contributed to hostility towards its staff and volunteers.
The organisation has emphasised that its crews are not responsible for Britain’s immigration policy.
Their job is to respond to people in danger at sea.
Why the Rescue Happened
The RNLI’s involvement has become one of the most controversial aspects of the Channel migration debate.
The charity maintains that its crews are lifesavers rather than immigration officials.
When people are in danger at sea, RNLI crews can be tasked to assist them as part of the wider search-and-rescue system.
The fact that people on a boat may subsequently seek asylum does not change the immediate maritime emergency.
The RNLI does not decide whether an individual qualifies for asylum.
It does not determine whether someone can remain in the UK.
Those decisions belong to government authorities.
Once people rescued at sea reach shore, they can be transferred to the relevant agencies for processing.
Critics Accuse the RNLI of Facilitating Migration
Despite the charity’s position, some anti-immigration campaigners argue that rescue operations can encourage people to attempt dangerous Channel crossings.
Some protesters have gone further, describing RNLI lifeboats as a “taxi service” for migrants.
The RNLI rejects that characterisation.
The charity says its crews respond to people who are in danger and that refusing to rescue someone because of their nationality or immigration status would conflict with its fundamental lifesaving mission.
The dispute has become increasingly heated in recent weeks.
RNLI stations have faced protests, volunteers have been targeted online and the charity has increased security measures at some locations.
The Portsmouth incident has therefore become part of a much wider political confrontation.
The Importance of Port Decisions
The refusal of access to Portsmouth and Southampton raises an important operational question.
When a rescue vessel carrying a large number of people needs to land, the location must be suitable for both the people being rescued and the agencies responsible for receiving them.
A port may need appropriate facilities, access for emergency services, security arrangements and sufficient space for onward transportation.
Southampton’s explanation specifically referred to the absence of suitable reception facilities.
That illustrates why a port cannot necessarily accept a large group simply because it is geographically nearby.
At the same time, the RNLI’s concerns about the communication of the decisions demonstrate the importance of clear coordination between rescue crews, coastguards and harbour authorities.
Eastney’s Difficult Location
Eastney ultimately became the landing point.
But local authorities later questioned whether it was an appropriate location for such an operation.
Portsmouth City Council described the location as unsuitable and argued that the decision caused unnecessary disruption to the local area.
The physical geography of Eastney made matters more difficult.
A narrow access road meant that protesters could effectively disrupt the movement of vehicles.
This created an additional security problem for police and officials.
The confrontation therefore illustrates how the choice of landing location can have consequences far beyond the immediate maritime operation.
Police Caught in the Middle
Police were required to manage competing demands.
On one side was the need to protect people arriving from the sea and ensure they could be transferred safely.
On the other was the right of protesters to demonstrate against the government’s immigration policy.
The situation became more serious when officers were attacked and roads were blocked.
The police therefore had to distinguish between lawful protest and criminal behaviour.
The disorder also created risks for the RNLI volunteers who had already been targeted online.
The Guardian reported that protesters attempted to identify individual RNLI volunteers and circulated their photographs on social media.
That development has raised wider concerns about doxxing and intimidation.
The Broader Migration Debate
The incident occurred against the background of a long-running political dispute over small-boat crossings.
Successive British governments have attempted to reduce the number of people making the journey from France.
Measures have included cooperation with French authorities, efforts to disrupt smuggling networks and changes to the asylum system.
The government has also sought to reduce the use of hotels to accommodate asylum seekers.
But while those policies are debated, maritime rescue services continue to face the immediate reality of people attempting dangerous crossings.
The RNLI’s role is therefore difficult to separate from the migration issue even though the organisation does not set migration policy.
A Growing Security Concern
The recent incidents have forced the RNLI to consider security measures that would have been unusual only a short time ago.
The charity has advised volunteers to take precautions when travelling to and from stations.
In some circumstances, staff have been told they can avoid wearing RNLI-branded clothing if they believe doing so could make them targets.
The organisation has also temporarily suspended operations at its Portsmouth lifeboat station following concerns about the safety of volunteers.
Alternative rescue arrangements were put in place.
The measures demonstrate the extent to which the political debate has begun affecting an emergency service whose volunteers traditionally operate outside party politics.
The RNLI’s Position
The RNLI has continued to defend its crews.
Its chief executive has argued that volunteers should not be threatened simply because they carried out a lifesaving operation.
He described the abuse directed at volunteers as unacceptable.
The charity has also sought to counter what it calls misinformation about its role.
It has stressed that its crews do not decide who comes to Britain and do not process asylum applications.
Their responsibility is to save people who are in danger at sea.
The organisation says that principle applies to everyone.
Questions Still Remain
The refusal of access to Southampton and Portsmouth has left several questions unanswered.
Why exactly was Portsmouth unable to accept the RNLI vessels?
What communication took place between the Coastguard and the harbour authorities?
Could another landing location have been arranged before the vessels reached Eastney?
And could a different landing site have prevented the confrontation that followed?
The answers matter because future Channel rescues could involve similarly large numbers of people.
If a rescue vessel is carrying dozens or even hundreds of people, the landing process needs to be carefully coordinated.
Any uncertainty could create delays and additional risks.
A Test for the Rescue System
The episode therefore raises issues that extend beyond the current political argument.
Britain’s search-and-rescue system is designed to respond quickly when lives are at risk.
But large migrant boats create a unique operational challenge because a single incident can involve very large numbers of people.
The response may require lifeboats, Coastguard teams, police, Border Force, ambulances, harbour authorities and local councils.
Coordination between all these organisations becomes essential.
The events at Portsmouth suggest that there are questions about how that coordination works when a large migrant boat is involved.
What Happens Next?
The RNLI has said it is working with the relevant organisations to understand why its requests to access the ports were refused.
The charity’s immediate priority remains protecting its volunteers while continuing to perform its lifesaving role.
Police are also continuing to deal with the consequences of the Portsmouth protest, including allegations of violence, obstruction and intimidation.
Meanwhile, the broader political argument over Channel migration shows no sign of disappearing.
For the RNLI, however, the central issue remains relatively simple.
Its crews are trained to save lives at sea.
They do not decide who should enter Britain, how asylum applications should be processed or what immigration policy the government should pursue.
The events surrounding the Eastney landing demonstrate the difficult position in which the charity now finds itself.
A maritime rescue can quickly become a political confrontation once the people being rescued are migrants.
The refusal of access to Portsmouth and Southampton added another layer of complexity, forcing RNLI crews to take their passengers elsewhere.
What happened afterwards — including protests, clashes with police and the targeting of volunteers — has intensified the debate.
As Channel crossings remain a major political issue, similar incidents could occur again.
The challenge for Britain’s authorities will be to ensure that decisions about where rescued people are landed are based on clear operational procedures, while protecting the volunteers whose job is to respond when people are in danger.
For the RNLI crews involved, the controversy may continue long after the lifeboats have returned to their stations.
But their stated mission remains unchanged: when lives are at risk at sea, they will continue to answer the call.
Port bosses refused to let two lifeboats carrying 120 migrants dock amid fears of protests, it has emerged. RNLI vessels wanted to land at Southampton and Portsmouth Harbour, and were even threatened with legal action if they tried to bring the asylum seekers ashore.
They were then taken to Eastney, several miles away, where they were met by hundreds of furious protesters. The harbour only had one access road, leading to chaos for the authorities as they tried to transfer the migrants to Manston processing centre in Kent. A spokesman for Associated British Ports (ABP) confirmed that the crews had been told not to come to Southampton.
They said: “ABP did receive an enquiry about landing recovered migrants at the Port of Southampton.
“We had to decline the enquiry as the port did not have suitable reception facilities available. If there had been a safety of life at sea issue where Southampton was the closest port or if we had received a formal direction from the authorities, then we would have played a role.
“Neither was the case in this situation.”
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused Labour of being “weak” on immigration as 120 people were brought into Portsmouth following a record crossing attempt from near Cherbourg.
It prompted warnings of an “invasion” of other coastal towns, such as Brighton, Southampton or Weymouth as smugglers change their tactics to exploit weak points in the border.
And hundreds of protesters descended on Portsmouth late on Sunday night, vowing not to let three coaches of migrants through.
Some even chased the buses down the motorway as they carried the migrants from Portsmouth to Dover.
Hampshire Police Federation said one of the officers injured on Sunday night was “only three days out of training school”.
Spencer Wragg, Chair of Hampshire Police Federation, said officers appeared to have become a target while they were trying to police the incident.
He said: “We’ve received reports of officers being assaulted, I’ve seen footage of officers being pushed off their motorbike, I’ve seen pictures of police vehicles damaged. It appears that the police last night became the target for some of the protest.
“Thankfully there are no serious injuries to officers, but the professionalism they showed in the face of provocation and immense pressure was admirable. Those scenes in that area of Portsmouth weren’t protests, they weren’t protests at all, it was clear that some people were intent on disorder and venting their frustrations.
“If people have a point to make, and an issue they want to legitimately protest about, that is not about assaulting officers, that is not about damaging vehicles or anything like that. That is just disorder.
“One of policing’s key roles is to protect people’s right to protest, and having been a public order officer for 30 years myself, I’ve policed numerous protests. The vast majority of protests and people attending protest do so peacefully and want to get their view across.
“What we saw last night and into the early hours of this morning doesn’t support the cause of those peacefully protesting, it was merely criminal behaviour of assaults, damage and intimidation.”
Mrs Badenoch declared that “thuggery” cannot stop small boat crossings, adding it “requires a serious plan and a serious deterrent”.
She told the Daily Express: “Since Labour entered government, 95 per cent of illegal immigrants crossing the Channel have been allowed to stay.
“So, it’s no wonder the small boats keep coming or that we get the scenes we saw in Dover and Portsmouth at the weekend.
“I unconditionally condemn the violence, and the police have my full support in upholding the peace.
“But the public are clearly angry about the Government’s inability to stop illegal immigration into Britain. The way to deal with that is with a serious plan and a serious deterrent, not thuggery.
“Andy Burnham is claiming the one-in-one-out deal with France is sufficient, when it’s only returned 1,700 people to the continent (a reminder: 20,000 people have crossed the Channel just this year), and handing leaflets to illegal immigrants reminding them not to rape women.
“Labour is weak on immigration. Andy Burnham just doesn’t want to get his hands dirty.”
Rescue teams admitted they were blindsided as the smugglers used an “isolated, rocky spot” in the region, which is almost 285 miles away by road from Calais.
And the boat was in “serious difficulty” within “an hour”, officials said.
This led to five French rescue vessels and two helicopters helping the 120 asylum seekers on the nearly 70-mile journey.
Alexandra Whyte, the sister of a mother murdered by a Channel migrant, travelled for four hours to join demonstrators on the South coast at the weekend, as anger over small boat arrivals intensified on Sunday night.
Sudanese asylum seeker Deng Majek stabbed mother-of-one Rhiannon Whyte 23 times in a frenzied 90-second attack after following the 27-year-old to Bescot Road railway station in Walsall in 2024.
She died in hospital three days later. No motive has been established for why Majek, who arrived in the UK on a small boat three months before he attacked her. He was jailed for 29 years in January.
Alexandra told the Daily Express: “My sister’s story needs to be heard. As a female, standing out there and facing 160 male migrants and saying ‘I’m not afraid you’ … It’s something my sister deserves.
“There were people there who were afraid for their children. There were a lot of women there who were afraid for their children, for themselves and even for their mothers.
“Because no one is safe.
“Rhiannon’s son knows I was there. I tucked him in as he went to bed, and I said ‘I have to go’.
“I told him we were going to try to stop the boats with the bad men on.
“He said ‘go and do it – give them the message’.
“He deserves everything that those who were there were doing”.
Ms Whyte said there was “no violence”, adding “it was the calmest place to be considering how angry people were”.