Andy Burnham was slammed on TalkTV for his handling of the small boats crisis (Image: Getty)
Brendan O’Neill, chief political writer at Spiked Online, has warned Prime Minister Andy Burnham that he and his Labour government could be sued for their handling of the UK’s migrant crisis. Appearing on TalkTV on Wednesday (7 October), the journalist told Kevin O’Sullivan, “We know for a fact that the men coming on these small boats are a threat to women and girls. “We know from two recent cases and many more that they’re a threat to British Jews, so any government that fails to stop these boats is knowingly endangering women and Jewish people in this country.
“They know that they are doing that, so they have to be held to account for it.
I’m waiting for the day when one of the poor, unfortunate women who is assaulted by one of these men takes action against the government itself and sues the government for recklessly endangering her life,” O’Neill declared. “That is what the government is doing.”
Following the TV star’s rant, viewers took to X in response. “I’ve said that if anything happens to my family or me, I will sue the government. I don’t know why no one has done it!” replied one. “Everyone can see where this ends if nothing changes. Waiting for tragedy isn’t a policy,” added another.
Both Burnham and Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood have come under fire in recent months for their handling of small boat crossings.
While Labour maintains that the number of small-boat crossings has decreased from last year, it was revealed in September that over 1,000 illegal migrants had arrived in the UK over the course of three days.
Home Office figures showed that 150 small boat migrants had arrived on Monday, September 21, followed by 154 on Tuesday, September 22, and 781 on Wednesday, September 23.
Responding to the figures, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: “It does show that Shabana Mahmood has no control of our borders, with these boats making it all the way across undetected. There may be others, as you rightly say. Now, last week was a shocking week… We had a boat crossing from Normandy towards the Isle of Wight, the longest ever crossing, and in just three days last week – Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday – over 1,000 illegal immigrants entered the country.”
More recently, leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, pointed out that Burnham failed to mention how he would combat illegal immigration in his highly-publicised speech at the Labour conference.
“I’m more worried about what wasn’t in his speech last week,” Kemi stated on Wednesday (7 October).
“Funding defence wasn’t in it, getting borrowing under control wasn’t in it, stopping illegal immigration wasn’t in it, cutting crime wasn’t in it, cutting the ballooning benefits bill wasn’t in his speech. I’m shocked that this Prime Minister doesn’t have defence, the economy, immigration or crime in his priorities. This is not serious.” Kemi concluded that “the country deserves better”.
“WOMEN WILL PAY THE PRICE!” Andy Burnham Faces Stark Warning Over Migrant Crisis as Immigration Row Erupts
Andy Burnham has come under renewed pressure over immigration and women’s safety as a fierce political debate over Channel crossings, sexual violence and the Government’s approach to asylum seekers intensifies across Britain.
The controversy follows warnings from Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood about the dangers faced by women travelling through people-smuggling networks to reach the United Kingdom. Mahmood claimed that nearly all women making the journey from northern France had probably experienced rape or sexual abuse along the way, highlighting the vulnerability of people whose movements are controlled by criminal gangs. <Cite refs={[“turn728500search1”]}/>
Her remarks have added urgency to questions about whether Britain’s asylum system is adequately protecting vulnerable women, preventing exploitation and maintaining public confidence in border controls.
Burnham, who became Labour leader and Prime Minister in this scenario’s reported political developments, has faced criticism from those demanding a tougher response to illegal migration. He has also condemned masked anti-migrant demonstrations, describing them as intimidating and unacceptable, while acknowledging that concerns about immigration must be addressed. <Cite refs={[“turn728500search2″,”turn728500search3”]}/>
The resulting dispute exposes a difficult challenge for Labour: how can the Government protect women, tackle criminal trafficking networks and respond to public anxiety without treating every asylum seeker as a threat?
Women’s safety moves to the centre of the immigration debate
The safety of women travelling to Britain through irregular migration routes has become a central issue following Mahmood’s comments about sexual violence during journeys across Europe.
The Home Secretary argued that people-smuggling gangs exert considerable influence over who reaches northern France and boards boats bound for Britain. Such networks can exploit people who have already fled conflict, persecution or extreme hardship, leaving them vulnerable to threats, violence and abuse.
Women and girls can face particular risks, including sexual exploitation and coercion. Men travelling along the same routes may also experience violence and abuse.
These dangers raise questions about the responsibilities of governments, law-enforcement agencies and organisations working with vulnerable migrants. They also highlight the importance of identifying trafficking victims, investigating allegations of sexual violence and ensuring that survivors can access appropriate support.
However, Mahmood’s statement about nearly all women making the journey was a political claim rather than a comprehensive, independently verified statistic covering every woman who attempts the crossing. The scale of abuse should be assessed using reliable evidence, while recognising that sexual violence is frequently under-reported.
The central concern remains serious: people should not have to depend on criminal gangs to reach safety, and those responsible for exploitation must face investigation and prosecution.
Burnham faces questions over the Government’s response
Burnham has sought to present a position that combines stronger immigration enforcement with opposition to intimidation on Britain’s streets.
During an interview with ITV News in September, he criticised masked anti-migrant protesters in towns including Dover, Portsmouth, Gosport and Basingstoke. He said such demonstrations were designed to intimidate and argued that creating fear in local communities was unacceptable. <Cite refs={[“turn728500search2”]}/>
At the same time, Burnham acknowledged that concerns about immigration were real and said the Government needed to address them.
That distinction is important. Residents may have questions about accommodation, public services, border security and the handling of asylum applications without supporting threats or hostility towards migrants.
The political difficulty comes when voters believe that ministers acknowledge their concerns but have not yet delivered sufficient practical change.
For critics of Labour, the question is whether its policies can prevent irregular arrivals, disrupt trafficking networks and remove people who have no legal right to remain in the country. Others argue that border enforcement must be accompanied by effective asylum processing and safe routes for people who qualify for protection.
Burnham’s challenge is to explain how those objectives can be pursued together.
The controversy over guidance given to asylum seekers
Another source of debate emerged in August, when Burnham defended a Home Office information booklet explaining British laws and expectations to asylum seekers.
The document, titled Understanding behaviours and expectations in the UK, included guidance on gender equality, respect in public and the seriousness of crimes such as rape, domestic abuse and sexual activity with children below the age of consent.
The guidance explained that such offences could lead to criminal penalties and could also affect a person’s asylum or accommodation circumstances. It was presented as information intended to help people understand the laws and expectations that apply in Britain. <Cite refs={[“turn728500search0”]}/>
The booklet prompted a wider argument about how the Government communicates British law to people arriving in the country.
Supporters of the guidance can argue that explaining the law clearly is a practical way to prevent misunderstandings and reinforce the principle that everyone is subject to the same legal standards.
Critics may question why such basic legal expectations need to be emphasised in a document aimed at asylum seekers, or whether the presentation risks creating an unfair association between migration and sexual offending.
The distinction is essential: providing information about the law does not establish that asylum seekers are more likely to commit a particular crime. Individual responsibility must be determined through evidence and due process, not assumptions about someone’s nationality or immigration status.
Nevertheless, the debate has ensured that questions about women’s safety and the integration of new arrivals remain firmly on the political agenda.
The role of people-smuggling gangs
One of the most significant issues raised by Mahmood’s intervention is the role of organised criminal networks in facilitating dangerous Channel crossings.
People-smugglers can charge substantial sums for journeys in unsafe boats, while exerting control over people who have few alternatives. Those attempting to reach Britain may have limited knowledge of the risks, the individuals arranging their travel or the conditions they will face along the way.
The danger does not end when a boat reaches the British coast. People who have experienced abuse may require medical care, protection and support, while investigations into suspected trafficking can involve criminal networks operating across national borders.
Effective enforcement therefore requires more than intercepting boats. It can include intelligence-sharing with European partners, investigations into organisers and financial networks, victim identification and cooperation between police forces.
The Government must also ensure that people reporting abuse can approach the authorities without unnecessary barriers.
A policy that focuses exclusively on deterring arrivals may fail to address the criminal organisations profiting from vulnerable people. Conversely, measures intended to protect victims cannot replace the need for lawful border management and timely decisions on asylum claims.
The challenge is to develop an approach that addresses the criminal networks while protecting people who have suffered exploitation.
Public confidence and the rise of anti-migrant protests
Immigration has become an increasingly contentious issue in communities where residents are concerned about asylum accommodation and the capacity of local services.
Demonstrations in southern England have reflected anger about the use of hotels and other properties to house asylum seekers. Some residents want more information about who is being accommodated, how long arrangements will last and whether local authorities have been consulted.
Those concerns can be discussed through public meetings, elected representatives and lawful protest.
But masked demonstrations and intimidating behaviour raise separate questions. Burnham has argued that such actions create fear rather than offering a constructive response to the policy issues involved.
It is possible to demand stronger border controls while rejecting harassment or collective blame. Equally, condemning intimidation does not remove the Government’s responsibility to explain how its immigration policies work.
Public confidence depends on clear information, consistent enforcement and credible results. Where communities believe decisions are being made without consultation, frustration can grow. Where political debate relies on exaggerated claims or unsubstantiated allegations, it becomes harder to establish what is actually happening.
The Government must therefore distinguish legitimate concerns about policy from attempts to direct hostility at people because they are migrants or asylum seekers.
Labour faces pressure to demonstrate results
The political implications extend beyond Burnham personally. Labour is under pressure to show that it can manage the asylum system effectively while maintaining its commitments to human rights and the rule of law.
Burnham told the Labour conference that net migration had fallen by more than 80 per cent from the peak of the Boris Johnson era and that small-boat arrivals were lower than in the early 2020s. These were figures cited in his political address; comparisons depend on the periods and measures being used. <Cite refs={[“turn728500search4”]}/>
Even where migration falls, public concern may persist if people see continued Channel crossings, expensive accommodation arrangements or reports of criminal exploitation.
Ministers must also explain the difference between legal migration, people seeking asylum and individuals who have no legal right to remain. These categories are not interchangeable, and policies affecting one group may not resolve problems associated with another.
A credible strategy would need to show how the Government intends to reduce dangerous crossings, improve the speed and quality of asylum decisions, return people who are not entitled to stay where legally possible, and protect victims of trafficking.
It would also need to demonstrate that enforcement is consistent and that decisions are made in accordance with the law.
For Labour, the political test is whether its actions match its promises and whether the public can see measurable improvements.
Protecting women requires evidence and effective enforcement
The warning that women may pay the price of a failing migration system has emotional force, but it also demands careful consideration of what policies can genuinely improve safety.
Protecting women means investigating sexual violence, prosecuting offenders, supporting survivors and preventing criminal networks from exploiting vulnerable people. These responsibilities apply regardless of the victim’s nationality or immigration status.
It also means avoiding unsupported generalisations about entire groups. An asylum seeker may be a victim of trafficking, a person seeking protection, or someone whose claim does not meet the legal requirements. Those circumstances must be assessed individually.
Where crimes are committed, the authorities must respond through evidence-based investigations and the courts. Where people are victims, they should have access to protection and support.
The same principles apply to the wider debate over public safety. Government policy should be judged by whether it reduces harm, improves enforcement and protects people’s rights, rather than by the intensity of political slogans.
A controversy with consequences for Britain’s immigration policy
The latest row places Burnham at the intersection of two powerful public concerns: the safety of women and the management of immigration.
Mahmood’s warning about sexual violence during dangerous journeys has underlined the risks associated with criminal smuggling networks. Burnham’s response to anti-migrant protests has highlighted a parallel concern about intimidation and the treatment of people living in British communities.
The Government must address both issues without allowing one to obscure the other.
It needs to demonstrate that women who experience abuse can obtain protection, that trafficking networks are investigated and disrupted, and that asylum applications are processed fairly and efficiently. It must also provide clear answers to communities seeking information about accommodation and border enforcement.
For Burnham, the challenge is to translate statements about fairness and control into policies that can be measured against practical outcomes.
The debate will continue, but its most important questions are concrete: are vulnerable women being protected, are criminal gangs being held accountable, are border rules being enforced, and are local communities receiving accurate information?
Those are the standards against which the Government’s response should be judged—not assumptions about whole populations or the most inflammatory language used by either side of the political argument.