It has previously said that it is proud of the lifesaving work its volunteers do in the English Channel, adding “we make no apology for it”. “Those we rescue are vulnerable people in danger and distress.

“Each of them is someone’s father, mother, son or daughter – every life is precious.

“This is why we launch.”

Mr Pendrill told CRA members that he, as an RNLI representative, would be invited to a meeting in the future so that they could explain why cash is needed.

But this was met with a negative response, GB News reported.

One woman purportedly replied: “He’ll get booed.”

It comes after activists from groups calling themselves Poole Patriots and Bournemouth Patriots attended a demonstration outside the RNLI’s headquarters on Saturday.

They called on the charity to “stop the taxi service”, referring to accusations that the charity acts as a “taxi” for people attempting to enter the UK illegally by crossing the Channel in small boats.

They argued the governments should not rest on RNLI volunteers to transport asylum seekers in small boats across the English Channel.

The event has been opposed by local activist groups, councillors, and the Green Party, with many counter-protesters gathering outside the RLNI building.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Green Party said the right to protest is “important and protected”; however, it is deeply concerned about the targeting of the RNLI.

Outrage as ‘Migrant Taxi Service’ RNLI Told to ‘Get Lost’ After Asking for Donations

A fresh controversy has erupted after a local residents’ association reportedly rejected a donation request from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), with some members angrily telling the charity to “get lost” because of its role in rescuing migrants attempting to cross the English Channel.

The dispute has reignited a heated national argument about immigration, charitable donations and the responsibilities of Britain’s emergency rescue services.

The RNLI, one of the country’s best-known lifesaving charities, depends heavily on public generosity to maintain its lifeboats, train volunteers and respond to emergencies around the British coastline.

But its involvement in Channel rescues has increasingly made it a target for political criticism, with opponents accusing the organisation of helping people enter the United Kingdom illegally.

The latest row reportedly began when the Christchurch Residents Association in Dorset was approached about contributing £200 to support the charity.

According to reports, the association’s president, John Pendrill, raised the request after an association member who also worked with the RNLI asked whether the group could provide financial assistance.

The response was reportedly hostile.

Some members objected to the idea of giving money to an organisation involved in rescuing asylum seekers from small boats.

One person reportedly shouted, “Tell them to get lost!”, while another declared that not a penny of their money would be donated.

Other members argued that the RNLI had lost public support because of its involvement in migrant rescues.

The discussion reportedly ended with an overwhelming show of hands against making the proposed £200 contribution.

The incident has attracted attention because it highlights how deeply the small-boats crisis has divided communities, even when the organisation at the centre of the dispute is a charity whose primary purpose is saving lives at sea.

For supporters of the RNLI, refusing assistance because of the nationality or immigration status of people in danger represents a troubling departure from the basic principle of maritime rescue.

For critics, however, the controversy reflects growing frustration about the government’s inability to prevent dangerous Channel crossings and the perception that charities are becoming involved in a wider political crisis.

Why the RNLI has become a political target

The RNLI was founded in 1824 and has spent more than two centuries providing lifesaving services around the United Kingdom and Ireland.

Its volunteer crews respond to emergencies involving fishermen, sailors, holidaymakers, swimmers and people whose vessels encounter difficulties.

The organisation does not operate as an immigration enforcement agency.

Its crews are tasked by HM Coastguard when people are reported to be in danger on the water.

That includes small boats attempting to cross the English Channel.

The charity has repeatedly explained that its volunteers cannot simply ignore a vessel in distress because the people aboard may be attempting to enter Britain illegally.

Its responsibility is to prevent people from drowning, regardless of their nationality or circumstances.

Once rescued, people are handed over to the appropriate authorities, including Border Force, police or medical services.

The RNLI does not decide whether someone is entitled to remain in Britain.

That decision belongs to the government and the immigration system.

Nevertheless, the charity’s role has become increasingly controversial as Channel crossings have remained a major political issue.

Critics argue that rescuing people from small boats could make the journey appear less dangerous and potentially encourage further crossings.

The RNLI rejects the suggestion that it operates a transport service for migrants.

It says its crews respond to emergencies when instructed by the Coastguard and that their mission is exclusively about saving lives.

The figures challenge the idea of a dedicated migrant rescue service

One of the most important details in the debate concerns the proportion of RNLI activity actually connected to small boats in the Channel.

According to figures published by the charity, its lifeboats were tasked by the Coastguard and launched 9,058 times during 2025.

Only 109 of those launches involved people in distress in small boats in the Channel.

That represented approximately 1.2 per cent of its total launches.

The RNLI also reported that its crews rescued 2,353 people during those Channel incidents.

The charity says the vast majority of people recorded crossing the Channel in small boats were assisted by other agencies, particularly Border Force.

These figures are important because they demonstrate that Channel rescues represent only a small part of the RNLI’s overall operations.

Its crews continue to respond to emergencies around the coast, including incidents involving recreational boats, commercial vessels and people swept into dangerous waters.

A rescue operation can involve volunteers putting themselves at risk in darkness, rough seas and unpredictable weather.

The charity argues that the public should not judge its entire lifesaving operation according to one politically controversial category of rescue.

Protesters accuse the charity of using donations to support migration

The Christchurch dispute did not happen in isolation.

In February, protesters also gathered outside the RNLI’s headquarters in Poole, Dorset, calling on the charity to stop what they described as a “taxi service” for migrants.

The demonstration attracted criticism from supporters of the organisation, while counter-protesters also attended to defend the volunteers.

Some opponents have called for people to stop donating until the RNLI changes its approach to Channel rescues.

They argue that money contributed by British residents should primarily support coastal communities and people who use the sea for legitimate activities.

Others question why a charity funded by voluntary contributions should become involved in operations connected to the government’s immigration difficulties.

However, the RNLI maintains that its rescue decisions are not based on political considerations.

Its crews do not decide who deserves to be rescued.

They respond when someone is in danger and the Coastguard requests assistance.

This principle has been central to the organisation’s identity since its foundation.

The charity also says it does not receive routine central government funding for its lifeboat service and relies on donations and legacies to maintain its operations.

A growing divide between immigration politics and humanitarian responsibility

The latest controversy reveals a difficult question facing Britain.

How should a country respond when an emergency rescue service becomes caught in the middle of a bitter political argument?

The small-boats crisis has created anger in communities across the country.

Residents have raised concerns about the pressure on public services, accommodation costs, border security and the government’s ability to control immigration.

Those concerns have become particularly powerful in areas where asylum accommodation has been established or where Channel arrivals are regularly reported.

But the people aboard small boats are also exposed to serious dangers.

The English Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.

Small, overcrowded vessels can become unstable, particularly when weather conditions deteriorate or passengers are forced into the water.

A mechanical failure, sudden change in the weather or collision with another vessel can turn a crossing into a life-threatening emergency.

The RNLI argues that its crews cannot wait to establish the immigration status of people before responding to a distress call.

The organisation says that saving a life and enforcing immigration law are separate responsibilities.

Its supporters believe that allowing political anger to influence emergency rescues would create a dangerous precedent.

Critics, meanwhile, insist that the government must address the underlying problem rather than relying on charities to respond to the consequences.

Both arguments reflect the wider frustration surrounding Britain’s Channel policy, but they lead to very different conclusions about the role of the RNLI.

The charity says it will continue rescuing anyone in danger

The RNLI has repeatedly defended its position.

Its chief executive, Peter Sparkes, has emphasised that the organisation is independent of government and remains focused on saving lives.

In a statement published in September 2026, he said that lifeboat crews would continue responding whenever the Coastguard tasked them to rescue people in danger.

He also condemned the abuse directed at volunteers and staff following renewed protests over Channel operations.

The charity said that some of its people had experienced online abuse and, in more serious cases, physical intimidation.

It also rejected rumours that it houses asylum seekers on RNLI premises or operates secret missions to transport migrants to undisclosed destinations.

The organisation described those claims as completely baseless.

Its message was clear: the RNLI rescues people from danger at sea and then transfers responsibility to the appropriate authorities.

The charity says that this is what it has done for more than 200 years and what it intends to continue doing.

The backlash could affect future donations

The Christchurch Residents Association’s decision raises questions about whether political disputes could begin to affect the financial support available to local rescue services.

For a charity dependent on public contributions, even relatively small donation disputes can become symbolic.

The proposed £200 contribution was not a major funding decision for an organisation operating a nationwide rescue service.

But the reaction demonstrated how strongly some residents feel about the connection between Channel rescues and immigration policy.

There is also a wider risk that volunteers could become targets of hostility simply for carrying out their duties.

Lifeboat crews are not responsible for deciding government immigration policy.

They are trained to respond to emergencies, often at considerable personal risk.

If volunteers begin to feel threatened or intimidated, the consequences could extend beyond the immediate political controversy.

The RNLI has already advised some volunteers and staff to consider their personal safety when wearing branded clothing or dealing with hostile members of the public.

That is a worrying development for an organisation built around voluntary service.

The real responsibility lies with the government

The argument over the RNLI ultimately leads back to Westminster.

The charity cannot decide how many people attempt to cross the Channel, determine asylum applications or prevent criminal smuggling networks from operating.

Those responsibilities belong to government agencies, law enforcement and the wider immigration system.

If the public believes that dangerous crossings are happening too frequently, the government must explain how it intends to address the problem.

Border security, cooperation with France, action against smuggling gangs and the processing of asylum claims all form part of that challenge.

Attacking volunteer rescuers does not resolve any of those issues.

At the same time, the government cannot expect the RNLI to solve a political crisis through emergency rescue operations.

The charity’s position is that it will continue doing what it has always done: answering distress calls and saving lives.

For its critics, the central question remains whether Britain’s immigration system is doing enough to prevent dangerous journeys in the first place.

For its supporters, the answer is that no one should be left to drown while politicians argue about border policy.

The £200 donation dispute in Christchurch may appear to be a relatively small local incident.

But it has become another example of how the Channel crisis is dividing communities and placing organisations outside government at the centre of political battles.

The RNLI has made its position clear.

It will not choose whom to rescue according to nationality, politics or immigration status.

Whether the public agrees with that approach or not, the charity insists that its volunteers will continue answering the call whenever lives are at risk.