Protesters turned up opposing migrants in Gosport (Image: Adam Toms)
Protesters have slammed the authorities after an expected migrant boat never arrived at a UK town. Those who turned up in Gosport, Hampshire, to voice their opposition to the anticipated migrants said police presence was a “smokescreen”. Cops and hundreds of locals were present in Haslar Road before it was expected that a vessel carrying asylum seekers from France would be guided to the shore. Activist Daniel Thomas, known as Danny Tommo, urged his supporters to head there.
But as darkness descended, police said this would not happen. It was believed the boat would be heading to Dover instead. Brett Leishman, 55, a taxi driver in Gosport, called the situation a “disgrace”, adding that all the confusion about where the boat was heading to and police presence was a planned “smokescreen”.
He said: “Ten days ago they knew this was happening. You don’t bring police down from London and have drones if you didn’t know this was happening. [Migrant boats] were just appearing; now it’s organised. I want to know what the agenda is with this.”
Get the day’s biggest headlines in UK and World news and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Police kept watch in Gosport (Image: Jonathan Buckmaster)
“They think it’s alright while I’m putting £40 a day of diesel in my taxi. I’m £120 a week worse off just on fuel. Anyone who’s fleeing their country […] I get it. But when you’ve got four, five 600 men pretending they’re 17 […] going around raping 80-year-old men and kids, something’s f***ing wrong.”
He added that sooner or later the child or grandchild of someone in today’s crowd will be raped. “You watch it kick off,” he said. “Especially a small town like this.”
Brett’s wife, Joanne Leishman, 59, a former barmaid, said: “I totally support it, everything they’re doing here.”
She added: “Without a doubt it’s been going for about a week. I still think they’re [the migrants] here personally.“
Dorrie Crabbe, 74, worked in education. She is concerned about the redevelopment of an immigration removal centre in Haslar, initially to open with 130 beds, with a controversial proposal to expand to a 600-bed capacity.
“It’s got to stop,” she said. “We can’t just carry on taking the numbers that are coming. Gosport is a small town, a peninsula. We’ve just been kept in the dark about what’s been going on.”
Her husband, Pete Crabbe, 75, a retired toolmaker, said: “The concern is that there is such a huge number when it really is very, very close to a housing estate. There are people of all different ages there. We don’t know who [the migrants are].”
The whole thing seems “underhand”, he added.
Tina Harrison, 59, lives in Portsmouth. She said: “I think it’s disgusting, the whole lot of it. Paying our taxpayers’ money to bring people here so they can get free housing, free medical care
Pete and Dorrie Crabbe watched on (Image: Jonathan Buckmaster)
“My son has got a £56,000 bill for tax and he says, ‘Why should I pay it when you have people coming over to this country getting free housing and free dental care?’ The Government are thieving b*******. They take, take, take, take and never give back to English people. They are giving them money; they send it all abroad.”
A woman, 60, a business manager from elsewhere in Hampshire, wanted to remain anonymous.
She said: “It’s about time people stood up.”
On police operation and conflicting boat landing reports, she added: “It’s all being done to confuse. I don’t trust anything they say anymore. Nothing. It’s all planned. You don’t pull up resources like this in five minutes. It’s a big insult to the tax-paying public.“
A woman, 61, also wanted to remain anonymous. She is originally from Glasgow but has lived in Gosport for 30-odd years.
She said: “I don’t believe it. I still think they’re coming in tonight, and I’m disappointed that not many people came in tonight from their own town.
“It’s our town; we live here.”
She added: “I’m a Catholic, I don’t believe that you can rape women and rape children […] They are demented.”
Tina Harrison is frustrated by the small boat arrivals (Image: Adam Toms)
The local added: “We are not prejudiced. Not at all. We’ve had enough, mate. Enough.”
A 62-year-old lorry driver, who lives in Portsmouth, also wanted to remain anonymous.
He said: “Today has been organised. The migrant crossing has been organised. I’m hearing on the grape vine that it was organised from last Thursday. They’re being escorted. Why are French authorities allowing it to happen when we’ve paid millions for them to stop it? They’re escorting instead of stopping. It’s unfortunate that these migrants are coming to this country but they see it as a free meal ticket for life. When they want to escape from where they are coming from, they come here as a last stop, because Britain gives money, gives food, shelter and accommodation.“
A 50-year-old tree surgeon from Gosport said the gathering of protesters was “great” and there were “people from all over”.
People in masks are “well behaved and don’t cause any trouble”.
“They’re doing what the police should be doing.”
The situation is “bad, very bad”, he added.
“There’s a myriad of reasons why they shouldn’t come here.”
He said that during World War 2 and World War 1 there was a threat of invasion and people in Britain stood and fought.
“Go back home and stand and fight,” he added.
Masked men approached the police line (Image: Adam Toms)
The local added: “There are economic migrants. The vast majority of people don’t want them here, regardless of their colour, or the colour of the people who live here. It’s not about that.”
His wife, 41, also a tree surgeon, said locals expressed “solidarity” and “community spirit”.
People in masks have “obviously got lives and business”, she added. “They don’t want people against their views causing problems for their businesses. They keep order actually.“
A 48-year-old floor layer who lives in Gosport said migrants are “a national security threat”. “No one knows who they are, really,” he added.
A 48-year-old woman walking her dog with her husband on the marina said she does not like the fact that small boats are turning up on the UK’s shores, but she feared the protest could turn nasty.
“I think it’s scary. I don’t know what the world’s coming to.”
A group of men clad in black clothing and face coverings walked towards the line of police after the news filtered out that the boat was not coming.
The crowd cheered as they approached and chanted “send them home”.
A young boy and girl shouted “get them out” down a megaphone.
A speaker played what sounded like recordings of children’s voices saying “go back to your country” and “send them back”.
One of the masked men told some of the protesters: “We are all here for the same reason and that’s our kids.
“No violence and no throwing stuff, alright?”
Earlier, The Express witnessed a man wearing a black cap and a face covering below his chin urinating against a tree next to Gosport’s Holy Trinity Church.
A police boat was deployed (Image: Jonathan Buckmaster)
Hampshire Police said: “We have been working with partner agencies today, following a report of a small boat crossing in the English Channel.
“We know how these incidents can impact local communities. As a precaution, we deployed officers to Gosport and Portsmouth this afternoon to support our partners in the event of any emergency at sea, to facilitate any peaceful protest and ensure the safety of the public.
“We have been in contact with our partners including the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and Border Security Command throughout the day.
“The boat and those on board are no longer in our force area.
“We know a small number of people have been following proceedings today and have come out to Gosport and Portsmouth.
“As we start to stand down the police operation, please be assured that officers will remain in those areas this evening while people leave the area and to maintain public safety.
“Thank you for your patience while we have been dealing with this and sorry for any inconvenience it has caused.”
The Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, met Donald Trump at the UN General Assembly today.
He pledged to deliver a “controlled approach” to immigration, as he met Donald Trump for the first time.
The US president said Mr Burnham “understands” immigration is a worldwide issue.
Mr Burnham said: “Our commitment is to get to a controlled approach. That’s what people want to see.
“They’re not against migration overall, they know that people work in the NHS and in the care system.
“It’s a difference, though, when it’s managed or when it’s uncontrolled, and the small boats is a very big issue for people.
“But crossings this summer were down 50%, there or thereabouts, on the number six years ago. So sometimes people don’t hear that the progress is being made, but the progress is being made.
“And we know we’ve got further to go.
“The Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary are working with me on it, and we’ll keep working on it.”
Fury Erupts in UK Town Amid Migrant Dinghy Chaos – “It’s a Disgrace!”
Tensions over Channel crossings have once again come to the surface in the southern English town of Gosport, where hundreds of people gathered after reports suggested that a boat carrying asylum seekers from France could arrive in the area. What followed was a night of uncertainty, anger and a heavy police presence, exposing the growing divide over immigration policy and the government’s handling of small-boat crossings.
For some residents, the gathering was an opportunity to demand stronger border controls and greater transparency from the authorities. Others were concerned about the confrontational atmosphere and the influence of activists who used the incident to mobilise opposition to migrants.
The controversy demonstrated how quickly uncertainty surrounding a single boat crossing can turn into a wider political flashpoint.
Confusion Over the Expected Arrival
The incident unfolded in September 2026, when reports circulated that a small boat carrying people who had crossed the Channel might be brought ashore near Haslar Marina in Gosport, Hampshire. Calls for people to attend the area spread online, and hundreds gathered as police officers monitored the situation.
Some demonstrators believed the authorities had failed to communicate clearly about the operation. Others questioned why a substantial police presence had been deployed when the boat’s eventual destination remained uncertain.
One local resident described the situation as a “disgrace”, reflecting frustration over what he viewed as a lack of openness. For people already concerned about immigration, the uncertainty reinforced their belief that decisions affecting their communities were being made without sufficient public explanation.
However, claims that the operation had been deliberately concealed or organised as a “smokescreen” were allegations made by protesters, not established facts.
As the evening progressed, reports indicated that the boat would not be brought ashore in Gosport. The vessel instead arrived in Dover, Kent, early the following morning.
According to ITV News Meridian, the boat carried 51 people and had spent approximately 33 hours at sea. British rescue vessels collected its passengers after they reportedly refused assistance from a French vessel. The people were then transferred for processing by the relevant UK authorities.
The difference between the expected destination and the actual landing did little to calm the atmosphere in Gosport.
Residents Demand Answers
For many of those who attended, the central issue was not simply the arrival of one boat. It was a broader concern about how the government manages irregular migration and communicates with towns that fear they may be affected by future arrivals.
Some residents said they wanted clearer information about immigration facilities, local planning decisions and the potential pressure on public services. Others questioned whether taxpayers were receiving sufficient explanations about the costs associated with accommodation, border enforcement and asylum processing.
These concerns cannot be reduced to a single viewpoint. Communities can have legitimate questions about public spending, policing, housing capacity and consultation without every resident sharing the same position on immigration.
At the same time, individual allegations made at demonstrations should not be treated as proof of criminality by migrants as a group. People arriving by small boat have different backgrounds and circumstances, and their claims must be assessed individually.
For residents who feel ignored by national decision-makers, the lack of timely and reliable information can deepen distrust. When official communications are unclear, speculation can fill the gap, particularly when dramatic claims circulate rapidly through social media.
That is why accurate information about where boats are heading, how people will be processed and what arrangements exist for local communities is so important.
A Police Operation Under Pressure
The gathering also created challenges for local police. Officers were deployed to monitor the situation, manage access to the marina and respond to potential disorder.
Hampshire Police reported six arrests connected with the September demonstration. ITV News Meridian reported that three people had been charged at the time of its coverage. The arrests concerned alleged offences linked to the protest, rather than establishing any wrongdoing by the people who had crossed the Channel.
The presence of police was a source of disagreement. Some demonstrators regarded it as evidence that authorities had anticipated the event well in advance. Others saw the operation as a necessary precaution given the size of the crowd and the possibility of confrontation.
The authorities must balance the right to peaceful protest with the responsibility to protect public safety, emergency workers and the people being transported ashore.
That responsibility becomes more difficult when crowds gather in response to unconfirmed information or when activists encourage confrontational behaviour. A protest can begin as a demonstration of public frustration but become dangerous if threats, intimidation or physical obstruction develop.
The incident therefore raised questions not only about immigration policy, but also about how police and government agencies should communicate during sensitive maritime operations.
The Wider Debate Over Small Boats
Small-boat crossings remain one of the most contentious issues in British politics. Critics of the government argue that irregular arrivals undermine confidence in the immigration system and that people-smuggling networks must be disrupted more effectively.
They also point to the financial and logistical demands of processing asylum claims, providing accommodation where required and arranging the return of people who have no legal right to remain.
Supporters of stronger enforcement say that a credible system needs both effective border controls and decisions that are made promptly. They argue that prolonged uncertainty benefits neither local communities nor those waiting for their asylum claims to be resolved.
Others stress that the issue cannot be understood solely through the number of arrivals. Some people crossing the Channel may be fleeing persecution or conflict, while others may have different reasons for travelling. Each asylum application requires an individual assessment under the applicable rules.
Humanitarian organisations also warn that dangerous crossings can result in deaths and serious injuries. Preventing people from undertaking perilous journeys therefore requires attention to smuggling networks, rescue operations and the availability of lawful routes where applicable.
These objectives can be debated alongside concerns about enforcement. Effective border management and humane treatment are not necessarily opposing goals, although disagreements over how to achieve them remain substantial.
Why Local Trust Matters
One of the most significant lessons from Gosport is the importance of trust between communities and public authorities.
When residents believe that decisions are being taken without consultation, even routine operational arrangements can become politically explosive. The arrival of police vehicles, ambulances or transport coaches may be interpreted as evidence of a secret plan, even when those resources have been deployed as precautions.
Clear communication cannot eliminate every disagreement, but it can reduce the space in which rumours flourish.
Local representatives and relevant agencies can help by explaining what is known, what remains uncertain and why particular arrangements have been made. They can also distinguish between a temporary emergency response and a permanent decision about accommodation or immigration facilities.
Residents, meanwhile, need reliable channels through which they can raise questions about local services, safety and planning. If concerns are dismissed without explanation, frustration can become more entrenched.
The same principles apply to the treatment of asylum seekers. People should not be assumed to have committed crimes simply because they arrived by boat, and demonstrators should not be collectively labelled as extremists merely because they oppose current immigration policy. Specific conduct and evidence matter.
A functioning democratic debate requires room for disagreement without threats or violence.
The Political Consequences
Events such as the Gosport gathering place additional pressure on the government to demonstrate that its border policies are effective. They also give opposition parties and campaign groups an opportunity to argue that ministers have failed to respond adequately to public concerns.
For political leaders, the challenge is to offer more than statements of determination. Voters want to know whether enforcement measures are working, how quickly asylum claims are being decided, what happens when claims are refused and how public money is being spent.
They may also ask how the government intends to cooperate with France and other European partners, disrupt smuggling operations and prevent dangerous journeys across the Channel.
Answers to those questions require measurable results and transparent reporting. A single protest, whether large or small, cannot by itself establish whether a national policy is succeeding or failing.
Likewise, one boat arriving at a different location from the one anticipated does not prove that authorities deliberately misled residents. Such claims require evidence, not assumptions.
The political significance of the incident lies in the fact that uncertainty over immigration has become a powerful source of public distrust. When people believe they have lost influence over decisions affecting their communities, local events can quickly become symbols of a much larger national argument.
What Happens Next?
The immediate confrontation in Gosport centred on an expected landing that ultimately took place elsewhere. But the broader questions remain: how can the UK manage irregular crossings effectively, communicate with affected communities and ensure that asylum claims are handled fairly and efficiently?
For residents demanding answers, the priority is likely to be clearer information, credible enforcement and meaningful accountability. For the government, the task is to demonstrate that its operational plans are coordinated, that public resources are being used responsibly and that the immigration system can distinguish between people who qualify for protection and those who do not meet the requirements to remain.
For everyone involved, the facts must remain central. Public anger deserves to be understood, but unverified accusations can inflame tensions rather than resolve them. Equally, dismissing every concern about border management risks deepening the divide between communities and the institutions responsible for serving them.
Gosport’s night of confusion became another reminder of how combustible the small-boats debate has become. The strongest response will not come from rumours or confrontation, but from reliable information, lawful enforcement and clear explanations of decisions that affect the public.
Until those involved have confidence that the system is transparent and accountable, incidents like this are likely to continue generating heated arguments far beyond the coastline where they begin.