A request for donations from the RNLI has triggered a backlash as residents fear the cash would be used to fund a “taxi service” for migrants. The Christchurch Residents Association (CRA) in Dorset rejected a £200 donation after its president, John Pendrill, instructed members to do so. Shouts were heard of “tell them to get lost” and “it will be used to save boat people”.
Channel crossings accounted for 1.2% of RNLI rescues in 2024, according to Neil Duncan-Jordan, Labour’s MP for Poole, with the charity saving 1,371 lives at sea. The primary responsibility for reducing those crossing the Channel on small boats lies with the Coastguard. However, the RNLI helps anyone who gets into trouble in the water.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more Invalid email
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 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
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
The Royal National Lifeboat Institution has found itself at the centre of another furious row over Channel crossings after a request for a small donation reportedly triggered an angry response from local residents.
The dispute has reignited one of Britain’s most emotionally charged arguments: whether the RNLI’s role in rescuing people attempting to cross the English Channel has become too closely associated with the migration crisis.
According to reports, the controversy emerged in Christchurch, Dorset, where a request for a £200 contribution to the RNLI was discussed with the Christchurch Residents Association. The appeal reportedly met a hostile reaction from some members, with comments including “Tell them to get lost” and objections that the money could be used in connection with migrant rescues.
The incident may have involved a relatively modest sum, but the political argument surrounding it is much bigger.
For critics, the question is whether charitable donations intended to support Britain’s traditional lifeboat service should indirectly support operations involving people crossing the Channel in small boats.
For the RNLI, however, the answer is straightforward: its crews respond to people in danger at sea, regardless of nationality or immigration status.
That fundamental disagreement has become increasingly difficult to separate from Britain’s wider debate over illegal migration.
The “migrant taxi service” accusation
The phrase “migrant taxi service” has been repeatedly used by critics of the RNLI’s involvement in Channel rescues.
The RNLI itself strongly rejects that description.
Its official explanation is that it does not decide who should be rescued. HM Coastguard coordinates maritime search-and-rescue operations, and RNLI lifeboats are tasked when people are believed to be in danger.
The charity says its crews rescue people without considering where they come from or their immigration status. Once people are brought to safety, responsibility can be transferred to the appropriate agency, including Border Force, police or ambulance services.
The RNLI’s figures also challenge the idea that its primary role in the Channel is transporting migrants.
The charity says there were 109 RNLI launches to small boats in the Channel during 2025, representing around 1.2 per cent of its launches. It also says that 94.3 per cent of people who crossed the Channel in small boats in 2025 were assisted by other agencies, including Border Force.
That does not settle the political argument, but it provides important context.
Why donations have become controversial
The RNLI is a charity rather than a government department and relies heavily on public donations.
That creates a complicated situation during the migration crisis.
Supporters argue that the charity should be judged according to its core purpose: saving lives.
Critics argue that the increasingly frequent involvement of lifeboats in Channel incidents places the charity in a politically controversial role and risks diverting public support away from its traditional coastal rescue work.
The Christchurch dispute illustrates how that disagreement has reached local communities.
A donation of £200 would be insignificant compared with the scale of the RNLI’s national operations, but the argument surrounding it reflects a much larger question about what donors believe they are supporting.
For some people, donating to the RNLI is simply a contribution to maritime rescue.
For others, the Channel migration crisis has changed the way they view the organisation.
A difficult distinction
The most difficult issue is the distinction between rescuing someone and facilitating their journey.
The RNLI says it does not facilitate migration. It responds when people are already at risk at sea.
Its September statement following a Channel incident made that position explicit.
The charity said two lifeboats had been tasked by HM Coastguard after a small boat had been at sea for 36 hours. Border Force vessels were initially unavailable, although a Border Security Command cutter was subsequently launched.
The RNLI said Coastguard directed its crews to remove people from the dinghy because of concerns about their safety and deteriorating health, before they were transferred to Border Force.
From the charity’s perspective, that is a classic search-and-rescue operation.
Critics, however, argue that the knowledge that rescue services will respond can affect the incentives surrounding Channel crossings.
That is ultimately a policy question for government rather than a decision made by individual lifeboat volunteers.
The RNLI has repeatedly said that immigration policy is a matter for government and that its own responsibility is saving lives.
Volunteers caught in the middle
The controversy has also had a personal dimension.
RNLI volunteers have faced increasingly aggressive criticism, particularly following Channel rescues.
In September, the Guardian reported protests and online abuse targeting the charity, including calls for members of the public to stop donating. The RNLI said it had experienced both online and physical abuse but had also seen a significant increase in donations and new supporters.
That development demonstrates how polarised the debate has become.
Some people who previously supported the charity have said they no longer want to contribute because of its role in migrant rescues.
Others have responded by donating precisely because the RNLI has become a target of political criticism.
The result is a strange paradox: controversy surrounding the charity can produce both withdrawals of support and new donations.
The human element
Behind the political arguments are lifeboat crews confronting people who may genuinely be in mortal danger.
The Channel is one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. Small inflatable boats can be dangerously overcrowded and vulnerable to changing weather and sea conditions.
The RNLI says people crossing the Channel can spend many hours exposed to the elements and that even apparently calm conditions can become dangerous.
That is why the organisation argues that its volunteers cannot simply decide that someone should not be rescued because their journey began as an attempt to enter Britain unlawfully.
The legal and political status of a person is separate from the immediate question of whether that person is drowning.
This principle has historically been central to maritime rescue.
But the migration crisis has created a situation in which humanitarian rescue and immigration policy increasingly overlap.
The government’s role
The argument also highlights a responsibility that belongs to ministers rather than lifeboat crews.
If the government wants to reduce small-boat crossings, its policies need to address the reasons people attempt the journey, the criminal gangs organising crossings, border enforcement and the processing of asylum claims.
The RNLI cannot determine any of those questions.
Nor can its volunteers decide whether someone has a legal right to enter Britain.
The charity’s position is that those decisions belong to government agencies once people have been brought to safety.
This division of responsibility is crucial.
Criticising the government’s migration policy is a legitimate political debate. Criticising the RNLI for saving people in danger involves a different question about the responsibilities of a search-and-rescue organisation.
Why the row keeps returning
The latest donation dispute is unlikely to be the last.
As long as small boats continue to cross the Channel, the RNLI’s involvement will remain politically sensitive.
The charity’s supporters will argue that its crews are doing exactly what lifeboat crews have always done: going towards danger when others cannot.
Its critics will continue asking whether the current system creates unintended consequences for migration and whether public donations should support operations connected to the Channel crisis.
The two positions are not easily reconciled.
What is clear, however, is that the RNLI’s own stated role has not changed. It remains a voluntary maritime rescue organisation that responds when tasked to people in danger.
The charity says it has operated this way for more than 200 years and has saved more than 146,700 lives since its foundation in 1824.
A debate much bigger than £200
The Christchurch dispute therefore cannot really be understood as being about £200.
It is about trust, migration, public money, charitable donations and the boundaries between humanitarian rescue and border enforcement.
For those who told the charity to “get lost”, the donation request became a symbol of what they believe has gone wrong with Britain’s approach to Channel crossings.
For the RNLI and its supporters, the same episode demonstrates why lifeboat crews must remain focused on saving lives rather than judging the people they rescue.
The phrase “migrant taxi service” has become one of the most politically charged descriptions in Britain’s migration debate. Yet the RNLI rejects it and points to the role of HM Coastguard in directing its operations.
Ultimately, the responsibility for Britain’s migration policy rests with elected government.
The responsibility of a lifeboat crew faced with people at risk of drowning is much simpler.
They rescue them.
That distinction may not end the political argument, but it explains why the RNLI continues to insist that saving lives at sea must remain at the centre of everything it does.