The RNLI rescues migrants who get into difficulty in the English Channel (Image: PA)
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.
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.
Groups protested outside the RNLI’s HQ on Saturday (Image: Getty)
“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 (RNLI) has faced another wave of controversy after criticism over its rescue operations involving migrants crossing the English Channel. The charity, which has spent generations saving lives at sea, has become increasingly caught up in Britain’s heated immigration debate.
The latest backlash centres on accusations from critics who have described the organisation as a “migrant taxi service”, arguing that its involvement in rescuing migrants attempting to reach the UK has gone beyond what many taxpayers and donors expected.
The controversy intensified after reports of members of the public refusing donation requests and telling fundraisers to “get lost”. The reaction highlights growing frustration among people who believe the RNLI should concentrate on traditional maritime rescues rather than becoming associated with the government’s ongoing immigration crisis.
WHY IS THE RNLI FACING ANGER?
The RNLI is a charitable organisation responsible for providing lifeboat search and rescue services around the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Its volunteers regularly risk their lives to rescue people from dangerous situations at sea, including sinking vessels, fishing accidents and other maritime emergencies.
However, its rescue operations involving small boats crossing the English Channel have attracted significant political attention.
Critics argue that migrants attempting the dangerous crossing are being brought closer to British shores through rescue operations, creating the perception that the charity is indirectly assisting irregular immigration.
Some donors have consequently questioned whether their contributions are being used in ways that reflect their expectations.
The organisation, however, maintains that its responsibility is to save lives at sea, regardless of nationality, immigration status or the circumstances in which someone enters danger.
RNLI DEFENDS ITS LIFE-SAVING MISSION
The RNLI has consistently defended its rescue operations, emphasising that its crews respond to people in danger rather than making immigration decisions.
International maritime obligations require vessels and rescue services to assist people in distress at sea.
For lifeboat volunteers, the priority is preventing drowning and ensuring that those rescued receive appropriate assistance.
The charity argues that refusing to rescue someone because of their nationality or immigration status would contradict its fundamental humanitarian mission.
Its supporters also point out that migrants crossing the Channel often travel in overcrowded and unsafe boats, placing themselves at serious risk.
Regardless of political disagreements about immigration, those facing immediate danger at sea remain entitled to rescue assistance.
DONORS QUESTION WHERE THEIR MONEY IS GOING
The controversy has created an uncomfortable situation for the charity.
The RNLI depends heavily on public donations, fundraising activities and the generosity of supporters.
Some donors believe that the organisation’s involvement in Channel rescues has become too closely associated with Britain’s immigration debate.
Others strongly defend the charity, arguing that saving human lives should never become a political issue.
The disagreement reflects a wider division within British society over immigration, humanitarian responsibilities and the role of charitable organisations.
However, there is an important distinction between disagreeing with government immigration policy and criticising emergency workers who are carrying out life-saving duties.
THE CHANNEL MIGRATION CRISIS
The English Channel remains one of the most dangerous migration routes into the United Kingdom.
People attempting the crossing often travel in overcrowded inflatable boats, sometimes without adequate safety equipment.
Weather conditions, strong currents and busy commercial shipping lanes create significant dangers.
When boats get into difficulty, rescue services may be required to respond immediately.
The RNLI’s involvement is therefore primarily a maritime safety responsibility, rather than an immigration enforcement function.
Decisions about asylum applications, border controls and deportations belong to the relevant government authorities.
Confusing these responsibilities risks turning essential emergency services into targets of political anger.
CONCLUSION: SHOULD SAVING LIVES BECOME A POLITICAL ISSUE?
The controversy surrounding the RNLI demonstrates how Britain’s immigration debate has increasingly affected organisations that traditionally operate outside party politics.
Critics are entitled to question government immigration policy and express concerns about how public resources are managed.
Donors are also entitled to decide which charitable organisations they wish to support.
However, rescuing people from drowning should remain a fundamental humanitarian responsibility.
The RNLI was established to save lives at sea, not to decide who deserves to enter Britain.
Ultimately, the government must address the underlying problems surrounding irregular migration, while emergency rescue organisations must be allowed to carry out their life-saving work without political interference.
Whatever people’s views on immigration, a person in danger of drowning is still a human being who needs rescuing.