A far-right linked activist group that blanketed England with thousands of St George’s and Union Jack flags last year has unveiled plans for a vigilante operation to halt small-boat migrant crossings in the Channel, dubbing it “Operation Overlord” in a nod to the D-Day landings. Mr Bridge, co-founder of Raise the Colours, told a podcast he aims to “do the Keir Starmer” by “smashing the gangs” behind the crossings, echoing the Prime Minister’s rhetoric on tackling people smuggling.

Mr Bridge, a football hooligan associated with Birmingham City’s Zulus firm, claimed his group would succeed where the Government has failed. Speaking on the Anything Goes with James English podcast, Mr Bridge said: “We’ve all got this burning passion inside us that we know it’s not right. We want to stop it. We really do want to do the Keir Starmer, we’re going to smash the gangs.”

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer (Image: Getty)

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

Venezuela strikes: Keir Starmer breaks silence – PM ‘wants to speak’ to Trump over Maduro ‘capture’

‘PATRIOTS’ WHO PUT FLAGS UP ALL OVER ENGLAND REVEAL NEW PLAN TO STOP SMALL BOAT MIGRANTS

Britain’s increasingly heated immigration debate has entered a new and potentially dangerous phase after activists associated with the patriotic flag-waving movement revealed ideas for taking their campaign against small boat crossings beyond the streets and towards the English Channel.

The activists, who became widely recognised after thousands of England flags and Union Jack flags appeared on lampposts, bridges and public spaces across the country, are now attracting attention for a much more confrontational approach to illegal immigration.

Their message is that waving flags and organising demonstrations are no longer enough.

Some activists have reportedly discussed taking a vessel out to sea to confront boats carrying migrants as they attempt to cross the Channel.

The proposal has been described as an early-stage idea rather than an established operation, but it has already raised serious questions about public safety, maritime law and the possibility of clashes at sea.

For supporters of the movement, the idea reflects growing frustration with successive governments’ failure to bring small boat crossings under control.

For critics, however, it represents a worrying development in the growth of anti-migrant vigilantism.

The controversy comes after months of increasingly visible protests across England, with activists using national flags as symbols of patriotism, national identity and opposition to government immigration policies.

The flag campaign attracted considerable attention during 2025.

St George’s flags and Union Jacks appeared in towns and cities, with supporters describing the displays as a peaceful expression of national pride.

But the movement also became associated with increasingly hostile arguments about immigration.

Some activists used social media to connect the flag campaign directly with protests against asylum accommodation and small boat arrivals.

The distinction between ordinary expressions of patriotism and organised anti-migrant activism consequently became a subject of heated debate.

Now, the possibility of taking direct action against boats has brought the movement into an entirely different territory.

According to reports, activists have discussed using a vessel to approach migrant boats crossing the Channel and attempt to turn them back.

The suggestion has not been established as a fully developed plan, and there is no confirmed evidence that a specific maritime operation has been authorised or organised.

Nevertheless, the idea has attracted attention because of the risks involved.

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

It is used by commercial vessels, ferries, fishing boats, recreational craft and emergency services.

Any attempt by private activists to intercept small boats could create dangerous situations for everyone involved.

Migrant boats are frequently overcrowded, poorly equipped and vulnerable to changing weather conditions.

Even an apparently minor confrontation could lead to people falling into the water, collisions or emergency rescue operations.

The Channel is also an area where national authorities have clear responsibilities for maritime safety and border enforcement.

Private individuals do not have the same powers as police officers, border officials or coastguard personnel.

That means activists who attempt to physically obstruct vessels could face serious legal consequences, depending on their actions and the circumstances.

The growing controversy also comes against the background of demonstrations organised by a separate but connected anti-migrant protest network known as Patriot Platform.

Led by Daniel Thomas, better known as Danny Tommo, the group has brought together several local activist networks and staged highly visible demonstrations in places including Dover and Portsmouth.

Its activities have demonstrated how quickly anti-migrant groups can mobilise supporters through social media.

In September 2026, hundreds of black-clad demonstrators gathered in Dover, blocking roads leading towards the port and chanting slogans demanding an end to small boat crossings.

The demonstration caused significant disruption to traffic.

Similar scenes unfolded in Portsmouth, where protesters gathered following the arrival of asylum seekers rescued from the Channel.

Some demonstrators attempted to obstruct the movement of people arriving by boat and the vehicles transporting them away from the waterfront.

The scenes prompted strong criticism from the government and renewed concerns about organised vigilante activity.

However, it is important to distinguish between the different groups involved.

The nationwide flag campaign, Raise the Colours and Patriot Platform are not interchangeable organisations, even though individuals and activists have appeared in overlapping campaigns and protests.

Their tactics and organisational structures have also differed.

The possibility of maritime action has nevertheless created a new question for authorities: how should the government respond if private activists attempt to interfere directly with migrant crossings?

For many people concerned about illegal immigration, frustration has been building for years.

Small boats crossing the Channel have become one of the most politically sensitive issues in Britain.

The journeys are dangerous, smugglers make money from vulnerable people, and the government faces continuing pressure to demonstrate that it can control the country’s borders.

Successive administrations have promised stronger enforcement and closer cooperation with France.

Yet every new arrival brings renewed criticism from people who believe the system is failing.

Anti-migrant activists have used that frustration to attract supporters, arguing that ordinary citizens are being ignored by politicians.

They claim that communities should not have to accept decisions about asylum accommodation or border policy without having their concerns heard.

Some residents have also expressed worries about the location of proposed asylum facilities, the pressure on local services and the lack of consultation.

Those concerns deserve to be discussed through democratic and lawful channels.

But there is a fundamental difference between campaigning for tougher immigration policies and attempting to take control of border enforcement into private hands.

The government has repeatedly warned that intimidating behaviour, obstruction and violence will not be tolerated.

Police forces have also faced questions about whether they have sufficient intelligence and resources to respond to rapidly organised demonstrations.

The events in Dover and Portsmouth showed how quickly groups can gather after receiving messages through online networks.

They also demonstrated the difficulty of maintaining public order when demonstrators arrive in large numbers, sometimes wearing masks and attempting to block roads or access routes.

A maritime confrontation would create an even more complicated challenge.

Police and coastguard teams would need to consider the safety of everyone involved, including migrants, activists and other vessels using the Channel.

A private vessel attempting to stop a migrant boat could potentially turn an already dangerous crossing into an emergency.

There is also a question of what activists would actually achieve.

Turning away one boat would not dismantle the criminal networks responsible for organising crossings.

Smuggling operations could simply move to another location or change their methods.

The people on board would remain vulnerable, while those organising the journeys could continue making money.

A lasting solution would require cooperation between governments, effective action against trafficking networks, secure asylum procedures and a credible system for returning people who have no legal right to remain in Britain.

That is why the debate over the proposed activist plan matters.

It highlights the growing gap between public frustration over immigration and the methods some campaigners are prepared to consider.

It also creates a difficult political challenge for parties competing to convince voters that they have a credible answer to the small boats crisis.

Reform UK has made immigration a central part of its political message, while other parties have also promised tougher border enforcement.

However, even politicians who support reducing illegal immigration have reasons to distance themselves from unauthorised attempts to intercept boats.

Nigel Farage has previously criticised protesters wearing balaclavas, arguing that masked demonstrations are intimidating and unacceptable regardless of whether they take place on the political left or right.

That position reflects a wider concern among political figures that confrontational street movements could damage the credibility of campaigns for immigration reform.

The flag movement now faces a similar question.

Can it maintain support as a campaign centred on national identity and peaceful protest, or will increasingly confrontational proposals push it towards actions that could endanger lives?

For the authorities, the priority will be preventing any attempt at private maritime enforcement from escalating into a serious incident.

For activists, the temptation to demonstrate more dramatic action may be strong, particularly when online attention rewards confrontation and provocative announcements.

But the consequences of an incident at sea could be devastating.

The Channel is not a political stage where mistakes can easily be reversed.

People travelling in overcrowded dinghies are already exposed to considerable danger, and adding private vessels attempting to obstruct them would increase the risks.

Britain undoubtedly faces difficult questions about border security, illegal immigration and the future of its asylum system.

Citizens have every right to demand answers from their elected representatives, organise peaceful demonstrations and campaign for changes to government policy.

But enforcement of the law must remain the responsibility of legitimate authorities.

The latest proposals have therefore opened a new chapter in an already volatile national debate.

What began with flags appearing across England has developed into a broader movement involving street demonstrations, online mobilisation and increasingly controversial ideas about direct action.

Whether the reported maritime proposal ever becomes reality remains uncertain.

What is clear is that the small boats crisis continues to generate anger, political pressure and increasingly dramatic responses.

The government will be judged not only on its ability to control the border but also on whether it can prevent the situation from descending into confrontation on Britain’s streets and waterways.

And as activists consider their next move, one question is becoming impossible to ignore: how far will some campaigners go in their determination to stop the boats?