Port bosses refused to let two lifeboats carrying 120 migrants dock amid fears of protests, it has emerged. RNLI vessels wanted to land at Southampton and Portsmouth Harbour, and were even threatened with legal action if they tried to bring the asylum seekers ashore.
They were then taken to Eastney, several miles away, where they were met by hundreds of furious protesters. The harbour only had one access road, leading to chaos for the authorities as they tried to transfer the migrants to Manston processing centre in Kent. A spokesman for Associated British Ports (ABP) confirmed that the crews had been told not to come to Southampton.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster 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.
RNLI vessels were refused permission to dock (Image: Getty)
They said: “ABP did receive an enquiry about landing recovered migrants at the Port of Southampton.
“We had to decline the enquiry as the port did not have suitable reception facilities available. If there had been a safety of life at sea issue where Southampton was the closest port or if we had received a formal direction from the authorities, then we would have played a role.
“Neither was the case in this situation.”
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused Labour of being “weak” on immigration as 120 people were brought into Portsmouth following a record crossing attempt from near Cherbourg.
It prompted warnings of an “invasion” of other coastal towns, such as Brighton, Southampton or Weymouth as smugglers change their tactics to exploit weak points in the border.
And hundreds of protesters descended on Portsmouth late on Sunday night, vowing not to let three coaches of migrants through.
Some even chased the buses down the motorway as they carried the migrants from Portsmouth to Dover.
Hampshire Police Federation said one of the officers injured on Sunday night was “only three days out of training school”.
Spencer Wragg, Chair of Hampshire Police Federation, said officers appeared to have become a target while they were trying to police the incident.
He said: “We’ve received reports of officers being assaulted, I’ve seen footage of officers being pushed off their motorbike, I’ve seen pictures of police vehicles damaged. It appears that the police last night became the target for some of the protest.
“Thankfully there are no serious injuries to officers, but the professionalism they showed in the face of provocation and immense pressure was admirable. Those scenes in that area of Portsmouth weren’t protests, they weren’t protests at all, it was clear that some people were intent on disorder and venting their frustrations.
“If people have a point to make, and an issue they want to legitimately protest about, that is not about assaulting officers, that is not about damaging vehicles or anything like that. That is just disorder.
“One of policing’s key roles is to protect people’s right to protest, and having been a public order officer for 30 years myself, I’ve policed numerous protests. The vast majority of protests and people attending protest do so peacefully and want to get their view across.
“What we saw last night and into the early hours of this morning doesn’t support the cause of those peacefully protesting, it was merely criminal behaviour of assaults, damage and intimidation.”
Mrs Badenoch declared that “thuggery” cannot stop small boat crossings, adding it “requires a serious plan and a serious deterrent”.
Zia Yusuf (right) was confronted by protest organiser Daniel Thomas (Image: Theo Shaw/PA Wire)
She told the Daily Express: “Since Labour entered government, 95 per cent of illegal immigrants crossing the Channel have been allowed to stay.
“So, it’s no wonder the small boats keep coming or that we get the scenes we saw in Dover and Portsmouth at the weekend.
“I unconditionally condemn the violence, and the police have my full support in upholding the peace.
“But the public are clearly angry about the Government’s inability to stop illegal immigration into Britain. The way to deal with that is with a serious plan and a serious deterrent, not thuggery.
“Andy Burnham is claiming the one-in-one-out deal with France is sufficient, when it’s only returned 1,700 people to the continent (a reminder: 20,000 people have crossed the Channel just this year), and handing leaflets to illegal immigrants reminding them not to rape women.
“Labour is weak on immigration. Andy Burnham just doesn’t want to get his hands dirty.”
Rescue teams admitted they were blindsided as the smugglers used an “isolated, rocky spot” in the region, which is almost 285 miles away by road from Calais.
And the boat was in “serious difficulty” within “an hour”, officials said.
This led to five French rescue vessels and two helicopters helping the 120 asylum seekers on the nearly 70-mile journey.
Alexandra Whyte, the sister of a mother murdered by a Channel migrant, travelled for four hours to join demonstrators on the South coast at the weekend, as anger over small boat arrivals intensified on Sunday night.
Sudanese asylum seeker Deng Majek stabbed mother-of-one Rhiannon Whyte 23 times in a frenzied 90-second attack after following the 27-year-old to Bescot Road railway station in Walsall in 2024.
She died in hospital three days later. No motive has been established for why Majek, who arrived in the UK on a small boat three months before he attacked her. He was jailed for 29 years in January.
Alexandra told the Daily Express: “My sister’s story needs to be heard. As a female, standing out there and facing 160 male migrants and saying ‘I’m not afraid you’ … It’s something my sister deserves.
“There were people there who were afraid for their children. There were a lot of women there who were afraid for their children, for themselves and even for their mothers.
“Because no one is safe.
“Rhiannon’s son knows I was there. I tucked him in as he went to bed, and I said ‘I have to go’.
“I told him we were going to try to stop the boats with the bad men on.
“He said ‘go and do it – give them the message’.
“He deserves everything that those who were there were doing”.
Ms Whyte said there was “no violence”, adding “it was the calmest place to be considering how angry people were”.
RNLI lifeboats packed with migrants refused access to two ports
A dramatic incident involving RNLI lifeboats, more than 100 migrants and two major south-coast ports has intensified Britain’s debate over the Channel crossings, emergency rescues and the responsibilities of ports receiving people rescued at sea.
The two RNLI lifeboats had intercepted a large dinghy carrying people in the Channel and brought those on board to safety. But when the crews sought permission to land at Southampton and Portsmouth, both requests were declined.
The decision created an unusual situation. The lifeboats were not simply transporting passengers from one port to another: they had been involved in a maritime rescue operation. Eventually, the people rescued at sea were brought ashore at Eastney in Portsmouth, where the arrival was followed by a large anti-migrant demonstration and clashes with police.
The episode has since raised questions about how Britain should respond when small-boat arrivals occur away from the traditional processing locations around Dover.
What happened at sea?
The incident took place on 6 September 2026 after a large dinghy was detected in the Channel.
Two RNLI vessels, the Bembridge and Yarmouth lifeboats, responded to the situation and rescued people from the dinghy. Reports put the number of people aboard at more than 100, with other accounts giving a figure of approximately 120 or 140.
The operation was particularly notable because the boat had travelled an unusually long distance from the French coast.
The Guardian reported that the dinghy had departed from the Normandy coast near Cherbourg before making the journey towards southern England. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency dispatched lifeboats, an aircraft, a helicopter and other emergency resources after the vessel was detected.
The rescue itself was consistent with the RNLI’s central role as a maritime search-and-rescue organisation. Its volunteers respond to people in danger at sea regardless of nationality or immigration status.
That principle has become increasingly controversial as the RNLI has been involved in rescuing people attempting to cross the Channel.
Why were Southampton and Portsmouth refused?
The most contentious part of the episode came after the rescue.
An RNLI request to land the rescued migrants at Southampton was declined by Associated British Ports, which operates the port. ABP said the port did not have suitable reception facilities available.
The company also said that if Southampton had been the closest port in a situation involving safety of life at sea, or if it had received a formal direction from the relevant authority, it would have played a role. According to the company’s statement, neither circumstance applied in this case.
A separate request involving Portsmouth was also declined.
Reports indicated that the King’s Harbour Master at Portsmouth refused a request from the Coastguard. Portsmouth has specific harbour-management arrangements, and vessels require permission to enter waters controlled by the harbour authority.
The Ministry of Defence did not comment on operational matters when questioned about the Portsmouth decision.
The result was that the RNLI crews had to take the rescued people to another landing location.
They eventually reached Eastney Marina in Portsmouth.
The RNLI’s reaction
The incident prompted concern from the RNLI.
The charity said it was trying to understand the decision to deny access to its lifeboat and expressed disappointment with the way communication with its crew had been handled.
That reaction came amid a much wider controversy surrounding the charity.
The RNLI has increasingly found itself at the centre of political arguments about small boats. Its fundamental position, however, is that its volunteers exist to save lives at sea.
The charity’s chief executive, Peter Sparkes, subsequently condemned abuse directed at RNLI personnel following the Portsmouth incident. He said recent protests had generated misinformation and misunderstandings about the charity and described threats against volunteers and their families as unacceptable.
Some volunteers were targeted online following the rescue, including people accused by protesters of helping migrants enter Britain.
The RNLI has consequently advised staff and volunteers to consider carefully when wearing its uniform, amid concerns about abuse and intimidation.
The Eastney landing
The decision to use Eastney Marina produced another major problem.
The landing site is relatively constrained, with limited road access. Once the rescued people were brought ashore, authorities had to organise their transfer for immigration processing.
But large numbers of anti-migrant protesters had gathered in the area.
The Guardian reported that hundreds of protesters descended on Portsmouth after news of the arrival spread. Some blocked roads and attempted to prevent coaches carrying the asylum seekers from leaving the area. Police established cordons and eventually used a dispersal order to clear the area.
The situation became violent.
Hampshire police later said that approximately 200 people were involved in the disorder. Several police, Coastguard and Border Force vehicles were damaged, while a small number of officers were treated for injuries.
The force subsequently began reviewing extensive video footage to identify people suspected of committing offences.
A 42-year-old man was arrested and charged with violent disorder and assaulting a police constable.
Why Portsmouth became significant
The incident was unusual because Portsmouth is not normally associated with large-scale small-boat arrivals.
Most Channel crossings that reach Britain are dealt with around Kent, particularly Dover, where established facilities exist for people arriving by small boat.
The Portsmouth arrival therefore raised questions about what would happen if smugglers increasingly used different routes.
Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police and Crime Commissioner Donna Jones warned that the south coast would face difficulties if arrivals became more geographically dispersed. She argued that locations such as Portsmouth were not set up to deal routinely with large numbers of migrants arriving by sea.
However, The Independent reported that the government had no evidence at that point demonstrating a broader change in people-smuggling tactics.
That distinction is important.
One unusual arrival does not automatically establish that smugglers have permanently shifted their routes.
Nevertheless, the geography of the incident demonstrated a potential logistical problem for the authorities.
The challenge for emergency services
The episode also illustrates the complicated relationship between immigration enforcement and maritime rescue.
When a boat is in distress, the immediate priority of search-and-rescue organisations is to prevent loss of life.
Once people are safely aboard a rescue vessel, however, another set of responsibilities becomes relevant. Authorities must determine where they should be landed, who will process them and how they can be transported safely.
Those responsibilities normally involve the Coastguard, Border Force, police, local authorities and port operators.
The Portsmouth incident brought all of these agencies together under unusually difficult circumstances.
Emergency personnel were simultaneously dealing with rescued people at sea, a large protest on land and concerns about the safety of officers and members of the public.
The wider migration debate
The incident occurred during a period of intense political debate about Channel crossings.
The government has argued that its policies are reducing crossings and disrupting the operations of people smugglers. According to the Home Office, joint efforts with France have prevented more than 48,000 crossing attempts and resulted in approximately 1,100 boats and engines being seized since the election. The government has also said crossings during 2026 have fallen compared with the previous year.
At the same time, ministers have acknowledged that more action is required.
The government has introduced a payment-by-results arrangement with France intended to increase enforcement activity on French beaches. It said the agreement would result in 40% more personnel being deployed on French beaches.
The Portsmouth incident nevertheless demonstrated that even a reduction in overall crossings does not eliminate the political and practical challenges.
A single large arrival in a city that is not accustomed to processing migrants can create significant pressure on police, emergency services and local infrastructure.
The protests raise a separate issue
The behaviour of protesters has also become an important part of the story.
Peaceful opposition to government immigration policy is protected by the right to protest. But police have drawn a distinction between lawful protest and activities involving violence, intimidation or obstruction.
Hampshire police said officers and vehicles were targeted during the Eastney disorder.
The government condemned what it described as intimidating and disorderly behaviour while reiterating that peaceful protest remains a fundamental democratic right.
Police subsequently announced additional measures for future demonstrations, including the use of new powers concerning face coverings in designated areas.
A complicated question with no simple answer
The refusal of the RNLI boats at Southampton and Portsmouth has therefore become much more than a story about two ports.
It touches on the responsibilities of harbour authorities, the obligations of rescue organisations, Britain’s asylum system, the management of Channel crossings and the growing political tension surrounding immigration.
The Southampton port operator has said its decision reflected the absence of suitable reception facilities and the circumstances of that particular incident. Portsmouth’s harbour authorities operated under their own arrangements.
For the RNLI, the priority remains saving lives.
For the government, the challenge is to ensure that people rescued at sea can be safely landed and processed while maintaining effective border controls.
For coastal communities, the Portsmouth events have raised concerns about whether their towns are prepared if arrivals occur farther west than usual.
And for politicians debating immigration, the episode provides another example of how rapidly a maritime rescue can become a national political issue.
The central fact remains straightforward: RNLI crews rescued people from a dangerous Channel crossing, requests to land them at Southampton and Portsmouth were declined, and the group eventually came ashore at Eastney. What followed was a major protest, police disorder and renewed scrutiny of Britain’s response to irregular migration.
The longer-term significance will depend on whether incidents like this remain exceptional or become part of a wider pattern of arrivals along different sections of England’s coastline. For now, the episode has exposed a difficult gap between Britain’s established arrangements for Channel crossings and the possibility of increasingly unpredictable arrival locations.