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.
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 Carrying Migrants Refused Access to Two Ports
The arrival of migrants in the United Kingdom by small boats across the English Channel has become one of the most controversial issues in British public life. In September 2026, the debate intensified after two Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) lifeboats carrying around 120 migrants were refused permission to enter Portsmouth Harbour and Southampton Port. The boats eventually landed at Eastney, in Langstone Harbour, where the migrants were met by a large group of anti-migration protesters. The incident raised important questions about maritime safety, the responsibilities of rescue organisations, immigration control, and the relationship between humanitarian action and government policy.
The incident began when an overcrowded dinghy carrying migrants was intercepted in the English Channel near the Isle of Wight. The vessel had reportedly travelled a long distance from the French coast, creating significant concerns about the safety of the people on board. RNLI lifeboats from Bembridge and Yarmouth were involved in the rescue operation. After the migrants were recovered, the lifeboats sought a suitable place to land them. However, requests to enter Portsmouth Harbour and Southampton Port were refused. The crews consequently had to travel to Eastney Ferry Landing in Langstone Harbour instead.
The decision by Southampton Port was explained in terms of practical and operational considerations. Associated British Ports, which operates Southampton, said that the port did not have suitable reception facilities available for the migrants. The company also stated that Southampton was not the closest port in circumstances that required a safety-of-life-at-sea response. According to the explanation reported by the media, Southampton would have played a role if it had been the closest appropriate port or if it had received a formal direction from the authorities.
The situation in Portsmouth was less clearly explained publicly. Reports indicated that the King’s Harbour Master in Portsmouth declined a request from the coastguard for the RNLI boats to enter. The RNLI subsequently said that it was seeking to understand the decision to deny access and expressed disappointment about the way the matter had been communicated to its crews. For the volunteer lifeboat crews, the situation was particularly significant because their primary function is maritime search and rescue rather than immigration enforcement.
The role of the RNLI is central to understanding the controversy. The organisation is a charity whose principal purpose is to save lives at sea. Its lifeboat crews respond to people in danger regardless of their nationality or circumstances. In this case, the people rescued happened to be migrants attempting to cross the English Channel. This created a difficult distinction between saving people from immediate danger and dealing with the reasons why they had entered British waters in the first place. Rescue and immigration control are separate responsibilities, but they became closely connected during this incident.
Supporters of the RNLI’s approach argue that rescuers should not be expected to decide whether people deserve assistance before saving them. From a maritime safety perspective, an overcrowded and potentially unsafe boat creates a situation in which rescuers may have to act quickly. The RNLI has maintained that its purpose is to save lives at sea, while immigration decisions are the responsibility of government authorities. The charity has also stressed that Channel-related rescues represent only a small proportion of its overall work. Recent reporting said that rescues connected to Channel crossings accounted for approximately 1.2 percent of the RNLI’s work in 2025.
At the same time, the incident demonstrates why the issue is politically difficult. The arrival of migrants by small boats has generated concerns about border control, the capacity of the asylum system, and the responsibilities of the government. Some members of the public argue that allowing rescued migrants to arrive at British ports may make the Channel route appear more accessible. Others distinguish between immigration policy and emergency rescue, arguing that refusing a rescue vessel access to an appropriate port could create additional risks for both migrants and rescue crews.
The choice of Eastney as the eventual landing point created another set of difficulties. The area has limited road access, and protesters gathered around the landing site after the migrants arrived. Reports stated that hundreds of demonstrators blocked roads and attempted to prevent vehicles carrying the migrants from leaving the area. Police were deployed to manage the confrontation, and some officers were injured. The incident therefore developed from a maritime rescue into a major public-order operation.
The protests also affected the wider debate about the treatment of RNLI volunteers. The organisation reported criticism and abuse directed towards some volunteers because of their involvement in migrant rescues. Following the protests, security concerns increased at some RNLI locations. The controversy illustrates how immigration policy can affect organisations that are not directly responsible for making immigration decisions. Volunteers who traditionally perform a humanitarian role can become involved in highly political disputes simply because they respond to emergencies involving migrants.
Another important question concerns the responsibilities of ports during rescue operations. Ports have their own safety requirements, facilities, and operational limitations. A large commercial port may not necessarily be equipped to receive a large number of people who have just been rescued from an overcrowded small boat. The transfer from a low RNLI vessel to a high quay can also present practical difficulties. Therefore, refusing access does not automatically mean that a port is refusing humanitarian assistance; it may reflect concerns about infrastructure, safety, or the appropriate location for processing rescued people.
However, the incident also raises questions about coordination between different authorities. Rescue organisations, coastguards, harbour authorities, police forces, Border Force and immigration officials all have different responsibilities. When a rescue operation involves a large number of migrants, these responsibilities can overlap. Clear communication is therefore essential. If authorities disagree about where rescued people should be landed, the consequences may include longer journeys for rescue vessels, greater pressure on emergency services, and increased risks of public disorder.
The incident also highlights the broader challenge of managing migration across the English Channel. People continue to attempt dangerous journeys because of a combination of factors, including conflict, economic hardship, political instability, family circumstances and expectations about life in Britain. At the same time, governments are under pressure to control irregular migration and prevent criminal smuggling networks from exploiting vulnerable between different British authorities. France and the United Kingdom have attempted to cooperate on preventing Channel crossings, while the British government has continued to develop policies concerning asylum processing and the return of migrants. Nevertheless, dangerous crossings remain a complex problem. As smugglers adapt their methods, authorities must respond people. Neither humanitarian rescue nor border enforcement alone can resolve these wider causes.
A sustainable response therefore requires cooperation between countries and between different British authorities. France and the United Kingdom have attempted to cooperate on preventing Channel crossings, while the British government has continued to develop policies concerning asylum processing and the return of migrants. Nevertheless, dangerous crossings remain a complex problem. As smugglers adapt their methods, authorities must respond while still maintaining obligations relating to safety and the treatment of people in distress.
Ultimately, the RNLI incident demonstrates the tension between two different principles: the humanitarian responsibility to save people in danger and the governmental responsibility to manage national borders. These principles do not necessarily have to conflict, but poor coordination can make them appear incompatible. A rescue at sea should primarily address immediate threats to life, while decisions about asylum, immigration status and eventual residence should be handled through appropriate legal and administrative procedures.
The events at Portsmouth and Southampton therefore deserve attention not simply as a dispute about two ports, but as an example of a much larger challenge facing Britain. The incident involved maritime safety, immigration, public protest, policing and humanitarian responsibility at the same time. It also showed the risks faced by volunteers when highly political issues become connected with emergency services. Future incidents would benefit from clearer procedures about where rescued migrants should be landed, better coordination between authorities, and effective measures to protect both rescue workers and the public.
In conclusion, the refusal of Portsmouth Harbour and Southampton Port to accept RNLI lifeboats carrying migrants has highlighted the complicated relationship between humanitarian rescue and immigration control. The port authorities cited operational and reception-facility concerns, while the RNLI sought clarification and expressed disappointment about the communication with its crews. The subsequent protests demonstrated the intensity of public disagreement over migration. Rather than treating rescue and immigration as the same issue, the incident suggests the importance of keeping humanitarian lifesaving operations separate from political debates about border policy. At the same time, governments and authorities must develop clear systems for processing people rescued at sea. The central challenge is to protect human life while ensuring that immigration rules are administered through lawful, organised and transparent procedures.