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.

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”.

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, asylum seekers and two major English ports has raised fresh questions about how Britain should respond when people crossing the Channel are rescued at sea.

Two RNLI lifeboats carrying about 120 asylum seekers were reportedly refused permission to enter Southampton Port and Portsmouth Harbour after rescuing people from a large dinghy in the Channel.

The boats eventually brought those rescued ashore at Eastney in Portsmouth, where police, Border Force and other emergency services were confronted by protests.

The episode has since become part of a wider political argument over Channel crossings, the role of the RNLI and the government’s handling of irregular migration.

However, the reasons given by the ports are more specific than the suggestion that the lifeboats were simply “turned away” because migrants were on board.

What happened in the Channel?

The incident occurred on Sunday after a large migrant boat departed from Utah Beach near Cherbourg in Normandy.

The departure point was significantly farther west than the locations normally associated with Channel crossings.

According to reports, the vessel travelled towards British waters and was eventually intercepted in the Solent by RNLI lifeboats from Yarmouth and Bembridge.

French rescue services had also been involved after the launch was detected. Several French lifeboats and other vessels assisted during the operation before the people on board reached UK waters.

The unusual route was significant because smugglers have increasingly experimented with larger boats and different launch locations as authorities attempt to disrupt crossings from the French coast.

The incident therefore involved both a rescue operation and a wider law-enforcement challenge.

Why were Southampton and Portsmouth not used?

The controversy centres on the decision not to allow the RNLI boats to enter two ports.

A marine VHF radio broadcast reportedly informed the RNLI crews that Southampton Vessel Traffic Service and the King’s Harbour Master at Portsmouth had denied permission to enter the ports and their approaches.

The crews were subsequently directed towards Eastney.

The explanation from Associated British Ports, which operates Southampton, was that the port did not have suitable reception facilities available.

An ABP spokesman said the company had received an enquiry about landing the rescued people at Southampton but declined because appropriate reception facilities were unavailable.

The company added that it would have played a role if there had been a safety-of-life-at-sea situation in which Southampton was the closest suitable port, or if the relevant authorities had formally directed it to do so. Neither condition applied, according to ABP.

That explanation is important.

It means the refusal was not publicly justified simply on the basis that migrants were aboard the lifeboats.

Portsmouth had its own considerations

Portsmouth presented a different set of circumstances.

The entrance to Portsmouth Harbour is closely associated with the naval base, and the waters around the harbour are controlled by the King’s Harbour Master.

Reports indicated that security and operational considerations were relevant to the decision not to allow the RNLI boats carrying the rescued people into the harbour.

The boats therefore proceeded to Eastney, several miles away.

That decision had an immediate consequence: the landing took place in an area where large numbers of protesters had gathered.

Up to 200 people were reported to have attended the demonstrations, while police and other emergency services dealt with the situation.

The landing quickly became a security operation

The arrival of the asylum seekers at Eastney occurred against the background of demonstrations in Portsmouth.

Police formed a presence around the landing area and later accompanied coaches transporting the people away for processing.

The protests became disorderly in places, with reports of police officers being assaulted and vehicles damaged.

The Guardian reported that masked groups were among those involved and that police believed the demonstrations had been influenced by far-right groups.

The Home Office condemned what it described as intimidating behaviour.

The people brought ashore were subsequently transported for processing through the normal asylum system.

The RNLI, meanwhile, became the target of criticism from some protesters who objected to the organisation’s involvement in rescuing people attempting to cross the Channel.

The RNLI says its role is saving lives

The Royal National Lifeboat Institution has repeatedly stressed that its crews are a search-and-rescue service.

Its position is that crews respond to people in distress at sea regardless of nationality or immigration status.

Following the Portsmouth incident, RNLI chief executive Peter Sparkes condemned abuse directed towards volunteers.

He said recent events had generated misinformation and misunderstanding about the charity’s purpose and the nature of its lifesaving work.

The RNLI said some volunteers and staff had subsequently faced online and, in some cases, physical abuse.

The organisation has therefore sought to separate the question of immigration policy from its operational responsibility.

Its crews are not responsible for deciding who is entitled to enter Britain.

Their immediate responsibility is to rescue people who are in danger at sea.

Why has the RNLI become politically controversial?

The RNLI’s involvement in Channel rescues has become increasingly controversial because of the changing nature of small-boat crossings.

Critics argue that repeated rescues of migrant boats can create the appearance that the charity is becoming part of the migration system.

The RNLI rejects that interpretation.

The charity’s argument is that it responds to emergencies in the same way regardless of who is involved.

That distinction is important because immigration policy is determined by the government, Border Force and other authorities, not by individual lifeboat crews.

Once people rescued at sea are brought ashore, their immigration status is dealt with through the appropriate government processes.

The incident highlights a growing logistical problem

The episode also raises a practical question that extends beyond the political arguments.

What happens when a large number of people are rescued at sea but the nearest or most appropriate port cannot receive them?

The vessel involved was unusually large, carrying roughly 120 people.

A smaller rescue operation can potentially be managed using established facilities.

A large group creates additional requirements for transport, medical assistance, immigration processing, security and temporary accommodation.

The choice of landing point can therefore have consequences for local authorities and emergency services.

In this case, moving the people to Eastney brought them into an area where protests were already developing.

That created additional pressure for police and other services.

The incident reached Parliament

The controversy was raised in the House of Commons shortly afterwards.

Alan Campbell, the Labour MP for Tynemouth, questioned the government about why the RNLI boats had been turned away from Portsmouth and Southampton.

He argued that RNLI volunteers should not have been placed in a situation where they had to face angry demonstrations.

The Leader of the House responded by paying tribute to the RNLI and said it was “wholly unacceptable” for volunteers to face abuse.

The government said it would look into what happened.

That parliamentary intervention demonstrates that the episode is no longer simply an operational matter for harbour authorities.

Questions are now being asked about who made the decisions, what guidance was followed and whether arrangements for future large-scale rescues need to be changed.

It happened during a wider change in Channel crossings

The incident also came at a time when the pattern of Channel migration has been changing.

Although the number of crossings this year has fallen compared with the previous year, authorities have reported larger boats and different launch locations.

The vessel involved in the latest incident reportedly departed from the Normandy coast much farther west than the traditional launch areas around Calais and Dunkirk.

That creates additional challenges for French and British rescue services.

A longer crossing also means more time at sea and potentially greater risks for passengers.

Authorities are therefore concerned not only about immigration control but also about the safety consequences of smugglers changing their tactics.

Larger boats could create larger emergencies

The “mega-dinghy” involved in the incident illustrates another development.

Smuggling organisations have an incentive to carry more people on fewer vessels if law-enforcement agencies succeed in disrupting the supply of smaller boats.

From the smugglers’ perspective, that can mean fewer individual launches.

From a rescue perspective, however, a single incident can involve dozens or more than a hundred people simultaneously.

That places greater demands on lifeboats, helicopters, coastguards, police and port facilities.

The rescue of 120 people therefore cannot be viewed solely as an immigration story.

It is also a maritime safety issue.

The government faces two separate questions

The episode illustrates the difficulty of separating two responsibilities.

The first is rescue.

When people are in danger at sea, search-and-rescue organisations have a duty to respond according to maritime safety procedures.

The second is immigration control.

Once rescued people reach Britain, government agencies determine what happens to them, including registration, screening, asylum processing and, where legally appropriate, removal.

Confusing those two functions can lead to misleading conclusions about the role of the RNLI.

The charity can rescue people without having any role in deciding whether those people ultimately have a legal right to remain in Britain.

What happens next?

The government is now under pressure to clarify the circumstances surrounding the refusal of access to Southampton and Portsmouth.

The key questions include why the ports were considered unsuitable, who made the final decisions, what facilities were available elsewhere and how similar incidents should be handled in the future.

There is also a broader question about whether Britain’s existing arrangements are prepared for increasingly large migrant vessels arriving from more distant parts of the French coast.

For the RNLI, the issue is equally significant.

The organisation wants the public to understand that its volunteers respond to people in distress rather than determining immigration policy.

At the same time, the controversy demonstrates how closely maritime rescue operations have become intertwined with Britain’s migration debate.

A complicated incident with no simple explanation

The headline that RNLI lifeboats carrying migrants were refused access to two ports accurately captures the central event, but it does not by itself explain why the decisions were made.

Southampton’s port operator said it lacked suitable reception facilities and said there was no safety-of-life-at-sea situation requiring it to accept the boats. Portsmouth had separate operational and security considerations.

The eventual landing at Eastney was followed by protests, putting additional pressure on police and emergency services.

The RNLI has strongly defended its volunteers, while MPs have demanded answers from the government.

The deeper issue is likely to persist.

Britain must simultaneously manage dangerous Channel crossings, rescue people who get into difficulty at sea, process asylum claims and maintain order when highly contentious arrivals occur.

The Portsmouth incident showed how quickly those responsibilities can collide.

What remains to be established is whether the decisions surrounding the two ports represented an isolated operational judgment or exposed a wider gap in Britain’s preparations for large-scale Channel rescues.

That question is now firmly on the government’s agenda.