A Falklands War veteran caused fury when he said small boats carrying migrants to the UK should be shot. Major-General Julian Thompson, 92, a former commander of 3 Commando Brigade, commanding Operation Sutton, the attack at San Carlos Water in May 1982, on the ground. “I would shoot them,” Maj. Gen. Thompson said in a YouTube documentary produced by Steven Edginton. “We could stop them tomorrow, if we really had the guts. I’d shoot them, sorry, but I would,” he added. “We’ve allowed it to happen. We’re wet […] We’ve allowed it to happen.”

“As long as they don’t come around here, I don’t mind what they do,” Maj. Gen. Thompson told the Mail on Sunday. The former Royal Marine added: “They come over here and rape our girls. One machine-gun blast is all it would take […] then they would get the message.

“I just want them to bugger off.” He warned that if the Government did not stop them, then there “will be a revolution”. “Our leaders are just wet,” Maj. Gen. Thompson said, also suggested the country is “not Britain any more”.

He added: “It’s a sort of funny conglomeration of people, and in a wet country that allows itself to be pushed around all over the place.” He even went as far to so: “I’m glad I won’t see it; I’ll be dead.”

Maj. Gen. Thompson also called Islam “a flawed religion” in that “women are totally out”. “They can be treated like chattels, and children the same,” he said.

A Home Office spokesman said: “This Government is bearing down on dangerous and illegal crossings. Anyone who seeks to take the law into their own hands is putting lives at risk and will face serious criminal consequences.”

Conservative Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said “opening fire on migrant boats would be completely wrong”. He added: “I understand people’s anger at migrant crossings but we cannot shoot at people. There is another way to end this. If the French won’t stop the boats near the shore then the British Government should deport every illegal immigrant within a week of arrival.”

Crossings so far in 2026 have fallen 41% compared to 2025 and are around a fifth lower than in 2024 and 2023, according to Press Association analysis of Home Office figures. But 20,935 people have still made the crossing so far this year.

Hampshire Constabulary said around 350 people left Haslar Road at around 2am on Monday, October 5, after a group of migrants were brought ashore by coastguard, lifeboat and border security staff. The force had imposed conditions under the Public Order Act as well as powers prohibiting the wearing of face coverings.

Falklands War Veteran Says Small Boats Smuggling Migrants Across the Channel Should Be ‘Shot’

A controversial intervention by a decorated Falklands War veteran has reignited Britain’s debate over illegal migration after he suggested that small boats crossing the English Channel should be shot at to stop the journeys. His remarks have prompted criticism from politicians and renewed questions about how far the government should go to prevent dangerous crossings.

Major-General Julian Thompson, 92, commanded 3 Commando Brigade during the Falklands War and led British ground forces during Operation Sutton in 1982. In a documentary produced by journalist Steven Edginton, Thompson expressed frustration with the continued arrival of migrant boats, arguing that Britain had failed to show sufficient resolve in dealing with the problem. His comments were reported on October 10–12, 2026. <Cite refs={[“turn703407search0″,”turn703407search1”]}/>

The strength of his language has placed the debate over Channel crossings back in the spotlight. For people demanding tougher border controls, his intervention reflects years of frustration over the government’s difficulty in stopping irregular arrivals. For critics, however, the suggestion that boats should be fired upon raises grave questions about human life, the rule of law and the responsibilities of the British state.

A veteran’s outspoken intervention

Thompson’s military record gives his comments particular prominence. During the 1982 Falklands conflict, British forces fought to retake the islands following Argentina’s invasion. His role in the campaign made him a recognised figure in Britain’s military history.

Speaking about the Channel crossings, Thompson said he would shoot at the boats and argued that the crossings could be stopped if political leaders demonstrated greater determination. He also voiced concerns about public safety, immigration and what he regarded as a failure to protect British communities.

The remarks attracted considerable attention because they went beyond the familiar calls for stricter immigration rules, faster deportations or stronger action against people-smuggling networks. They raised the possibility of using potentially lethal force against vessels carrying people across one of the world’s busiest maritime routes.

Thompson subsequently clarified, according to reporting on his remarks, that he believed gunfire should be directed at the boats rather than the people aboard them. That distinction does not eliminate the danger: shooting at an inflatable vessel carrying passengers could cause it to deflate, capsize or sink, putting everyone aboard at risk. <Cite refs={[“turn703407search1″,”turn703407search2”]}/>

His intervention has therefore become part of a wider argument about whether the government is doing enough to stop irregular migration—and what measures would be lawful and effective.

The government’s response

The Home Office rejected the idea of individuals taking the law into their own hands, warning that doing so would put lives at risk and could lead to serious criminal consequences.

The government has maintained that it is working to prevent dangerous crossings and tackle the criminal networks that organise them. These networks often charge migrants substantial sums for journeys in overcrowded or unsuitable boats, exposing passengers to the dangers of cold water, rough seas and mechanical failure.

The Conservative Party also rejected the proposal to open fire. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said that shooting at migrant boats would be completely wrong. He nevertheless argued for a tougher response, including deporting people who have no legal right to remain in Britain. <Cite refs={[“turn703407search0″,”turn703407search3”]}/>

The political disagreement illustrates an important distinction. Politicians may agree that dangerous crossings should be reduced while disagreeing sharply over how that objective should be achieved.

The government faces pressure to demonstrate that its border policies are effective. At the same time, any action taken by the police, border authorities or armed forces must operate within the law and account for the safety of people at sea.

Why small-boat crossings remain a major issue

Small-boat migration across the Channel has become one of the most persistent and divisive issues in British politics. The journeys are dangerous, the numbers can fluctuate substantially from year to year, and the arrival of people seeking asylum creates practical challenges for border authorities and the accommodation system.

According to Press Association analysis of Home Office figures cited in October 2026, 20,935 people had crossed the Channel in small boats so far that year. That was approximately 41 per cent fewer than during the equivalent period in 2025, although thousands of people had still made the journey. <Cite refs={[“turn703407search0″,”turn703407search3”]}/>

Those figures matter in two ways. The decline suggests that arrivals can change significantly as enforcement, weather, smuggling tactics and other circumstances change. Yet the number of people still reaching Britain demonstrates that the problem has not disappeared.

The National Crime Agency’s 2026 assessment also identified organised immigration crime as a significant border threat. It reported that 41,472 people arrived in the UK via small boats during 2025, a 13 per cent increase on 2024. The agency described people-smuggling groups as adaptable criminal organisations that adjust their methods to evade detection and maximise their profits. <Cite refs={[“turn703407search5”]}/>

This evidence helps explain why many people want a stronger response. However, it also points towards a central challenge: stopping the business model of organised smugglers requires sustained enforcement and international cooperation, rather than relying on a single dramatic measure.

Would firing at boats stop the crossings?

Supporters of a hard-line approach may argue that a forceful response would deter smugglers and discourage people from attempting the journey. But a policy involving gunfire would carry serious practical and legal risks.

Small boats can be overcrowded and unstable. A bullet that damages an inflatable hull could cause rapid deflation, potentially throwing passengers into the sea. Children and other vulnerable people may be aboard, and even a boat carrying people suspected of having paid smugglers could include individuals with legitimate protection claims.

There is also a difference between using proportionate force to protect life or prevent an imminent threat and using lethal force simply to prevent an unauthorised arrival. The fact that a crossing is irregular does not, by itself, establish that the people aboard pose an immediate threat justifying lethal action.

Maritime authorities must consider the safety of people in distress and the obligations that apply to rescue operations. A vessel suspected of carrying migrants may need to be intercepted, assisted or escorted, depending on the circumstances. Any enforcement strategy must take account of the possibility that an intervention could create an emergency.

There is a further operational problem: firing at boats would not necessarily dismantle the criminal networks behind the crossings. Smugglers could change launch locations, boats or tactics, while authorities would still need to identify organisers, gather evidence and secure convictions.

The effectiveness of a policy should therefore be assessed by whether it reduces dangerous journeys, disrupts criminal networks and protects lives—not simply by how forceful it appears.

The role of the Royal Navy and border authorities

Calls for military intervention in the Channel have surfaced repeatedly during Britain’s immigration debate. Some politicians have argued that naval vessels or the Royal Marines should play a larger role in intercepting boats and returning passengers to France.

In October 2026, Reform UK figures also advocated a more forceful approach to stopping crossings, while Labour representatives criticised proposals involving lethal force against unarmed civilians. <Cite refs={[“turn703407search3”]}/>

Deploying military personnel, however, would not automatically resolve the legal, diplomatic and operational difficulties. British authorities would still need to determine what action could lawfully be taken, how people could be transferred safely and whether France would cooperate with the proposed arrangements.

Any return policy would also need to consider individual protection claims and the applicable legal safeguards. People arriving irregularly are not all in the same circumstances, and the authorities cannot assume that every person has the same immigration status or legal entitlement to remain.

The government can pursue tougher enforcement without adopting Thompson’s proposal. Options include intelligence-led operations against smuggling gangs, cooperation with French authorities, improved identification procedures, faster processing of asylum claims and lawful returns for people who have no right to stay.

Each approach has practical limitations, but these measures target the systems that enable crossings while allowing authorities to distinguish between individual cases.

Public anger and the question of trust

The controversy reflects a broader concern about confidence in the immigration system. Some residents believe that repeated arrivals, accommodation pressures and lengthy asylum decisions demonstrate that successive governments have failed to maintain effective control of the border.

For these critics, official statements promising to reduce crossings are not enough. They want to see measurable results, clear accountability and a system capable of removing people when their claims have been rejected and no legal barrier to removal remains.

Others warn that rhetoric advocating violence risks diverting attention from workable solutions and treating people who cross the Channel as though they are all members of criminal organisations. The people arranging dangerous journeys may be committing serious offences, but the passengers themselves can have widely differing circumstances.

A durable policy needs to recognise both concerns. The government must take border security seriously, investigate and prosecute smugglers, and enforce immigration decisions. It must also preserve public safety and the legal protections that apply to people within its jurisdiction.

Thompson’s remarks have drawn attention partly because they express frustration in unusually stark terms. But a forceful statement is not, by itself, evidence that the proposed action would work or be lawful.

What happens next?

The debate over Channel crossings is likely to remain a central issue for the government as it faces demands for stronger border enforcement. Ministers will be judged on whether they can reduce dangerous journeys, disrupt smuggling networks and make the asylum system operate more effectively.

The veteran’s intervention has exposed the distance between public anger and the limits of lawful state action. While some people may view his comments as an expression of frustration with years of unresolved immigration disputes, opening fire on boats carrying passengers would create risks that cannot be dismissed.

The government’s stated approach is to tackle dangerous crossings and people-smuggling while warning against unauthorised violence. Opposition politicians have called for tougher measures too, but the proposal to shoot at migrant boats has not been adopted as official policy.

Ultimately, the challenge is to produce results without turning the Channel into a scene of avoidable loss of life. Effective border enforcement, international cooperation, criminal investigations and lawful returns remain central to that task.

The controversy surrounding Major-General Julian Thompson has therefore raised a question that goes beyond one veteran’s comments: how can Britain demonstrate firm control of its borders while protecting life and upholding the law? The answer will depend not on the severity of political rhetoric, but on the effectiveness, legality and consequences of the policies the government chooses to pursue.