Plans for new offence to crack down on promoting Channel crossings online
(PA Graphics)
It comes as the Government grapples with a record number of migrants arriving in the UK after crossing the English Channel.
On Wednesday, arrivals passed more than 25,000 for the year so far, a record for this point in the year.
Assisting illegal immigration to the UK is already a crime, but officials believe the changes will give more powers to police and other agencies to disrupt criminal gangs.
According to analysis by the Home Office, around 80% of migrants arriving to the UK by small boat told officials they used social media during their journey, including to contact agents linked to people smuggling gangs.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: 'Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the UK and a life in this country – whether on or offline – simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral.
'These criminals have no issue with leading migrants to life-threatening situations using brazen tactics on social media. We are determined to do everything we can to stop them, wherever they operate.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper described anyone who sells the 'promise of a safe journey to the UK and a life in this country – whether on or offline – simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral' (Jacob King/PA)
The National Crime Agency already works with social media companies to remove posts promoting crossings, with more than 8,000 taken offline in 2024.
NCA director general of operations Rob Jones said the proposed new offence will give them more options of how to target gangs and their business models.
Previous cases that could have been targeted under the proposed offence include a Preston-based smuggler jailed for 17 years for posting videos of migrants thanking him for his help.
Albanian smugglers who used social media to promote £12,000 'package deals' for accommodation and a job in the UK on arrival would also be in scope.
The Conservatives said it was 'too little, too late' and that only their proposal to automatically deport people who enter Britain via unauthorised routes can tackle small boat crossings.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: 'Tinkering at the edges won't fix the problem.
'Labour still has no clear plan to deter illegal entry, no effective enforcement and no strategy to speed up removals. This is a panicked attempt to look tough after months of doing nothing.
'The only clear and enforceable plan is the Conservative Deportation Bill, a no-nonsense strategy that allows us to detain illegal arrivals immediately and remove them without delay. The British public deserve focused action, not more of Labour's dithering.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
8 minutes ago
- The Guardian
New Zealand to charge foreign tourists to visit most famous sites
New Zealand plans to start charging international tourists fees to enter its famous natural sites and will make it easier for businesses to operate on conservation land as part of a controversial proposal to 'unleash' growth on ecologically and culturally protected areas. The government plans to start charging foreign visitors NZ$20-40 ($12-24) per person to access some sites. Initially, those would probably include Cathedral Cove/Te Whanganui-a-Hei, Tongariro Crossing, Milford Track and Aoraki Mount Cook. The fees are likely to be imposed from 2027. The conservation minister, Tama Potaka, said those fees could generate NZ$62m a year 'so we can keep investing in the sites that underpin so much of our tourism sector'. The government's announcements form part of a wider shake-up of conservation law that will also make selling or exchanging conservation land easier and allow more activities to go ahead on conservation without needing a permit. 'In the spirit of saying yes to more jobs, more growth and higher wages', the government would 'unleash a fresh wave of concessions' including in tourism, agriculture and infrastructure at some locations, the prime minister, Christopher Luxon, said on Saturday. Conservation land is protected, publicly owned land and makes up a third of New Zealand territory. It covers areas with biodiversity, historic or cultural value. Some businesses such as ski fields and grazing already operated on conservation land but many other businesses struggled to gain the same permission, Luxon said. It is the latest policy that seeks to loosen regulation on natural sites and species to enable economic growth. In 2024, the government passed a law that could see contentious mining and infrastructure projects fast-tracked for approval. It has also proposed a law change to make it easier for companies to kill protected wildlife in order to pursue certain infrastructure projects. Conservation and climate initiatives have also faced budget cuts. But critics say the changes risk harming the environment and vulnerable species. New Zealand has high rates of endemic biodiversity but some species are in worrying decline, with a high proportion threatened or at risk of extinction. Green party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said Luxon was putting profit above the protection of nature. 'That tells us everything we need to know about who he thinks he works for. It's not regular people, future generations or a healthy environment,' she said in a statement to the Guardian. Nicola Toki, the chief executive of New Zealand's largest conservation organisation, Forest & Bird, said the latest reforms 'represent the most significant weakening of conservation law in a generation' and would increase pressure on vulnerable species. 'They shift the focus from protection to exploitation, dismantling the very purpose of our national parks and conservation lands.'
Daily Mirror
38 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Mum says she was sexually assaulted in mid-air by parasail operator during Tunisia holiday
A British holidaymaker has claimed she was sexually assaulted while parasailing in Sousse, Tunisia. Michelle Wilson, 52, from Southport, Merseyside, says the parasail operator pressed himself against her and groped her mid-air during what should have been a thrilling ride. Michelle had planned to go on a tandem parasail flight with a friend, but was told it was too windy in Tunisia that day and they would have to fly separately, each accompanied by an operator. She said her friend went up first 'and had a great time, with no problems', noting there was plenty of distance between her friend and the operator. However, Michelle's own experience was very different. The mum-of-three said: 'I could feel the back of my bikini bottoms being pulled and he was pulling the strap. He must have been tightening the harness to get me closer. His legs straddled around me, he had one hand up on the parachute, the other wasn't. Then I felt him touch my leg.' She continued: 'He was groping me and moving back and forth into me and talking to me in Arabic. I felt him pressing against me. I kept arching my back. "I felt violated and dirty and was scared. He was only a young lad, maybe around 20. It was a horrible experience and I was really scared. I felt helpless hanging in the air.' Michelle burst into tears after landing and reported the incident to the water sports centre's manager before going to the local police. The £6,000 easyJet package holiday had been booked for Michelle, her 17-year-old daughter, her 16-year-old twin boys, and her daughter's 17-year-old friend. However, she said she felt unable to enjoy the rest of the trip after what happened. She added: 'As women you expect a bit of banter from men in these countries, but this wasn't banter, it was a sexual assault.' Michelle believes her alleged attacker has since been arrested, and that both her insurance firm and the Foreign Office are now involved in the case. An easyJet spokesperson said: 'The safety and wellbeing of our customers is a priority, and we are continuing to support Ms Wilson. We are also liaising closely with our hotel partner to look into the reports.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
How war became a route to growth for the west
The UK Government's Strategic Defence Review in June promised expanded submarine, weapon, and drone production, integrated digital command, at least six new munitions factories to 'create more than 1000 new jobs' (perhaps familiar from the 'scrapping Trident is anti-worker claim against Scottish independence in the mid-2010s). It represents an increase of already-above-Nato-baseline defence spending to 3%, and, crucially, a 'whole-of-society approach' that involved 'widening participation in national resilience'. READ OUR DEFENCE MINI-SERIES This is necessitated, the review says, by multiple new hybrid threats – a staple rationalisation since the Cold War, as in David Cameron's 2013 claim that nuclear weapons were needed 'more than ever'. Against a background of population economic punishment, the tellingly-named 'sovereign warhead programme' needed another £15 billion – roughly the size of the 'black hole' agonised over by Labour last year, and also of the current nuclear overspend stated in that year. There has been some grim technocratic inevitability to this, particularly since 2008. As asset prices gradually became inflated by central bank money channelled into stagnant investments, leaving governments struggling to deliver growth and protect their own legitimacy, classical capitalism was relieved of any lingering responsibility to deliver actual improvement, and the very temporality of progress could be inherited by crisis realism. Or as the review enthusiastically puts it, 'constant innovation at wartime pace'. War becomes a final route to growth – one marked by the 52% increase in the BAE Systems share price between January and July. Moreover, post-2000s rearming has lacked much of the protest once coming from civil society. This has a lot to do with US tech giants combining investments in infotech, AI, and aerospace (Alphabet, Microsoft, Lockheed Martin), their war on attention, and their siloing of individuals, reducing their ability to share moral concerns. Attention capture has increasingly accompanied the rearming, directing even those far up the political chain away from long-term thinking (the scenario of Don't Look Up). Covid lockdowns were a great accelerator of this, with Silicon Valley's sifting and directing of communication – in an economy Mackenzie Wark has called 'vectoralist' – automatically extracting rent through proprietary algorithms, turbocharging inequality, effectively wrecking the economy for the population, and forcing the turn to war for growth. Post-2008 algorithmic silencing helps explain the eerie quiet over permacrisis as stability. As numerous nuclear commentators have noted, there is a paradox in claiming to defend democracy by concentrating means of apocalyptic violence in fewer and more secretive hands. Such a purely performative democracy is an admission of societal dysfunction and some kind of addiction. It leaves a defence realism that, in contrast to the Cold War, struggles to imagine apocalyptic war and so raises it as a political issue. Benoit Pelopidas has described a need for depictions of nuclear war keep civil society involved, and avoid a sleepwalk into extinction. For Elaine Scarry, this sleepwalking is the very function of 'out-of-ratio' weapons, which eclipse citizen participation in defence, and effectively 'delete the population'. Even George Orwell noted something similar after the 1945 atomic demonstration on the recalcitrant beyond of Atlantic commercial empire. Under the new Pax Americana, fighting had effectively been put out of populations' reach, 'whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance'. This submission to a cybernetics of extinction is what EP Thompson called exterminism, with technocratic governments finally captured by arms manufacturers promising growth and so political legitimacy. UK governments duly held on to nuclear weapons as a financial stabiliser even after the end of the Cold War, and through to the 2020s removal of the previous warhead cap, and as Timmon Milne Wallis describes, 'voted against, blocked or boycotted virtually every other multilateral nuclear disarmament initiative'. In British ideology, nuclear securitisation has always meant financial securitisation. Chancellor Alistair Darling, who would later front the anti-Scottish-independence organisation Better Together, reacted to the 2008 financial crisis by promoting [[Trident]] renewal as public investment. Keir Starmer echoed that this year when he described nuclear rearming as crucial to drive growth. But way beyond this, British authority has always depended on progressively shifting physical stakes in conflict to economic arbitration, writing populations out of society-as-economy. The 'disarming' enacted on 1740s Jacobites is also the disarming of Scarry's 'thermonuclear monarchy', in which the Lockean social contract degrades into the apocalyptic whims of small economic elites. A fully abstracted violence as a 'peaceful' proxy of citizen defence was even a pillar of a British welfare state – in fact from as early as 1941, when the Blitz-era MAUD Committee insisted atomic weapons had to be completed and used. Absolutised defence extended war togetherness even through the original 'austerity', finding funds for nukes and joining the whole population as a single target. In 2024 Starmer could comfortably appropriate this welfare terminology to describe Trident's ''triple lock', a term previously used for state pensions. This homeliness remains an issue in defining the militarisation of the economy as a problem. As Margaret Thatcher understood, the idea of the economy as a defence against politics and populations is deeply British, and can command patriotism even from a sceptical population. Mindfulness of the real violence being abstracted as growth will be crucial to any civil involvement. Michael Gardiner is author of Empire of Deterrence (2025), published by Repeater
