Connect with us

Published

on

Gary Lineker, the BBC’s highest-paid on-air presenter, is to leave the corporation in a matter of days.

The Match Of The Day host will step away from the broadcaster at the end of this month, with his last appearance expected on 25 May, the last day of the Premier League season.

His exit comes after he “apologised unreservedly” for sharing a social media post that featured a rat – used in Nazi propaganda to dehumanise Jewish people – and said he would “never knowingly share anything antisemitic”.

It was the latest controversial post by the 64-year-old, who has found himself at the centre of several rows over his social media usage, most of which involve him sharing his political views, which go against the BBC’s rules on impartiality.

In a statement on Monday, Lineker said: “I care deeply about the game, and about the work I’ve done with the BBC over many years. As I’ve said, I would never consciously repost anything antisemitic – it goes against everything I stand for.

“However, I recognise the error and upset that I caused, and reiterate how sorry I am. Stepping back now feels like the responsible course of action.”

Here is a round-up of the pundit’s most contentious comments as he prepares to leave the BBC.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Gary Lineker to leave BBC immediately

Gaza documentary

Although not via social media, earlier this year, Lineker was one of 500 media personalities who condemned the BBC for pulling the documentary Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone after it emerged the child narrator, Abdullah, is the son of Ayman Alyazouri, who had worked as Hamas’s deputy minister of agriculture.

In an open letter addressed to BBC director general Tim Davie, chairman Samir Shah and outgoing chief content officer Charlotte Moore, Lineker joined hundreds of TV and film professionals and journalists who called the decision to remove the documentary “politically motivated censorship”.

The presenter later said the BBC had “capitulated”, adding that he did not see Abdullah as an issue, and maintaining that the corporation should not have admitted to “a number of serious failings in their commissioning and editorial processes”.

The BBC admitted the documentary’s failings were “a dagger to the heart” of the corporation’s impartiality.

Tory migrant policy

In March 2023, Lineker called a Conservative government policy on migration “immeasurably cruel” and compared the language around it to 1930s Germany.

Hitting out at a video of former home secretary Suella Braverman, where she unveiled the Illegal Migration Bill and claimed the UK was being “overwhelmed” by migrants, Lineker wrote on social media: “There is no huge influx.

“We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries.

“This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.”

His comments sent politicians, pundits and social media platform X into a spin.

As a result, Lineker was removed from his duties as Match Of The Day presenter after claims he had breached their impartiality guidelines.

He later returned to the presenting role after the row prompted a boycott by his fellow football pundits and commentators, hitting TV and radio coverage across the BBC.

Lineker has been consistently vocal on the issue of migration. In 2020 the former England footballer welcomed refugee Rasheed Baluch into his Surrey home.

Mr Baluch, who was from Pakistan, stayed with the presenter for weeks, and spoke out in the pundit’s defence in 2023, describing him as a “very sympathetic, caring and human loving man”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

From March 2023: Gary Lineker stands by social media post

‘4 chaps Shapps’

Criticising former defence secretary Grant Shapps in December 2023, Lineker posted photos of the politician – who lost his seat in last year’s general election – along with different names he has been accused of using in the past.

It was in response to Mr Shapps defending the government’s Rwanda scheme. The politician said Lineker should stick to football and stop “meddling” in other matters.

Lineker replied on social media, saying: “A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps.”

Chair of the BBC Mr Shah said at the time the post breached the corporation’s guidelines.

Brexit and Tories

Lineker was a vocal opponent of Brexit and in 2018 backed the campaign for another EU referendum, saying Brexit felt like it was “going very wrong indeed”.

At the time, a BBC source told Sky News that Lineker’s position as a freelance broadcaster, and a presenter who does not front news or politics programmes, meant he was clear of the corporation’s rules on impartiality.

As well as voicing his Brexit opinions, Lineker bemoaned “the absolute state of our politics”, saying “imagine how hopeless you’d have to be to still be behind the Tory party in the polls”.

BBC cricket correspondent Jonathan Agnew hit back, criticising Lineker for speaking out on politics.

He posted on X: “Gary. You are the face of BBC Sport. Please observe BBC editorial guidelines and keep your political views, whatever they are and whatever the subject, to yourself. I’d be sacked if I followed your example. Thanks.”

Lineker made a barbed reply: “Jonathan, I’m the face of my own Twitter account. I’ll continue to tweet what I like and if folk disagree with me then so be it.”

What are the BBC guidelines on impartiality?

Gary Lineker signed a five-year deal with the BBC in 2020, under which he agreed to adhere to their impartiality rules.

The rules were then updated after his return to Match Of The Day in 2023.

The latest regulations say high-profile BBC presenters should be able to express their views on political issues as long as they stop short of campaigning.

It does not clarify what would constitute political campaigning for the big-name presenters.

The guidelines also stress the importance of “high standards of civility in public discourse”, which includes treating others with respect, even in the face of abuse and not using offensive or aggressive language.

The policy only applies to presenters outside of its news coverage. News presenters are still subject to stricter impartiality guidelines.

Russian donors

In February 2022, Lineker tweeted about the Conservative Party taking money from “Russian donors”.

Retweeting a story about the then foreign secretary Liz Truss urging football teams to boycott the Champions League final in Russia, he added: “And her party will hand back their donations from Russian donors?”

The BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) upheld a complaint and said Lineker’s post “did not meet the BBC’s editorial standards on impartiality”.

The ECU said Lineker was “one of the BBC’s highest profile stars” and said while not being required to uphold the same high standards of impartiality as its journalists, he had an “additional responsibility” because of his profile.

“We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters,” the ruling said.

Row over sewage

A senior BBC journalist questioned Lineker’s commitment to the BBC’s impartiality rules after the presenter posted on social media about sewage in August 2022.

At the time, Lineker wrote on social media: “As a politician how could you ever, under any circumstances, bring yourself to vote for pumping sewage into our seas? Unfathomable!”

BBC journalist Neil Henderson asked Lineker whether he had a contract allowing him to breach BBC impartiality, writing: “The BBC lives or dies by its impartiality. If you can’t abide it, get off it.”

He subsequently apologised to the former footballer and deleted the tweets. Under the BBC’s social media rules, criticising colleagues is off-limits.

Read more:
Who are Match Of The Day’s new presenters?

Qatar World Cup

Lineker opened the BBC’s coverage of the 2022 Qatar World Cup with a scathing critique of the host country’s record on human rights and treatment of migrant workers.

The segment analysed the decision to award the tournament to Qatar amid corruption allegations and brought in pundits to discuss workers’ rights and discrimination against LGBT people.

Former BBC journalist Emily Maitlis – who was once found to have breached impartiality guidelines herself – compared that incident to the response to his other social media posts around the same time.

She said: “Curious that Gary Lineker was free to raise questions about Qatar’s human rights record – with the blessing of the BBC – over the World Cup, but cannot raise questions of human rights in this country if it involves criticism of government policy…”

In advance of the tournament, Lineker criticised then foreign secretary James Cleverly after he suggested LGBT football fans should be “respectful” of Qatar, where homosexuality is illegal, if they visited for the World Cup.

Responding to the comments, Lineker said: “Whatever you do, don’t do anything gay. Is that the message?”

A pitch invader runs across the field with a rainbow flag during the World Cup group H soccer match between Portugal and Uruguay, at the Lusail Stadium in Lusail, Qatar, Monday, Nov. 28, 2022. (AP Photo/Abbie Parr)
Image:
A pitch invader with a rainbow flag during a Qatar World Cup match. Pic: AP

The time he didn’t speak out

Reflecting on his comments about the Qatar World Cup, Lineker said he and the BBC should have spoken out more during the World Cup in Russia in 2018.

At the time there were calls for Russia to be stripped of the World Cup or boycotted in 2014 after it annexed Crimea and was blamed by the West for supplying arms to pro-Russian separatists suspected of shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine.

“I think we were all going how great it was, and this and that and the other, and that’s how sportwashing works,” Lineker said during a BBC Radio 4 interview.

“We’ve seen what Putin’s done subsequently, but he’d done it before.

“I think looking back now in hindsight, I think we should probably have spoken out more.”

Continue Reading

UK

Parents tell ‘untold stories’ of how their ‘hero’ daughters survived Southport attack

Published

on

By

Parents tell 'untold stories' of how their 'hero' daughters survived Southport attack

The parents of survivors of the Southport attack have revealed the “untold stories” of how their “hero” children escaped.

Axel Rudakubana, 18, murdered Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, Bebe King, six, and Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, in what the chairman of the public inquiry Sir Adrian Fulford called “one of the most egregious crimes in our country’s history”.

Eight children were injured along with two adults at a Taylor Swift-themed class in the Merseyside seaside town on 29 July last year, while 15 others escaped without physical injuries.

The surviving victims and their families have been granted anonymity during the inquiry, with one girl referred to as C3. Her father was the first to give evidence at Liverpool Town Hall on Wednesday.

Alice da Silva Aguiar, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Bebe King were murdered in an attack at a Taylor Swift-themed class.
Image:
Alice da Silva Aguiar, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Bebe King were murdered in the attack

Reading a statement on behalf of him and his wife, he told how their daughter was the first girl to escape the scene by running from the Hart Space building and hiding behind a parked car before jumping through an open car door.

“Our nine-year-old daughter was stabbed three times in the back by a coward she didn’t even see,” he said.

“Although she didn’t know what was happening – she knew she had to run. She ran out of the studio door, down the stairs, and out of the building.”

Read more: Southport inquiry as it happened

He said she can be seen “looking scared, confused and pained” in CCTV footage of the incident, adding: “It was troubling for us to see what she had to go through, before either of her parents had arrived at the scene.”

“We are so thankful and proud that despite being critically injured, she was able to make the decisions she did in that terrible moment,” he said.

The girl’s father said his daughter “continues to astound” them with the way she dealt with the attack and her recovery, saying: “It has been inspiring for us to witness.”

Chair Sir Adrian Fulford sitting inside the hearing room at Liverpool Town Hall, ahead of the start of the inquiry.
Pic: PA
Pic: PA
Image:
Inquiry chair Sir Adrian Fulford at Liverpool Town Hall. Pic: PA

He said she has difficulty sleeping, experiences flashbacks, looks over her shoulder scanning for potential danger when she leaves the house, has a fear of loud noises and has to turn off some songs when they come on the radio.

“Our daughter knows that she is loved,” he said.

“It is through this support and love that she will continue to thrive. We couldn’t be prouder of her. She is our hero.”

Stabbed 33 times

The parents of a girl referred to as C1 told how their “beautiful, articulate, fun-loving little girl” was stabbed 33 times.

After being attacked she escaped the building, but Rudakubana was seen dragging her back inside in CCTV footage played during his sentencing hearing, which drew gasps in court, before she was stabbed 20 more times.

“That is how she became known in this nightmare. The girl that was dragged back in,” her mother said.

Police at the scene of the Southport attack on 29 July 2024. Pic: PA
Image:
Police at the scene. Pic: PA

Southport

She thanked the teachers who escaped to call police and flag down help but said: “The most painful of truths for us though, and what has been most devastating to come to terms with, is that there were no adults to help during both of her attacks.

“She was only supported by other children. The courage and strength she found leaves me crushed, but in complete awe.”

She added: “It is these untold stories of remarkable strength and bravery that are missing when we have heard other accounts of this day.”

The mother said the “hours and days that followed the attack were a living hell” and her daughter’s memories – including a concert of her “idol” Taylor Swift – have “been forfeited to make space for the trauma that she carries”.

“We tell her she was brave. How proud we are that she was able to help other girls. How her strength makes us feel strong. How important what she did that day was. She is her own hero. She may be a survivor of this attack, but she is still trying to survive this, every single day,” she said.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘We need to understand what went wrong’

Attack ‘changed everything’

The mother of a girl referred to as C8 said she was “like any other seven-year-old little girl”, “with an incredible energy” and “full of life”.

But in a statement read out by a legal representative, she said the attack last year “changed everything” when she got a “panicked phone call” from a friend’s mother, who couldn’t find the girls.

“That moment, the sound of fear in her voice and the panic I felt will never leave me,” she said.

“I rushed to the scene and what I saw is something no parent should ever see. My daughter had sustained serious physical injuries including a stab wound to her arm and a cut to her face and chin.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘We don’t want Elsie forgotten’

Read more from Sky News:
Infected blood victims ‘waiting to die in limbo’

The fly-tippers turning trash into cash

She said her daughter “remembers the attack vividly” and later told her “she thought it had to be fake, because she couldn’t believe something that terrible could really be happening”.

“Where she was once eager to go off with her friends, she now needs my support if it is somewhere public or unknown,” she said.

“Simple days out now need a level of safety planning that we would never have considered before.”

‘Constant flashbacks’

The mother of a girl referred to as Q, who escaped without being physically injured, told how she arrived to collect her daughter to find “children running from the building, screaming and fearing for their lives”.

In a statement read to the inquiry by a legal representative on her behalf, she said it was “the most horrific experience of my life”.

“What I saw on that day will stick with me forever, I constantly have flashbacks and relive what happened,” she said.

She said her daughter has become “very withdrawn” since the attack and has asked her parents, “How will I ever be normal again?”

Rudakubana was jailed for a minimum of 52 years in January and is being investigated over an alleged attack on a prison officer at Belmarsh prison in May.

The public inquiry, announced by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper in January, is looking into whether the attack could or should have been prevented, given what was known about the killer.

Rudakubana, who was born in Cardiff, had contact with police, the courts, the youth justice system, social services and mental health services, and was referred to the government’s anti-extremism Prevent scheme three times before the murders.

A rapid review into his contact with Prevent found his case should have been kept open and that he should have been referred to Channel, another anti-terror scheme.

C1’s mother said: “She deserves the truth, she deserves accountability. She deserves an apology. Our girls deserve an apology.

“Backed up by the promise that changes will be made and this will not be allowed to happen again.”

Continue Reading

UK

Infected blood victims are ‘waiting to die in limbo’ – with hundreds still waiting for compensation

Published

on

By

Infected blood victims are 'waiting to die in limbo' - with hundreds still waiting for compensation

Victims of the infected blood scandal say they are “waiting to die in limbo”, with just hundreds having received compensation to date.

For decades, more than 30,000 NHS patients were knowingly given infected blood products, and more than 3,000 people died as a result. Survivors are left living with long-term health complications, including HIV and hepatitis.

An inquiry into the scandal, which published its final report in May 2024, accused the NHS of a “pervasive cover-up”. Recompense payments for the victims and survivors were ordered, with the government setting aside £11.8bn to do this.

Earlier this year, the inquiry was reopened to examine the “timeliness and adequacy” of the compensation, and its report – published today – has accused the scheme of “perpetuating” harm.

Just 2,043 people have been asked to start a claim, 616 have been made offers, and 430 of those have been paid.

“For decades, people who suffered because of infected blood have not been listened to. Once again, decisions have been made behind closed doors, leading to obvious injustices,” says Sir Brian Langstaff, chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry.

“It is not too late to get this right. We are calling for compensation to be faster, and more than that, fairer.”

In his latest 210-page report, Sir Brian says yet more people have been harmed by the way they have been treated by the scheme.

It highlights how the compensation scheme was drafted without any direct involvement from the people most affected – the expert group that advised the government on how financial support should be delivered was not allowed to take evidence or hear from any victim of the infected blood scandal.

“Obvious injustices” within the scheme include the exclusion of anyone infected with HIV prior to 1982 and the unrealistic requirements for proving psychological harm.

How did the infected blood scandal happen?

Between 1970 and the early 1990s, more than 30,000 NHS patients were given blood transfusions, or treatments made using blood products, which were contaminated with hepatitis C or HIV.

The infected blood was used because the NHS was struggling to meet the domestic demand for blood products, so sourced around 50% of them from abroad, including the US.

But much of the blood had been taken from prisoners, drug addicts and other high-risk groups who were paid to give blood.

Blood donations in the UK were not routinely screened for hepatitis C until 1991, 18 months after the virus was first identified.

As a result, more than 3,000 people have died, and survivors have experienced lifelong health implications.

In 2017, the government announced a statutory inquiry into the scandal to examine the impact on families, how authorities responded, and the care and support provided to those affected.

The Infected Blood Inquiry published its findings last year and a multi-billion-pound compensation scheme was announced in its wake.

This included payments for a group of people with the blood clotting disorder haemophilia, who were subjected to “unethical research” while at school and included in secret trials to test blood products.

HIV infections before 1982

The current scheme means any person infected with HIV before 1 January 1982 will not be compensated – something the latest report calls “illogical and unjust”.

The rule “completely misunderstands (or ignores) the central fact that blood products used [before this date] were already known to carry a risk of a dangerous virus – Hepatitis”, the report says.

The rule appears to have been made based on legal advice to the government.

One mother says her daughter was invited to claim compensation, only to be told she was likely “ineligible” because she had been infected prior to 1982.

“To reach this stage of the proceedings to be faced with the unbearable possibility of her claim being declined is yet another nightmare to be somehow endured… This unbearable and intolerable situation is cruel and unjust,” she says in the report.

Read more:
Ten victims of infected blood scandal to receive total of around £13m
Infected blood victims ‘livid’ with ‘paltry’ compensation offer
Trust between citizens and state destroyed in infected blood scandal

One person who is not named in the report said: “It feels as if we are waiting to die in limbo, unable to make any progress in our lives and fearing that as our health declines, we may not ever get the compensation we deserve.”

Analysis by Sky correspondent Laura Bundock: Victims’ painful battle continues – and in some cases time is running out

This is another deeply damning report into the infected blood scandal.

We now know the damage and suffering caused by the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS is far from over.

So many were promised long-overdue compensation. But those infected and affected by the scandal are still being harmed by delays, injustices, and a lack of transparency.

Over a year since his final inquiry report was published the chair, Sir Brian Langstaff, does not hold back in his criticism of the compensation scheme.

He finds the system sluggish, slow and difficult to navigate.

What was set up to help the infected blood community, failed to properly involve victims of the scandal. Opportunities were missed opportunities to consult, and decisions were made behind closed doors.

The end result is an unfair, unfit system leaving people undercompensated. What’s worse, very few have received any money. And in some cases, time is running out.

This additional report makes yet more recommendations. Sir Brian is clear that despite a bad start, it’s not too late to get things right. What he says is an important moment of vindication for the victims, who’d felt their voices were being ignored.

They’ve campaigned and fought for this inquiry for decades. Most assumed the battle was over once Sir Brian’s report was published last year. But despite promises and pledges from politicians, their anger and upset hasn’t gone away.

The government says it’s taking steps to speed up the process. For victims, trust in the authorities remains low.

It will take more than warm words to restore faith, as they continue through the painful struggle for justice.

Unrealistic expectations

The report also highlights the unrealistic evidence requirements for someone proving psychological harm.

The current regulations require a consultant psychiatrist to have diagnosed and treated someone, either as in-patient, or in hospital for six months.

But the report says, at the time the scandal was unfolding, “consultant psychiatric services were not the norm across every part of the country”.

“It would be wrong to set a requirement for compensation that such services be accessed when it was not a practical proposition that they could be.”

Those infected were also unlikely to have told even close friends and family about their diagnosis due to the stigma and ostracism.

Therefore, the expectation of having received medical care “would have involved revealing to an unknown clinician what that person dared not reveal, especially if there was a chance that it might leak out”.

Other exclusions

The report also highlighted other exclusions within the compensation scheme.

It says the “impacts of infection with Hepatitis is not being fully recognised in the scheme as it stands”. The scheme also fails to recognise the devastating impacts of interferon, used to treat Hep C. The vast majority of people who received interferon suffered severely, both psychologically and physically.

The compensation regulations also withdraw support for a bereaved partner if the infected person dies after 31 March this year. The argument being that they are eligible for compensation in their own right as an “affected” person.

But removing these payments immediately after death means infected persons “see themselves as worthless and [ignites] fears of leaving partners destitute”.

One man reports being denied compensation as victims of medical experimentation because – despite having evidence it took place – the hospital where he was infected was not named in the regulations.

Read more:
Infected and experimented on

The report issued a number of recommendations to speed up the process.

It says people should be able to apply for compensation, rather than wait to be asked.

The compensation authority should also progress applications from different groups at the same time, giving priority to those who are most ill and older, or who have never received any form of financial support.

It also says anyone who has evidence of being the victim of medical experiments should be compensated for it, regardless of where they were treated.

The report calls for more transparency and openness, as well as involvement from those infected and affected.

Support groups react to latest report

Kate Burt, Chief Executive of the Haemophilia Society, said the government’s “failure to listen to those at the heart of the contaminated blood scandal has shamefully been exposed by the Infected Blood Inquiry yet again”.

“Now government must take urgent action to put this right by valuing those impacted by this scandal through a fair and fast compensation settlement,” she says. “Only then can the infected blood community move on from the past and finally focus on what remains of their future.”

A lawyer advising some 1,500 victims says some of the recommendations “can and should be implemented immediately”.

Des Collins, senior partner at Collins Solicitors, says: “We also urgently need transparency of the timetable for the affected and an acceleration of the payment schedule to them.”

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Continue Reading

UK

Why do so many from around the world try to cross the English Channel?

Published

on

By

Why do so many from around the world try to cross the English Channel?

While the politicians talk, so many people come from around the world to try to get across the Channel on small boats. But why?

Why make such a perilous crossing to try to get to a country that seems to be getting increasingly hostile to asylum seekers?

As the British and French leaders meet, with small boats at the forefront of their agenda, we came to northern France to get some answers.

It is not a new question, but it is peppered with fresh relevance.

Over the course of a morning spent around a migrant camp in Dunkirk, we meet migrants from Gaza, Iraq, Eritrea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka and beyond.

Some are fearful, waving us away; some are happy to talk. Very few are comfortable to be filmed.

All but one man – who says he’s come to the wrong place and actually wants to claim asylum in Paris – are intent on reaching Britain.

They see the calm seas, feel the light winds – perfect conditions for small boat crossings.

John has come here from South Sudan. He tells me he’s now 18 years old. He left his war-torn home nation just before his 16th birthday. He feels that reaching Britain is his destiny.

“England is my dream country,” he says. “It has been my dream since I was at school. It’s the country that colonised us and when I get there, I will feel like I am home.

“In England, they can give me an opportunity to succeed or to do whatever I need to do in my life. I feel like I am an English child, who was born in Africa.”

John, a migrant from South Sudan, speaks to Sky News Adam Parsons
Image:
‘England is my dream country,’ John tells Adam Parsons

He says he would like to make a career in England, either as a journalist or in human resources, and, like many others we meet, is at pains to insist he will work hard.

The boat crossing is waved away as little more than an inconvenience – a trifle compared with the previous hardships of his journey towards Britain.

We meet a group of men who have all travelled from Gaza, intent on starting new lives in Britain and then bringing their families over to join them.

One man, who left Gaza two years ago, tells me that his son has since been shot in the leg “but there is no hospital for him to go to”.

Next to him, a man called Abdullah says he entered Europe through Greece and stayed there for months on end, but was told the Greek authorities would never allow him to bring over his family.

Britain, he thinks, will be more accommodating. “Gaza is being destroyed – we need help,” he says.

Abdullah, a migrant from Gaza, speaking to Sky's Adam Parsons
Image:
Abdullah says ‘Gaza is being destroyed – we need help’

A man from Eritrea tells us he is escaping a failing country and has friends in Britain – he plans to become a bicycle courier in either London or Manchester.

He can’t stay in France, he says, because he doesn’t speak French. The English language is presented as a huge draw for many of the people we talk to, just as it had been during similar conversations over the course of many years.

I ask many of these people why they don’t want to stay in France, or another safe European country.

Some repeat that they cannot speak the language and feel ostracised. Another says that he tried, and failed, to get a residency permit in both France and Belgium.

But this is also, clearly, a flawed survey. Last year, five times as many people sought asylum in France as in Britain.

And French critics have long insisted that Britain, a country without a European-style ID card system, makes itself attractive to migrants who can “disappear”.

Read more:
Channel crossings rise 50% in first six months of 2025
French police forced to watch on as migrants attempt crossing

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Migrant Channel crossings hit new record

A young man from Iraq, with absolutely perfect English, comes for a chat. He oozes confidence and a certain amount of mischief.

It has taken him only seven days to get from Iraq to Dunkirk; when I ask how he has made the trip so quickly, he shrugs. “Money talks”.

He looks around him. “Let me tell you – all of these people you see around you will be getting to Britain and the first job they get will be in the black market, so they won’t be paying any tax.

“Back in the day in Britain, they used to welcome immigrants very well, but these days I don’t think they want to, because there’s too many of them coming by boat. Every day it’s about seven or 800 people. That’s too many people.”

“But,” I ask, “if those people are a problem – then what makes you different? Aren’t you a problem too?”

He shakes his head emphatically. “I know that I’m a very good guy. And I won’t be a problem. I’ll only stay in Britain for a few years and then I’ll leave again.”

A young man from Iraq walks away from Sky's Adam Parsons

A man from Sri Lanka says he “will feel safe” when he gets to Britain; a tall, smiling man from Ethiopia echoes the sentiment: “We are not safe in our home country so we have come all this way,” he says. “We want to work, to be part of Britain.”

Emmanuel is another from South Sudan – thoughtful and eloquent. He left his country five years ago – “at the start of COVID” – and has not seen his children in all that time. His aim is to start a new life in Britain, and then to bring his family to join him.

He is a trained electrical engineer, but says he could also work as a lorry driver. He is adamant that Britain has a responsibility to the people of its former colony.

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

“The British came to my country – colonising, killing, raping,” he said. “And we didn’t complain. We let it happen.

“I am not the problem. I won’t fight anyone; I want to work. And if I break the laws – if any immigrant breaks the laws – then fine, deport them.

“I know it won’t be easy – some people won’t like me, some people will. But England is my dream.”

Continue Reading

Trending