Falklands war veteran says small boats smuggling migrants over Channel should be ‘shot’

A decorated Falklands War veteran has sparked fierce controversy after saying small boats carrying migrants across the English Channel should be shot, prompting condemnation from politicians and a warning from the Home Office that anyone taking the law into their own hands could face serious criminal consequences.

Major-General Julian Thompson, 92, who commanded 3 Commando Brigade during the 1982 Falklands conflict and led Operation Sutton at San Carlos Water, made the extraordinary remarks in a YouTube documentary produced by Steven Edginton.

Thompson argued that Britain had allowed irregular Channel crossings to continue for too long and claimed the Government could stop them if it showed greater determination. His comments have reignited the national debate over border security, the role of the armed forces, the treatment of migrants and the limits of lawful enforcement.

The former Royal Marine’s intervention comes as the Government faces continued pressure to prevent dangerous crossings, disrupt people-smuggling networks and reassure communities concerned about the management of irregular migration.

However, his suggestion that boats should be fired upon has drawn a sharp distinction between public frustration over border control and the use of potentially lethal force against people attempting to reach Britain.

The Home Office has insisted that the Government is bearing down on dangerous and illegal crossings, while Conservative Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said opening fire on migrant boats would be completely wrong.

The dispute presents a difficult challenge for politicians. They must respond to concerns about border security without endorsing violence, abandoning legal safeguards or placing the lives of migrants, law-enforcement personnel and other people at risk.

Falklands veteran delivers extraordinary warning

Thompson’s military background has given his remarks particular prominence.

During the Falklands War in 1982, he commanded 3 Commando Brigade, whose forces played a central role in the British campaign to recapture the islands from Argentine occupation. Operation Sutton involved the landing of British forces at San Carlos Water in May that year, establishing a foothold for the subsequent campaign.

More than four decades later, Thompson has used that experience to criticise what he sees as a lack of determination in Britain’s response to small-boat crossings.

In the documentary, he said: “I would shoot them.” He repeated the statement, adding that he believed crossings could be stopped quickly if the country demonstrated sufficient resolve.

Major General Julian Thompson commanded a key part of the recapture of the Falkland Islands (Image: Steven Edginton)

Thompson also accused Britain’s political leadership of allowing the situation to develop and expressed anger at what he characterised as weakness in government.

In comments reported by the Mail on Sunday, he went further, arguing that firing a machine gun would send a message to those organising the crossings.

He also warned that continued government inaction could lead to a public revolt, reflecting his belief that frustration over migration had reached a dangerous point.

His language is likely to resonate with some people who believe successive governments have failed to deliver effective border control. But it has also raised serious questions about whether the rhetoric used in the immigration debate is becoming increasingly extreme.

A veteran’s service record can explain why his views attract attention, but military experience does not remove the legal and practical constraints governing the use of force in civilian border enforcement.

The circumstances of a military operation during an armed conflict are fundamentally different from those involved in intercepting boats carrying people across the Channel.

Home Office issues stark warning

The Home Office responded by emphasising that border enforcement must remain within the law.

A 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.”

The warning underlines the distinction between demanding stronger enforcement and advocating violence against people at sea.

Small boats crossing the Channel can be dangerously overcrowded and poorly equipped. Passengers may include children and other vulnerable people, while the conditions can deteriorate rapidly because of weather, currents, mechanical failures and the difficulties of navigating busy shipping lanes.

Gunfire directed at a vessel could create an immediate risk of death or serious injury. Damage to a boat could also cause people to fall into the water, potentially turning an already hazardous journey into a mass-casualty emergency.

Any lawful maritime enforcement operation must account for the safety of everyone involved and comply with applicable domestic and international law.

The Government’s response also serves as a reminder that members of the public cannot independently decide to use force against suspected smugglers or migrants. Enforcement powers belong to authorised agencies and are subject to legal restrictions.

The debate over border policy may be fierce, but the use of violence outside the law is not a legitimate substitute for an effective enforcement strategy.

Conservative frontbencher rejects opening fire

Conservative Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp acknowledged public anger over Channel crossings but rejected Thompson’s proposed response.

He said opening fire on migrant boats would be “completely wrong”, while arguing that the Government should pursue a tougher alternative.

Philp called for people who enter Britain illegally to be deported rapidly, suggesting that the Government should aim to remove them within a week of arrival if France failed to stop boats close to its coastline.

His comments illustrate how opposition politicians are attempting to distinguish between demands for more forceful border control and the use of lethal force.

The proposal for rapid deportations, however, would itself raise practical and legal questions. Authorities would need to establish identities, determine the relevant legal status of each individual, assess any protection claims and ensure that removals comply with the law.

Not everyone who arrives irregularly will necessarily have the same circumstances or legal position. Some people may qualify for international protection, while others may not have a lawful basis to remain. The Government must establish the relevant facts rather than treat all arrivals as legally identical.

Fast processing could be an objective of a more efficient system, but a strict deadline would need to account for the procedures and safeguards required in individual cases.

Philp’s intervention therefore highlights the central political disagreement: how far Britain should go in strengthening enforcement, and which measures can deliver results without breaching legal obligations.

Channel crossings remain a major political issue

The controversy comes amid continuing debate over the number of people reaching Britain in small boats.

According to Press Association analysis of Home Office figures cited in the original report, 20,935 people had crossed the Channel so far in 2026. The total was reported to be 41% lower than at the comparable point in 2025 and around a fifth lower than in 2024 and 2023.

The figures offer the Government an argument that its policies are reducing arrivals. Nevertheless, thousands of people have still made the journey, ensuring that migration remains a politically sensitive issue.

For ministers, the challenge is to sustain any reduction while preventing dangerous crossings and disrupting the criminal networks that arrange them.

People-smuggling operations exploit the demand for routes into Britain and can expose passengers to significant danger. Tackling those networks requires more than responding when a boat reaches British waters. It involves intelligence-sharing, investigations, international co-operation and efforts to identify the people organising and profiting from the journeys.

The Government must also consider what happens after arrivals reach the UK. Decisions about accommodation, asylum applications, detention where lawful, appeals and removal can all affect public confidence in the system.

Critics argue that irregular crossings demonstrate weaknesses in border enforcement. Ministers counter that the figures must be assessed over time and that international co-operation is essential to reducing the number of boats attempting the journey.

Thompson’s comments have added a more confrontational dimension to that debate, but they do not establish that firing on boats would be lawful, practical or effective.

Why military experience does not settle the question

Thompson’s experience in the Falklands War is central to the public reaction, but the comparison between military operations and civilian border control has important limits.

Armed conflict involves a distinct legal framework and circumstances that differ sharply from the routine enforcement of immigration law. A military commander operating during a war does not automatically have authority to apply the same methods to people travelling in civilian vessels.

The Channel is also one of the world’s busiest maritime routes. Any enforcement action must account for other vessels, the proximity of coastlines, weather conditions and the possibility that an incident could place passengers and rescuers in danger.

The use of firearms would create additional risks and could make rescue operations more difficult. If a boat became disabled or capsized, emergency services might have to respond to a rapidly escalating situation involving people in the water.

A policy that creates avoidable danger could also undermine public confidence and expose the state to serious legal consequences.

This does not mean authorities are powerless. Police, border officials and other authorised personnel can use lawful powers to investigate suspected offences, intercept vessels where legally permitted and pursue the organisers of smuggling operations.

The key question is how those powers can be used effectively without causing unnecessary harm or compromising legal obligations.

Protest and anger on the south coast

The political row also comes against a backdrop of tensions surrounding migrant arrivals and protests in coastal communities.

Hampshire Constabulary said around 350 people left Haslar Road at approximately 2am on Monday, October 5, after a group of migrants had been brought ashore by coastguard, lifeboat and border-security personnel.

The force had imposed conditions under the Public Order Act and restrictions relating to face coverings.

Police arrested 12 people in connection with suspected offences, including assaulting a police officer, being drunk and disorderly, failing to comply with protest conditions, criminal damage and racially aggravated public-order offences. Those arrested included 11 men aged between 22 and 59 and a 57-year-old woman.

The arrests demonstrate the challenges authorities can face when migrant arrivals become the focus of large gatherings and heightened emotions.

However, arrests on suspicion of offences are not the same as convictions, and the allegations must be dealt with through the appropriate legal process.

Peaceful protest and criticism of government policy are legitimate parts of democratic debate. Violence, intimidation and criminal damage are separate matters that police may investigate where evidence supports doing so.

For local communities, the issue can involve concerns about public resources, accommodation, security and the management of arrivals. For migrants, the circumstances can involve difficult journeys, uncertainty about their legal status and, in some cases, claims that they need protection.

A credible government response must address public concerns while preventing hostility from escalating into violence against individuals.

Concerns over rhetoric and community tensions

Thompson also made broad criticisms of Islam and claimed that Britain had changed beyond recognition.

Those remarks are likely to intensify controversy because they extend the argument beyond border enforcement to questions of religion, national identity and integration.

Debates about immigration policy can legitimately address the law, security, public services and the responsibilities of government. But broad statements about an entire religion or group of people risk obscuring important differences between individuals and communities.

The conduct of a particular person cannot reasonably be used as proof that every member of a religious or ethnic group shares the same beliefs or behaviour.

Politicians and public figures therefore face a responsibility to distinguish specific policy concerns from generalisations that could deepen social divisions.

That responsibility does not require avoiding difficult questions about immigration. It requires discussing them with evidence, precision and an awareness of the consequences of inflammatory language.

The same principle applies to the use of force. The fact that people are angry about irregular crossings does not establish that lethal methods would be justified or that every person aboard a boat has committed the same offence.

What should the Government do next?

The controversy places pressure on the Government to demonstrate that its approach to irregular migration is both effective and lawful.

Ministers can point to the reported decline in crossings compared with previous years, but they must also explain how they intend to sustain that trend, improve co-operation with France and target the criminal organisations responsible for arranging dangerous journeys.

Effective action could involve better intelligence-sharing, stronger investigations into smuggling networks, timely processing of asylum claims and lawful removal procedures for people who have no right to remain.

Authorities must also retain the ability to rescue people in distress. Border enforcement and maritime safety cannot be treated as competing responsibilities, particularly when small boats may be overcrowded or vulnerable to changing conditions.

For opposition politicians, the challenge is to offer practical proposals that can be implemented without resorting to rhetoric that risks encouraging unlawful conduct.

For the Government, it is to reassure the public that the law is being enforced, that criminal networks are being challenged and that the asylum system can reach decisions efficiently.

A controversy with wider consequences

Thompson’s remarks have exposed the intensity of feeling surrounding the Channel crossings. His military reputation has ensured that his words attract attention, while the suggestion of shooting migrant boats has provoked a clear warning from the Government and rejection from the Conservative opposition.

The debate is unlikely to end with this controversy. The number of people attempting the crossing, the effectiveness of co-operation with France and the treatment of arrivals will continue to shape political arguments over immigration.

But the central distinction must remain clear: demanding effective border control is not the same as endorsing the use of lethal force against people in civilian boats.

The Government faces legitimate questions about enforcement, security and the management of irregular arrivals. Those questions require practical answers, measurable results and a legal framework that protects public safety.

Ultimately, the test of Britain’s border policy will be whether it can reduce dangerous crossings, disrupt people-smuggling networks and maintain public confidence without abandoning the principles that govern lawful enforcement.

Thompson’s comments may have given voice to anger felt by some members of the public, but the path forward will depend on government decisions, police operations and international co-operation—not on individuals taking the law into their own hands.