Kate Rice ✍ Like most people, my social media feed has recently been awash with news of protesters in Dover, Portsmouth, and other seaside towns, demonstrating against small boat migration and the RNLI’s "helping hand."
The fallout from these actions hit a boiling point when the Portsmouth Lifeboat Station was forced to temporarily suspend its services due to the intense physical and online abuse directed at its volunteers.
Where I can usually form a coherent opinion on complex public matters, I find myself completely baffled by this. The RNLI has existed since 1824, and since its inception, it has been an entirely indiscriminate humanitarian service. Its founding ethos is to protect those in peril on the sea—full stop. There is no clause stating "protect as long as they look like us" or "protect as long as they hold the right documentation." Its only mandate is to save those who are drowning.
When I was a child visiting the seaside, the RNLI hubs were places of community and pride. Volunteers were always happy to show you the lifeboats and share stories of maritime history. They never spoke of a political agenda because they didn't have one; their sole focus was saving lives. To any normal person, this selflessness is admirable. So why are we now seeing crowds calling themselves "patriots" protesting heroic charity work, threatening good-hearted volunteers, and driving vital rescue operations off-service?
The forced closure of the Portsmouth station creates an undeniable hazard. On an immensely popular stretch of coastline, risks emerge every day for hobby sailors, windsurfers, families, and yes, migrants in small boats. The irony is that during the Portsmouth incident, RNLI volunteers even stepped in to ensure the safety of the protesters who had waded into the water to confront the arriving boat. The charity protects everyone.
This unconditional humanity isn't new. During the Second World War, the RNLI routinely rescued downed German airmen from the sea. They did so without stopping to check documentation, and without pausing to consider that these men were actively at war with their country. They saved them simply because they were human beings facing death in the water. Once safe on solid ground, the proper authorities took over.
This is exactly what happens on the rare occasions they assist small boats in the English Channel. It is not the purpose of a volunteer rescue crew to act as border enforcement or to assess legal status; their only job is to ensure a person doesn’t die when a tragedy is entirely preventable. Channel rescues make up barely more than one per cent of the RNLI's nationwide callouts, yet volunteers are being branded as "traitors" online and targeted at their stations. Demanding that volunteers stand by and watch people suffer or drown is, without question, inhuman.
All human beings possess a fundamental right to life and safety. The human condition must always take precedence over a political or legal status. Protests targeting a lifesaving charity are dangerous reflections of xenophobic rhetoric. The consequences of these actions do not just endanger migrants; they put the volunteers themselves at risk and threaten the legal citizens who rely on those same lifeboats every single day.
When does it end? Will these critics only be satisfied when more small boat crossings end the way it did for two-year-old Alan Kurdi, the Syrian child whose lifeless body washed ashore, becoming a horrifying symbol of global inaction and a heart breaking picture on the cover of our newspapers? We cannot allow political bias and bigoted anger to dictate who lives and who dies when the means to save them are readily available.
The RNLI and its lifesaving mission must be fiercely protected. To those standing on the shores shouting insults at rescue boats, I ask a simple question - will you only be satisfied when the tide brings in nothing but bodies to bury?
Where I can usually form a coherent opinion on complex public matters, I find myself completely baffled by this. The RNLI has existed since 1824, and since its inception, it has been an entirely indiscriminate humanitarian service. Its founding ethos is to protect those in peril on the sea—full stop. There is no clause stating "protect as long as they look like us" or "protect as long as they hold the right documentation." Its only mandate is to save those who are drowning.
When I was a child visiting the seaside, the RNLI hubs were places of community and pride. Volunteers were always happy to show you the lifeboats and share stories of maritime history. They never spoke of a political agenda because they didn't have one; their sole focus was saving lives. To any normal person, this selflessness is admirable. So why are we now seeing crowds calling themselves "patriots" protesting heroic charity work, threatening good-hearted volunteers, and driving vital rescue operations off-service?
The forced closure of the Portsmouth station creates an undeniable hazard. On an immensely popular stretch of coastline, risks emerge every day for hobby sailors, windsurfers, families, and yes, migrants in small boats. The irony is that during the Portsmouth incident, RNLI volunteers even stepped in to ensure the safety of the protesters who had waded into the water to confront the arriving boat. The charity protects everyone.
This unconditional humanity isn't new. During the Second World War, the RNLI routinely rescued downed German airmen from the sea. They did so without stopping to check documentation, and without pausing to consider that these men were actively at war with their country. They saved them simply because they were human beings facing death in the water. Once safe on solid ground, the proper authorities took over.
This is exactly what happens on the rare occasions they assist small boats in the English Channel. It is not the purpose of a volunteer rescue crew to act as border enforcement or to assess legal status; their only job is to ensure a person doesn’t die when a tragedy is entirely preventable. Channel rescues make up barely more than one per cent of the RNLI's nationwide callouts, yet volunteers are being branded as "traitors" online and targeted at their stations. Demanding that volunteers stand by and watch people suffer or drown is, without question, inhuman.
All human beings possess a fundamental right to life and safety. The human condition must always take precedence over a political or legal status. Protests targeting a lifesaving charity are dangerous reflections of xenophobic rhetoric. The consequences of these actions do not just endanger migrants; they put the volunteers themselves at risk and threaten the legal citizens who rely on those same lifeboats every single day.
When does it end? Will these critics only be satisfied when more small boat crossings end the way it did for two-year-old Alan Kurdi, the Syrian child whose lifeless body washed ashore, becoming a horrifying symbol of global inaction and a heart breaking picture on the cover of our newspapers? We cannot allow political bias and bigoted anger to dictate who lives and who dies when the means to save them are readily available.
The RNLI and its lifesaving mission must be fiercely protected. To those standing on the shores shouting insults at rescue boats, I ask a simple question - will you only be satisfied when the tide brings in nothing but bodies to bury?
⏩Kate Rice is a peace baby.

























