Plans for new offence to crack down on promoting Channel crossings online
The offence would also outlaw the promise of illegal working being promoted online and could carry a large fine.
(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
Reuters
25 minutes ago
- Reuters
White House to target banks as Trump claims discrimination
WASHINGTON/NEW YORK, Aug 5 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he believes that banks, including JPMorgan (JPM.N), opens new tab and Bank of America (BAC.N), opens new tab, discriminate against him and his supporters, as he prepares to act against banks for allegedly dropping customers for political reasons. Trump also said the country's top two lenders had previously rejected his deposits, ramping up his attack on the industry. "They totally discriminate against, I think, me maybe even more, but they discriminate against many conservatives," he told CNBC in an interview. Trump made the comments when asked about a report by the Wall Street Journal that said he planned to punish banks that discriminated against conservatives, but did not address the order specifically. The executive order instructs regulators to review banks for "politicized or unlawful debanking" practices, according to a draft reviewed by Reuters. It is likely to be announced on Wednesday, an industry source said. "They did discriminate," Trump said of actions taken by JPMorgan after his first term in office. "I had hundreds of millions, I had many, many accounts loaded up with cash ... and they told me, 'I'm sorry sir, we can't have you. You have 20 days to get out.'" Trump's latest criticism adds pressure on America's largest lenders. The order would likely require banks to conduct sweeping reviews of their businesses to comply with regulations. Trump said, without providing evidence, that the banks' refusal to take his deposits indicated that the administration of former President Joe Biden had encouraged regulators to "destroy Trump." Trump said he subsequently tried to deposit funds with BofA and was also refused, and eventually split the cash. "I ended up going to small banks all over the place," he said. "I was putting $10 million here, $10 million there, did $5 million, $10 million, $12 million," he said, without naming the lenders. "I have them all over the place, the craziest thing, and it's lucky I even had them. They were doing me a favour, and that's because the banks discriminated against me very badly, and I was very good to the banks." In a statement, JPMorgan did not address the president's specific claims about his account. "We don't close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed," JPMorgan said. "We commend the White House for addressing this issue and look forward to working with them to get this right.' BofA also did not address Trump's specific claims. During Biden's administration, regulators were able to scrutinize banks' decisions on the basis of reputational risks, a second source familiar with the matter said. Lenders were under intense scrutiny and pressure to weigh reputational risks when dealing with Trump because of his legal woes, a third source said. JPMorgan continues to have a banking relationship with members of the Trump family that dates back years, and it also banks a number of campaign accounts linked to Trump, the third source said. After Trump took power, the Federal Reserve announced in June it was directing its supervisors to no longer consider reputational risk when examining banks, a metric that had been a focus of industry complaints. The Wall Street Journal reported late Monday that the expected executive order would instruct regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions breach the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws or consumer financial protection laws by dropping customers for political reasons. The order could authorize monetary penalties, consent decrees or other disciplinary measures against violators, according to the draft. The White House had no immediate comment on the reported order. "What the White House is doing is telling the banks not to hide behind regulations to deny loans or banking relationships," said Wells Fargo bank analyst Mike Mayo. "Banks can use their normal underwriting standards and deny services, but not blame regulators or use reputational risk as a justification." BofA said it welcomed the administration's efforts to clarify the policies. "We've provided detailed proposals and will continue to work with the administration and Congress to improve the regulatory framework," the bank said. Trump in January admonished the CEOs of JPMorgan and BofA for denying services to conservatives. At the time, the two banks denied making banking decisions based on politics. Banks have consistently argued that any complaints about "debanking" should be aimed at regulators, as they argue onerous rules and overzealous bank supervisors can discourage them from engaging in certain activities. "The heart of the problem is regulatory overreach and supervisory discretion," the Bank Policy Institute, an industry group, said in a statement. Lenders have held discussions around debanking and weighed scenarios around a potential order, the first source said. Banks are also hopeful the administration may change anti-money laundering laws that they say are outdated and burdensome, the source added.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Tory and Reform politicians endanger trials with immigration ‘hysteria', say former ministers
Conservative and Reform UK politicians are fuelling 'hysteria and anger' over immigration, with criminal trials put at risk of collapse, former ministers and police have warned. Protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers have spread across the country in recent weeks, while debate about immigration – including instances of misinformation – has intensified. At a Reform press conference on Monday, a man awaiting trial was referred to as 'the criminal' by a Reform council leader despite not yet being convicted of any crime. Questioned on whether contempt laws had been broken, the party's leader, Nigel Farage, said it was 'good' that the council leader had become 'slightly emotional'. Amid growing pressure, the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said on Tuesday that she had asked for a change in official guidance to permit police to release the ethnicity or immigration status of criminal suspects. Dominic Grieve, a former Conservative attorney general, told the Guardian he was concerned about the 'fuelling of hysteria by politicians' and said some were breaking the law by commenting on future trials in serious cases such as rape and abduction. Certain politicians 'seem to have thrown the rulebook in the bonfire', he said. Britain's former top counter-terrorism chief warned that comments from Farage and the Tory shadow justice secretary, Robert Jenrick, risked 'unwittingly' inciting violence, accusing them of copying Donald Trump's techniques by hyping fears over immigration to try to win votes. Neil Basu, a former assistant commissioner with the Metropolitan police, said it was 'appealing to the worst kind of populist sentiment'. Asked if such rhetoric risks contributing to a risk of last summer's violence, Basu said: 'Yes … they should be very careful about the language they use. It is capable, demonstrably, of causing violence.' The Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, said it was time for the attorney general, Richard Hermer, to issue a formal warning to Farage about comments on live criminal cases. 'Farage and the Conservatives are … openly trying to tear down our justice system, just as the Maga movement has done in the US,' Davey said. 'Irresponsible comments like these put prosecutions at risk and could let dangerous criminals walk free. The attorney general must step in and send a formal warning to Farage that contempt of court will not be tolerated.' Others who appealed for a change in tone included the former justice secretaries Robert Buckland, David Gauke and Charlie Falconer, as well as the former chair of the justice select committee, Sir Bob Neill, who said they were worried about the febrile environment – though several said more transparency from police over the ethnicity of suspects was also now necessary to calm tensions. The row over information withheld by police has been reignited after the 19-year-old Reform leader of Warwickshire county council, George Finch, said police were refusing to confirm details of two suspects charged after an alleged rape. Among other examples cited by critics was data used by Jenrick that 40% of all of the sexual crimes were committed by foreign nationals last year. The number of convictions is significantly lower. Grieve said he was extremely concerned about the consequence of the frenzied atmosphere on contempt of court laws, also citing the trial of two British Pakistani men over a police assault at Manchester airport. 'With social media, contempt of court has gone out of the window,' he said. 'It seems to be that it's a complete free for all, and for politicians who ought to know better to participate in this is actually scandalous. Certainly with some of the recent cases, politicians seem to have thrown the rulebook in the bonfire.' Buckland said he had supported changes to make the nationality of offenders publicly available, but he was concerned about the potential for misinformation. 'Politicians have a responsibility to use objective and tested data rather than distorted or incomplete information,' he said. Neill, a former Tory MP, said he was in favour of more transparency but alarmed at the willingness of politicians to risk undermining the courts. 'I'm afraid some people, including people in elected office, frankly do not understand the importance of the checks and balances in our system, which includes protecting the jury system,' he said. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The former Labour justice secretary Charlie Falconer said: 'The opposition feel the need the whole time to get headlines by constantly describing things in an extremist way, all the time it's saying, 'society will be on the verge of collapse unless something is done,'' he said. 'The language is much, much worse than it ever was five years ago. There's a more angry electorate, and there's too many politicians willing to use lurid language.' A Home Office source said it was vital that there was 'greater clarity on how contempt of court laws work alongside social media and today's communication environment', but stopped short of issuing warnings to politicians. Hermer has so far declined to intervene to warn politicians on the risks of potentially collapsing criminal trials. In a sign of how far misinformation has spread, polling from YouGov found the British public 'dramatically overestimate' the number of illegal migrants to the UK. Almost half of Britons – 47% – think there are more migrants staying in the UK illegally rather than legally, including about a third who believe it is 'much higher'. There are varied estimates of the numbers of those living in the UK without formal status, which is difficult to calculate, but the Migration Observatory's most recent figures said it was up to 1.3 million. But legal migration is far higher – about 10.7 million people in the UK were born in a different country. Attitudes to migration have significantly hardened. About 45% of Britons say they would support 'admitting no more new migrants, and requiring large numbers of migrants who came to the UK in recent years to leave'. Rights groups including Amnesty International have cautioned against releasing suspects' ethnicities, accusing the government of 'choosing to pour fuel on the fire of dangerous narratives, instead of taking action to address racism and hostility'. Cooper said the government had asked the Law Commission to review the guidance six months ago and expected it to conclude in the autumn. 'We do think the guidance needs to change,' she said, adding that it was already the case that where police deemed it necessary more information on nationality was released.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
JEFF PRESTRIDGE: How to stop millions of pensioners getting taxed on their state pensions
Many pensioners feel victimised by Labour – and understandably so. Deprived last year of their universal right to winter fuel payment, they continue to be hit by a toxic mix of rising household bills and higher taxes on their income and savings. Yet they refuse to lie down without an almighty fight. Buoyed by the Government's partial U-turn on winter fuel payment, they have now set their sights on getting Chancellor Rachel Reeves to lift the freeze on the personal allowance, which has been stuck at £12,570 since 2021 – and is currently set to remain at this level until at least 2028.
