
Nigel Farage vows to create ‘Minister for Deportations' to boot out foreign criminals as he slams ‘invasion' of migrants
NIGEL Farage today pledged to create a Minister for Deportations - and slammed multiculturalism as a failed experiment in modern Britain.
The Reform UK leader tore into Labour ministers for their handling of illegal migration, accusing them of losing control of the Channel crisis.
1
He demanded a specialist Home Office unit dedicated solely to swiftly removing those who enter the country illegally.
A minister would be put in charge so "somebody somewhere in government [can be] held accountable".
Speaking in Dover, he added: "What I'm calling for isn't actually anything particularly radical. It's actually just common sense."
Mr Farage - who has set his sights on No10 - said if he was PM deportations of both illegal migrants and foreign criminals would increase.
Days ahead of showdown local elections, he doubled down on his calls to withdraw Britain from the European Court of Human Rights and scrap the Human Rights Act entirely.
Mr Farage said: 'Every single week we see criminals who behave terribly, who ought to be deported, but they're not.
'It's because they claim the right to a family life and the ECHR lets them stay.'
He added: 'This Labour government claims they've increased deportations, but all they've done is send away visa overstayers and those who are happy to voluntarily return, often with £3,000 pounds in their pocket.'
Foreign criminals often appeal to European human rights laws to fight their deportation in the courts.
Shock recent cases include an Albanian criminal who successfully argued that deporting him would unfairly affect his son - because he like foreign chicken nuggets.
A Jamaican rapist who assaulted a sleeping woman was also spared return to his home country after claiming to be bisexual.
The Reform chief took aim at the NHS, accusing it of relying on cheap foreign workers, and condemned the practice of recruiting medics from poorer nations, calling it unethical.
Mr Farage cited figures showing migrants are 39 per cent more likely to commit crimes than British nationals, and warned of a surge in extremism and sectarian strife driven by an 'invasion' of illegal—and even legal—migrants who refuse to integrate.
He said Britain was now paying the price for decades of political appeasement on multiculturalism, claiming it had spawned identity-driven divisions across the country.
At the last general election, four MPs were voted in on a Gaza ticket.
Mr Farage warned that number will grow come the next poll.'
He blasted: 'Multiculturalism is why we've got the growth of sectarian politics.
'That's why we've got people marching on the streets of London and it's why we've got the provocation of the Jewish community.
'What has changed is the national narrative that multiculturalism is good.
'The realisation of what a huge error that was has been exposed – encouraging difference was a mistake and we should encourage a sense of togetherness.'
Mr Farage concluded: 'We need to have a shared culture and that's the danger of letting so many people into the country.'
His comments follow alarming new figures showing Channel crossings have hit a record high for the first four months of 2025.
Home Office stats reveal a staggering 8,888 illegal journeys were made—up 42 per cent on the same period last year.
Earlier this month, 705 people made the trip in just 12 boats, beating the previous high of 656 in 11 vessels.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Britain's worst hotspots for dangerous driving - see how your area compares
Cops in England and Wales logged more than 6,200 crime reports of dangerous driving in 2024, including 937 offences that caused a death or serious injury - 8 per cent up on the previous year A new map highlights where the nation's most dangerous drivers are. The figures, taken from Home Office data, show the parts of the country where people should beware reckless motorists. Cops in England and Wales logged more than 6,200 crime reports of dangerous driving in 2024, including 937 offences that caused a death or serious injury. That is an 8 per cent increase from the previous year, with 504 more dangerous driving offences, including an additional 67 causing death or serious injury. The figures show that the chances of encountering a dangerous driver vary depending on where in the country you live. The risk is highest in parts of the North, particularly in West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester with Bradford getting the dubious honour of being crowned dangerous driving capital of England and Wales. The news comes just weeks after the notorious A1 first date crash which saw a huge pile up on a dual carriageway in which five police cars crashed and seven officers were injured on the borders of Gateshead and Newcastle. Mazyar Azarbonyad, 20, appeared in court following the smash which occurred after officers attempted to stop a dark grey BMW M Sport in the Whickham area of Gateshead at about 2am, sparking a high speed chase. In the three years to the end of 2024, police recorded 1,017 crimes of dangerous driving there, including 47 that caused a death or serious injury. While Leeds had more dangerous driving offences, (1,054 reports, including 73 causing a death or serious injury), the number of offences when compared to the size of the population eligible to hold a driving licence, people are far more likely to encounter a dangerous driver on the roads of Bradford. For every 100,000 people over the legal driving age, there were 242 offences in Bradford - the equivalent of one dangerous driving crime for every 413 people. That's much higher than anywhere else in the country. Separate figures show Bradford has more than its fair share of bad drivers, with a high proportion in parts of the city penalised by six or more points on their licence. Four of the top 10 postcode areas with the highest proportion of drivers with at least six points are in Bradford. Motorists and pedestrians aren't much safer outside the city limits. Calderdale, less than 10 miles away, had the second highest rate of dangerous driving offences over the last three years, with 202 per 100,000 people. Compare your area with our interactive map In fact all four areas with the highest dangerous driving rates are in West Yorkshire. Leeds had the third highest rate of dangerous driving offences in the period with 171 crimes per 100,000 people and Wakefield was fourth with 143. All of the top 10 areas with the highest proportion of dangerous drivers are in West Yorkshire or neighbouring Greater Manchester. Bolton (143) and Tameside (138), both in Greater Manchester, had the next highest rates of dangerous driving, followed by Kirklees (136), Rochdale (129), Manchester (124), and Salford (119). There is also a distinct north-south divide when it comes to dangerous driving. The dangerous driving rate in Bradford is more than three times higher than it is in Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, the area with the highest proportion of dangerous drivers in the South (71 per 100,000). It is even lower in Wales, where the chances of meeting a dangerous driver are highest in Cardiff (43 dangerous driving offences per 100,000 of the population eligible to drive). Dangerous driving is when a motorist's actions fall 'far below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver' and could put themselves or others at risk of harm. Examples include speeding, driving aggressively, overtaking dangerously, or ignoring traffic lights. It could also include driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, or driving when unfit, for example, when feeling sleepy, or being unable to see clearly. Punishment could include a fine, disqualification from driving and even imprisonment. For the most serious offence of causing death by dangerous driving, the sentence could be up to 14 years in prison and a minimum disqualification from driving of two years. The 20 areas with the highest rates of dangerous driving offences per 100,000 people Bradford - 242 Calderdale - 202 Leeds - 171 Wakefield - 143 Bolton - 141 Tameside - 138 Kirklees - 136 Rochdale - 129 Manchester - 124 Salford - 119 Oldham - 115 Middlesbrough - 97 Bury - 97 Hartlepool - 93 Wigan - 80 Eden - 77 17. Knowsley - 75 18. Stockport - 75 19. Stockton-on-Tees - 74 20. Trafford - 73


Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Jakob Ingebrigtsen's dad convicted of assaulting his daughter but acquitted of abusing Olympic star
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) JAKOB INGEBRIGTSEN's father has been cleared of abusing the Olympic gold medallist, although he's been FOUND GUILTY of assaulting his daughter, Ingrid. Norwegian athletics star Ingebrigtsen accused his father and former trainer, Gjert, of years of physical and psychological violence throughout his childhood. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 6 Track and field stars Filip, Henrik and Jakob Ingebrigtsen accused their father of years of physical and emotional abuse Credit: AFP 6 Gjert Ingebrigtsen, the trio's trainer, denied the allegations, which ultimately went to court Credit: SHUTTERSTOCK 6 Gjert was cleared of abusing two-time Olympic champion Jakob due to insufficient evidence Credit: ALAMY 6 But the court found Gjert guilty of hitting his daughter, Ingrid, during a row in 2022 Credit: NIKE But a court has deemed there to be insufficient evidence to convict Gjert of the allegations made by his youngest son. The court did, however, find Gjert guilty of hitting his daughter Ingrid with a towel during a heated row about her going out with friends back in 2022. The court said there wasn't any serious indication of the fear Jakob alleged Gert instilled in a TV documentary following the family. It also deemed a recording of an argument between the pair at St Moritz training camp in 2019 as insufficient evidence to prove Jakob's claims. The verdict read: "Jakob shows no signs of fear or submission in relation to the defendant. "He stands his ground and retaliates against the defendant's verbal abuse. "Violence in close relationships can occur in secret and remain hidden from the outside world. "However, the explanations and recordings reviewed in the preceding paragraphs are difficult to reconcile with the prosecution's claim that the defendant subjected Jakob to continuous and repeated abuse throughout the period from 2008 to 2018. 6 The Ingebrigtsen brothers accused Gjert of using 'physical violence and threats as part of their upbringing' Credit: SHUTTERSTOCK 6 Gjert vehemently denied the allegations but admitted he had a 'traditional and patriarchal' parenting style Credit: SHUTTERSTOCK "Even though Jakob and his brothers and spouses have given credible statements, the total weight of the statements and other evidence reviewed means that the court must conclude that there is reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt." Gert was responsible for the successful training regimes of his sons, Jakob, Henrik and Filip. I was a reality TV star dubbed the 'cardio Kim Kardashian' - now I'm making my own way and targeting Olympic gold Henrik and Filip tasted European glory, while Jakob, who cut coaching ties with his old man in 2022, won 1500m and 5000m at the Tokyo and Paris Olympics, respectively. In October 2023, the brothers bravely penned an article detailing alleged abuse from Gjert, who they accused of "using physical violence and threats as part of their upbringing." Gjert, who admitted he had a "traditional and patriarchal" parenting style, vehemently denied the allegations. His lawyer, John Christian Elden, said: "This case has no winners. "And today's verdict shows that all those affected have been exposed to an enormous burden that should have been avoided."


New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Abortion is returning to British politics
Stella Creasy's amendment looks to decriminalise abortion and to make it a human right – but it would also ensure those who undergo a late-term abortion (up to birth) are not subject to prison sentences. Photo byThe decision to have an abortion is deeply private and extremely personal. One in three women in the UK have undergone or will undergo this procedure, and despite the views of some pro-life groups, it does not make them guilty of 'most significant violation of human rights to ever occur'. Since David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act, passed almost 60 years ago, women in the UK have been able to access abortion up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy, safely and under the care of a medical professional. Because that is what abortion is: a medical procedure, one which it is essential that women in continue to be able to access safely, privately and without judgement. Countless women before Steel's reforms were not as fortunate; those who needed or wanted to end a pregnancy before 1967 were forced into desperate measures, making dangerous attempts at home or obtaining one via an illegal abortionist, some of whom were woefully qualified. The back-street abortionist, who looms in Annie Ernaux's memoir Happening, is hard to forget. After obtaining an illegal abortion in 1963, the 23-year-old Ernaux almost died but she could not seek medical assistance, or she could have been prosecuted. Though this is a French example, back-street abortionists and dangerous at-home methods were extremely prevalent in the UK before 1967; that women are now able to access these procedures safely shows how much progress we've made since the Abortion Act. But despite Steel's progressive reforms, accessing an abortion in England and Wales in 2025 is still technically illegal. The Abortion Act decriminalised abortion under certain circumstances, exempting women from prosecution, but the act is framed in a way which means that abortion is not a right. Though men enjoy complete autonomy over their reproductive health, women are still limited in theirs. Since 1967 they have continued to be prosecuted for accessing an abortion under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act; a recent example being Nicola Packer, who was arrested for taking abortion pills at 26 weeks. (Packer has since been acquitted, as she believed she was only six weeks along when she took the pills.) Two amendments to the government's Crime and Policing Bill, which enters its report stage in the House of Commons this week, aim to change this. One (known as NC1) has been brought by the Welsh Labour MP for Llanelli, Tonia Antoniazzi. It seeks to remove 'women from the criminal law related to abortion', meaning that 'no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy'. Under NC1, women would be completely removed from the criminal framework (they would no longer be able to be prosecuted under the 1861 Act) but medical professionals would not be exempt. The logic of this is to make the law unworkable in practice, as accessing abortion is unsafe without medical assistance, meaning it will eventually be changed to exempt medical professionals from criminal liability. Antoniazzi's amendment accounts for the sensitivity of this issue; instead of going full force on decriminalisation, and therefore risking a regression, it looks to change the law by stealth. NC1 has been backed by more than 50-cross party MPs, including Labour's Nadia Whittome and Antonia Bance and the Liberal Democrats' Daisy Cooper, as well as pro-choice organisations such as MSI Reproductive Choices and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. Another (known as NC20) has been brought by Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow. Creasy's amendment also looks to decriminalise abortion and to make it a human right. Unlike Antoniazzi's amendment, however, NC20 would remove criminal penalties for both women and medical professionals involved in abortions at the same time. It would ensure those who undergo a late-term abortion (up to birth) are not subject to prison sentences. Creasy's amendment does not provide for coercive abortion offences, nor does it allow for the potential amendment of abortion law in the Commons in the future. In other words, this amendment would immediately force a major departure from the UK's current abortion laws almost overnight, if it is passed. In contrast to NC1, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, MSI Choices and other pro-choice groups have not backed NC20. Rachel Clarke, head of advocacy at BPAS said: 'It is essential that any huge change to abortion law is properly considered.' There is a pervading sense of confusion among Labour MPs (many of whom are broadly supportive of liberalising abortion rights) over why two amendments are being brought which essentially aim to do the same thing. Others are worried that by bringing two amendments at the same time draws too much attention to this issue; abortion rights are both incredibly important and incredibly divisive. They worry that debating both at once undermines the ability to make positive change. Though the public remain widely supportive of abortion rights (87 per cent are in favour), this support dips as soon as the question turns to whether the 24-week limit. While just under half (49 per cent) of Britons support 24-weeks, a quarter of the public think it is too late. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Some in politics already believe the debate should be re-opened. Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, has already called for a debate the UK's abortion limit, with the aim of rolling-back the timeline. 'Is 24 weeks right for abortion given that we now save babies at 22?' he said. 'That to me would be worthy of a debate in parliament.' If the law moves too quickly to the extreme, this could be ripe ground for Farage and other pro-life MPs and campaigners to capitalise on. That a quarter of the public are against 24 weeks is already a substantial number and it could only grow if fuelled by the right campaign. The last thing women in the UK need is a regression in their ability to access a safe and supervised abortion. Creasy clearly believes her amendment is a noble one. Writing for Glamour magazine, she said: 'No one should have to explain why they choose to have an abortion, nor fear a knock on the door from the police if they do.' And she's right. An abortion is a private medical decision made by a woman with advice from her doctor. But Creasy forgets that the UK is a small-c conservative country. Radical changes do not happen overnight. Pushing back more than 150 years of legislation must be done sensitively, and by stealth. If Parliament moves too suddenly to change the UK's archaic abortion laws, it risks undoing decades of fundamental progress for a woman's right to control her own body; progress which we must not be forced to give up. [See also: The legacy of 'pro-life' abortion bans is death] Related