 Pretty Patel has announced new plans to grant Border Force guards immunity if migrants die as a result of so-called turnback operations in the channel. Well, the turnback operations, they are a new tactic sanctioned by the Home Secretary and will involve Border Force jet skis, intercepting small boats and redirecting them back to France. The plans have been criticized for being in breach of international law. As you're supposed to save people if they're in distress at sea, what Britain is going to be doing is turning around those boats and refusing to save people because it's on jet skis, it's difficult to rescue people in that situation. That's why there is a need to provide UK guards with legal immunity if you're coming from the perspective of the Home Secretary. The sadistic plans were debated this week on the Jeremy Vine show on channel five. This is GB News host, Nana Akua and author, Gemma Fort. So people have come across from the channel, from France, which is safe, why they would want to take a dangerous border crossing and then have to be rescued. So basically what often happens is they throw themselves overboard. If, you know, so therefore they then have to do a rescue mission, which is part of maritime law. I personally think that, I mean, look, if, as long as you know, that if you come across, you will not be rescued if the boat sinks. I think that's fair enough. And that's why they're saying, if they come across with jet skis and they can't rescue them, it will actually hopefully stop the people trafficking. Because if you are supporting that they should be rescued, then you're actually supporting people trafficking, which means that more people will come across because they will then think that they'll be okay. What do you think, Gemma? I think it's one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard in my life. And I was truly shocked and embarrassed for many reasons. Firstly, this is a clear breach of international law. And just because our Home Secretary decides to try and change domestic law, you are still breaking the law on an international level. This is state-sponsored manslaughter. And, you know, to decide and dehumanize, to dehumanize these human beings, so we're coming over and you're right, why do they do it? Because they're desperate. They've come from war-torn countries. They are fleeing places like Syria. France. But you can't decide. Sorry, what France? So if you're watching some people- You said that they've come from war-torn countries. They've come from France. Is that what you're talking about? Some of them have come from France. But they've been in Calais for years and then they make a decision to try and get here because they're not being processed. It doesn't matter. You don't get to decide. A situation where our paid officials will be on a boat and they'll look at a father jump off a dinghy with a child. Well, why would he jump off a dinghy? He shouldn't do that. Well, he's going to... Well, he wants to be rescued so he gets into the country. If they're on a jet ski, they can't rescue him. Well, maybe they fall out or maybe the boat sinks and you are talking about... Don't go on the boat. And also, you have decided as another human being... I'm a human being, yes. ...you're dehumanizing these people. No. So my thing is, why get on the boat in the first place? You're in France. It's not dehumanizing or doing anything to you. You're safe in France. You don't need to get on the boat. Secondly... Why don't you go and spend a night in Calais in one of the tents and see how you... Well, I'm still safe. I'd rather do that than get on a boat and a dinghy and travel across the channel. Secondly, if you are actually saying that, well, we should pick up people if they're going to do this journey, you're supporting the people trekupakers because you're keeping this industry going, which is encouraging these people to come across... But if you just want to save lives, if you're a border official, you might not be able to watch a child drown in front of you. Yeah, but you'd save more lives if you did not rescue people because then they wouldn't come across and that would eventually stop the train people. Sure. But that's the long-term thought. Well, if I do... If you're sitting watching a child drowning, you're going to get involved. You're a murderer. You don't want to... No, you're not a murderer. You are. No, they've literally... If somebody's just jumped into the water to try and be... so that you'll rescue them and you're on a jet ski, you're not a murderer, you would not have the facility to pick them up. The fact that you would be happy is very worrying. Did I say I was happy? Did I say... See, it wasn't my... Fill up with salt water. Well, that's what this is. I'm happy. I'm not happy. And this is from a home sec. Shocking intervention. It shocked a lot of people. You could see on social media, lots of people saying, you know, how dare they even platform this kind of opinion. Now, on one level, I am sympathetic to that argument. This is someone saying we should let people die as a deterrent for future people to do what I think is something that is perfectly reasonable for anyone who wants a better life to do, which is try and get to a country where they have roots, where they might speak the language, where they might have family after fleeing war. I think this idea that you should have claimed asylum in France, so if you die in the channel, that's your own fault, is horrific. It's disgusting. Why... I think it's actually deeper than that, though. It is deeper than this commentator, shouldn't have been able to say that on channel 5, is because this is an accurate reflection, a very accurate reflection, of the position of our government. This is Pritipa Tell's position, which is to say, she is now giving people in the channel, those organisations who are committed to saving lives are incentivising people to try and look for a better life and cross the channel, so therefore, we have to start letting people die in the channel as a disincentive to come here, which is why she is now providing immunity for border guards who let people die, right? So she was however shocking that was to hear that. That was an accurate reflection of her policy. Yeah, this woman's clearly a lunatic, Michael. She's clearly a lunatic. Somebody says, Gemma Forte was it? Oh, this is a man's law. Yes, that's exactly what it is. If you're intentionally acting in such a way that somebody dies, that's literally exactly what it is. And the point about international law is hugely important. I know it doesn't seem to matter to many people on the right, but it's also the case that it's illegal under international law. I just find it puzzling, but your point, Michael, about you shouldn't just attack Jeremy Vine about this and I'm going to return to that point actually about the Jeremy Vine show or should we call it the Jeremy Kyle show? You're right to say that actually, you can't just dismiss that or you can't just dismiss this woman as a raving lunatic, which is what she is. Because it's also the position of our government, which is also full of quite frankly evil people, I think. Sorry. I think particularly on my immigration stuff, I think she's evil. I think it's sort of inexcusable. She does it because it's incredibly popular with her political base, but in terms of the sort of moral consequences of it, I think they're inexcusable. So it's politically understandable, but I think it's morally inexcusable. And like you say, it really shows that we're going to a very dark place, Michael. The kind of thing you watch and you think 10, 15 years ago just wouldn't have happened on television. It just wouldn't have happened. And we seem to have been on this strange journey where now this kind of thing is permissible. So actually, people can die. So let's situate this and actually something that really happened. Last year, a young, or maybe it was earlier this year, a young Iranian child, I think, three or four years old, died trying to cross the English Channel. Would you do that to a three or four-year-old child? Fleeing a country, where you don't know, Iran obviously, religious minorities are persecuted, like the Baha'i, for instance. Are you going to be calling to them over a megaphone saying, are you a member of a religious minority? Are you homosexual? Clearly, if you are a member of the Baha'i minority or if you're homosexual and you're from Iran, I say this is somebody who's Iranian who doesn't think we should be going to war with them, who gets called, you know, Labour Friends of Tehran for saying we shouldn't occupy Iran indefinitely from these warm-mongered gun nuts in the Labour Party. But clearly, if you're from a minority like the Baha'i, arguably, if you're a Kurdish activist, if you're LGBT, clearly, you should be given asylum in the UK. Clearly, and that's from Iran. We're not even talking about Afghanistan, Iraq. So the woman is crazy, Michael. But she also speaks for much larger political terrain. I don't think it's... I do think, Michael, a lot of these conversations also, not in this instance, but I do think the kinds of conversations that you see on Jeremy Vine, which, like I say, is a sort of political 21st century version of Jeremy Kyle, I do think a lot of it does ultimately border on incitement. Not this particular clip, but you do increasingly see these... You do see people actively egging on, potentially lethal violence in the public sphere. And I do think there has to come a moment where TV producers, presenters, people working on these shows, people watching these shows, have to kind of ask themselves a question. What is this for? Why are we doing this? What is this accomplishing? How does this make us a more successful, prosperous society? I don't think it does. I think it clearly just leads to bitterness, ranker, unhappiness, division. But of course, it gets great ratings for Channel 5. Is that the be-all and end-all? I don't think it should be. And I think if programming, particularly on TV, carries on like this, Michael, where we see more and more programs that talk radio, and Katie Hopkins, we have big problems. We have big problems. And of course, the counter-argument is, well, we have the British Broadcasting Corporation objective media. That's not good enough because, of course, we know the extremes, the periphery determines the politics of the center. So if this gets worse, it means the dial shifts even on home affairs and domestic politics debates on the today program, or PM, or Newsnight, or PC Question Time. Hugely, hugely dangerous, and the kind of tabloid politics this country has seen for 30, 40 years. Increasingly we're seeing it on broadcast TV and radio. Not good.