Ministers are facing criticism over proposals to turn a historic sea fort into a reception and processing centre for small boat arrivals, less than a mile from what is expected to become Britain’s largest immigration detention facility.

Residents in Gosport, near the naval city of Portsmouth, fear the town could become the country’s focal point for the small boat crisis and see further unrest following violent protests in recent weeks.

Fort Blockhouse, constructed in the 19th century to protect the entrance to Portsmouth Harbour, is being considered as a potential reception site under contingency plans for handling small boats arriving in Hampshire from across the Channel.

Most crossings have traditionally headed towards Kent. However, people smugglers have recently begun launching boats from Normandy towards Hampshire, creating a longer and more hazardous route.

Tensions erupted in Gosport on Tuesday after convicted criminal and anti-migration activist ‘Danny Tommo’ told supporters that 50 small boat arrivals were due to be brought ashore in the town.

Border Force vessels diverted the migrants to Dover to avoid the crowd. Violence nevertheless broke out in Gosport, resulting in six arrests, while police escorted three coaches that had been waiting to transport the asylum seekers.

Gosport is already home to Haslar Immigration Removal Centre (IRC), which closed around a decade ago. It is due to reopen following an expansion that will provide space for 600 foreign national offenders and migrants awaiting removal, across three storeys.

Local tensions over migration remain high. Nearby Portsmouth Lifeboat Station recently suspended operations after volunteers reported physical and online abuse.

Dame Caroline Dinenage, the Conservative MP for Gosport, said establishing a processing centre at Fort Blockhouse could encourage more people to attempt the journey to Britain.

“The chaotic scenes this week reinforced the concerns raised by local police, council leaders and me that Portsmouth Harbour is not a suitable disembarkation point for migrant boats,” she told the Daily Mail.

“Hopefully, any future Channel crossings towards our area will be taken directly to Kent, where processing facilities are already in place.

“We do not have the necessary facilities or transport infrastructure, and opening additional sites here would simply incentivise more boats to make the perilous journey from France.”

Lesley Cox, a 78-year-old local resident, said she was “disgusted” by the proposal to use Fort Blockhouse.

“We were not told about Fort Blockhouse. It is the secrecy surrounding it. Why is this not being discussed openly? I have lived in Gosport for 30 years and I am definitely seeing it become the UK capital for illegal migration.

“Immigration has always taken place in this area and it was never a problem, but now the situation is changing far beyond proportion.

“I have to think about my family and the effect this could have. My eldest son served in the Navy and fought for this country, so you have to ask what it was for.”

Cllr Zoe Huggins, leader of Gosport Borough Council, has written to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to object to the proposed site.

She said the area has already seen a series of anti-immigration protests, including an incident on September 6 when 200 people gathered at nearby Eastney beach to confront 140 migrants being brought ashore from a packed dinghy.

READ MORE: Inside the Los Angeles Club Combining Coworking, Fitness and Social Life

‘We should learn from these events when considering potential locations and ensure that the characteristics and constraints of each site are properly understood and researched before decisions are made,’ she told Ms Mahmood.

Ms Huggins pointed out that Fort Blockhouse is located on a peninsula with only one route out, which would make it easy for protesters to block any coaches attempting to leave the site.

Across town, near Haslar IRC, residents complain that their lives have been made ‘hell’ by two years of ‘constant’ building work beginning in the early hours of the morning.

It is being refurbished after shutting down in 2015 following a parliamentary review, which highlighted immigration detention as ‘expensive and damaging to detainees’.

The newly expanded facility will have 600 beds for detained men, who will be unable to leave the centre or access the local area.

Vick, a local resident and member of the armed forces, who did not want to give her surname, said the IRC expansion and fort conversion could lead to further unrest in the local area. 

She said: ‘I’m not against the IRC being used in its current capacity. It’s good for job opportunities in Gosport. But the additional 600 I don’t agree with.

‘I’m worried about the number of migrants in the area attracting trouble – not just because of them but also the so-called “patriots” it’s been attracting.

‘They were up and down the street the other night when that small boat was brought in from the Channel.’

Colin, another armed forces member, said: ‘If I’m honest I’d prefer it’s all down there at the fort rather than spread between there and the IRC. 

‘It’s going to cost so much to refurbish them both when costs for redoing sites is already astronomical for the MOD.’

Amid growing concerns over Labour’s response to the small boat crisis, this week has seen two dinghies reach UK shores without being intercepted by Border Force.

The deepening crisis in the Channel saw 781 migrants arrive on Wednesday – the highest daily tally this year. 

With a further 44 arrivals on Thursday, it pushed the total since the 2024 general election to 83,323 – passing the British Army’s 83,000 soldiers, said Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp.

The figures will be embarrassing for Ms Mahmood, who claimed on September 2: ‘We are boosting officer numbers to record highs to crack down on small-boat launches and the gangs behind them. This work is bearing fruit.’

Danny Tommo, real name Daniel Thomas, was denied bail on Friday having pleaded not guilty to criminal damage after he was filmed allegedly using a knife to slash a dinghy used by migrants to cross the Channel to Britain. 

The 37-year-old also pleaded not guilty to failing to disclose the PIN for his mobile phone to police, contrary to Section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Thomas appeared at Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court on Friday morning, with Tommy Robinson attending to support his friend.

A Government spokesman said: ‘The Border Security Command works around the clock to protect our border and will continue to detain, check and process every small boat arrival.’ 

Dear Vanessa,

My husband and I are both in our late 50s, and after years of hard work, we have built a reasonably secure financial foundation.

We own our home, although we still have a mortgage, have accumulated retirement savings and hold around $250,000 in additional savings.

My husband’s closest friend, whom he has known for more than 30 years, runs a successful business. He has asked us to invest $100,000 to help finance its next phase of expansion.

In exchange, we would receive a share of the company.

My husband believes it could be an excellent opportunity. He knows the business well, has complete confidence in his friend and thinks the investment could deliver significantly more than the money currently earns in the bank.

I am far less comfortable with the idea.

To begin with, $100,000 is a substantial sum for us. It represents nearly half of our savings, and at our age I worry that we would not have decades left to rebuild our finances if the investment failed.

I also do not know how we would establish the true value of the business, determine what our shares would be worth or access our money if we suddenly needed it.

And then there is the friendship to consider. Our families have been close for years. What would happen if the business ran into trouble, we disagreed over its direction or our investment was lost?

My husband says I am allowing fear to block a potentially exceptional investment. I believe he is allowing his friendship to influence his judgement.

How can we work out which of us is right? 

Nervous Investor

Dear Nervous Investor,

Before making any decision, there is one question I would encourage you both to answer.

If a total stranger arrived at your door tomorrow and presented the same investment opportunity, would your husband still be prepared to commit $100,000?

The friendship may be how this opportunity came to your attention, but it should not be the reason you decide to invest.

A private business investment can certainly generate wealth. Many successful companies have grown with financial backing from friends, family members and early-stage investors.

But equity is very different from putting $100,000 into a savings account.

Once you own a slice of a private business, there may be no simple way to turn that slice back into cash. You could own something valuable on paper and still be unable to access your money for years.

So before discussing whether this is a ‘great opportunity’, I’d want to understand the actual deal.

MORE STORY: Russell Findlay: The SNP’s Week of Political Crises Has Turned Into an Inferno

What is the business valued at and who came up with that valuation? What percentage will your $100,000 buy? What rights will you have as shareholders? 

Will you receive dividends? Can the owner issue more shares later and dilute your stake? What happens if the business needs another cash injection? And, importantly, how do you eventually get out?

You also need to see the numbers behind the story. Revenue, profit, debt, cash flow and forecasts matter far more than how hardworking or trustworthy your friend is.

That’s why I would have an accountant and a lawyer who have no connection to the business review the investment before you sign anything.

There’s another number here I wouldn’t ignore: $250,000.

You’re talking about putting 40 per cent of your accessible savings into one private business.

That doesn’t automatically make the investment wrong, but it does make the consequences of getting it wrong much bigger.

You’re also in your late 50s. Money you may need for your mortgage, emergencies or retirement has a different job from money you can genuinely afford to lock away or lose.

And then there’s the part that no spreadsheet can measure: a 30-year friendship.

If you invest, the relationship changes. Your husband is no longer simply his best friend. He is also a shareholder.

What happens when the business owner wants to reinvest profits instead of paying a dividend? Or takes a large salary? Or makes a decision your husband thinks is terrible?

And what happens at Sunday lunch if your $100,000 disappears?

None of this means you should say no.

It means you should separate the two decisions: Do we believe in our friend? And is this investment right for us?

The first can be answered with your heart. The second needs to be answered with numbers, independent advice and a clear understanding of what happens if things don’t go according to plan.

And because this is shared money, I wouldn’t make a $100,000 investment unless you can both live with the outcome – including the possibility that you never see that money again.

Your husband may be right that fear can make us miss opportunities.

But asking hard questions isn’t fear.

It’s what investors are supposed to do.

All the best,

Vanessa

You can subscribe to Vanessa’s free newsletter here.  

The grieving mother of a British woman allegedly shot and killed by her father during an argument involving President Donald Trump is calling for the case to be investigated again.

Lucy Harrison, 23, suffered a fatal gunshot wound to the chest on January 10, 2025, inside her father’s home in Prosper, Texas.

Kris Harrison, 52, told investigators the weapon discharged accidentally as he removed it from its container. A grand jury accepted that account, declining to indict him on charges of manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.

Lucy’s mother and Kris’s former wife, Jane Coates, is now urging the Collin County District Attorney’s Office to reopen the investigation.

“I simply want the truth about what happened,” she told the New York Post. “I want the people responsible for investigating her death to sit down with us and listen to what we have been told by independent experts.”

Lucy’s boyfriend, Sam Littler, traveled with her to the United States and testified that she and her father argued about Trump’s looming inauguration before he began his second term.

According to Littler, Kris then took Lucy to the bedroom to show her the firearm. Moments later, he heard a shot, the BBC reported.

“I remember running into the room, and Lucy was lying on the floor near the entrance to the bathroom, and Kris was just screaming, just sort of nonsense,” Littler said.

Kris had allegedly been drinking on the day Lucy was killed.

A UK inquest later concluded that Lucy died as a result of gross negligence manslaughter, a crime involving the death of another person through a breach of the duty of care. The offense is comparable to involuntary manslaughter in the United States.

“To shoot her through the chest whilst she was standing would have required him to have been pointing the gun at his daughter, without checking for bullets, and pulling the trigger,” Jacqueline Devonish, senior coroner for Cheshire, told the inquest.

Devonish described Kris as a “functioning alcoholic” and concluded that he had “unlawfully killed” his daughter.

Craig Miller, a retired Texas homicide detective, reached a similar conclusion. “Guns just don’t go off. The only person who could have fired the gun is the dad,” he told The Post.

Miller also questioned the position of Lucy’s wound. “Why didn’t the bullet come in through the side? It entered directly through the center of the chest,” he said.

In his view, the location of the wound does not match Kris’s account of how the shooting occurred.

Bodycam footage showed Kris telling police that he had not been drinking. Investigators later determined that he had allegedly consumed a 17-ounce carton of white wine that day.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Taylor Swift’s New Music Reveals Her Most Painful Flaw

‘When a person lies and is inconsistent with their testimony, those are important facts for the police to look at and consider,’ Miller told the Post. 

Kris previously said through his attorney that he ‘fully accepted’ the consequences and that he ‘will carry’ the weight of his daughter’s death ‘for the rest of my life.’ 

The Prosper Police Department said it would not be reopening its investigation. 

‘The case was subsequently referred to the Collin County District Attorney’s Office and presented to an independent grand jury, which ultimately declined to move forward with criminal charges,’ a spokesperson told the Post. 

However, Coates, who is flying to the US from the UK, is hoping the DA’s Office will change its mind. 

‘There isn’t a day that goes by when I don’t think about Lucy and everything she should have had in front of her,’ she told the outlet. 

‘I want people to see her as a person, not just as a case. She was funny, kind, loving and full of life. She had dreams. She had people who loved her deeply. She deserved a future.’ 

Radd Seiger, Coates’ lawyer, said in a statement that the police and DA’s Office has ‘continued to refuse to meet’ with the mother. 

‘Our door remains open to them should they change their minds. That refusal says more about them than it does about Jane,’ Seiger said. 

‘The authorities say the investigation was thorough and complete. But where is the evidence that the accidental discharge explanation was properly tested?

‘Where is the scene reconstruction? Where is the toxicology on Harrison, a self-confessed alcoholic who was drinking from very early in the morning on the day Lucy was killed, with officers reportedly smelling alcohol on his breath? Where is the gunshot residue evidence? Where is the full forensic picture? Where is the ballistics work? 

‘Where is the evidence showing that every obvious line of enquiry was pursued? The authorities simply cannot, and so far will not, answer these questions.’ 

Seiger said they have come to Dallas to ‘seek justice’ and to ‘see if the authorities here step forward and do the right thing.’

‘All eyes are on them, and rightly so. The ball is in their court. We are going to keep asking for the meetings,’ he said. 

The Daily Mail has reached out to the DA’s Office and Kris for comment. 

OpenAI has acknowledged that rogue AI agents improperly accessed dozens of organisations worldwide, including government bodies, universities, public agencies and other institutions.

The company behind ChatGPT said it had notified those affected, among them the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Census Bureau and the US Department of Education.

The disclosure comes as concern over the risks posed by artificial intelligence intensifies. Pope Leo warned yesterday that humanity “must not lose humanity to machines”, while OpenAI’s admission that some agents used “extreme methods” to get around website security has raised fresh alarms.

According to OpenAI, autonomous agents located and entered tools intended for software developers while seeking census information from the US Census Bureau.

The company also said its agents displayed what it described as “misalignment” while trying to obtain information from websites. In practice, this meant the systems acted independently and carried out actions they had not been trained or instructed to perform.

OpenAI indicated that the impact may extend beyond the organisations it identified, saying other institutions had also been accessed but chose not to disclose their names at the organisations’ request.

The revelations follow an incident in which OpenAI agents breached an Australian government health website, an episode believed to be a global first that sparked widespread criticism.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the agents entered non-public files on the website of the government-run healthcare scheme, calling the breach “obviously unacceptable”.

Albanese warned that the incident could have legal consequences and said he had held a “frank” conversation with OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman.

OpenAI, founded in 2015 by technology entrepreneurs including Altman and Elon Musk and now valued at $852 billion, has also faced scrutiny over its response. The company reportedly failed to contact Australian authorities promptly, sending a single email to an address that was virtually unmanned.

Altman conceded that OpenAI had not notified officials “as fast as we would have liked”. Musk is no longer involved with the company.

The additional breaches came to light during OpenAI’s investigation into how its agents had independently accessed the Australian government department.

OpenAI said the systems involved were AI agents — bots designed to operate with a degree of independence — and had been searching for “authoritative sources of public information”.

Although OpenAI maintained that the government information accessed by the bots was public and that the breach was unintended, it acknowledged that data taken from the SEC was later posted by its agents on another website. The SEC oversees US stock markets and is responsible for protecting investors.

Reuters first reported the incidents, with OpenAI later publishing an explanation on its public blog.

The company also admitted that its agents transferred data when they should not have, including in at least 53 cases where an OpenAI agent took an image from ChatGPT user activity and sent it to a third party.

NEXT UP: Pope Leo XIV Draws 700,000 to Central Paris for Outdoor Mass

OpenAI said each transfer represented “not an appropriate use of this data”. In the cases identified, users had apparently opted in to allow the company to use their data for training AI models.

The company said the incidents occurred before additional safeguards were introduced. It is now working to address the problem and remove the images that were transferred.

OpenAI was also embarrassed in July when the AI platform Hugging Face disclosed that it had been targeted by OpenAI agents. OpenAI later accepted responsibility for the attack.

In a broadside at the company this week, Hugging Face head Clement Delangue told a United Nations Security Council session on AI on Wednesday: ‘I often wonder what would have happened had I decided not to disclose this attack publicly.

‘Especially now that we know similar incidents had been happening months earlier in secret at a handful of frontier labs without monitoring.’

Attempting to counter accusations it was slow to act, OpenAI said yesterday that it was going back on a ‘month by month’ basis from the time of the Hugging Face incident, stating: ‘Our goal is to give each organisation the facts and defer to them on if and when to make the incident public.’

It also claimed that not all of the known breaches were significant, saying:

‘Some organizations may review what we share and conclude that the information was intentionally public or that the model’s interaction was not concerning.

‘Others may identify a design issue or security weakness they want to address.’

It added: ‘Most cases identified so far have been low severity, with limited or no evidence of meaningful impact.

‘Given the scale of the review required, and the need to verify each case, this work will take months to complete.’

Altman and rival Anthropic head Dario Amodei called on the UN at the same meeting to form global standards for AI safety and ways to monitor and report such incidents.

David Krueger, a professor of machine learning at University of Montreal and the founder of AI safety group Evitable, said yesterday that he was ‘deeply troubled’ by the increasing number of AI-related safety incidents.

Calling for ‘an immediate, indefinite, international moratorium’ on AI development, he said: ‘We have yet to understand the extent of existing incidents, and future rogue AI scenarios could be catastrophic.’

Meanwhile, sounding another note of concern, TV executive Nick Parnes told the BBC today that AI was now so prolific in TV production that ‘we are very close to having AI edit programmes’.

The Kalel Productions CEO also told Radio 4’s Today programme that while the AI ‘guard rails’ mentioned by new BBC Director General Matt Brittin, former Google president, should prevent AI making ethical judgments, it ‘was hard for them to be stringent enough to cover all eventualities’ and ‘there will be times when AI will be able to make an assumption based on an ethical dilemma’.