A GB News audience member has furiously said that the late Queen Elizabeth II “would not have allowed Keir Starmer to do what he is doing.” During commemorations marking eight decades since VJ (Victory over Japan) Day, a veteran spoke to GB News host Patrick Christys during a live broadcast. The former serviceman detailed personal reflections about his family’s wartime service and admitted that his uncle, who died a few years ago, had been stationed in Singapore during the war. He then went on to describe his admiration for the late Queen Elizabeth II, under whom he had served. He argued that if the monarch were still alive, she would have stopped Prime Minister Keir Starmer from going ahead with his current policies.
In an explosive rant, he issued a stark warning about immigration policies, saying: “We have escalating problems about to hit this country, and he [Keir] is allowing people, unsupervised, to come into this country.”
He then gave a prediction about current border management during the broadcast: “Mark my words, in 12 months, you will see murders and all sorts on the streets.”
Despite expressing his pride in his military endeavours, he then displayed deep dissatisfaction with modern Britain: “We’re proud of what we did, but we’re not happy today. It’s a disgrace.”
Patrick Christys also quizzed audience members on whether they think Britain was worth fighting for. Channel crossings have reportedly surged to over 50,000 under Sir Keir Starmer after he became Prime Minister.
Earlier this week, a frosty confrontation took place on GB News when Robert Bates of the Centre for Migration Control clashed with political analyst Fahima Mahomed.
The pair entered a fiery row over immigration figures and whether Channel crossings constitute criminal activity. GB News host Martin Daubney at one point had to step in during the debate as the conversation intensified.
During the chat, Bates argued that individuals arriving via small boats were breaking the law. Ms Mahomed strongly contested this and said: “You are just assuming they are criminals.”
She then added that many crossing the English Channel were legitimate asylum seekers rather than economic migrants. The frosty exchange showed deep divisions over how to interpret migration data and whether unauthorised entry automatically makes someone a criminal, with many critics arguing there is no realistic other way they can apply for asylum.
