World news and discussion on TalkFuse.
Britain’s richest plumber and Reform donor Charlie Mullins threatened with being stripped of OBE after calling for migrants to be ‘sent back to the jungle’
The Honours Forfeiture Committee has dropped its latest investigation into Charlie Mullins’s OBE after he was reported over a post calling for Channel migrants to be “sent back to the jungle”. Mullins said he was referring to migrant camps in northern France, while the complainant considered the wording racist. The case matters because it is the second time the committee has examined whether his public comments warrant removing the honour.
Mullins’s lawyers sent the committee a 26-page submission setting out the context, and he says the repeated investigations have cost him heavily in legal fees and are politically motivated. He received his OBE in 2015 for services to plumbing. A previous investigation in 2024 considered several posts and remarks, including a comment about London Mayor Sadiq Khan; the committee ultimately took no action after his lawyers’ representations, which included a pledge to undertake diversity training.
In short
- The committee has dropped its latest OBE investigation into Charlie Mullins.
- The complaint concerned his call to send Channel migrants “back to the jungle”.
- Mullins says he meant migrant camps in northern France and alleges political victimisation.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
An OBE is a public honour, so its recipient can reasonably be expected to avoid language that may demean or stigmatise people, particularly migrants. The complainant could argue that “sent back to the jungle” carries racist associations regardless of Mullins’s stated reference to camps in France, and that reviewing the case helps uphold the standards attached to honours.
The case against
Mullins can argue that he meant migrant camps in northern France, not migrants’ race or origins, and that the phrase should be judged in that stated context. He may also reasonably object that repeated investigations and legal costs are burdensome, especially after an earlier inquiry led to no action, and that honours rules should not penalise controversial speech without clear grounds.