‘People are disgusted!’ GB News bombshell as migrant ‘cover-up’ sparks furious clash

GB News Host Michelle Dewberry Steps In as Guests Erupt Over Migrant Crime Data Row

Michelle Dewberry was forced to intervene during a heated GB News debate after two guests repeatedly talked over each other while arguing about why government statistics on crimes committed by migrants have not yet been released.

The clash unfolded as former radio presenter Maajid Nawaz and former Labour councillor Kevin Craig debated demands for greater transparency around the figures, with 11 families of victims calling for the data to be made public.

Nawaz argued that frustration had been building over the issue and accused the Labour government of deliberately preventing information from being released.

“I think the British public are sick and tired of being gaslit,” he said. “For many years, people raise topics, only to be told that they’re conspiracy theories.”

Craig immediately challenged him, saying: “That’s not true. You just lied.”

As the pair began speaking over each other, Dewberry stepped in.

“Excuse me! Hang on,” she said. “Tell him that in a minute. Don’t speak over each other. People will be turning off because it hurts their ears and mine.”

Debate Quickly Turns Heated

Once allowed to continue, Nawaz referred back to the phrase “conspiracy theory,” claiming Labour had attempted to block an Information Commissioner request relating to migrant crime statistics.

He went further, arguing that the figures would expose what he described as Labour’s “complicity.”

Craig rejected that interpretation, describing it as Nawaz’s own theory and insisting that was the point he had been making.

The discussion then widened into Labour’s handling of other highly sensitive issues.

Nawaz accused former Prime Minister Keir Starmer of having “actively whipped” Labour MPs to oppose an inquiry into grooming gangs.

He also raised the controversial appointment of Lord Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the United States despite Mandelson’s links to convicted offender Jeffrey Epstein.

When Craig pointed out that Starmer had apologised over the appointment, Nawaz replied: “Apologies don’t make a difference when it comes to crimes this serious.”

He said people were “disgusted” by Labour’s handling of the grooming gangs issue.

Dewberry Clashes With Craig Too

The tension did not remain confined to the two guests.

When Craig suggested the conversation should continue “in the real world,” Dewberry immediately challenged him.

“What’s in the fiction world that he’s saying?” she asked.

Craig responded: “I’m just about to say but you just interrupted me. You let him go on.”

Dewberry pushed back, saying Craig had started by suggesting Nawaz was “living in la la land.”

Craig complained that Dewberry had cut him off before he had been able to fully explain himself while allowing Nawaz to speak at length.

Dewberry insisted she would have intervened in exactly the same way if Nawaz had begun by insulting Craig.

Craig then returned to the central argument, saying Nawaz had implied there were “deep conspiratorial reasons” behind the government’s attempts to prevent some data from being published.

He argued that the official explanation was different.

According to Craig, the reason given was that obtaining the information would be disproportionate. He also said the situation had since moved on and suggested the figures were now expected to be published.

When Dewberry pressed him on why the government was still appealing the issue, Craig again cited the Ministry of Justice and David Lammy, saying the data had been described as disproportionate to obtain.

He also rejected the suggestion that Labour was trying to conceal something more serious.

Craig argued that the government had been taking action on immigration and reducing the use of asylum hotels, calling those points facts while describing claims of a deeper cover-up as a “conspiracy theory.”

The exchange ended with the central disagreement unresolved, but only after Dewberry repeatedly had to bring the discussion back under control as the guests challenged not only each other’s arguments, but the way the debate itself was being handled.