Conscription: A Flaw in the Plan.

I do wonder if the Government are really serious about conscription and if they have really thought it through.

Let me explain:

The government are going to recruit by force, a cohort of people that for the past 30 years the government have essentially abused. That cohort has been the last in the line for benefits of any kind, social housing, role models in media... you name it, the cohort have been browbeaten for decades.

But the government think it's a good idea to train this cohort up militarily and give them guns. Real guns. 

The government think they can manipulate the cohort into pointing the guns at the government's enemy. 

It's quite possible the cohort won't see the government's enemies as their enemies. As they say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. 

The government may find the guns pointing back at them, much like the elites of Russia did in 1917. 

And as the government is quite obviously shitting it's pants at the recent events around the migrant crisis, especially the mental leaps it's making to jail Tommy Robinson and now Danny Tommo, I think the government are slowly coming to reaslise the reality now.

Luckily, for now, the irregular forces coming back from Ukraine haven't yet transferred their weapons expertise to the common man. But The more come back and share knowledge around cooking up explosives and weaponising commercial drones, you can bet your bottom dollar that issues will start to arise. 

I mean, it doesn't take much for a FPV drone carrying a couple of grenades to fly into the middle of the channel and dispatch a dinghy load of migrants. Or to convert an old jetski into a high sped floating Kamikaze weapon. The technology is readily available and the expertise is in Ukraine learning.

The government really need to start treating their working class better and providing opportunities for enrichment, rather than just a life on benefits. Because all it takes is one tech-savvy squaddie to come home from Ukraine and become disgruntled at their treatment and then you'll quite literally have a war on your hands.

Maybe that's the war the government is expecting and it's not war with Russia after all. 

Migrants: Is the Cost Really the Actual Cost? Is Something Being Hidden?

Yesterday/Last Night's migrant fiasco highlights something I suspect most people hadn't considered. 

The total cost of the operation. Not just the cost of housing the Migrants and feeding them or supplying them with benefits, but the costs incurred before they even set foot on UK soil.

Yes, there are the costs incurred in running the Border Force Boats out into the channel on a daily basis; the staff costs, fuel and the maintenance of these boats is not a cheap exercise. Believe me, I know!

But there are other costs: are the RNLI being reimbursed for their part in the water taxi operation? 

But then what is the cost of landing the migrants? Staffing, security, transport etc.

Well, lats night, we got an insight into the costs involved.

Local Councillor George Magwick posted on X a video of a huge convoy of several emergency vehicles including a large number of Police Vehicles and a few Ambulances escorting three coaches into Gosport for the original intended destination of last night's recovery.

Eventually, due to the large number of crowds turning up at the again, ill-conceived landing on the end of the Gosport peninsula, the boats carrying the migrants headed for the port of Dover, where the landing could be secured and controlled.

Next, as an example of how many of these crossings happen when the weather is right, today there were three obvious simultaneous crossings happening. Again, border force and the RNLI made their way out to the French boats at the halfway point.

However, today I checked an extra resource, Flight Radar 24.

Circling above at least two of the crossings was an aircraft. Not the previous small border force Britten-Norman Islander. Nope, this was a not insubstantial De Haviland Canada Dash-8 300 ISR aircraft.

Now, the operating costs of this regional airliner size aircraft must be huge.

Note that the aircraft information is not complete, I assume in an effort to disguise it's identity. 

The aircraft is on planespotters.net here: www.planespotters.net/photo/1660535/c-gfmx-uk-home-office-bombardier-dhc-8-315-isr

This is not a cheap to run asset. Imagine this aircraft is out circling above every boat passage reported by The French boats shadowing the dinghies. That's a huge additional cost.

This is a military-scale action happening almost on a daily basis. How is this sustainable? 

I'm sure the cost is hidden by spreading it out amongst various government departments, but when you see the figures for housing the migrants, just remember the huge operation that brings them here and processes them and transports them before they claim a penny from the government.

UPDATE:

It's now 20:11 and there is another boat transfer in progress between the Dungeness RNLI lifeboat and a French warship. The This is being circled by a smaller aircraft at the moment. Looks like the Dover lifeboat and fast vessel BSC Enterprise are involved too.

Management Mind Virus and the RNLI

The recent events in Portsmouth have highlighted the issue of the RNLI acting as a taxi service for illegal immigrants, ferrying them from boats that are not sinking to the shores of the UK.

But as you look further, it brings into focus the Management mindset, the corporate claptrap of the executive world.

For instance, the RNLI doesn't just save the lives of mariners around the UK coast. It's involved with international efforts as well. See here: https//:rnli.org/what-we-do/international

Most people I reckon wouldn't realise that an organisation set up primarily to save lives at sea round the UK coast would actually be spending money in Bangladesh and Tanzania, for instance.

Most people also wouldn't be impressed that the head of a charity would demand a six-figure salary. 

This is the corporate bullshit world, not the world of a charity that dotes on a chintzy local vibe, that the RNLI like to promote. 

You know as soon as the see links on a website that say "Sustainability" and "Modern Slavery Statement" that the organisation is captured by corporate bullshittery.

I hate to say that there's more than the whiff of Common Purpose Marxist Ideology about this, but I'm afraid there is. This is an ideology that has captured a huge amount of the corporate world.

I mean, what purpose does a modern slavery statement serve in the modern world where there is no slavery? Modern or Traditional. 

Dig deeper and click on the link, you get the title and opening paragraph quote:

"RNLI statement on the elimination of modern slavery and human trafficking

This statement is for the year ending 31/12/2025. The RNLI has zero-tolerance toward slavery and human trafficking and does not accept modern slavery in any form. In our operations and supply chain, we work with partners and suppliers to ensure compliance with the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the Act”) and the updated 2025 statutory guidance."

Rather ironic, given the RNLI are effectively trafficking humans into the UK or at the very least, forming the last link of a human trafficking chain.

And even more ironic that other than the mention in the title and the opening paragraph, human trafficking doesn't get another mention. No details on how they are preventing human trafficking, anywhere.

You'd think that an organisation that "does not accept modern slavery in any form" and has "zero tolerance towards slavery and human trafficking" would avoid transporting people that had been trafficked to the English Channel. It would avoid delivering people that had been trafficked and at risk of being used for human slavery (for instance being locked into Cannabis farms to tend to the plants) would avoid the political minefield of the migrant boats.

You'd think the RNLI would require clear confirmation that lives were at risk and that the migrants being rescued were not part of a human trafficking organisation or subject to modern slavery once in the UK before committing resources to the channel. But no, corporate bullshittery means the statement on the website mans absolutely nothing and is more of a virtue signal than an operational requirement.

The men on the dinghies, shepherded by the French coastguard and attended by Border Force vessels  in a calm sea are not at risk and do not require the attendance of an RNLI lifeboat. 

But the corporate bullshittery around the boats says that the immigrants are in desperate straights (despite already being at sea for a few hours without sinking), are vulnerable (despite two French ships being in attendance), are at risk of drowning (despite the French coastguard giving them lifejackets) and the RNLI must at once be committed to launching and "rescuing" the immigrants. 

On Sunday night both the Bembridge and the Yarmouth long range offshore lifeboats launched along with a number of inshore boats and committed to the operation off Calais. 

That decision left the Solent and a large area of the English channel without inshore and offshore lifeboats. What would have happened if a yacht in that area got into difficulties at the same time the RNLI were attending? 

Thankfully, we didn't have to wonder. But it just shows the priorities in play of the organisations involved. 

To be clear, here's a timeline of Sunday's events via A.I.:

The Sunday Launch Track & Incident Details

Launch Time: The Bembridge all-weather lifeboat launched from its slipway at 10:11 AM on Sunday. It was closely followed by the Yarmouth RNLI lifeboats around 10:26 AM. [1]
The Route: The lifeboats were tasked by HM Coastguard to intercept an exceptionally large migrant vessel carrying roughly 140 to 160 people. The vessel had departed from the Baie de la Seine in France (near Normandy), an unusual starting point roughly 170 miles from the typical Calais route. [1, 2]
The Interception: At approximately 12:34 PM, the UK lifeboats met up with the vessel and two French rescue ships (Amiral de Tourville and Abeille Liberté) about halfway across the Channel. [1]
The Return Track: After taking the individuals aboard, the RNLI lifeboats tracked back toward the UK mainland, arriving at the Langstone Channel near Portsmouth at 5:11 PM to safely bring the passengers ashore. [1]

Straight away the question is, if two French vessels were in attendance, why was there a need for the RNLI to ferry migrants to the UK?

The Admiral De Tourville is an all-weather lifeboat, very much like the Bembridge lifeboat.

The Abeille Liberté is a large high-rise rescue tug. 

Now, for me, the tug is big enough to deal with the immigrants on it's own. Why were the RNLI called and why did they transport the 100+ immigrants to the UK? Especially with two French vessels in attendance capable of dealing with any rescue required. 

Considering that the operation was in international waters outside of the 12 mile limit of UK territorial waters, why ferry the migrants to this side of the channel?

I think we all know the reason.

And it has to stop. 

Postscript: Part of the A.I. mentions an "exceptionally large migrant vessel". I assume that's taken from an official statement somewhere. If so, what does that say about the reduction in small boat crossings being crowed about in the media?

Do we now have to request how many exceptionally large vessel crossings have been made instead?

Are the number of small boat crossing down because exceptionally large vessel crossing are up?