Migrant Watch - a New Page

I want to keep a record of how many resources are used and how often to support the dinghy crossings of the channel. It gives you an idea of the vast amounts of money and resources being used in the operation in the channel. 

I will be monitoring wave height in the channel, any French, Spanish or Portuguese (Yes, it's not just French) vessels in the channel shadowing the dinghies to the UK border in the channel. UK vessels are trickier to identify because they have a habit of turning off their AIS systems, so you can't see them to track them. 

So for instance:

Tuesday 27/10/2026 Time 12:34 No likelihood of dinghy traffic today due to weather.

Wind 20Knts

Wave Height 8Ft

Border Force Aircraft on station and registration: No 

Coast Guard Aircraft on station, registration and origin: No 

Vessels Attending in the channel.

European:

Abeille Normandie 10 miles off Boulogne. Speed: 14Knts

British:

Dungeness Lifeboat active but not launched.

Newhaven Lifeboat active but not launched.

No likelyhood of dinghy traffic today due to weather.

The Problem for Ukraine using Starlink.

There's a row going on betwwen Urkraine, Starlink, Elon Muskm and the U.S. government.

It appears Starlink is being throttled. That has a huge effect on the First Person Vision (FPV) drones that Ukraine use against Russia. Slow response means that the camera feeds from the drones are useless. A flying drone needs instantaleous video so the pilot can fly it.

So currently Ukraine cannot reliably fly it's long-range drones, instead having to rely on the relatively short range battlefield drones guided by optical cable.

No more drones targetting Russian territory, Russian refineries, fuel dumps, or airfields.

Now the blame is being bounced between Elon Musk, who says the throttling must be governental. The U.S, government laying the blame on Elon.

I'll go into the whys and wherefores of the throttling in a minute, but let's look at where Ukraine is at the moment. They military is relying on a satellite network owned by a private company based in a completely different country. This is not a military-grade asset. I'll sure Starlink the company has decent security, but it never will be the highest of the high. It is not protected by an official secrets act, backed by the full force of the government for instance. It doesn't have NSA-level encryption.

So Russia themselves could have hacked the Starlink network.

Russia themselves have military-grade assets in space. They have tested satellite killer satellites. It could have been a call from a Russian asset to Starlink to warn them that if they keep up supplying hight speed internet to Ukraine, they will be targetted. Unless they start making Starlink unable to support long distance real time video, then they may find the Starlink network turning into a shell of high speed dust around the planet.

The U.S government or Trump himself may have thought himself slighted by Ukraine during the several attempts to creat a peace deal. A number of times we've been told it is close, only for it to fall down. Trump himself could have ordered the slowdown, in an effort to make Ukraine see reason and settle for peace. 

Who knows. But I do know that a military force in the middle of a war relying on civilian assets controlled from a third country is building on foundations of sand. Never have your military rely on assets it cannot itself control. 

By all means use it, but don't rely on it.

But for now, the Ukraine military needs to restrict their ambitions. The weak point in their ambition has been exposed.

Explaining the Strange Socialist/Islamist Alliance.

I've blogged a number of times about the Socialist/Islamist alliance and how it's worked out in other countries. 

Essentially it ends up bad for the Socialists, because once the alliance gains power, the Islamists have the monopoly on violence and eradicate the Socialists. I mean, you can see it here in the UK: can you imagine the Soy-Latte Liberals in the Green party fighting against a bunch of tooled-up Islamic fundamentalists? 

No, neither can I. The Greenies would be wiped out, screaming "I'm with you, I'm your friend, I voted for you!"

Much like that woman outside the shop in France the other day, except with knives and guns.

But why do the Liberals in the Greens align themselves with the Fundamental Islamists? I mean, it's obviously not a relationship that would last, because the greens support Gay Rights, Women's rights, LGBTQ+++ rights. Basically the Greens support people's rights to do anything they want, screw anyone they want, dress up as anyone they want, take drugs if they want, the full liberal shtick.

And they're cosying up to Islamists who hate everything they stand for? Why?

The answer is Power.

Right now, on their own, neither side can gain traction and win elections. The Greens are a batshit crazy party that would only gain single digit percent of the vote. The Islamists might do better, but they are still a one trick pony.

The Denton and Gorton By-election was an aberration, with Starmer at his Zenith approval-wise, with Labour fielding a European immigrant with an accent no-one could understand. 

The Greens won 40% of the vote. In an area with an Islamic immigrant population close to that. 

In effect the Greens won, where they would normally be obliterated. Labour lost with 25% of the vote, because they lost the Islamic voter base. 

In that by-election the green/Islamic alliance worked. And so it will in other elections, as the Islamists Ally with the Greens and Labour Party, depending on which has the better chance of winning and gaining power.

And that's the name of the game. It's just about Islamists using the useful idiots in the Green Party and the Labour Party to gain power. Where they can't gain power themselves, they can certainly influence the rule-makers, claiming oppressed minority status and using that to close down dissent.

Where the Islamic community on it's own can win elections, we then get "Independent" Islamic candidates. Not yet brave enough to claim membership of a full Islamic party, but just "Independent" yet when they get power they align with Pro-Islam Labour and  The Greens. 

Then the Islamists can start to restrict non-Islamic movements, give Islam special protection, the list goes on. 

And that's what it's all about. 

Are European Governments Schizophrenic?

I've been talking online recently about Europe and European governments and their inability to govern in the interests of their citizens. 

I've said previously that I thought our government were delusional. The signs are there, believing in a different reality than the reality we can see in front of our eyes.

I think I blogged about it a year ago, when a Labour MP went on question time and when asked about the small boats arriving, went on about how these boatloads of men women and children deserve our hospitality. And he was mortified when confronted with the fact that 90% of the immigrants were men. You could see on his face, that was not the reality he saw. 

I now think that I've come to understand our government and other European governments. They are Schizophrenic. 

The definition of Schizophrenia is:

Schizophrenia is a long-term mental health condition that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves, often causing them to lose touch with reality.

So far, so good. It seems to describe our government to a tee.

Lets have a look at the symptoms:

Symptoms are generally grouped into three main categories: positive symptoms, negative symptoms, and cognitive issues.

Okay, so there's a bit going on. But let's have a look at positive (in individuals) Symptoms.

Positive Symptoms (Experiences Added to Reality)

These involve a loss of touch with reality or new features not present before: Yeah, out of touch with reality. Sounds like a typical European cabinet, or the European Commission. Seeing families in boats that don't exist, diversity being a strength, immigrants not adding to crime. 

• Hallucinations: Sensing things that are not real. Hearing voices is the most common form, though people can also see, smell, taste, or feel things that are not there. I think I could substitute this for voices from outside government: the voices nudging the government to do the things they do. like "Just do this and I'll donate 10 Mil to the cause..." 

• Delusions: Strong, false beliefs that do not change even when shown clear evidence or facts. Examples include paranoia, feeling like someone is plotting against you, or believing you have special powers. Here's a good one: false beliefs. That would include Diversity is a strength, a man can be a woman, immigrants are a net benefit, immigrants don't need to assimilate, net zero isn't ruining the country to reduce global carbon by less than one percent. Special powers: how about believing you are a saint, and everyone else is a monster. Believing someone is plotting against you? Well, was a real fear if your name was Kier Starmer.

• Disorganised Thinking and Speech: Difficulty organizing thoughts, leading to jumbled speech, jumping between unrelated topics, or speech that is hard for others to understand ("word salad"). Aha! Word Salad. Has anyone hard a politican recently? Word Salad describes exactly the words that come out of their mouths as they deny reality and try to sound convinciing.

• Disorganised or Catatonic Behavior: Unpredictable movements, awkward body postures, or staying completely still for long periods Just two words here: Kier Starmer. Let me be clear, the son of a toolmaker was as catatonic when making speeches as he could possibly be. 

If that's the positive symptoms, what the hell are the negative ones? A propensity to press the nuclear launch button? Lock up people for tweeting opinions?

Negative Symptoms (Capabilities or Emotions Taken Away)

These represent a reduction or loss of normal functions and emotions:

• Flat Affect: Speaking in a dull tone, showing little facial expression, or seeming emotionless. Yep, we're back to Kier Starmer again, aren't we. 

• Social Withdrawal: Losing interest in spending time with friends, family, or social activities. Oh, come on! Stop with teh Starmer-bashing! He left for...reasons. Mainly because bully Burham was going to kick his butt 

• Avolition (Lack of Motivation): Trouble starting or finishing daily tasks, work, or goal-oriented activities. Now this could describe any Labour cabinet member videoed walking into number 10. None of them look particularly motivated. And none of them seem to stay in a job for any length of time and if they do, they're pretty piss-poor at the job. 

• Neglect of Personal Care: Difficulty maintaining hygiene, grooming, or everyday routines. Have you seen Angel Rayner? Looks like she's been on a bender for the last 18 months. And Burham has aged a decade in only 3 months. 

• Anhedonia: Inability to feel pleasure or joy in activities previously enjoyed. Well, as the Left now see jokes as hate speech, I'd say that symptom was spot on. 

Cognitive Symptoms Now it gets good. Just look at the list below and apply it to any Labour cabinet member. 

These affect mental processing and everyday functioning:

• Trouble concentrating or paying attention.

• Memory problems (difficulty with short-term or working memory).

• Difficulty making decisions, planning, or understanding everyday situations 

I'm afraid the diagnosis is clear. Schizophrenia. Our government is mentally ill. Literally mentally ill. 

It's pretty clear to me now that the whole political class of Europe is also just as mentally ill as the UK government. Except Poland. Hungary is in the early stages after the elections earlier this year.

For Hungary, look up the Schizophrenic Prodromal Phase.  

Unfortunately, I don't know how you treat group schizophrenia. I assume education, getting the patient to identify their condition and accept treatment for it. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, getting them to think correctly, and gradually bring them back to accept actual reality than some ideologically induced fantasy. 

Or you could just kick them out at the next election and induce a hard reset of government. 

Thoughts on France.

I'm watching the riots in France and especially Paris with some interest, mainly because I'm due to take a trip over there in the next few weeks.

Is this the start of the civil war we've been told is imminent? 

It certainly feels like the start of an "Arab Spring" style uprising. It always starts with teenagers throwing rocks and breaking stuff, setting fire to shit and then it escalates, because it's been planned in advance.

We've been told civil war is some way away, The experts cite some arbitrary critical mass like when migrants reach a majority, or significant minority.

Yet in every other country where the Muzzies have taken over, all they needed was a substantial minority, because they were aided by the useful idiots, the Socialists and Communists. Between them, they made up a significant minority and were able through force and violence to take control.

And then once they take power, the Muzzies eliminate the Socialists, because the Socialists don't expect their fraternal friends to turn on them. But they do, every single time.

This happens especially in a country where the majority neither had the expectation of civil war (due to the small minority of immigrants/anti Westerners), nor the means to defend themselves against it (no access to weapons for defence). I notice the French countryside is currently peaceful, mainly because the French countryside still have a lot of guns and hunters able to use them.

A substantial minority with weapons and the will to use them with force can quite easily take control of an unarmed majority. I suspect that we'll see French cities fall first, setting up anti-Western areas and road blocks, 

It all really depends on if the Muslim Brotherhood think the time is right to make a move. Or if this is just testing the water to see how useful the Socialists are and how far they can go without serious pushback from the French Government. 

Currently France is finding out they are really close to the limit of what is possible from the Muslim/Socialist alliance. And it's all thanks to French Socialist/Communist extremists and their ability without any sense of irony to join a cause that wants their extermination.

Thanks to the Socialists aiding the Muzzy minority Civil war is closer than you think here in the UK too. Thankfully not as close as France. Over there there are a huge number of socialists. Over here, not as many as you think, because our socialists used to grow up and become Capitalist adults.

Well they did, when they were locked into capitalism by buying a house, getting a well-paid job and having a family. These days, that's a lot less possible, so socialist students tend to stay embittered socialists well into adulthood. 

But you may think the antagonists in the UK don't have any weapons, how can they start and more importantly win a civil war?

Well, you don't think the traffickers just smuggle people, do you? Networks like that also smuggle drugs and weapons. It's just that they use the people smuggling dinghies to overwhelm the agencies tasked to fly over the channel in reconnaissance aircraft and check on the boats coming across. So the expensive fast boats carrying the good stuff get across unchallenged.

And yes, we do have aircraft flying over the channel almost 24/7. Border force are leasing a couple of De Haviland Canada Dash-8 ISR aircraft, and when they are done doing a 10 hour shift, we're getting Coastguard aircraft flying down from Yorkshire, Cumbria and Scotland to fill in, especially overnight.

Except the aircraft are grounded when there's too much of a swell and the dinghies stop crossing. But not the fast ribs...

It's virtually impossible to Police the channel while Border Force are busy being a taxi service. There are plenty of leisure craft that sail or motor from France to the UK unchallenged. 

If we did actually have a hot civil war, how would it be fought? 

The UK Army, the people trained in using guns measures some 70,000 people. But that's including the people that are not front-line personnel. That's the cooks, the logistics people, the transport drivers, dentists, nurses, doctors. Even the 70,000 number is surpassed just by the number of illegal immigrants. Let alone the extremist Muslims that are citizens of the UK and their Socialist friends. 

But which side would the Army be on? Because it's certainly clear that the Government and the Police are not friends of those that oppose immigration, so it could well be the people vs The Armed Forces, Police and all the agencies of Government that have a monopoly on violence alongside the Muslims and the weapons stashes they have in Mosques.

Whatever form the civil war takes, it won't be along the usual alliances or partitions. 

How many of the armed forces will defect and align with the people? The unarmed Police, probably first in the firing line will be irrelevant. The armed Police may side with the government. But their numbers are pitifully small and easily eliminated, after which we descend into lawlessness.

So it would be difficult at the moment to see what alliances would form and how they would pan out into the meaty part of the war, beyond the initial skirmishes.

I see three main groups. The mainly Christian majority (Aligned with anti-Muslim immigrants like Sikhs and Hindus) , the government and the Muslims. The Socialists may align with the government or the Muslims. I have a feeling the government would align with the Muslims against the Christian majority, just because that's where they will be told to align from their Gulf-State sponsors. 

Although you may break it down even further into two groups depending on their backers. The Muslims backed by Gulf money and the Christians backed (hopefully) by America. 

Anyhow, I'm getting ahead of myself. No civil war here. Yet.

I will watch France with interest. And possibly I'll have a front-row seat when I'm in Paris. 

Using A.I. for a little fun. The Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group.

Ok, I'm a fossil. Although I do understand A.I. and what it's all about, I don't tend to use it. I have enough nouse and intelligence to research things for myself. And I have contacts. 

But anyway, I've tried to give A.I. go got to try and research stuff. 

First off, let's try Google A.I. and lets investigate my old favourite the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group. 

Now you would think that JTRIG would be invested in manipulating answers provided by A.I. to obfuscate or mislead. An indication that it was in fact, manipulating A.I. If you get my drift. 

So, lets see what Google A.I. said to the question: 

"On the balance of probabilities, is there a relationship between JTRIG and hope not hate?"

Google's answer:

On the balance of probabilities, there is almost certainly no direct operational relationship or collaboration between JTRIG and HOPE not hate. So the initial response is "No".

However, looking at the wider ecosystem of British intelligence, there is a high probability of a parallel, overlapping relationship regarding the targets they track, as well as a historical "degrees of separation" connection through state intelligence agencies like MI5. Hang on. Could the "No" actually be a "Maybe"?

An assessment of the probabilities across different types of relationships reveals the following:

1. Direct Operational Collaboration (Highly Improbable) "Initial assessment is Highly Improbable"

• JTRIG is a military/signals cyber-warfare unit of GCHQ that deploys covert "Effects" (hacking, disinformation, honeytraps, and narrative manipulation).

• HOPE not hate is an independent advocacy group that uses undercover investigators to expose far-right extremists publicly.

• The Probability: It is highly unlikely that JTRIG coordinates with a public-facing political charity. British intelligence units are bound by strict secrecy, and collaborating with a civilian NGO poses massive operational security risks. It would also violate the strict legal frameworks that govern GCHQ's mandate.

2. Information Sharing via Third Parties (Moderately Probable) Then we go to "Moderately Probable"

• The Shared Target: Both JTRIG and HOPE not hate track the exact same digital ecosystems, specifically online radicalisation, neo-Nazi terror networks, and far-right Telegram and Discord hubs.

• The Intelligence Pipeline: HOPE not hate routinely hands its investigative dossiers on terror plots over to local police and MI5 (the UK's domestic counter-terrorism agency). In turn, MI5 coordinates directly with GCHQ (and by extension, units like JTRIG or the Counter-Disinformation Unit) to tackle national security threats.

• The Probability: On the balance of probabilities, it is likely that intelligence gathered by HOPE not hate eventually flows into data pools used by JTRIG analysts to map far-right networks, even if the two organisations never speak directly.

3. Historical and Institutional Connections (Documented Fact) 

While JTRIG itself is a modern, post-2000s cyber unit, HOPE not hate has deep institutional roots that do have documented connections to the British intelligence state:

• The Searchlight Precursor: HOPE not hate evolved out of Searchlight, an anti-fascist magazine founded in the 1960s and 1970s.

• The MI5 Nexus: Investigative journalists and historians have documented that Searchlight frequently maintained backchannel relationships with MI5 operatives during the Cold War. State intelligence used anti-fascist informants to keep tabs on both far-right and far-left radicals. Critics and alternative media outlets have occasionally argued that HOPE not hate inherits this dynamic, acting as an unintended civilian "cutout" for state monitoring.

Summary Checklist

• Direct alliance/Joint operations? No. (Highly Improbable)

• JTRIG targeting HOPE not hate? No evidence. (Improbable, as HOPE not hate's activities focus on anti-racism, not state disruption)

• Indirectly using each other's data? Yes. (Highly Probable via MI5/Police channels)

Are you trying to trace a specific leak, court case, or piece of investigative journalism that claimed a link between these two? Knowing the specific context can help us dig into whether it holds up against the evidence.

The initial response is No, but there are documented facts of a Nexus, an alignment of interests, that a normal human, on the balance of probabilities would definitely consider a relationship with a possibility of contact and interaction.

Okay, lets see what Google A.I. said to the question: 

"On the balance of probabilities, is there a relationship between JTRIG and the BBC?"

Google's answer:

On the balance of probabilities, there is no direct operational partnership or collusion between JTRIG and the BBC, but there is a highly documented relationship of strategic intersection. Here we go again. The initial response is "No". With a big pinch of salt I expect.

Rather than working hand-in-hand to manipulate public opinion, JTRIG uses the BBC's immense global reach as a vehicle for cyber-warfare operations, while the BBC serves its traditional role as a public broadcaster reporting on the intelligence community. Sorry, what's that? JTRIG uses the BBC's infrastructure... but no direct link? How?

An investigation into the balance of probabilities reveals three distinct ways these entities interact:

1. The Weaponisation of BBC Infrastructure (Documented Fact)

Edward Snowden’s leaks directly established that JTRIG does not ask the BBC for permission to use its platform; instead, it actively exploits the BBC's digital footprint to trick targets. [1]

• The "Phishing" Lures: In 2014, leaks revealed that JTRIG successfully unmasked and compromised a hacktivist named "P0ke" (linked to the Anonymous collective). [1]
• The Method: JTRIG operators sent the hacker a direct link to a real, live BBC News article titled "Who loves the hacktivists?". When the target clicked the seemingly benign BBC link, JTRIG bypassed his routing security, allowing GCHQ to steal his IP address and identify him. [1]
• Probability: 100%. JTRIG routinely uses the trusted brand of the BBC as operational cover to deploy spyware and tracking cookies against hostile targets, completely independent of the BBC’s knowledge.
  
  Ah, so JTRIG scrapes BBC website, creates fake link, then goes phishing.

2. The "State Media" vs. Editorial Independence Dynamic (Highly Improbable Collusion)

Critics of British foreign policy frequently question whether GCHQ directly feeds JTRIG propaganda to the BBC to broadcast to the British public.

• The Structure: The BBC operates under a Royal Charter that guarantees editorial independence from the government. It is funded by the public license fee, not directly by Whitehall’s defense budget. [1] A Royal Charter that by most human observers, has been ditched long ago. 
• The Reporting: When the Snowden leaks broke, the BBC aggressively reported on JTRIG’s unlawful hacking systems, "dirty tricks," and domestic overreach. A state-controlled propaganda wing would not actively expose its own cyber-warfare divisions. [1, 2] In the UK government, it's very probable that this is another arse vs elbow contest.
• Probability of Collusion: Highly Improbable. There is zero evidence that JTRIG dictates editorial direction to BBC journalists.

3. The "D-Notice" and National Security Ecosystem (Highly Probable Cooperation)

While direct collusion is unlikely, the BBC operates within the broader British establishment and complies with the DSMA-Notice (Defence and Security Media Advisory) system.

• This is a voluntary code where the UK government and intelligence agencies can ask British media organizations (like the BBC, The Guardian, or Sky News) to reduce specific details, omit names, or delay publishing stories if doing so would directly jeopardize ongoing operations or human lives.
• Probability: Highly Probable. If a BBC journalist accidentally stumbles upon an active, highly sensitive cyber operation being conducted by JTRIG against an adversary like Russia or Iran, the BBC would likely consult with the DSMA committee before airing the information. [1, 2]

Summary

If you are asking if the BBC is a secret front for JTRIG's public manipulation experiments, the answer is no. However, if you are asking if JTRIG leverages the reputation of the BBC to conduct international espionage, the answer is an absolute yes.

Finally, I asked Google the following question:

"On the balance of probabilities, is there a relationship between JTRIG and NGOs?"

The answer was:

On the balance of probabilities, there is a highly probable, dual-natured relationship between JTRIG and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Finally, make the question more general, the answer is yes.

Rather than a formal, friendly partnership, this relationship is sharply divided into two categories based on leaked intelligence documents: aggressive targeting and infiltration of adversarial NGOs, and the manipulation or exploitation of humanitarian NGOs for intelligence gathering. There's always an oppressor and an oppressed victim. Is Google A.I. a leftist?

An assessment of the probabilities across these distinct dynamics reveals the following:

1. Infiltration and Disruptive Targeting (Documented Fact)

Edward Snowden’s leaks explicitly proved that JTRIG does not view all NGOs as neutral entities. Instead, the unit treats certain political, human rights, and digital advocacy NGOs as national security threats.

• The "Effects" Playbook: Leaked GCHQ documents outline how JTRIG uses its cyber-warfare capabilities to "deny, degrade, disrupt, and deter" groups it deems extremist or hostile to UK interests. Including groups inside the UK, no doubt, especially those on the right, despite the huge number of Islamic terrorists here.

• Targeting Campaign Groups: Documents revealed that GCHQ monitored and targeted legal, non-violent activist networks and NGOs—such as climate change groups and digital rights organisations—treating them with the same cyber-disruption tactics used against hostile states. Hmm, most of those groups are singing from the same hymn sheet as the government, why would GCHQ identify them as a threat?

• Probability: 100%. JTRIG has actively targeted, monitored, and deployed psychological disruption operations against domestic and international NGOs that challenge British state policy. Oh, those poor feckless, unwitting victim NGOs....

2. Exploitation of Humanitarian Aid Organizations (Highly Probable)

In international conflict zones (such as the Middle East or Horn of Africa), human rights and humanitarian aid NGOs possess invaluable ground-level data, local trust, and communication networks.

• Social Engineering and Monitoring: JTRIG's core specialty is behavioral manipulation and "online covert action." To map out terrorist networks or hostile militias, JTRIG analysts routinely scrape public and semi-private data from aid workers, or create fake online personas (sockpuppets) pretending to be NGO employees to gain the trust of local targets.

• The "Cutout" Risk: Intelligence agencies historically use the neutral umbrella of humanitarian work as cover. While larger, reputable NGOs fiercely guard their neutrality, smaller or newly formed NGOs can be vulnerable to infiltration by intelligence operatives collecting human intelligence (HUMINT).

• Probability: Highly Probable. On the balance of probabilities, JTRIG utilizes the online presence, identities, or data footprints of humanitarian NGOs to conduct espionage and profile targets in foreign theaters.

3. Funding and Creating "Front" NGOs (Moderately Probable)

A classic strategy in information warfare is the creation of pseudo-NGOs—often called GONGOs (Government-Organised Non-Governmental Organisations)—to covertly shape public opinion under the guise of an independent charity or think tank.

• While the UK's Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) openly funds various democratic and media-development NGOs globally, JTRIG's mandate is specifically covert.

• Given JTRIG's documented tools for rigging online polls, boosting specific videos, and spreading mass propaganda, deploying these tactics through artificial, Western-aligned "civil society" fronts fits their exact operational model. Rigging online polls eh? Here in the UK I would imagine. 

• Probability: Moderately Probable. It is likely that JTRIG has constructed or amplified superficial, fake digital "NGOs" to act as trusted third-party voices in information operations targeting foreign adversaries. Again, no operations within the UK, no targeting institutions, organisations or individuals inside the UK. Pull the other one. I've seem it first hand.

Summary Checklist

• Are NGOs and JTRIG partners? No. (Highly Improbable; it would destroy an NGO's credibility and legal standing). Not if no-one finds out.

• Does JTRIG target and spy on NGOs? Yes. (Documented Fact; particularly digital rights, climate, and anti-war groups). Well, that's pretty obvious, Mr Google A.I.

• Does JTRIG weaponise NGO identities? Yes. (Highly Probable; using fake aid-worker profiles for online espionage and data gathering). Of course, the identities are fake. But what about real lefties in real organisations being given targets to character assassinate?

Are you looking into how JTRIG interacts with a specific type of NGO, such as environmental groups, digital privacy watchdogs, or international aid organizations? Let me know, and we can look closer at that specific sector.

Interesting that there's still denial from A.I. JTRIG does not work with third parties. Hmm, I'm declined not to agree. The timing and the similarity of relentless online attack waves tends to suggest they are coming from a central source. 

Maybe it's not JTRIG, but then who else would be doing dirty tricks online on behalf of the government?

And really, do all those lefties that follow the crowd know they are being manipulated by the very government and country they've been manipulated into hating? 

But then why would a government manipulate a section of the population to hate it and the country it governs?

Because they become useful idiots in fomenting agitation in order for the government then to do something about it and increase observation and control. It's a feedback loop that leads to tyranny.

UPDATE:

Playing around later, I tried a few free A.I. chat engines. It seems Grok is the closest to a free-thinking A.I. but it still fails to assess the wider picture, past evidence and relies too much on hard evidence like documents online before it will commit to confirming links between JTRIG and third party NGOs. Sadly the downside of a basic Large Language Model is it cannot make suppositions or extrapolate behaviour. 

The UK Asylum Seeker Issue is Not a Quick Fix.

Reform have come out recently and (taking a leaf out of the Restore Britain Manifesto) said that they would start to deport illegal asylum seekers instantly.

It will not be so simple. I know it won't.

Tony Blair was very clever when he decided to bugger up the country and turn into a Socialist Hellhole. I'm sure his Missus, Cherie the lawyer helped him. Or she was a very incompetent lawyer and inadvertently helped Tony tie the government of the UK up in knots thanks to her incompetence.

The UK is virtually the only country that signed immigration law like the U.N. charter on refugees into Law. That means it's a LEGAL obligation for the government to follow the directives set out in the charter. To the letter. Most other countries that signed up to the charter didn't sign it into their laws, so to them it's only a MORAL obligation. Do it, don't do it. Doesn't matter. 

For the UK, any deviation from the directives of the charter, means the government will be challenged LEGALLY, in court. 

And that's where it stands from the very first day of a new Reform government. They cannot deviate from the U.N. charter and its obligations without starting legal challenges from individual asylum seekers and no doubt the supreme court.

Reform cannot deviate from the U.N. charter until the law is changed. 

The thing is, I'm sure the charter was worded not as a legal document, but as a moral obligation to governments. So there will be huge differences in the wording between it and a true legal document. Differences that lawyers have no doubt been exploiting on a regular basis. 

The mountain that Reform have to climb is to win a huge majority in government, so they can change legislation without a challenge in the commons. 

Then there will be pushback from the Lords, no doubt. Gone are the days of the Lords deferring to a legitimately elected democratic government. 

Thanks to Maggie I think we have the ability to just push the law through without the Lord's consent.

They need to change legislation, abolish the supreme court and put Judges back in the Lords. They need to remove the U.N. charter on refugees from UK law, they need to repeal the Human Rights act, remove ourselves from the European court on Human rights (and sort out the legislation regarding our membership of the EU that relates to that), 

That may take months. I know that Farage says he will have MPs sitting 7 days a week to make the required changes, so he does somewhat understand the magnitude of the task. But due process needs to be followed, so I'd say at a minimum 3 months from Reform getting into power, before they can deport illegals. 

Any serious challenges to that and it gets bogged down and starts to look like wading through treacle. 

It all depends on how badly the blob, the faceless civil servants want to comply. And considering their complicity in attacking Reform when they are not in power, I can't see the civil service doing it's duty and following the wishes of a democratically elected government. I do see the civil service being complicit in leaking, and distracting and doing everything in it's power to divert the time and effort of the Reform government away from it's goal of halting immigration.

The next question would be why? Why would the civil service undermine a democratically elected government?

Who gave them the authority?

Who gave them the order?

Will the Government have the power to dismiss these people?

I think that in the above scenario, it's quite likely there won't be democratic elections for quite a while. Because, why bother?

Why vote or vote a majority into Parliament if the blob is then able to derail that government from it's mission, as promised to the people?

As I have said before. Don't fear Reform. Fear what comes after Reform. 

If politics fails and the blob closes ranks and diverts the government, then all that is left to the people is violence. 

Then it's civil war. The people against the blob. The poor against the rich. The nationalists against the globalists.

Unfortunately the immigrants will be in the crossfire.

The War Against Disinformation is Not What it Seems.

Andy Burnham made a speech a few days ago relating to Russia amongst other countries and it's ability to insert disinformation into social media and therefore influence public opinion and even influence elections.

But without any evidence. 

If Burnham wants to fight "fake news", he needs to tell us which is the fake news, so we can identify it analyse it and remove the source from our trusted information providers.

But instead Burnham proposes censorship and sanctions, possibly fines and jail time, no doubt. 

Instead of allowing us the freedom to assess information for ourselves, he wants to remove that from us and just tell us "this is the truth". 

I've never heard something more tyrannical come out of a Prime Minister's mouth before, except maybe Kier Starmer's. 

I've lived through the cold war, I well remember the "tractor stats" coming from the old Soviet Union, where they had to make everything bigger, better and more glorious than the West could ever manage. Amongst the folky music was the most egregious propaganda. Ridiculously obvious. Much like our Labour government.

The phrase "Tractors Stats" was coined because the Soviet Union used to produce endless list of how well they had done, including the numbers of Tractors they had produced. Impossible statistics. Radio Moscow used to pump them out nightly to those in the West that would listen. I was one of the listeners, because Short Wave Listening was my hobby.

The same applied to the vast amounts of grain the Soviet Union supposedly produced. 

In other words, they were statistics to be taken with a healthy scepticism.

When it came to News, again the Soviet Union made immensely unreasonable claims, but so did the West. The truth was somewhere in the middle and it was up to the listener to perceive where the truth was.

We're getting back to those days, but it's not an information war between the Soviet Union and Western Governments. It's actually an information war between Western governments and their own people. 

People are now seeing the actual truth being denied before their very eyes. 

Journalists arrested as terrorists on the left and the right of politics. 

Ordinary people being arrested and jailed for opinions. 

It's quite clear this is NOT about foreign actors influencing social media, or we would have had examples the government could show us.

This is about controlling the flow of information. And the government ensuring you only have access to their propaganda.

It is tyranny. 

The Diesel Dilemma

Trump is considering banning export of diesel refined in the U.S. and getting European countries to release their reserves of diesel, to keep the price down.

There's a BIG problem with that. 

Currently, Europe is in a proxy war with Russia. If Europe expends it's diesel reserves, that's reducing it's capability to run military vehicles. If the stocks are drawn down by any significant amount, Russia may consider it's worth a gamble to go the whole hog and go for all-out war with Europe, because Europe's ability to resist will be curtailed by the lack of fuel. 

Military tacticians know that logistics are critical: any shortages, even ever so slight, affect the ability the wage war fully. That hamstrings you and you lose. Napoleon and Hitler tried and failed due to lack of logistics.

Drawing down our reserves of Diesel significantly increases the risk of war with Russia.

Because Putin will seize upon a weakness and exploit it. It's like a new version of Red Storm Rising is being written.

Although, the U.S. supplied weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan and there was never talk of war between Russia and the U.S. back then. Mind you, back then, we had strong leadership. They knew how to play the political game.

Nowadays, we have weak leaders, political pygmies who cannot compete with a political operator like Putin. We have leaders that want safe spaces, that cannot stand criticism, that stand almost as tyrants, jailing people for not following their ideological political position.

Basically, we're fucked. 

Europe's leaders will bow to pressure, release Diesel reserves, Putin will see an opportunity and all hell will break loose.

This dear reader, is the problem with globalism. When everything runs right, it's fine. But it doesn't have the redundancy required to work on a national scale. 

Every country needs to define certain industries as strategic assets and of national security importance. 

Steel production, water, power generation, oil refineries, distribution pipelines for gas and aviation fuel, are amongst those industries that absolutely cannot be offshored and offered up to globalist interests. 

The lack of refineries in the UK and of course the cost of the energy to refine crude oil in the UK has completely fucked up the notion of strategic reserves and strategic industries. We are reliant on supplies from other countries, who are in turn influenced by the prices they can get in certain markets.

American diesel is being put in tankers and sold abroad because the petroleum companies can get more money for their diesel outside the U.S. 

It would take an executive order banning the export of diesel to stop them exporting it. And of course it doesn't guarantee that production of diesel will continue. The refineries and companies making the money may just stop, if they're not making enough profit, or stockpile the diesel and not release it, until such time as they are able to maximise profits.

Markets are good when they work fairly. But an out of control, unbalanced global market like we have at the moment that maximises profits above all other considerations is an evil and immoral animal. It will literally condemn us to hell if it is allowed to continue. 

We need political will and power to sort the issues out with globalism. We are moving towards a time when we will need to put limits on globalism. We need to define certain things as off-limits to globalists. That's not to say to socialise things and have governments running industries. But we need certain industries to have certain rules and regulations, not to curtail, but to nudge. To keep them honest and working for everyone.

Fuel production: in-house, in the UK, not reliant on fuel from the other side of the world.

Water, strict regulations on pollution and sewage release and large punitive fines in the form of taxes on dividends. So it pays the companies to re-invest and avoid controversy. Profits and especially Dividends are maximised by being good and keeping clean.

Steel: we need diversified production, plenty of different steels available produced here in the UK.

Aviation: we need diversified production inside the UK and limited reliance on production from outside the UK.

Distribution networks need to be resilient. Power, fuel, water. We need to be able to move either around the country easily and have the ability to divert around breakages in the network.

Critically, we need the political will to go ahead will the above at the expense of global corporate profits.

Channel Migrants: New Update.

Now the boats on the French side have gone dark. 

You could excuse the UK boats, given the political sensitive nature of the migrant crossings. You might want to avoid the public knowing where the boats are landing, or how many times they stop in the channel, so you can't count the dinghies.

But what incentive is there on the French side to go dark? Unless the British side has put pressure on the French to make the crossings harder to track.

Why? 

The Foiled Attack on RAF Fairford USAF Base.

There are pictures circulating the internet showing the alleged terrorists being arrested. Someone seemed to get a drone up pretty quick to document things. That in itself smells fishy.

But I'm wondering about the attack. The men themselves look too well -groomed for your average illegal immigrant. Whether that's deliberate to fit in and cause confusion during the attack, I don't know. 

But it seems strange that what could be an Islamic attack would have purely African origins. Not a single man looked to be Middle-Eastern.

Could this be a false-flag attack? If so, by whom? Who would benefit from the attack? If created by the British, how would a group of African men help their push against the supposed "Far-Right"? 

Or would it help the Communists in power to sever ties with America?

If America, how would they use the attack?

I have a theory about the attack. I'm not going to share just yet. But I have blogged about it already. Fair play Yanks!

UPDATE: 

Unsurprisingly, the bombers have been allowed out of custody on bail. If my suspicions are correct, it'll be the last you'll see or hear of them. Either they will not be in the UK or alive to stand trial. And whoever they use for the bodies had better be a good match: the internet is watching. 

Migrants: The Cost Before They Enter the UK.

I've been looking at FlightRader24 more and more since I learned of the converted Dash-8 airliner that border force are using to overwatch the channel.

It did a 10 hour shift over the channel yesterday. I assume it had maxxed out its crew hours and possibly maintenance as well, because after it landed, a coastguard aircraft flew down from Hull to take over.

See here:

 

Note the time: 22:49. There are still UK assets flying over the channel at that time. 

Now, don't get me wrong, there may have been no dinghies, but it seems more than a little suspicious that the "rescue" vessels in the channel all withdrew. Because the dinghies full of migrants stopped.

Is Thursday night "Drug and Weapons Night". Because it seems a bit sus to just suddenly stop after a number of days sending dinghies across. The sea conditions were the same as before. But is this the night that the proper serious fast boats launch from France and drop their goods?

Are the surveillance aircraft working? Are they spotting migrants on the beaches and stopping them from getting to the water? Or is this an accord with the traffickers?

But if the answer is either of those, at what cost?

We are not only putting large boats out to sea on a regular basis to pick up the migrants, but we're also paying the French several hundred million pounds to stop the dinghies and at the same time we're running something akin to a military operation to surveil the channel and the French coast.  

Before the migrants arrive, before they are processed by Border Force, before they are housed during and after processing, before we go through the machinations of the legal system of claims and counter claims for asylum, before we count the cost of Policing the criminal activity the migrants are bringing to our shores. 

How much is all of this costing?

And if we really, really put an effort in and changed the law so that we just refused ALL asylum claims from ANYONE not using legal routes, how quickly would the dinghies stop and how much money would we save from not having to do all of the surveillance and "rescue" operations?

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.