UK Money Laundering networks- More than a billion Pound via small shops in UK

 

More than a billion Pound money laundering scheme using Vape shops, hairdresser shops, barber shops, and a wide range of small firms like corner shops. 

Given the costs of running a company in the United Kingdom, I have always wondered how many so called small shops manage to survive given operational costs that would not be justified given the revenues that the said companies can get. Remarkably many would be making losses every single day. Now, researchers seem to have found that the said companies that on average remain open for up to 6 months have unsuspected sources of income.

The six months cycle allows those using the said companies for money laundering to move under the radar, before the state has had the time to have a look at what is actually going on. More than a billion Pound is a sizeable number, monies that could be used by drug Cartels and other criminal organizations, including terrorist networks. British borders are not just porous. They are wide open. You could pay and maintain a small army with that amount of money, an army that could demolish Britain from within.

Britain is a Paradise for those wanting to acquire all kinds of weaponry. It is not a matter of lack of supply. If you have got buying power, you will certainly be a very satisfied customer, able to bring down Britain to its knees. While politicians are used to focus on geopolitics and external enemies, something is going on inside Britain. The number of illegal migrants coming from certain countries are mainly males of fighting age, combined with a vast supply of resources, including weaponry, is the stuff nightmares are made of. 

Governments in Britain are more interested in protecting "the rights of illegal migrants" than in making sure that Britain is not destroyed from within.  Such levels of carelessness indicate how corrupt and how inept UK politicians have become. 

Keir Starmer: Nationalisation of British Steel was the logical thing to do in terms of British National Security

 

The nationalisation of a strategic resources was the logical thing to do. Moreover, the company was requirinig state subsidies to operate to the point that Chinese owners were about to shut down furnaces. In esence, this means that Chinese owners thought that the company was not commercially viable.

Once furnaces could be shut down, British Steel would be dead in the water. So Keir Starmer did was rational to keep British Steel alive without having to provide subsides to private investors.

Steel plays a major role in infrastrure and in the defense industry. Instead of importing steel, Britain can produce its own. It will be costly, but it makes sense because it make Britain less dependent in times when, at any given time in the near future, Britain could go to war.

The new Prime Minister Andy Burnham has stated that he wants to re-industrialise Britain, so it makes sense to nationalise steel that is a major component for both civilian and military endeavours.

Transport is a major issue when it comes to uniting the country and when it comes to National Security. Andy Burnham has indicated his intention to bring back all railway transport into public ownership. Something remains to be said about fast railway transport that is still in private ownership and about project that were abandoned by Rishi Sunak "due to escalating costs". Such costs are directly related to private contractors. The state might decide to continue the project employing public resources instead of private contractors, thus controlling costs directly.

Grant Shapps: More white elephants instead of beefing up British Armed Forces

 

New white elephant projets announced while British Armed Forces suffer from lack basic investment and have a manpower crisis.

Systematically, one administration after another has been underinvesting in the British Armed Forces. On top of an endemic lack of manpower caused by recruitment issues, Britain has permanently underestimated the need to raise standards and support for the Armed Forces. Instead, Britain persists in its efforts to repeat the experiences of the Euro Fighter or facing ridiculous situations like the construction of aircraft carriers that had to go without aircraft or had to be returning to port because of technical defficiences. Britain does not have not even enough ships to protect its own territorial waters. Just a few weeks ago, the British Prime Minister had to announced that it was abandoning plans to deliver what was promised in terms of transport infra-structure.

The construction of stealth aircraft that will not be stealth aircraft produces headlines for people to congratulate themselves but it does not improve National Security.

Once again, huge amounts of money that will have to taken out of the public budget (or borrowed) will be thrown away. In the meantime, the country will be struggling to borrow at rising rates of interest. Fancy projects will not make Britain more safer.

Rishi Sunak: Whatever it takes, we are going to deliver

 

Today, I saw Rishi Sunak acting Prime Ministerial. We are going to deliver whatever it takes

Firstly, he was respectful and accepted the verdict of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court acted within its remit according to existing legislation and international agreements.

But then he rose as Prime Minister and stated loud and clear that he would put through Parliament legislation to ensure that Britain can protect its borders and protect national interests. Basically, he stated that the country must never give up its sovereignty.

James Cleverly as a former Foreign Secretary and new Home Secretary stated that the boats will be stopped and the new Foreign Secretary and former Prime Minister David Cameron was there to emphasize exactly the same message. Michael Howard, former Party Leader, was also fast to support the Prime Minister and his determination to deliver regarding one of the hottest issues of the political agenda.

It is almost as if events of recent days and months have generated a transformation. Preventing Illegal migration might become the defining moment of a new Conservative Administration. This is the ultimate test of his political career. Defeat is not an option. He must deliver.

What is an asylum seeker? Those crossing the channel are not asylum seekers

If you are in trouble, you approach a British Embassy or British representation in your country of origin or claim asylum at a port of entry ie airport, harbour. Those entering the country illegally are not asylum seekers. They are criminals. Where do they come from? They mostly come from France. Did they ask for asylum in France? No, they did not. If they had applied for asylum in France they would be coming with proper documentation because France is not a country at war.

This is the reality, the proven facts, and the rest is left-wing propaganda aimed at undermining the United Kingdom. We have no personal records of the ones entering the country illegally. They could well be organised criminals. They could well be individuals coming to cause harm. This is why illegal migration is a time-bomb. We don't know who they are, we don't know where they are coming from and we don't know what they are up to.

We are simply putting British communities in jeopardy. Every ten years we have got a national census. What is the point of spending money in national censuses, what is the point of having passports and borders if we are going to allow individuals to enter without any documentation?

Sex has been weaponized for political reasons

Sex has been weaponized for political reasons

Sexuality is an indivisible part of being human, but it is now being used to destroy. Whatever the agenda, although almost always political, sexuality has been turned into an obsession and is being using as a manipulation and destruction tool.

We can also talk about gender wars that have been turning society upside down. A woman is no longer a woman. Now, there are those who talk about cis women. In schools, some teachers about 72 genders. The concepts about sex and gender have been blurred for maximum effect.

The questions that we must certainly ask is why? and what for? This is not part of normal changes. This is being promoted with intent to divide. Whether we talk about politics, gender, race or sexuality, the aim is visible to divide, to create conflicts and confrontation. 

We can talk about hacking. We can talk about sabotage. In which other ways, those who have the intent to harm the so called Western World can proceed? This is geopolitical. These issues are being used to weaken Western societies and is working perfectly. Divided societies, divided countries, can be easily defeated and this is precisely what is happening. Campaigns about gender, race and sexuality are geopolitical weapons and a threat to National Security. 

Enforcing migration laws reinforces rights and security

Enforcing migration laws protects rights and security. People traffickers must not be allowed to continue their illegal and potentially murderous business. Porous borders are also a gigantic national security risk and especially in the times we are going through. Who can guarantee that plotters and saboteurs will not enter the country disguised as illegal migrants? 

Britain is on the brink of all-out war. It would be fairly easy to enter and blow up military installations, carry out assassinations, damage vital infra-structure and engage in all other kinds of actions that will be critically damaging. We don't allow people to enter the country via an airport or a harbour without proper documentation. Why should thousands of people be allowed to enter the country by simply landing on the coasts without any documentation?

Rishi Sunak is on the right path to ensure both that rights are respected and British borders are secure but, as usual, Opposition politicians and political activists will be in favour of criminality as long as it suits their political agenda. 

France is a safe country and there are British diplomatic and consular agencies in France. Why not approaching a British agency in France to ask for permission to enter Britain? It is self-evident that those entering Britain illegally have no intention and never had the intention to procede legally. They are not coming for war zones. They are coming via the European Union and therefore they hiave the legal means to apply for permission if they so wanted.

Having said that, the debate is ruined by things that have little or nothing to do with the real need to control British borders and the misery created by the chaotic state of migration will go and on and everything is deemed to be placed before the altar of political correctness, criminal organisations will prosper while law abiding communities will be sacrificed.

The War in Afghanistan lasted about 20 years at an incalculable cost. Will the War in Ukraine go the same way?

 

The events in the USA on September 11th, 2001 were a long way from the date when the War in Afghanistan came to an end.

After the initial interest in the conflict, people simply forgot about it and continued living their lives as usual as if nothing was happening. 

At the end, public interest was renewed and it turned into a subject of national and international debates trying to discern what was actually achieved or not achieved. Soonafterwards, it ceased to be a fashinable subject to talk about. 

Now, we have the conflict in Ukraine, a conflict that actually started several years ago, before open hostilities. The question that arises is if the conflict in Ukraine will not go on very much like the War in Afghanistan. Is there a real interest to put an end to the conflict or is there an agenda to keep it going indefinitely? The USA has invested more than 64 billion US Dollars and like it happened in both Iraq and in Afghanistan, untraceable amounts of money went somewhere, but there is little accountability. The same happens with war materials that some say are already in the hands of international gangs. We must remember what happened to weaponry and war materials in Afghanistan and before that in Nicaragua. The Contras and drugtrafficking cartels were in business exchanging weapons for drugs that ended up being sold in the USA.

With the veil of secrecy that accompanies any war, money laundering, arms trafficking and illegal earnings are part of the deal because everything becomes an issue of National Security. 

Huawei and fears about economic warfare

Huawei and fear of economic warfare

Real fears about Huawei have nothing to do with National Security or espionage. Fears about Huawei are about economics and the fact that now Chinese companies like Huawei can outbid any Western company at international level when bidding for contracts.

Nokia and Ericsson could hardly compete with Huawei in terms of getting things better at a lower price and at a time when even countries like UK are having to look very carefully at the monies they spend, Huawei will undoubtedly have the upper hand. While the EU and others have to deal with regulations regarding competition and subsidies, Chinese companies don't have to worry about lack of subsidies. The biggest foreign debt is the US Foreign Debt and China is one of its main creditors - if not the biggest creditor of the USA. If China were to mobilize the monies the USA owes to China, there would enough capital to over-run and outpace any Western company. Therefore, the issue is not about espionage. The issue is about economic warfare. China can buy whatever it wants to buy, but the West cannot afford to sell strategic assets to China. This is why the USA and other Western countries are claiming that there are issues of National Security. They cannot openly say that this is merely about economic warfare. They try and implement higher tariffs against Chinese exports, but if China buys into the USA and into the said countries the said investments would not be exports but national and local investments that will not be affected by tariffs on exports.

Today, it is about who controls the telecommunications industries. Tomorrow, it will be about heavy industries or food production. Why using any other means when you can buy countries directly? In a world of services, communications have crucial importance. Whoever controls the communications market has the upper hand when it comes to the rest of the economy. 

For the USA, repatriating jobs is not the same as allowing foreign companies to buy the USA. Awarding contracts to Ericsson looks like a safer bet than awarding the same conttracts to Huawei. This is not about National Security. This is about - once again - about economic warfare. Using the words of President Clinton, 'it's the economy, stupid.' 

The Conservative Party promised in its manifesto that it would develop communications networks in the UK to provide services to even the most remote community in the United Kingdom. It will be a costly exercise. They know that the prices demanded by Western companies will be much higher that the prices asked for by Huawei. Money makes the world go around. If you can pay less for better services, you can then have more monies for others projects including Trident and HS2. You can have more monies to provide advantages to Labour voters that chose to vote Conservative in the 2019 General Election. Behind the decision made by Prime Minister Boris Johnson there is a lot of strategic thinking. If he can get Huawei to deliver faster and cheaper what he promised in the 2019 Manifesto, those who can access new and faster services at a fraction of the cost will think more about having affordable and reliable services. 

Jon Snow: Brexit is not a white issue

Jon Snow: Brexit is not a white issue

It is usually said that Britain is a Multicultural Society and countering what Jon Snow from Channel 4 News said - broadcaster that was forced to issue an apology for what the newscaster said - I can say without a shadow of a doubt - because what I am going to say is factual - that peoples of all races and religions support Brexit.

Peoples of all races and religions believe in democratic accountability and in being able to determine their own destiny.

High levels of migration affect the most vulnerable in society because the daily struggle becomes ever harder when you are competing for the same jobs, for housing, for school places and for beds in hospitals. We must be able to meet the needs of the people who are already here - regardless of race or religion. Britain has been made to cope with unemployment from practically every corner of the European Union. Plenty of people who couldn't find a job in the European Union came to Britain looking for jobs that they couldn't find in their own countries of origin.

Prostitution is perhaps one of the best ways to determine how desperate people from other EU countries have become. Firstly, it happened in London. Now, it is spreading across the United Kingdom. Look around. You will find a rising number of prostitutes coming from Western Europe, from Central Europe, from Eastern Europe, from the Subcontinent and from Latin America. Britain has become a huge Red Light District for those that - without proper qualifications - are coming to the United Kingdom taking advantage of EU Membership. Pimps and all those who exploit vulnerable men and women no longer have to worry about passports and visas. 

Uncontrolled migration is a National Security Risk, a Social Risk and a Health Risk. We have more measures to control incoming cats and dogs than we have to deter those coming to Britain for the wrong reasons.

President Obama: Nobel Prize for peace in Palestine? What peace in Palestine?

President Obama: Nobel Prize for peace in Palestine? What peace in Palestine?

As we follow what has been happening in Palestine and in the Middle East in general, we ask the question again: what was the Nobel Prize for Barak Obama about? What has fundamentally changed in the situation being faced by Israelis and Palestinians? What long term beneficial arrangement has been reached?

But lets also look at other issues and one of such issues is Libya and what happened in Libya during President Obama's administration with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. The Arab Spring turned into the Arab Nightmare that became Europe's nightmare. The US Administration created refugees and Europe had to deal with the refugees and/or economic migrants (whichever title you want to give to the massive number of people who were displaced or simply decided to move out of their own countries in search for the Christian Paradise that many are trying to turn into a Muslim Dominion.

This is not only about the wisdom of military interventions. It is about the consequences of disastrous US Foreign Policies under a Democratic Administration. USA is far away from Africa, Middle East and Asia Minor, but it is Europe the one that has to deal with the consequences of disastrous US Foreign Policies.

Did President Obama deal with North Korea? No. It was necessary to wait for President Trump to deal with North Korea and he didn't do it with weapons. President Trump did it with words, talking to people and seeking an understanding. There are no more North Korea missiles flying over neighbouring countries. No more talk about missile attacks against the USA. There is a path towards peace between two countries in the Korean Peninsula. No more resources invested in wasteful naval military exercises seen as a threat and justification for nuclear developments. Is there any talk about giving President Trump a Nobel Prize? 

When President Trump talks about immigration, he refers to legal immigration. Is it wrong to say that anybody coming to the USA must have proper documentation? The Democratic Party supports Illegal Immigration. How can Democratic support for Illegal Immigration be compatible with National Security?

The leaders of the Democratic Party are against defending the USA faced with Illegal Immigration and are willing to bring the entire state administration to a halt so that they can get their way. With this behaviour, the Democratic Party doesn't stand for American Values and doesn't stand for US National Security either. Legal means legal. I wouldn't dream about travelling to the USA without proper documentation. 

Gatwick Drone: National Security? What a sad joke!

Gatwick Drone: National Security? What a sad joke!

Prime Minister Theresa May vowed to destroy the network of  Russian Intelligence Operations in the United Kingdom. Mmm..... yes. How much money is invested/wasted in clown security operations? 

Is Britain safe? No, it isn't. Political correctness and sheer stupidity are Britain's greatest weakness. National Action a terrorist threat? Really? Who was in charge when National Action was banned? Amber Rudd. Do you really believe that Amber Rudd is somebody you can trust with the reins of the Home Office? Absolutely not. Do you think Amber Rudd is somebody you can trust with Social Security? Absolutely not.

We have rulers that spend more than an hour shouting at each other because they thought that Jeremy Corbyn called Theresa May 'stupid woman'. Is this the way to spend Parliamentary time? People are dying close to the House of Commons. People are killing themselves because of the failures of the state run by a bunch of idiots handsomely paid by taxpayers to do a job that they are not doing. National Security? Really?

When the entire operation of flights to and from the United Kingdom can be disrupted by a single drone, where is National Security. The British government is a shambles but the Official Opposition is not up to scratch. It cannot keep the Government to account not even when the British government is against the ropes. 

The images broadcast yesterday showing Police Officers that were blissfully unaware that they were asking for an identity document that was already in the hands of the authorities show how idiotic Police Services are. Where is coordination of Police Services? Is this the way Police Services operate across the United Kingdom? The whole saga goes on and on and it beggars belief.