Don’t tell anyone, Trump was right.

London Tube Bomb.
When Trump said the terrorist was on the police radar, he should have said “Was he on the police radar. Apart from that, he was bang on.

The 18-year-old Iraqi refugee who planted the subway train bomb.
He was said to have been in frequent trouble with the police and authorities.
Sources yesterday said that his behavior had become so bad that he had been referred to Prevent, the Government’s de-radicalization program, which aims to turn potential extremists away from terror.

Thus, once reported, he should have been on the police and security services radar big time. The only questions after that has got to be:-

“Was he on the watch list, or did someone not do their job?”

So it seems when Trump spoke, the embarrassment SHOULD have been with the British Authorities.

A final word.
The ‘PREVENT’ program.
The Home Office said that last year around 42,000 people participated in 142 Prevent projects. More than 150 journeys to Syria had been thwarted, it said, including Family Court interventions that stopped 50 children from 20 families being taken to a conflict area.

42,000. Do we have a problem within the UK or what?

Advertisements
Posted in news, politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

UK government. No guts for a fight

UK’s Prime Minister Theresa May is gearing up to offer the EU a ‘divorce payment’ worth up to £30 billion in a bid to break the deadlock on a post-Brexit trade deal AND continue contributing to the EU budget during a two-year transition period.

Weak, truly weak.
Pay to leave, then pay some more.
This is not a divorce, more a long-term separation with crippling maintenance payments! No wonder MP’s are getting scared for their own skins.

On the streets anger is simply a reaction to weak, poor, stupid leadership, and lousy policies. Like, According to Home Office documents, the budget for the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism is set to fall from £947million this year to £896million in 2019-20.”
Really stupid politics.
Reducing the funding for protection against the growing threat from Islamic terrorists will increase the danger to the general public. That’s you, me, everybody!

The concept of being held responsible for their actions by the public is finally dawning on them. Their political minds focused by attacks on their person via social media, to their property during the election, the murder of MP Jo Cox in 2016, and the closeness of the attacks by terrorists in London. That and in Jan, 2016, a study found 192 of the 239 who responded to a survey had experienced aggressive or intrusive behavior.
In half of those cases, they said they were targeted in their own homes.
101 MPs had received threats and 52 MPs threats of property damage.
Half said they believed they had been subject to harassment or stalking, defined as behavior that lasted for two weeks or more and caused fear.

For me it’s a sign that politics is waking up to the knowledge that their stupidity has become personal. That and UK politics need to be scared of the people and not the other way around.

Very inciteful, for a politician.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Sanctions didn’t work then?

DPRK goes and fires another missile over Japan.
Seems they are laughing at POTUS, or is it the UN.
Either way short of military action, Kim Jong-un will continue to play with his rockets.
The threat of sanctions means nothing to him.

There again, comment is being made in South Korea that people are equally scared of Trump and the DPRK. I’m thinking they could be right, about Trump.

Posted in news | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Meet and Greet?

Getting Close (Feb 2017) was a post about:-
“Come whatever, you’ll eventually have to talk to other people.
People you don’t know, possibly armed, and their true intentions unknown.
I’ve come unstuck before doing this in past life and civilian security and as a consequence, I’m wary of ‘first contact’ with anyone.”

The last two articles Do you see an old man, and One squared away urban survivalist, talked about a more aggressive view to people.
Both were confrontational in nature but I prefer thinking like that because it keeps me wary. Wary is good because there is nowt as dangerous and unpredictable as the general public. Soldiers, LEO’s, and other ‘professionals’ have the benefit of training.
They all exhibit clearly discernible tells which telegraph their intentions, and while everyone does in some way, some civilians can be ‘difficult’ to interpret.

So where am I going?
On footIn Transit, security and Situational Awareness i.e. Getting By are mentioned a lot in my scribbles.
That and profiling. Yeah, I know, how non politically correct is that?
BUT until the nice white guy in a pin striped suit starts body packing an IED, or the 101 year old white Christian granny pulls a gun on me . . .
Race, dress, military age, and language are all a profile triggers for me.

In “One squared away urban survivalist” I said:-
To show yourself will provoke an action if you are armed.
At best he’ll warn you, disarm you, and let you go.
At worst he’ll engage you on sight.

What if you weren’t openly armed.
Me thinking about my nice little blade concealed on my person.
At best he’ll control you, put you on the ground, and search you.
(If he’s got any sense he would but more about that later)
At worse he’ll just shoot.

Only how are they going to do that. Control, Search, and Disarm you?
After all it’s simpler to just put you down (BANG).
BUT, assuming they haven’t had a really bad day, the whole process of control, search and disarm DEMANDS that they act tactically gaining full control of your actions.
Don’t like that idea? Then don’t get seen!

Why would they act tactically when you could just be another survivor?
I’ve already mentioned that the general public are horribly unpredictable and I often make reference to an overwatch.
That’s the person or persons you won’t readily see but should have a very good view of you, AND, if armed, ‘sights on’ your movements and actions.
Remember. To anyone you meet, you are the one who is a direct threat.
It’s a two-way street people.

I know I’m toggling a lot here from a person (them) to you, he or she.
This is because the problem is not only yours but theirs.
You have to think both ways to stand a chance in what could quickly evolve into combat.

I would also like to mention a grey man’s thoughts on protocol.
Call it ‘being nice but careful’ in a time where street etiquette will used by all to avoid ‘misunderstandings’ when strangers meet or trade.
Only that will take time to ‘roll out’.
Until then it could be the Wild West for quite some time.

Wild West rules of engagement?
If he’s armed and twitches, shoot!
If he doesn’t twitch and he’s armed, shoot anyway!
Aw, sod it. Just shoot first and don’t miss!
I did say Wild West rules didn’t I?
Get where I’m coming from?

For the benefit of the civilian world, ‘most’ of the meat in the worlds army is trained in combat search techniques. Nothing much has changed there over the years.
Only not everyone in the world is, or has, served in the forces, law enforcement, or even personal security. So you may encounter preppers, survivalists, and just plain old citizens who just wouldn’t know how to conduct a controlled challenge, approach, search, and seizure. That makes them unpredictable.

Thus you MUST ASSUME that anyone you meet is a DIRECT THREAT.
That’s someone who can inflict harm upon you.
THAT’S WHY YOU MUST THINK AND ACT TACTICALLY!

Incidentally there is such a thing as an indirect threat.
That being described as someone or something who endangers you in some other way like locking an exit, blinding you with a torch, or blocking your view of a direct threat.

A bit of a mind game follows.
The kid on the mobile phone or radio alerting someone of your presence.
That’s an indirect threat. What are you going to do about it?

Remember ex-mil, the only ROE you’ve got to worry about now is those quaint little civilian laws. Or, if the Rule of law has collapsed forever:-

Ye-Ha, you get to make your own ones up!

Still a bit confused? Know what a human shield is (beyond what TV describes)?
It could be an armed man with his arm around a woman’s neck, her between you and him and no clear shot. What would you do as he is screaming at you to put down your gun or the woman gets it?

A little twist. If you did come across this scenario, how do you know the woman is at threat and not one of their own playing a stage part to get you to drop your weapon?

My mentor’s argument was ANYONE who endangers you in any way is a legitimate target.
I can just feel the moralists and lawyers bristle at that one.
Right, wrong, I’ve heard (and lived) both sides to the argument only you need to get past all the B.S.
Survival for me has always been about looking after me and my own.
That will probably be the same for you.
Only if you don’t act, or hesitate, and get maimed or killed.

Who is going to look after them?

OK, now lets talk practical.
The first person to see the other has the tactical advantage.
So the sensible use of available cover when moving MAY just earn you first sight.
Even if I gain first eyes on, and have the tactical advantage, should I use it?
Clearly we’re decision-making here and the reasoning is the danger from engaging.
Few can guarantee the result of combat, remember that.

For example, you might have the perfect ambush set up, and your gun only goes click, or the round was defective and only the cap goes off shoving the bullet just half way down the barrel, or you miss, or some really large toothed bug sinks its teeth into your groin right at the wrong time. There are loads of different things that can go wrong.
Some call them Murphy’s Laws. Take time to look at these.
To civilians they will read funny even if you don’t understand them.
The horrible bit is they are mainly based on experience aka real life.

Sometimes the sensible thing to do is let the danger pass.
There again, if you do, what’s to stop them getting first sight on you at a later date?
Do or die. Die if you do? Die if you don’t?
OK, what now.
The only safe challenge is one made from behind adequate cover, but with eyes on.
I’ll leave that to the next article about this subject.

Posted in prepping, survival | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sad Sleep.

I watched the start of a modern history program.
I guess it would have been a sanitized version.
I guess because I turned it off.
That’s the problem with TV, they don’t think.
While some may learn, others recall.
Know what I heard last night?
That song, Hallelujah,
And who I saw? Old Friends.

Posted in miscellaneous | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Flight or fight, are they the only choices?

Flight or fight is the key response to danger, genetically embedded, moderated only by training and an individual’s personality.

There are alternatives like moderation, parley, or surrender, when conflict is the scenario.
Moderation and parley needs time and usually some form of collateral which could leave you stripped of everything.
Which brings in the scenario of “I’m from the government and I’m here to help“.
Also someone walking in under a white flag to ‘negotiate your passage or surrender‘.
To the victor belongs the spoils and in surrender, you become their spoils.
Government or not.
Surrender probably leaves you unarmed, no kit or supplies, within a hostile environment, under the mercy of someone who may consider you not worth the effort or simply slave labor. Unless you all think the Easter Bunny exists!

So, flight!?!
In combat or disaster both may cause the flight response.
Only if it is not controlled, panic usually ensues.
So what happens if you can’t move as there is nowhere to go, or you can’t move at speed because of injury or disability, or to do so means leaving someone defenseless?

Having seen this happen, it’s quite eye-opening the various responses some people adopt.

  1. Some simply stand, some sit and slump, some even pray, all waiting their fate as fear and despair doesn’t only PARALYZE, IT KILLS.
  2. Others will at least try to move however they can.
    Some may make it, others get swept up.
    At least they tried. Again PANIC being bad for considered thought.
  3. Some may try to fight. Occasionally they will survive.
    If you can’t run, and surrender isn’t an option, what do you have to lose?
    Remember this:-
    It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog, and attackers don’t like it when people fight back as they may incur damage or harm.
    After that it’s down to who is the most committed, you or them.
  4. Some go to ground in the confusion pretending to be dead, others try to conceal themselves. Again, some do survive.
    Only do you know what a sweep is?
    That’s when you walk through an area where you do not know if all the enemy is dead.
    Thus two center mass or one though the head (if ammo is in short supply), or a bayonet usually determines the truth. Curiously kicks don’t! A few will know the folly of turning a body over. One word, BOOM!
  5. As for the decision to leave someone?
    Some take a split second decision, others work to a plan previously agreed.
    Decisions taken at speed usually ends up with repenting at leisure.
    That’s not good because guilt and remorse ‘clouds the mind’.
    So make it plain before the event.
    “If you can’t move under your own steam you may be left behind”.
    It does help some by focusing their minds.

Someone close once told me this:-
In war and life, some will live and some will die before their time.
That’s not up to you, God calls it.
If you have to leave someone, do it with a clear mind as you need to survive.
If only to revenge the fallen.
That and the cost of “No man left behind” can be counted in the bodies of heroes.

Posted in prepping, survival | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Macron on his way out?

On one hand you had Marine Le Pen whose aim was to save France.
On the other hand you have the darling of the NWO (French Division), plus the French sheeple who voted for him who have only just realized what they voted into power.

Hundreds of thousands of protesters marched through French cities in anger at Emmanuel Macron’s controversial labour code reform – but the president’s team is refusing to back down. CGT, France’s second biggest union, organized more than 180 marches and 4,000 strikes. The head of CGT, said between “450,000 and 500,000 people” had taken to the streets of France to protest against the planned labor law reforms yesterday.

So what! You voted him in. You’re stuck with him.
However, didn’t you lot have something called the French Revolution.
History has a habit of repeating itself.

Posted in multicultural, news | Tagged , , ,