Tag Archives: sneaky-beaky

One for the spotters

As a former pilot, I ought to loathe reggie-spotters.

There’s this airfield, y’see, just outside London, and there I was on final approach, with the trees and the sewage farm (there’s always one of these; it’s doubtless a CAA requirement; it was in Those Magnificent Men, so it must be) safely behind me, and only the road across the runway threshold, with its low fences, between me and another ‘performance landing’.

And there was a reggie-spotter, his car pulled up on the road, and he himself standing exactly on the runway centreline. With a child on his shoulders, neatly lined up for today’s propeller decapitation incident.

Regrettably the Cessna is not equipped, as was the very desirable Il-2, with a reinforced propeller, and so I was obliged to throttle up, flap up and climb away for a go-around. Also lacking cannon and PTABs I was then obliged to land normally rather than go looking for the idiot’s now-departed car (ideally this would be done in pairs, two Il-2s making repeated opposing and very low firing passes across the road, the tactic being allegedly due originally to anarchist leader Nestor Makhno, who also invented the tachanka or fast maxim-gun cart with which it was first done in the early 1920s, and called nozhnytsi, ‘scissors’).

However since I stopped flying I have become a little less unsympathetic to this curious breed. It’s not fair to call them walts, as the Army might; they’re not frustrated pilots at all. More like frustrated air-traffic controllers, if anything. Like the train spotters, they only want to know.

“They can’t take what we know, can they?” [Gibson & Sterling: The Difference Engine]

The spotters were embarrassingly correct about the CIA’s ‘special rendition’ flights in and out of the UK, and have also exposed a number of other aeronautical shenanigans.

In that category I would place this. In summary, secret flights are delivering migrants to minor German airports in the dead of night; East Midlands airport is also mentioned in this context.

Night flights in poor conditions obviously tax the skills and resources of the spotter to the limit, but I know that our boys (I’ve never met a female one) will rise to the occasion. There’s all that new gadgetry to test, after all, and we mustn’t forget the DIYSIGINT community who so diligently record the outrage of ‘special’ pilots at ATCOs who ‘don’t know who I am’.

Answers on a postcard, please.

Advertisements

Come, come, come, court lady; doomed like a moth, through palace rooms shady…

[Dame Edith Sitwell: Black Mrs. Behemoth, from Façade]

Back to the bloody awful BBC. It emerges that the greedy parasites now want licence fees from all those people who watch telly on their electronic tag ‘connected device’. This doesn’t surprise me even slightly.

The Guardian says that

There has been extensive and wild speculation about how the BBC intends to enforce the new rules

Darn tootin’ there has, with all kinds of speculation about internet surveillance and other underhand goings-on.

But then it says

The BBC has long had powers to carry out targeted surveillance on those it thinks are dodging the licence fee under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which is used by other organisations including the police. That means it’s far more likely to be someone with a set of binoculars peering in your window to catch you watching iPlayer (which is authorised through Ripa) than some high-tech solution for tapping into your internet connection (which isn’t authorised by anything).

Now who says there ain’t no Santa Claus?

There has been no television here for over a decade, and a computer fixer regularly checks that the BBC iPlayer has not ‘accidentally’ installed itself on any of the computers. There is nothing to ‘detect’. Nobody watches the BBC here, because the BBC is infantile, patronising crap, and you get much better news from the bloody Russians.

However, all this ‘detection’ was only ever bullshit. They simply assume that everyone’s watching their tacky prolefeed, and that any address without a licence necessarily contains an ‘evader’.

This one doesn’t. It contains one of their worst enemies, who has spent much of the weekend taking steps to address security matters. You know, those things we don’t discuss in Parliament.

Previously I have received threatening letters from TV Licensing, and have done them the kindness of calling them, and having the same little ritual conversation:

“There is no licence at this address because I do not watch television, and do not in fact have any equipment capable of receiving it.”

“We will send someone to search your house for equipment.”

“They will not be admitted without a search-warrant. In any case, possession of equipment is not legally controlled, as you already know.”

[Pause]

“We will send someone anyway.”

“Do as you wish.”

They did send someone round, once. I was out. Now, of course, they will try to say (as they have for some time) that the mere possession of anything capable of displaying a TV picture (this includes £19.95 wristwatches nowadays) requires a licence; this is still a lie, and I am tired of their lies (which is why I won’t watch their news). In future I will not respond in any way to their stimuli.

So now when they try sending goons to the door I’ll have some cameras and mikes set up (having been in the trade always helps) to stream their ‘orrible likenesses straight to a server outside Five Eyes jurisdiction (Russia, maybe; that would nark ’em).

Having also briefly been an actor (“Most people have heard of me…”), and having studied a bit of field-expedient psychology, and being now a pathetic specimen of a medical wreck, it will be my earnest endeavour to tease and bait their gormless thugs into brushing me aside and forcibly entering the house with a view to searching it for computers.

At which point my lawyer makes her entrance, and someone has to book a court. And invite the proper news services, from decent countries.

Then again, according to the newspaper they might send someone to try watching through the windows. There are already two TV simulators running (from LidL; damn good), to deter burglars, so they might well work as bait. The window blinds actually work and so there is no chance of confirming that these are not a real TV without trying to analyse the light output.

Of course in order to observe the back of the house they’d have to enter either my garden or one of my neighbours’, and at that point the real fun would start. My father used to keep things in his garden shed which had been banned by the United Nations; that was then and this is now, but, like Gunnery Sgt. Hartmann says, “It is the hard heart that kills.”

They could, of course, run to the police and a magistrate for a search-warrant. But will the police take away all my computers, further to overload their already desperate computer forensics department? Will they, in fact, be able to find them all? There are dozens, some no bigger than matchboxes. Will the already strained police budget and patience extend to acting as borrowed muscle for shaven-headed, tattooed, bomber-jacket-wearing Capita/TVL enforcers? I think perhaps not.

So I defy the BBC and the entire hierarchy of tyranny which it represents. Bring it. Bring it all. You’ll be very disappointed, and if you are found here tonight – you will be found here tomorrow.

 

 

All mouth and trousers

There is a story in Russia Today about how MI5 use a panel of experts (as, no doubt, would the BBC) to determine whether or not someone is going to become a ‘lone wolf terrorist’.

I had to read this story several times before I could persuade myself to believe it. Of course it might just be yet more security-theatre piffle. Then again the temptation to shovel public money at the index-linked pensions of the usual suspects must have been strong.

Citing the Sunday Times, RT says:

People selected for surveillance are chosen through intelligence gathered from the agency’s network of informants, as well as from the public.

The experts then search for signs of unusual activity such as an “increasing sense of grievance, a desire to acquire skills and tactics – an attempt to identify material for their plans and logistical practice and trial runs… it takes some doing to go from talking about carrying out a violent act like killing to actually doing it.”

Well, all I can say is that they’re dealing with very, very soft targets.

Of course it is true that the usual worthless Muslim youths are likely to brag on social media before committing atrocities, and that many are ‘all mouth and trousers’. However.

Anyone competent will always have used the regular internet, if they have ever used it at all, to create an impression of themselves as someone completely boring and ordinary. They will obtain the information they need using other means. They will never carry a cellphone of any kind. They will not draw attention to themselves by using Tor or realtime encryption. They will endeavour to become so trusted that they are allowed to approach their target unchallenged. And so forth.

The problem being that if this story is not merely bullshit MI5 will soon (being a publicly funded agency operating in secret and without any testable supervision) become so lazy as to rely entirely upon Muslim terrorists announcing their intentions on social media, and will make no effort to deal with those of any greater sophistication.

To whom the only response conceivably effective would be a personal firearm, drawn, aimed and fired only after the bloody savage has yelled “Allahu…”, but preferably before he can finish yelling “Akhbar!”.

We need fire extinguishers despite having a fire brigade.

We need first aid boxes despite having an ambulance service.

We need personal firearms despite having a police force.

 

Feds Blunder In

It is being reported that the FBI seem to have sent a ‘deep black’ operative, complete with auld-lang-syne faked death and numberless gun, to assassinate Donald Trump.

Everyone says that the FBI likes Hillary; this of course because, like its gloomy-looking secret agent, she has one of those potato faces, and doesn’t sweat very much. J. Edgar had preferences.

Trump was of course elsewhere at the time, so it’s a moot point exactly who would have stopped a 9mm from Agent Bush’s silenced Glock had the clumsy oaf not been seized by security while allegedly fooling around with the service elevators. Perhaps, like Sherlock Holmes, Trump leaves silhouetted in a window a superb waxwork of himself, to be carefully turned every quarter of an hour, as bait for wannabe assassins.

Now everyone also says that it was the FBI who either (a) had JFK shot and/or (b) carefully looked the other way while somebody else shot him, so the question naturally arises of who they actually thought was riding through Dallas on that day.