Immigration and Intelligence - part 2

Following on from my earlier piece, I now turn more attention towards the role of the "intelligence" "services":

Another article, this time published in the Independent, and on the same day as the Times piece (coincidence?) cited in the previous blog post, focuses on the work of MI5 seeking informants in the U.K. - by blackmail.

The long and the short of the article is that MI5 have been accused of seeing "informants" through blackmailing them. Numerous British Nationals have alleged that they were approached by MI5 and told to cooperate otherwise they would be designated as terrorists.

Not only does MI5/6 have form on doing this both inside and outside the UK, it appears in fact to be their regular modus operandi for terrorist related investigations within the U.K. It seems MI5/6 don't mind who they chew up and spit out, especially if defending an innocent person (and a voluntary asset no less), would mean crossing the CIA. Pathetic.

A quote here from a related Independent article highlights my own thinking on the matter:

A spokesman for the Muslim Public Affairs Committee said: "MI5's entrapment methods are completely counter-productive. We are constantly trying to sell the idea of liberal democracy to young Muslims but when the security services act like this, it makes our job very difficult. Either MI5 are out of control or the Government has sanctioned this kind of behaviour. Either way we would like a full inquiry to uncover whether this sort of behaviour is being backed by the Government."

A question I have to ask is: If the Home Office, with at least some public and overt oversight is so mind-numbingly incompetent - in fact, scarily so - then what of the completely secret, unaccountable "Intelligence" "services"?

It is important to note that one of the reasons that we get to hear about these cases is that even MI5/6 grunts get sick of it and break ranks and brief the broadsheets anonymously:

"[The agents] fear they will be hung out to dry. This is not the first time that field agents have been made to carry the can even when there is a paper trail all the way to the top authorising the action and conduct of the agents," said the source.

They seem to be very bothered by people who are already British nationals, and in many cases born and raised here. The stream of fresh immigrants coming in on student visas via fake institutions though seem to get a free pass. While it is the case that the July 7th bombers were British nationals (though not quite so "invisible" to the "Intelligence" "Services" as we were led to believe), there is a prima facie case for being much more concerned about random individuals who enter the UK in their thousands with no traceable background whatsoever.

I feel obliged to ask what it is the "Intelligence" "services" actually achieve in real terms. Several cases they have gone public with have turned into farcical nonsense, such as the Ricin ring that wasn't and the recent raid on some Pakistanis here on student visas. Whilst I welcome the focus on people entering the country on student visas it seems too little, too late. Just querying the Home Office's CID system (for borders and immigration) in a smart way can yield a lot of information:

An anonymous commentator on Part 1 of this blog confirmed my own experiences and reminded me to note the fact that using the 'CID' system, one would often find the same address being used by many of these people. This was a fairly regular occurrence. Not only that but many would also share family names. So it was clear that many of the suspect educational establishments were being used to help bring entire families into the country. That this simple information never seemed to make it to "intelligence", resulting in appropriate raids and investigations still boggles my mind.

Immigration whistleblower, Steve Moxon, whatever you think of some of his other views, was right on many things where the Home Office is concerned. There is no other way to describe the immigration and borders agency as anything but so reckless, if you were able to truly grasp the extent of it your brain would bleed through your ears. One thing that was particularly apparent was how the organisation appeared to be very responsive to the tabloids. This was another piece of vein-bursting idiocy for me and was probably the final nail in the coffin securing my desire to resign.

There seemed to be a - roughly - three month cycle. For three months caseworkers would be whipped to focus on "quality" - this meant actually spending a more appropriate amount of time on each case. Although in practice this probably amounted to no more than an extra half hour per case, it did at least give the caseworker more time to check the validity of documents and institutions (assuming they had the desire to - there was no real requirement to do this!!). Suddenly a tabloid would report that there was a backlog of 1000s of applications waiting to be processed. Lo and behold, caseworkers were then told to throw "quality" out the window and get as many through as possible, with the most minimal of checks. Applications that I wouldn't spit on would be waved through. In these cycles, caseworkers were expected to process - to completion - an average of 6-8 cases per day. Now just how much time to scrutinise documents and particulars (and in particular, write out for more information) do you think this allowed? Not much - less than an hour per application in fact. And that includes all the time needed to write out and print all the necessary documentation and log the details onto CID.

After a few months of this, another tabloid headline would pop up, screaming (rightly) about lots of inappropriate applications getting through. Back to "quality" again. Rinse and repeat.

Now if you remember I mentioned the list of "approved" educational institutions had gone down from 15,000 to 1,540. Aside from the fact that it is just a tad fucking late to have done this, in what format do you think this - much more comprehensively vetted - list is to be found?

It's in the form of a shared excel spreadsheet.

You read that right. A fucking excel spreadsheet. The possible security of this nation rests on that list. (Oh, and never mind the fact that for years, more than 13,000 dodgy institutions were able to ship people through the system......)

Now I might be revealing too much here. Enough to get me in trouble certainly. In fact officials might want to have a word with me. Well fuck them. I'd welcome it in fact, because I have a few questions of my own.

Let's start with the assessment of other intelligence agencies shall we?

According to one former CIA operative, the UK is "an Islamist swamp". This is so serious that 40 percent of "CIA activity designed to prevent a new terrorist spectacular on American soil is now directed at targets in the UK."

"Britain is not part of the problem, Britain is the problem"

Now, do you think this may have a teeny-weeny bit to do with having - oh - 13,000 odd extremely suspect institutions fast tracking immigration applicants through a system that isn't fit to capture whale sperm?

It gets better. From a more recent piece:

""The British Pakistani community is recognised as probably al-Qaeda's best mechanism for launching an attack against North America.....The Americans run their own assets in the Pakistani community; they get their own intelligence. There's close cooperation with MI5 but they don't tell us the names of all their sources." [My emphasis]

So, at risk of snarling eachother's operations, the Americans won't risk revealing their sources to MI5. So we have a foreign power blatantly conducting massive operations on British soil, our major ally, and they are not willing to share this information with us. Could it be because they too have sussed that the British "Intelligence" "Services" and "Borders" and Immigration Agency are not fit to monitor a fucking ant-hill?

Hmmm....as if that wasn't enough, if Her Majesty's government deign to come knocking at my door, I have another tranche of questions to ask them:

The British end of the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network.

In January 2008, the Sunday Times ran a front page story on ex-FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds. It was the first time a mainstream British publication had touched Sibel's story in such a prominent manner. Importantly, Edmonds' testimony not only highlighted some important British links in the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network, the Times also independently confirmed parts of her testimony through their own anonymous intelligence sources. They also did three follow up pieces. Edmonds had originally gone to the Times in frustration at the U.S. MSM's unwillingness to deal with her story. She had promised to reveal everything she knew to any of the U.S. MSM major news outlets, even to the point of seriously risking either prison, or a fatal visit in the night, on the promise that they would air her testimony unedited.

No one stepped up to the plate, so she approached the British media. The Times did a fairly extensive piece of coverage on Sibel's evidence. Whilst this initial article covered material that had already been revealed previously, it was the first time it had such high brow exposure here. I was expecting a flurry of media activity to follow on a Maddie madness scale. I was amazed and couldn't wait to see the rest of the British MSM take up the story and chase down all those juicy leads to British angles.

I was to be bitterly disappointed because other than a couple of minor comment pieces, the British MSM more or less wussed out - again.

This left me determined to fill the gap myself, so I immersed myself into research in the area - specifically the British links, for a year. This resulted in my having an article published on the matter in December 2008, which really only scratched the surface. At some point this year I plan to put everything online so there is a single authoritative source on the British side to the sordid story.

Now here is where it gets interesting. The two most prominent British nationals assisting the Khan network were father and son team, Peter and Paul Griffin. A few years prior to the Times story on Edmonds, the Griffins had won libel cases against both the Guardian and the BBC for suggesting that they were directly linked to the proliferation network.

This was amazing because not only did the 2005 Customs investigation into Peter Griffin confirm, in lurid detail, his direct association with Khan himself and intimate familiarity with the network's activities, but very recently, the U.S. added both Peter and Paul Griffin to the international Terrorist wanted list in association with the Khan network.

And yet, to the best of my knowledge Peter is still sunning himself, unharassed, in France, and Paul is still active in Britain. I find this nothing short of astonishing. I can think of nothing other than the darkest explanations, involving certain people in the British establishment having some serious 'splaining to do.

So, if Her Majesty's government want to chase me about revealing information about our laughing-stock-of-the-world and terrorist's paradise immigration system, well please do. I've got just as many questions for you you bunch of corrupt incompetent fucktards.

This issue incenses me so much I am currently seriously considering tracking down Paul and possibly also Peter Griffin (the former is more within my means) and carrying out a citizens arrest on camera and forcibly taking either or both of them to the nearest police station to face charges of conspiracy and treason, among other things. So - here goes another invite - Peter, or Paul, if you get wind of this you're welcome to take me on for libel. Please. I've got very little to lose. What about you and your establishment pals?


Adult debate on immigration in the UK simply isn't possible. Combining it with discussing the work of the "Intelligence" "Services" is strictly verboten. Not the least because "open borders" morlocks will immediately shut down debate by referring to you as a "right wing reactionary" or other such nonsense. I'm all for open borders at some point in the future. There's a long path between here and there though, including some mighty intractable problems involving economics, politics and demographics that have to be dealt with first. Before even discussing reform of the immigration system people should be clearly aware that it is not only unfit for purpose, it facilitates the entry of criminals and terrorists into the country, whilst our wonderful "intelligence" "services" appear to focus on British nationals, possibly manufacturing a few new radicals along the way.

In the meantime, our "intelligence", "customs and excise" and "immigration" "services" are completely farcical and somehow seem to end up serving the interests of the terrorists rather than those of the population they are supposed to be protecting. Even the dubious American intelligence agencies don't want to be seen hanging around with them any more.

What gives?

Immigration and Intelligence - a view from the inside

Two front page articles caught my eye today, bringing together a number of issues that make my blood boil with eye watering intensity.

They both concern - in their own particular ways - the issues of immigration and the "work" of the intelligence services. I'll go through each article in turn then link them together towards the end.

"Shame Colleges"
First, today's Times front page: "Sham colleges opened door to terror suspects". Now if you aren't already aware of the internal intricacies of our wonderful Borders and Immigration Agency, let me enlighten you. In summary - the agency is not fit for fucking purpose. Having worked there (and resigned in disgust) I can give you a tour de force of the colossal shortcomings and mind numbing idiocracy that it is.

First I'll give you a few tidbits from the numerous articles on the subject in today's Times. Be warned, when you read parts of it your eyes might bleed:

The Times has been given evidence from a database listing every student admitted and every diploma and certificate that was sold. It records how the eight terror suspects and more than 1,000 others were given letters designed to fool the Home Office, Inland Revenue, banks and local authorities into believing they were students.

The implication here is that the documents would have to be pretty impressive to fool such sterling organisations, such pillars of Her Majesty's State, right? Wrong.

The fact of the matter is that it is indescribably easy to "fool" them. Any supposed "checks" are laughable and - often - circular in nature (checking a source of information that is already shoddy beyond belief - like the DfES Register, but we'll get back to that shortly). Take the Home Office for example (by this the Times means the Borders and Immigration Agency). The assessment of official documents from "official" educational institutions goes like this - do they look "kind of" legitimate? Yep. That's it. Even certificates and "official documents" with glaring spelling errors get let through. It gets better - if any one of the British organs of state (lets say either the Home Office, or Inland Revenue) has waved its magic wand over said documents then they're given legitimacy in the eyes of the other organs of state. So if someone casually gives a document a once-over at the Home Office and thinks it looks OK and isn't TOO shoddy, the Inland Revenue will also give it a pass. With me so far?

Now comes the amazing, the incredible, the bread and butter of British intelligence work - the DfES register. It was compulsory that in each application, the Immigration Caseworker checked that the institution applied to by the "student" was on the register. If it was, then all was well. It didn't matter whether it sounded dodgier than a dossier on WMDs, whether the institution couldn't even spell "University", whether it was a course in something like "a BA(Hons) in Puppeteering" (I kid you not), nor did it matter if it had an incredibly unlikely name like any of the following:

- Bradford College of Professional Studies
- Oxford College of Management Sciences (in Manchester)
- Cambridge Colleged of Advance Studies (in Dagenham). (Yes that's "advance", not "advanced" - a very common spelling mistake in the names of these institutions that nevertheless didn't hinder inclusion on the fantastic DfES register).

I queried what the requirements were for being on the register. Apparently the only deal breaker was if it didn't have sufficient fire exits. Everything else was effectively negotiable, many "institutions" never even received an inspection, never mind check the "teachers" were qualified.

What is surely incredible is that so many actual, legitimate educational institutions in the UK, such as Liverpool John Moores University would take any of this shit seriously and allow students to enrol on their courses on the basis of documents provided by these, shadier than Michael Howard, institutions. Try this for size, for example:

Diplomas and attendance records in the name of other colleges were also printed and sold, often to provide a "history" to account for missing years during a student's time in the UK. The men invented the grandly named, Dublin-based Greenford University.

This mythical seat of learning proceeded to accredit Manchester College of Professional Studies with a bewildering range of undergraduate and postgraduate honours courses that its few employees had no authority - let alone the capacity - to teach.

Manchester College of Professional Studies was also affiliated with Blackpool University, again based in Dublin established "under the order of the King of Belgium" and licensed by the Accreditation Council of Higher Education (ACHE).

All of which might sound impressive until one learns that ACHE is based in Wallis and Futuna, and island group in the South Pacific.

Finally, the college also posed as a study centre for the University of Newcastle, which is really the online University of New Castle, incorporated "in the sate (sic) of Delaware", and, like Blackpool University, accredited by a group of South Pacific islands.

Now I ask you dear reader, at which point in the above quote did you begin to experience absolute incredulity? I think if I hadn't worked at this POS institution I would have been so incredulous as to have become unconscious before I even read the last paragraph - having resulted from bashing my head against the desk until I reached the nirvana of Oblivion. Major, well known, Universities have accepted documents validated such as those above for years. For thousands of applicants, who as a result have been able to extend their stay in the UK. Many of these people have been able to extend their stay for a sufficient period of time to apply for citizenship. All on the basis of some incredibly shoddy fraudulent documents.

And it only takes one batch of these documents to get you in. After that, you're laughing.

As the Times articles details, one of the hucksters who set up one of these institutions wrote letters and documents to give himself qualifications. Its even more of a breeze to write fake attendance records and glowing references for your pals from Swat Valley.

Oh, didn't I mention that bit? That's right, through this secure system of assessment hundreds of applicants have arrived, and remained, in the UK who originated in the Taleban and Al Queda hotbeds of North Western Pakistan. And these are just hundreds from this one network of scams that the Times has exposed.

So here's one of the points I really really want to drive home: These kind of institutions, scams and applications were (and probably still are) the norm at the Home Office. < -- Read that again.

I estimate on a good day perhaps one in ten of the applications I dealt with actually involved a British educational institution I knew was legitimate. The rest all had names very similar to those three listed above. Complete with equally laughable documentary evidence.

But it was all OK, the DfES register said it was OK. The Home Office gave its seal of approval. And that was that.

I don't think many people (especially those mentalist "no borders" people) really, truly, realise just how utterly shoddy and mind numbingly incompetent the nation's border control is. I laughed hard when I realised that many people labour under the illusion that the Home Office keeps track of all these applicants. It doesn't. Very often no one even realises someone has overstayed unless that put in a fresh application. Which of course isn't a problem as long as you can stump up the several hundred quid for the visa, your local friendly "institute of advance studies", or "Oxbridge college of professional studies" can just fake all the relevant documentation for you.

Points based system

Supposedly the new system - only just put in place - is much better. The Times refers to a major aspect of this change - the list of valid institutions (they mean the DfES register) -

"At a stroke the number of approved colleges fell from 15,000 to 1,540".

That's right folks. For years and years, the number of dodgy institutions providing a magic carpet for equally dodgy individuals to fly into the country has been approximately 13,460.

Thirteen thousand, four hundred and sixty!!

I could rest my case on that alone.

There's a lot more I want to say (and reveal) on this subject, however in the interests of getting this information out in a timely manner, I'll leave it there for now.