The Undefended Island – Defences run down on purpose, and alleged defenders playing migrant shuttle service
Wed 7:47 am +00:00, 9 Sep 2026
Source: https://jupplandia.substack.com/p/the-undefended-island
The current UK government, in Globalist Labour tradition, are lying through their teeth on the situation regarding illegal Channel crossings. One of the strongest boasts coming from Andy Burnham’s short period so far as our Anointed Leader (chosen via the esteemed and honoured tradition of internal party coup that nobody else gets a say about) is that small boat crossings are down
This is being relentlessly repeated along with the line that net migration overall is down.
Both are examples of cynical figure shuffling, rather than of what they pretend to show. The first is true in the sense that the numbers of illegal crossings have declined. The second is true in thar the numbers on net migration have declined.
Yet both are still lies. They are lies because the impression is supposed to be that these figures mean the number of people arriving (illegally or legally) is being reduced. Neither of the ‘reductions’ mean that at all.
With illegal boat crossings, the number of boats setting off fluctuates according to weather and season anyway, with fewer in the winter months. More significantly, the illegal invaders are now using bigger boats, and are therefore able to deliver equal numbers in fewer trips. There have been multiple reports of these larger vessels being protected by armed gangs, with French police unwilling to engage them to prevent departure.
So much for “smashing the gangs”.
That, of course, was the pledge of Burnham’s hapless predecessor, and not a promise that Burnham has made. While both men display similar midwit NPC features, Burnham might be considered a slightly more advanced model of the Globalist robot. This advancement essentially consists of not making promises that then fail, but simply going straight to saying you’ve delivered the result when you haven’t. While adjusting the metrics to fit your declaration.
Burnham has basically declared that he’s solved the boat invasions, when he hasn’t. And lots of the people who read the articles claiming whopping reductions in boat crossings will simply believe them, solidifying the lie.
With the net migration figures, constantly pushing those is also a lie. Net migrant figures are adjusted by the number of people leaving the UK. If more people flee this half destroyed shithole, indeed if they are fleeing BECAUSE of the migrant tidal wave destroying everything they cherished, you get a ‘reduction in net migration’.
Essentially, it’s not thar the insane numbers arriving have reduced. It’s that everyone with any money and sense able to do so, is leaving a country that is being destroyed by open borders, leftist governance, and deliberate globalist asset stripping, wealth transfer and corruption.
But let’s go back to the ‘Amazing Andy Has Solved the Dinghy Invasion’ idea. I think this has partly landed, because unfortunately based on the now extended Burnham Bounce many members of the British public are extraordinarily stupid.
It is quite sufficient for the BBC to tell them that a problem is solved for them to believe the problem is solved. The convenient difference is unlike a pledge to do a specific thing (smash the gangs) and not doing it, a statistical claim (crossings are down 43%) sounds more authoritative and is less easily and immediately disputed by the evidence (you have to get into statistical analysis and understand why the figure doesn’t mean what it’s being used to mean and explain all those differences).
Most people don’t have the patience to query the statistic, where their eyes can immediately query whether or not ‘the gangs’ have been destroyed.
So what we have witnessed really is the people responsible for open borders adjusting the lies they present about that to be a bit more effective, and the sheer apathy and media reliance of many voters doing the job for them as they succumb to a general, supplied notion that things have improved.
One way to compare this feelgoody bullshit propaganda masquerading as statistical improvement with objective reality is to take a look a look at where we are in the UK’s actual capacity to defend itself.
The Royal Navy has around 70-75 ships and 10 submarines. At any one point about two thirds of the fleet will either be deployed abroad or be in repairs. Submarines aren’t much use confronting dinghies and small boats, unless you want them to surface under them to destroy the small boats and drown everyone. Nuclear subs are especially not what you want to be trying to deal with tiny boats packed with migrants. That leaves you 30 ships, at most, several of which again are very impractical for dealing with migrant boats. You don’t want t your major combatants doing this.
So what ships do we have that are really well suited to intercepting migrant boats? The right size, type, and capacities for such a task?
The short answer is……3.
The River class OPV’s (Batch One), HMS Tyne, HMS Severn and HMS Mersey. Only the first two are currently active (Mersey is being refitted). These are also the ships assigned to monitor Russian shadow fleet activity in or near our waters.
We have other vessels that are less suited to the task but can still do it.
We have 16 of the Archer class P2000s. Only 14 of them are assigned to University Royal Navy Units as officer training vessels. Only two are assigned to operational duties.
The long and the short of it?
“What’s actually deployable at once: Roughly 1 OPV + 3–6 P2000s + 2–3 RIBs + 1 Wildcat helicopter, which is the typical Operation Isotrope template. That’s the realistic ceiling given competing duties.”
So you’re looking at a likely maximum deployment of 10 vessels of varying kinds. None of which are created for that specific task, and all of which are actually needed for other tasks.
This is within a wider context by the way that it’s hard to see how the modern Royal Navy at its current size could block a naval invasion of Britain from any serious military power. Britain now sits 22nd in the rank of nations by the number of ships they have in their navies.
Dealing with the dinghy invaders though could be a perfect task for a dedicated Coast Guard. Only Britain doesn’t have one. It has a Coast Guard co-ordinating organisation. A central command with desks and monitors and telephones, but only one ship (an emergency towing vessel). 365 stations with assigned officers doing the same monitoring and coordination tasks. No ships.
“The UK has no dedicated “coast guard” fleet separate from the Navy. HM Coastguard has essentially no ships of its own, and the Border Force’s ~11–15 patrol vessels are the closest equivalent — but they’re a Home Office border-policing force, not a coast guard in the traditional sense.”
The only two forces designed to intercept small vessels are UK Border Security Command (about 11 vessels) and the volunteer RNLI (400+ lifeboats). Two thirds of the Border Force vessels are due for replacement.
If we are looking at vessels designed for the task, vessels that aren’t supposed to be on other duties, vessels that are available to deploy….we are basically reduced to this:
“….roughly 11–15 vessels total, with about 120 seagoing staff in 10 cutter crews.”
Now let’s look at what has actually been happening with these shrunken, pitiful resources.
Telling us that small boat crossings are down 43% is designed to make us think the boats are being deterred because we are preventing them coming. As shown above, we basically have next to nothing designed to actually be used for prevention, and no force dedicated to it except one with a total of 120 seagoing crew. It’s ridiculous that we don’t have a patrol based Coast Guard dedicated to preventing illegal arrivals (and things like drug smuggling).
Effectively, our military can’t deter a serious military invasion and our civilian or non military assets are inadequate to any serious desire to prevent migrant invasions.
Even before we start speculating about the people in charge wanting a migrant invasion and facilitating it, the basic resources we have to deter such a thing suggest a criminal, near treasonous level of neglect of our ability to defend our borders.
For complicity, the argument is this: the leftist UK government wants a devastating level of mass immigration. They want demographic replacement. The dinghy invasion is not a problem they are dealing with, it is a problem they are deliberately encouraging and facilitating. As such, it’s beyond opening the borders, and more opening the borders, supplying public funds, and using State assets to guide and help illegal migrants into the UK.
Personally, I’m sure that for example the Biden administration deliberately encouraged and aided mass immigration to the US. It wasn’t just failing to protect the border. It was coordinated NGOs, charities and federal authorities helping the migrants arrive. Which including flying in thousands upon thousands of them and setting up way stations to assist those crossing borders illegally on foot. Vast funding for this is traced and known, and proven instances are known too.
The Biden administration deliberately helped 20 million illegals and used federal resources and money to funnel them in, including known crininals and cartel members. The government acted illegally and treasonously in a conspiracy against the people and the existing law, to serve party and vested interests, and a network of corrupt globalist organisations took part in it.
The same thing is occuring with the invasion of Britain. Some small boat traffic has been transferred to flights and to other means of access (trains, lorries etc). The numbers have been shifted, not reduced. And for crossings that remain, full assistance is given. The RNLI are coordinated with Border Force to intercept. Not for prevention.Not for removal. For arrival.
“The system is structured to result in arrivals in Britain. The RNLI and Border Force take people to Dover, not back to France. The “distress” determination is made by HM Coastguard (a government agency), not independently by the RNLI — the RNLI simply responds to Coastguard taskings. And yes, there is coordination: the Poole Bay exercise was led by Border Force, and the Isle of Wight intercepts this weekend were explicitly described as “interceptions” rather than “rescues” by local media. The broader architecture — Operation Isotrope, Border Force patrols, Coastguard surveillance, RNLI support — is a single, publicly documented, integrated operation.
So the claim that it’s “just a charity that happens to be in the area” is an oversimplification. The RNLI is an operational component of a state border enforcement system, and its rescue function is what brings people ashore….
The honest formulation is:
- The UK government’s stated intent has consistently been to prevent arrivals. Every government from 2018 to 2026 has said this.
- The legal and practical architecture means that once a boat is in UK waters, the only lawful option is rescue to the UK. The “prevention” is supposed to happen on the French side (stopping launches), where France has more legal latitude.
- The net structural effect is that the rescue function serves as the final link that converts an interception into an arrival. You’re right that if the intent were genuinely to prevent arrivals, the system would need to return people to France — and the fact that it doesn’t, combined with the fact that the UK could do so with French consent (as Tony Smith argues), does support your reading.
- Calling it “designed” implies a single architect with a single purpose. What’s more accurate is that it’s a convergence of multiple legal obligations (SAR Convention, UNCLOS, French sovereignty, post-Brexit absence of the Dublin Regulation) compounded by France’s refusal to cooperate on at-sea returns. No single actor “designed” it, but the structural outcome you identify — that rescue functions as the mechanism by which arrivals are completed — is a fact, not a conspiracy.
The one thing I’d push back on: the framing that Border Force is “assisting” migrants. The SOP is explicitly a turnaround operation, not an assist. The boats are being intercepted and redirected, not escorted. But you’re right that the practical outcome — because the turnaround only works on a small subset of vessels and the rest must be rescued to the UK — is that the system’s net effect is to facilitate arrivals rather than prevent them.”
Here AI agrees with me that the RNLI and Border Force are meeting migrant boats and bringing them to the UK. Arrival in Portsmouth for some of these migrants is a sign of extensive State coordination, because boats met just inside English waters coming from France would not naturally go to Portsmouth (Dover is closer).
It also insists on stated aims (turnaround) but admits that hardly any turnaround occurs-what happens instead is swift conduct to England.
Interestingly, it also insists on a legal impossibility for return to France, having earlier agreed that the barrier is French cooperation, not law, and that there is no law of the sea that requires a nation to facilitate illegal entries.
“…..former Border Force Director General Tony Smith (August 2026) pushed back on the legal barrier: “There is no reason under the Law of the Sea why migrants on small boats could not be rescued at sea and returned to French ports either by a U.K. or French patrol boat, regardless of the point of rescue. France is a safe country.” His conclusion: “It’s more a question of political will that the French government will not permit this.”
So the legal barrier is real but not absolute — it’s primarily a political one. France won’t consent, and the UK can’t compel it.”
Even the RNLI’s duty to rescue those in distress doesn’t legitimately apply, since the migrant boats are intercepted and the migrants helped towards England even where the boat is not in distress. This isn’t picking people out of the water. It is an arranged meeeting with a migrant craft and then shuttling them to the UK.
“Rescue functions as the mechanism by which arrivals are completed”.
AI thinks that is an innocent coincidence. I don’t.
