Cllr Steve Harden is the Shadow Cabinet Member for Environmental Services on Rushmoor Borough Council.

Where should councils draw the line between education and enforcement in our communities? Education has an important role to play, but without enforcement it is failing to protect the cleanliness of our country.

I have noticed a worrying decline over the last couple of years in the cleanliness of our nation’s streets. Most back alleys or local fields have some kind of fly-tip, or you find yourself walking through the woods and seeing a bag of dog mess that someone has flung into a bush. I really don’t understand why people make the effort to pick it up, bag it and then throw it into the closest bush when a perfectly good bin is waiting nearby. Everywhere you look, litter seems to fill our streets.

Since being elected as a councillor, I have carried out multiple litter picks with colleagues and local residents, but there are only so many times volunteers can pick up the same litter that magically appears a couple of days later in the exact same spot.

In a council meeting last year, I reviewed our local plan, which seemed to be littered with ways to get more volunteers involved, asking them to pick up the where Labour is failing. While across the county we support volunteers and are grateful for the work they do, how can it be fair that more services are cut while more is expected of people constantly cleaning up their area?

Of course, like many, I believe people should carry out social responsibility, helping to keep their area clean and reporting offenders. When it becomes a part-time job, we know we have an issue.

Nowhere can this be seen more than in my own borough, Rushmoor, where litter-pick teams are going across the borough cleaning up other people’s mess. However, a recent council meeting made me wonder: where do we draw the line between education and enforcement?

In Rushmoor, if you drop litter, you can be certain you will not receive a fine if spotted. Why? Because our Labour council has decided the focus should be on educating people, not enforcing. This isn’t a hidden policy at Rushmoor; at just our last council meeting, Labour councillors were proud to announce that no fines had been issued to offenders.

Now you may think that perhaps there aren’t the resources to enforce, but Rushmoor, alongside many councils in the country, has a dedicated enforcement team patrolling areas looking for offenders. While they “educate” litterers, more and more volunteers are called into action to pick up the slack. Enforcement is not anti-community; it supports the dedicated volunteers going out every day and the law-abiding majority. Let me be clear: this is not a criticism of volunteers, whose time, effort and commitment are invaluable, but of councils using goodwill as a substitute for proper enforcement.

Fly-tipping across the county is another major issue. Fly-tipping incidents in England are now at their highest recorded levels. I was pleased to see that the Conservatives are calling for legislation to come forward to increase the maximum fine, currently £1,000 for those caught. This would make a huge difference in our area, helping to reduce this fly-tipping plague.

Despite many councils needing to reduce cleanliness services in this year’s budget due to inflation, National Insurance rises and, in some cases, the “fair funding review”, Labour-run councils like ours seem to be focusing on schemes that give the illusion things are improving when reality says something different. Labour here in Rushmoor created a pilot scheme called Walk This Waste.

The idea was that a van would drive around Rushmoor asking people to carry their fridge freezer or oven to the van for removal. This scheme cost thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Worse still, the scheme failed to reduce fly-tipping and, in some instances, increased it. I suppose it was slightly better than their reported idea of placing skips on major roads through the borough.

I, for one, agree with educating people on keeping the borough clean, putting waste in the bin and not falling to the temptation to fling a poo bag into a bush (however strong that may be…). However, it must be done in conjunction with enforcement. I myself have worked with local schools and taken part in local litter picks with all ages, which does bring a great community spirit. However, if Labour continues to forget enforcement, sadly people will often take the easy option.

If we believe in pride in our country, then we must also believe in caring for it – and that is why Conservatives should be leading the call to clean up Britain.

What is Pharmacy First?

What are the conditions you can see a pharmacist for?

Just when you thought Keir Starmer couldn’t get any lower, he’s now using the death of his brother as a justification for cutting benefits.

Starmer puff piece in the Mirror

Writing exclusively for the Daily Mirror, Starmer shares that the “system failed” his brother. Starmer says that Nick, who died on Boxing Day 2024:

had difficulties learning when he was growing up. He spent much of his life drifting from job to job in real hardship.

The system didn’t work for him. There are millions in the same boat. Held back by a system that doesn’t work for them.

So you’d think, with this in mind, that Starmer would be pledging to do more for disabled people who struggle to keep a job or can’t work at all.

Instead, he pushes out a fluff piece totalling just 364 words that. Like most things that come out of Starmer’s mouth, it has absolutely no substance.

There’s also the fact that the Mirror gave the Prime Minister the space to publish this absolutely nothing article, just bigging himself up, when for the past week he’s been clinging onto Number 10 by his nails. It’s a highly suspect move for a supposedly working-class paper.

Using his dead disabled brother for sympathy

Despite his brother being a disabled man who, apparently, lived in poverty, Starmer’s little PR piece doesn’t mention disabled poor people at all.

Obviously, he has time to swipe at Reform, even though the Labour-run DWP is already implementing nearly all the things Reform proposed for benefits in their economic plan.

He also found space to brag about lifting the two-child cap, which he and ministers could’ve lifted a year and a half ago but instead chose party politics.

However, as the Canary has previously reported, lifting the two-child cap can’t be all the government does. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that if the government only relies on the child cap lifting and does little else, poverty will only fall by 1% by 2029.

It’s a bit rich that the prime minister is using his dead, poor disabled brother to gain support at a time when Labour threatens to leave millions more in the same position. Under Starmer’s Labour, the DWP plan to half Universal Credit “health” element for new claimants.

There are also longterm plans to move it over to PIP, despite the fact that PIP has nothing to do with being unemployed.

The government is also hell-bent on getting disabled people back into work, whether or not they actually can. And whilst they’re doing that, they’re gutting support for disabled people in work.

Why did his brother die poor when Starmer’s rich?

So it’s absolutely vile that Starmer is using his brother’s death to rehabilitate himself, whilst if he weren’t related to him, he’d sooner spit on him than help him.

But that’s what I can’t get my head around, because it makes no sense that his brother did die in “virtual poverty”. Starmer’s a millionaire for fucks sakes. Nick died at the end of 2024, but in the tax year leading up to April 2024 alone, Starmer made £152,225.

I know family can be stubborn and proud, but something isn’t adding up here. I’m not doubting that Starmer is grieving for his loved one, but if this is true, Starmer’s basically admitting he let his brother die poor.

But that says it all about the way Labour and Starmer see disabled people. Why should disabled people expect real, life-changing support, when they obviously just aren’t trying hard enough with the bare minimum. In Starmer’s world even his own family don’t deserve to live if they can’t jump through every hoop the DWP throws at them.

Featured image via the Canary

If former royal, and mate of serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was hoping for any public sympathy after his arrest this morning – on his birthday – he’s going to be sorely disappointed.

The family of Virginia Giuffre, Andrew’s most well-known victim, welcomed the arrest as a sign that no one is above the law:

At last, today, our broken hearts have been lifted at the news that no one is above the law, not even royalty,” Giuffre’s family said in the statement given to CBS News.

However, Windsor was arrested on suspicion of ‘misconduct in a public office’. Knowing the British state, this was more likely linked to his leaking of secrets to Epstein than his abuse of trafficked and potentially under-age girls. But the offence carries a potential life sentence, so there’s that.

Andrew gets birthday wishes

If sympathy is in short supply, mockery isn’t – and many were wishing Andy a delighted “happy birthday” – while also pointing out the vileness of him being arrested for passing info to the rapist instead of for his crimes against the victims:

Happy 66th birthday, Andrew.

Trafficking and sexual abuse allegations against Andrew — no arrest.

Alleged misconduct in public office? Arrest.

No wonder women don’t trust the police. pic.twitter.com/rUFSRLAmie

— Dr Charlotte Proudman (@DrProudman) February 19, 2026

Advertisement

Happy Birthday Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor pic.twitter.com/9R1Ixm0kIb

— Manxy (@Manxy) February 19, 2026

Happy Birthday Andrew you crock of shit! 🤣

— Mark Hopkins (@Hopperz1980) February 19, 2026

Just to wish Andrew a Happy 66th Birthday………. 👀 pic.twitter.com/BFLIaueIp1

— Peter Hulbert (@Peterhulbert195) February 19, 2026

Happy 66th birthday Andrew! May you rot in prison for what you did to those kids! Evil bastard! pic.twitter.com/cli4SSFhSc

— 👑LMJ👑 (@Jonsey_8) February 19, 2026

Advertisement

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been arrested after a complaint about sharing confidential material with Epstein.

Here. We. Go.

If Britain can arrest a Royal, the US should get it together and arrest Trump and every other person involved with Epstein’s child trafficking ring pic.twitter.com/e7XCiSvF2c

— Kelly (@broadwaybabyto) February 19, 2026

And of course, it didn’t take long before AI was eagerly used to imagine the scene:

Happy birthday ex Prince Andrew 🥳🎈🥳 pic.twitter.com/hwldcaN8jI

— Jackson2244 (@PatriotWoman22) February 19, 2026

Happy Birthday to the jailed prince $Andrew #PrinceAndrew #EpsteinFiles @realDonaldTrump @elonmusk
ASDvJ3koPUMqx8e4mdYi7r5mhBPZbJe4GEtfNaRVpump pic.twitter.com/BKWxoxAqJM

— george hacker (@GHacker98613) February 19, 2026

Sources say the Police sang Happy Birthday to Andrew once they booted the door in 😂 pic.twitter.com/99cIyzDMp0

— *LittleChic ❤️❤️❤️ (@_Littlechic_) February 19, 2026

Happy 66th Birthday to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor! 🎉
Gift from the police: Arrested for misconduct in public office over Epstein secrets.
Cake, candles, and cuffs what a royal party. 🥳👮‍♂️
Sweating yet?

#PrinceAndrew #Epstein pic.twitter.com/5tdqlo5NFY

Advertisement

— Sarah White (@advancesarah) February 19, 2026

No accountability

More seriously, others pointed out how little accountability there has been so far for anyone implicated in Epstein’s crimes:

🚨 BREAKING: Prince Andrew taken into custody

We will post the full arrest counter and all verified updates shortly.#PrinceAndrew #Breaking pic.twitter.com/XzMW63ku1R

— Index Stats (@indexstatshq) February 19, 2026

Advertisement

And if Windsor was hoping the fam might be a bit more supportive, those hopes were quickly dashed. Brother Chuck fell over himself in his haste to distance himself – but still no word for the victims:

King Charles issued the following statement regarding the arrest of his brother Andrew.

Extraordinary and unprecedented! pic.twitter.com/VHHZWrag9N

— Lori Spencer (@RealLoriSpencer) February 19, 2026

Maybe Charles is hoping his ‘hot potato’ act will make us forget he funded his brother’s out-of-court payment to Giuffre. But the British state and its corporate media enablers will certainly do their best – and no doubt focus on ‘Randy’s secret-leaking as a handy distraction from the establishment’s involvement in the rape, murder, and trafficking of children and young women.

For more on the the Epstein Files, please read the Canary’s article on way that the media circus around Epstein is erasing the experiences of victims and survivors.

Featured image via the Canary

The Green Party in south-west Wales has been in touch to voice its continuing opposition to the DARC radar project. The installation would use the same site that campaigners originally defended successfully in the 1990s. Back then the group of locals took the name Pembrokeshire Against the Radar Campaign. Now a lively and interactive website declares:

Well now for the great news. PARC is back, baby. We’re here with a new generation, a new purpose, and a fight we are ready to win.

Under the name PARC Against DARC, the group has the backing of Plaid Cymru as well as the Greens and some members of the Liberal Democrats and Labour and an array of pressure groups. However, it remains strictly non-partisan.

Ceredigion Penfro Green Party statement on DARC

To a lot of people it appears that the world has reached a point where lots of things need fixing. The Green Party has always advocated co-operation and diplomacy over fighting.

It is therefore angry at plans by the US to build 27 giant radar dishes on Pembrokeshire’s St David’s Peninsula. The sole aim of this development is for the US to have total control over space.

Amy Nicholass, Ceredigion Penfro number one candidate for the Senedd Elections, is in outright opposition to this development. She says:

The DARC proposals are a disgrace. It benefits no one except the government of the US. When the US tells us to jump, the Westminster government simply asks how high.

We need to put all our efforts into creating lasting peace, not allowing anyone to recreate Cold War tactics where none of us feel safe.

Peace is at the heart of Welsh culture. The US and Westminster should come and learn from us.

There are other, more immediate dangers associated with DARC, the purpose of which is to track and destroy enemy satellites. Should any of these satellites be destroyed, it will leave behind a lot of space debris. That can make it more dangerous for other satellites, such as for weather forecasting or telecommunications, to continue their orbits.

It is vitally important that local people have a say on matters such as this large development. A local campaign group called PARC Against DARC is very concerned about the effect it would have on the tourism industry in Pembrokeshire.

These campaigners describe St David’s Peninsula as a:

true jewel-in-the-crown natural wonder and headline Welsh tourism industry attraction.

Nicholass agrees. She argues for more local power to determine large planning considerations. Nicholass also says:

We in the Green Party understand how precarious the world feels to a lot of people. We can feel grateful to live in a part of the world that is peaceful but this plan brings world disorder very close to us.

We all share this one planet and we need to be part of the conversation on how to stand up for each other in a peaceful way.

Advertisement

Featured image (artist’s impression) via PARC Against DARC

Amid the furore over the soon-upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election, you’ll probably have noticed mentions of the fact that the constituency was only created in 2023.

With this electoral boundary redraw came the fourth highest index of change — i.e. upheaval in voting makeup — in the entire northwest.

This article provides a brief overview of the ways in which that electoral makeup has (been) changed in Gorton and Denton. Beyond that, it’s also a reminder that our democracy is never as simple as ‘one individual, one vote’. Where that vote comes from carries enormous weight — and that ‘where’ is always a fluid quantity.

The newly minted constituency

The Parliamentary Constituency for England redrew the electoral boundaries in 2023, including those of Gorton and Denton.

The new constituency was first contested in the 2024 general elections, with Labour’s Andrew Gwynne taking the seat. Gwynne took a comfortable 18,000 votes, that’s 13,000 ahead of both Reform and the Greens.

Before that point, the area included portions of the former Manchester Gorton and Denton & Reddish seats. Oh, and Burnage Ward — previously of Manchester Withington — thrown in to boot.

The constituency is now made up of two distinct lobes, connected in the middle by Reddish Bridge. The westward half, nearest Manchester itself, includes Gorton, Belle Vue, Levenshulme, and Burnage. Meanwhile, the eastward Tameside portion comprises Denton and Haughton Green.

Demographic makeup

There’s also an unequal split between the number of voters in Gorton and Denton respectively. In 2024, the Manchester wards boasted 55,000 registered electors to the Tameside’s 26,000.

As such, roughly two in every three voters in the constituency fall on the more urban-liberal Manchester side. Of these, 42% of voters have a university background, 42% are white, and 40% are Muslim.

Meanwhile, the Tameside section has a far higher white and UK-born population, at 83% and 86% respectively. A further 30% of the Tameside voters hold typically working-class semi/routine jobs, far higher than the national 23.5% average. 

As such, we might expect the Denton populace to be more open to Reform’s populist anti-migrant messaging. By contrast, Gorton may see more of a shift to the Greens. This is especially true given that the Workers Party of Britain and Your Party – otherwise potential pulls for the Muslim vote – have stood down.

Electoral history

For what it’s worth, the electoral history of Gorton and Denton’s tributary constituencies is about as red as they come. However, given the collapse in support for Labour under Starmer, that doesn’t necessarily mean a great deal.

Manchester Gorton, for its part, has remained stoically Labour-led from 1935 to its abolition in 2024. The Lib Dems managed to grab a third of the vote in 2005 and 2010, campaigning against the Iraq war, but fell off again in 2015.

Meanwhile, Denton and Reddish was itself created in 1983. Whilst it has also remained a Labour safe-seat since its inception, the Parliamentary Labour Party has typically enjoyed a much smaller margin of the vote. It has consistently averaged just above 50% of the share, rising above 60% in just three elections.

By contrast, UKIP took took third place in 2015, with 18.7%, and the Greens never made it over 4%.

Finally, Bunrage ward voters previously belonging to Manchester Withington make up around 16% of what is now Gorton and Denton. In stark contrast to much of the Northwest, Withington once tended weakly Conservative.

After swinging more strongly to Labour in the 1980s, Withington then flipped Lib Dem. Again, at the time, a large number of Muslim voters turned their backs on Labour due to Blair’s warmongering in Iraq.

The shadows of war

The fact that it’s anti-war sentiment among the Muslim electorate that has previously threatened Labour’s hold on the Gorton and Denton area is significant. Labour has once again haemorrhaged support among Muslims in recent years due to its enthusiastic support of Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.

As such, and quite unsurprisingly, campaign group The Muslim Vote has now thrown its weight behind the Greens in Gorton and Denton, stating:

Muslim voters, alongside many others in the constituency, will play a decisive role in this by-election. This moment must result in the defeat of both Labour and Reform through unity behind a single, credible candidate.

On this occasion, we believe the Green Party offers the strongest opportunity to win, and we urge them to work swiftly with local communities, while calling on all other progressive and independent alternatives to stand aside to give the best chance of delivering a clear break from politics as usual and putting the community first.

Advertisement

With the two halves of Gorton and Denton breaking down into more uni-educated urbanites and strong Muslim representation in one half, and a higher proportion of the white working class in the other, the by-election could prove a study in the shifting allegiances of the groups Labour previously took for granted.

As such, what would once have been a Labour by-election shoe-in is proving a testing ground for the UK’s polarised politics — and a more multi-party system as a whole.

Featured image via the Canary

Aaron Jacob is a solicitor, and former district councillor. He was the Conservative candidate for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough in 2024.

Home ownership in the UK is the dream that is slipping through the fingers of millions.

I have previously shared my thoughts on declining home ownership on this site, outlining in detail how there has been such a dramatic shift in the course of one generation. Recent survey data shows that the average age of first-time buyers overall and in the rest of England (excluding London) was 34 in 2024-25, compared to the pre-pandemic years in 2019-20 when it was 32.

Obviously, this is gravely concerning for younger generations. But on present trends, this shift will be equally consequential for older generational cohorts in both the medium and long-term, as well as for the size of the state.

Home ownership is implicit in many retirement saving models. The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association’s (PLSA) Retirement Living Standards, for example, assume that retirees will be living in their own home and have no mortgage or rent. This assumption is now colliding with reality. The proportion of privately rented homes headed by someone aged 55-64 increased from 6.3 per cent in 2010-11 to 11.3 per cent in 2020-21. The OBR estimates that the likely projected rise in the pensioner renter population will be from around 6 per cent today to 17 per cent by the 2040s. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimate that this alone would result in a £2 billion (in today’s terms) increase in housing benefit spending.

Retirement savings models will clearly need to adjust to these facts. Indeed, Standard Life has estimated that pensioners who rent in retirement could need almost £400,000 more in retirement savings than those with no housing costs. The corollary of reduced home ownership is a larger role for the state: as renters age, either government spending on housing support will rise, or pensioners’ living standards will fall. As many as 400,000 more households could become dependent upon income-related pensioner benefits.

A twentieth-century retirement model is rapidly, but quietly, being eroded before our eyes, with this barely registering on the policy Richter scale. Instead of seeking to address either side of the home ownership-retirement savings equation, Rachel Reeves has opted for the short-term expedient of capping at £2,000 per year the amount that can be shielded from employer and employee NI contributions by using salary sacrifice from 2029.

Reduced rates of home ownership in later life have wider and often underappreciated consequences beyond the public finances. Housing security is itself a determinant of wellbeing in old age. Older renters are more exposed to rent inflation, possible eviction, and forced moves at a time when they cannot adjust their income. All of these factors can lead to poorer physical and mental health outcomes.

Home ownership, by contrast, is correlated with residential stability and the ability to adapt housing to changing mobility or care needs. A growing cohort of older renters therefore implies not just higher fiscal pressure, but a population ageing with less security and less autonomy. These costs ultimately reappear in the taxpayer-funded NHS and welfare system.

The Labour government’s decision to establish an independent commission on adult social care reform, chaired by Baroness Casey, signals that ministers are at least alert to the scale of the challenge. The NHS website currently states: “You will not be entitled to help with the cost of care from your local council if you have savings worth more than £23,250 and you own your own property (this only applies if you’re moving into a care home).”

Whilst I am no expert in adult social care, this framework is clearly relevant to any serious discussion of housing policy and home ownership. Put simply, however the system is designed, the funding model must fall into one of three broad categories, or a combination thereof: greater state provision, greater individual or family responsibility, or some form of insurance-based solution.

If the funding model for adult social care is fully socialised, as with the NHS, this implies a much-expanded role for the state and, given demographic pressures, higher general taxation. Alternatively, there could be an insurance solution, whether universal or targeted at those not eligible for state support. There could also be a largely privatised model.

What matters here is not an argument for the use of housing wealth to fund care, but the recognition of a constraint: lower rates of home ownership narrow the range of feasible policy options. As the literature notes, “providing household support for old-age costs was a core goal in early policies for housing wealth in most countries”.

This is not an endorsement of using housing equity as the preferred means of paying for care. Rather, it states the obvious: when fewer people own homes, policymakers have fewer levers at their disposal and face a starker choice between higher taxation and lower provision. Whatever the eventual settlement for adult social care, declining home ownership increases fiscal rigidity and pushes more responsibility onto the state.

For too long, the housing debate in the UK has had a narrow and crude focus on the inter-generational inequality in housing wealth. The decline in home ownership is having, and will have, consequences across the generations. The growth of pensioner renters is a slow-burning political and social issue whose scale is inversely related to the government attention it receives. Assumptions that underpinned twentieth-century housing, welfare, and retirement policy no longer hold. There is an urgent need to confront what can be done to reverse declining rates of home ownership; not only for the young, but for the security and dignity of pensioners. Let this article sound the alarm bells.

Modern piracy and missile threats rarely meet a single line of defence. They meet layers of state power. To protect global shipping routes, national naval forces patrol high-risk corridors such as the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea, and the Strait of Hormuz, where traffic density and regional conflict raise the stakes for global trade.

In the Red Sea, Operation Prosperity Guardian illustrates how a multinational coalition can surge ships, aircraft, and intelligence sharing when the Houthis target commercial vessels. These deployments often combine escort missions with maritime domain awareness, while diplomats coordinate rules of engagement that minimise disruption to shipping. This posture aims to deter attacks before ships become easy targets.

Closer to shore, coast guards enforce law in territorial waters, investigate boarding incidents, and coordinate handoffs to naval forces when threats cross jurisdictions. Together, they support freedom of navigation through routine presence patrols and, when required, freedom of navigation operations that challenge unlawful restrictions and keep sea lanes open.

Private expertise also informs assessments. A maritime security consultant may provide risk snapshots alongside official reporting, helping operators understand threat patterns before vessels enter contested waters.

International Frameworks That Govern Maritime Security

Protection on the water depends on legal authority established through international agreements. Without these frameworks, coordinated anti-piracy efforts would lack the jurisdictional foundation needed to operate across borders.

The IMO and ISPS Code

The International Maritime Organisation sets baseline maritime security standards through conventions that flag and port states implement, creating shared expectations for vessel protection across busy shipping lanes.

Under the ISPS Code, ships and port facilities must translate those standards into practical controls. These include security assessments that identify likely boarding and sabotage risks, documented plans with designated officers and training to maintain readiness, and procedures for setting security levels and exchanging alerts with ports.

The official ISPS Code maritime security framework links security duties to broader safety rules, providing a reference point for compliance across the industry.

UNCLOS and Legal Authority at Sea

UNCLOS provides the legal authority that allows states to act beyond their territorial seas when piracy occurs on the high seas. It supports interdiction, seizure of pirate vessels, and prosecution decisions, while still requiring evidence handling and respect for jurisdictional limits.

This legal baseline enables international naval operations to coordinate boardings and handovers effectively. Regional agreements can then add local reporting channels and shared procedures tailored to specific corridors.

These add-ons often clarify who can pursue suspects into adjacent waters. They also guide how ports share incident reports without delaying cargo flows.

Private Security Companies and Armed Guards

Where naval patrols cannot cover every lane, private security companies fill practical gaps. This is especially true on merchant transits that must keep schedules. Their value often starts before a ship leaves port, with a structured risk assessment that shapes the entire voyage.

Intelligence Gathering and Risk Assessment

Consultants track piracy patterns, local conflict dynamics, and known threat actors using open-source reporting, port briefings, and shipboard surveillance practices. They translate this intelligence into routing advice, watch schedules, and communications plans tied to specific choke points.

The process involves drafting incident checklists that bridge teams can follow under stress, at night, or whenever conditions deteriorate. To connect security planning with wider context, crews often review current maritime security challenges alongside flag state guidance and insurer requirements.

This alignment helps decisions reflect both operational reality and compliance obligations.

Armed Teams on High-Risk Transits

When a voyage still requires additional protection, armed guards may embark for the highest-risk legs. Teams typically coordinate with the master to avoid escalation and to keep crew safety central throughout the passage.

On transit, vessel protection focuses on layered deterrence. This includes visible watchkeeping and clear rules for reporting contacts, hardened access points and rehearsed mustering procedures, and graduated response protocols if evasive manoeuvring fails.

Armed presence serves as a last line of defence, intended to buy time, break an attack, and allow the ship to exit the danger area without injury.

How Protection Differs by Regional Hotspot

No single protection model works everywhere. Threat profiles vary dramatically between regions, and defensive measures must adapt accordingly.

Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Operations

In the Red Sea, protection planning now reflects missile and drone risks linked to the Houthis. Naval forces concentrate on coordinated escorts and shared surveillance across air and surface assets, responding to threats that look more like state-adjacent warfare than traditional piracy.

Operators also rely on rapid threat reporting to adjust routes and watch levels. Managed corridors help responders cover traffic without diverting the main shipping lanes.

In the Gulf of Aden, however, procedures still draw on lessons from the Somali piracy peak. Patrol patterns and reporting points aim to increase visible presence against criminal networks rather than armed groups with military capabilities.

Crews log contacts early to trigger support before skiffs close. This consistency matters because ships still funnel through fixed shipping lanes where predictability creates vulnerability.

West Africa and Southeast Asia Protocols

West African waters often involve kidnapping and cargo theft closer to shore than open-ocean piracy. Protection leans on port state procedures, secure anchorages, and restricted access during cargo operations.

Regional navies focus on interdiction and evidence handling within coastal jurisdictions. Operators plan communications to limit time at low speed near approaches.

In Southeast Asia, by contrast, incidents concentrate in narrow straits where traffic density complicates detection. Watch teams use short-range surveillance to track craft that blend into routine movements.

Coast guard cooperation becomes central because vessels cross jurisdictions quickly. Local reporting networks help authorities coordinate intercepts before attackers reach sheltered waters.

Coordination Between Naval and Private Security Forces

Real-time coordination works best when naval forces and private security companies operate from a shared picture of risk. Standard reporting formats let shipboard teams pass contact reports, surveillance cues, and posture changes to military watch floors without delay.

Communication hubs such as UKMTO and regional maritime security centres relay threat alerts, route advisories, and incident updates to vessels and nearby patrols. If a ship with guards aboard transmits a distress call, responders may include coalition units or the U.S. Coast Guard, depending on location and tasking.

To avoid gaps at jurisdiction lines, operators use defined handoffs when ships enter territorial seas or leave escorted corridors. The master and security team confirm tactical control at each boundary.

Common mechanisms include agreed radio channels and call signs, time-stamped position reports, escalation criteria for warnings versus assistance, and post-incident summaries focused on crew safety and evidence preservation.

Evolving Piracy Tactics and Defensive Responses

Modern piracy groups increasingly borrow tools from state and criminal networks. Reports from recent incidents describe attackers using drones for scouting, GPS spoofing to confuse navigation, and encrypted communications to coordinate multiple craft.

The Houthis shifted the risk picture by pairing maritime harassment with missile and one-way drone strikes. This threat profile looks closer to terrorism than classic boarding-for-ransom operations. As a result, vessel protection plans now evolve around detection, disruption, and rapid reporting rather than just physical barriers.

Defensive responses often include enhanced surveillance that fuses radar, electro-optical cameras, and AIS analytics. Electronic countermeasures help mitigate jamming and spoofing effects, while tighter access control, drills, and escalation protocols align with terrorism scenarios.

These measures support earlier alerting when small boats loiter or when air contacts appear. They also help crews share clearer track history with naval responders quickly.

Protecting Global Trade Through Layered Security

No single navy, coast guard, insurer, or private team protects shipping lanes on its own. Modern piracy, drone harassment, and regional conflict shift quickly, so coverage depends on layers that overlap and backstop one another. When one layer misses a warning, another can still detect, deter, or respond.

That layered approach blends patrols and escorts, legal authority through international frameworks, and shipboard measures informed by private risk assessment. It also relies on shared reporting hubs, evidence handling, and clear handoffs at jurisdiction lines.

As threats evolve, sustained coordination keeps vessels moving and helps safeguard global trade across contested chokepoints and oceans.

The decision of a criminal court judge to enter not guilty verdicts for all of the remaining ‘Filton 24’ anti-genocide protesters has again exposed the lies told by successive Labour home secretaries to justify banning the ‘Palestine Action’ group.

Contrary to some reports, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) did not merely drop the charge of aggravated burglary lodged against all the 24. The judge ordered verdicts of not guilty, an acquittal just as concrete as any delivered by a jury. Six of the group were already acquitted on 4 February 2026.

‘Aggravated burglary’ involves burglary with prior intent to cause physical harm. The offence carries a potential life sentence and was brought by the CPS to justify the Starmer regime’s decision to ban Palestine Action as a terrorist group. The attempt was underpinned by claims from media and politicians that a policewoman’s spine was broken by the activists. In fact, the injury was only suspected, could not be identified on x-rays and will heal fully in a matter of months.

Not only that, but the prosecution presented no evidence to show the injury was caused by the activists. Instead, the only evidence of violence was entirely on the part of security guards working for Israeli weapons-maker Elbit. This caused considerable embarrassment when video evidence completely contradicted the claims of the prosecution and its witnesses. Or it would have, if the corporate media had bothered to report it.

Palestine Action questions

But then-home secretary Yvette Cooper had tried to justify the terrorist designation – which happened after the 24 were imprisoned – by lying that Palestine Action intended violence toward human beings. That lie has long been exposed and the disgraced Cooper was reshuffled to foreign secretary.

Her replacement Shabana Mahmood, however, continued the lie – and the regime needed convictions on serious charges involving violence to shore up its claims. That attempt has now collapsed entirely – except for the charge of grievous bodily harm still hanging over Sam Corner.

The High Court ruled on 13 February 2026 that the terrorist ban on Palestine Action was disproportionate and unlawful. The jury in the 4 February criminal trial refused to convict Corner of GBH and refused to convict any of the six of criminal damage.

Mahmood has appealed both decisions, claiming falsely that the jury’s refusal to convict was the result of ‘tampering’. The ‘tampering’ was protesters reminding jurors of their legal right to acquit – which a court has already ruled cannot be a crime. Mahmood and the Israel lobby are desperate to continue their long ‘lawfare’ war against solidarity with Palestine.

The government’s attempt to criminalise the group is not over, but the regime’s lies are teetering on the brink of collapse. The appeals court will rule on Friday 20 Feb whether Mahmood will be allowed to appeal the lifting of the proscription, keeping the ban in place for now, or it will be lifted immediately. For the time being, supporting Palestine Action remains a chargeable offence.

Featured image via the Canary