MtarfaLee Profile picture
Aug 4 25 tweets 8 min read Read on X
Introduction to the UK’s Immigration Protest Crisis

Every now and again I like to focus on different parts of Defence and National Security. Views are my own, I’ve tried to stay apolitical.

1/25 The United Kingdom is grappling with a wave of protests centered on immigration, particularly the Home Office’s use of hotels to house asylum seekers. Demonstrations in Epping, Canary Wharf, and other regions have exposed deep community divisions, fueled by specific incidents and broader policy frustrations.

The recent announcement of “online monitoring units” to track social media has intensified concerns about free speech, further complicating an already volatile situation. This thread tries to examine the protests, their management, the role of agitators, and the risks of escalation if unaddressed.Image
The Epping Protests – A Catalyst for Unrest

2/25 In July 2025, protests erupted outside the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, which has housed single male asylum seekers for years. The spark was the arrest of HGK , a 38-year-old Ethiopian asylum seeker, charged with sexual assault after allegedly attempting to kiss a 14-year-old girl. This incident inflamed local tensions, leading to demonstrations that escalated into violence, with significant implications for community cohesion and public safety.Image
Escalation and Violence in Epping

3/25 The Epping protests saw over 1,000 participants across multiple dates (July 13th, 17th, and 20th). Demonstrators threw bottles, eggs, and smoke flares, damaging police vehicles and injuring eight officers on July 18. Six arrests were made on 20th July for offenses including violent disorder and criminal damage. Two security guards were also attacked at a bus stop, highlighting the growing aggression.
Britannia Hotel Protests in Canary Wharf

4/25 On the 2nd of August approximately 100 anti-immigration protesters gathered outside the Britannia International Hotel in Canary Wharf, recently designated for asylum seeker accommodation. False online rumors, spread by figures like Tommy Robinson, claimed migrants were being transferred from Epping, fueling the demonstration. They were met by 2,000 counter-protesters from Stand Up to Racism, leading to nine arrests for public order breaches.Image
Protests Spread Nationwide

5/25 The unrest has spread to Norwich, Diss, Bournemouth, Portsmouth, and beyond. In Norwich, 350–400 anti-immigration protesters rallied outside the Best Western Brook Hotel, chanting “we want our country back,” while 150 counter-protesters responded. In Diss, protests targeted the Park Hotel over plans to house single male asylum seekers, with 150 demonstrators clashing with counter-protesters, reflecting a nationwide pattern of tension.Image
Home Office’s Role in Fueling Tensions

6/25 The Home Office’s decision to use hotels like the Bell and Britannia for asylum seekers, often without local consultation, has been widely criticised. Epping Forest District Council labeled the Bell Hotel “unsuitable,” citing unsustainable strain on communities. The Home Office’s pledge to phase out hotel use by 2029, amid costs of £4 million daily, has done little to quell immediate concerns.
Policing Costs and Resource Strain

7/25 Essex Police have spent over £100,000 managing Epping protests, diverting resources from other community safety priorities. Officers from Merseyside, Surrey, and Sussex have been drafted to support local forces. Chief Superintendent Simon Anslow condemned the “mindless thuggery,” but the persistence of violence suggests current policing strategies are struggling to maintain order.
Police Tactics and Public Criticism

8/25 Police have employed dispersal orders and powers to remove face coverings to curb disorder, yet these measures have failed to prevent violence, with projectiles thrown and vehicles damaged. Critics argue that heavy-handed tactics, combined with a lack of proactive engagement, risk escalating tensions rather than resolving them, further eroding public trust in law enforcement.
Home Office’s “Failure to Travel” Policy

9/25 The Home Office’s new “failure to travel” guidance, penalising asylum seekers for refusing alternative accommodation, has been criticised as inadequate. Refugee charities argue it merely formalises existing practices without addressing the root causes of community unrest, such as lack of transparency in accommodation decisions, further fueling local resentment.
Lack of Local Engagement

10/25 South Norfolk Council’s surprise at plans to use the Park Hotel in Diss underscores the Home Office’s failure to consult local authorities. This lack of communication has amplified community frustrations, as residents feel excluded from decisions impacting their neighborhoods, contributing to the intensity of protests.
Online Monitoring Units – A Controversial Development

11/25 In July Policing Minister Dame Diana Johnson announced the creation of a National Internet Intelligence Investigations team under the National Police Coordination Centre to monitor social media for signs of anti-migrant unrest. This move aims to track “concerning” posts and advise local forces, but critics warn it risks stifling free speech and escalating tensions.
Public Backlash to Online Monitoring

12/25 The announcement of online monitoring units has sparked significant backlash. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp accused the government of trying to “police opinions” rather than streets, branding it a “disturbing” overreach. Critics argue that monitoring social media posts, such as those criticising asylum hotels, could suppress legitimate debate and deepen public distrust.
Free Speech Concerns Intensify

13/25 The Free Speech Union, led by Lord Young, reported that protest footage, including an arrest in Leeds, was restricted in the UK under the Online Safety Act, citing “local laws.” This censorship, linked to the new monitoring units, has fueled accusations of a “surveillance state,” exacerbating tensions over government transparency.
Political Agitators on the Far-Right

14/25 Far-right groups, including Patriots of Britain and figures like Tommy Robinson, have amplified anti-immigration rhetoric online, spreading misinformation about asylum seekers. Slogans like “Send them back” and claims of “two-tier policing” have fueled protests, risking further violence and community division.Image
Far-Left Counter-Protests

15/25 Far-left groups, such as Stand Up to Racism, have mobilised large counter-demonstrations, with 2,000 protesters in Canary Wharf. While aiming to counter hate, their presence has led to clashes, with chants like “Nazi scum, off our streets” escalating confrontations and polarising communities further.Image
Community Polarisation and Social Cohesion

16/25 The polarised rhetoric—anti-immigration chants versus counter-protest slogans—has deepened community divides. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner acknowledged the “real concerns” about immigration but warned that agitators on both sides are “stirring up trouble,” threatening social cohesion and complicating efforts to restore calm.
The Online Safety Act’s Role

17/25 The Online Safety Act, effective July 2025, mandates platforms to remove “harmful” content, with fines for non-compliance. The National Security and Online Information Team (NSOIT) has flagged posts about asylum hotels and “two-tier policing,” prompting accusations of censorship and raising concerns about overreach.
NSOIT’s Monitoring Practices

18/25 NSOIT’s actions, including flagging a rejected Freedom of Information request about asylum hotel locations, have drawn scrutiny. An unnamed civil servant warned of “significant risks” of protests turning violent due to online content, but critics argue this monitoring stifles legitimate criticism and fuels distrust.
International Criticism of Free Speech Policies

19/25 During their recent meeting in Scotland, US President Donald Trump questioned Keir Starmer on the Online Safety Act’s impact on free speech. Starmer’s unclear response drew US criticism, with the State Department labeling the UK’s approach “Orwellian,” highlighting global concerns.Image
Transatlantic Tensions Over Censorship

20/25 The US State Department expressed “great concern” over the suppression of immigration criticism, warning that foreign laws could pressure American tech companies. This transatlantic rift, amplified by the monitoring units, underscores the challenge of balancing safety and free expression.
Local Leaders Sound the Alarm

21/25 Epping’s Conservative MP, Dr. Neil Hudson, described the situation as a “tinderbox,” with church services canceled and businesses closing early due to protests. Local leaders warn that without government action, the unrest could mirror the 2024 Southport riots, which saw widespread violence.
Risk of Nationwide Unrest

22/25 The 2024 Southport riots, fueled by misinformation, saw violence spread across England. Epping’s “powder keg” situation, as described by council leader Chris Whitbread, risks similar escalation if grievances over immigration and transparency remain unaddressed, potentially overwhelming state control.Image
Online Monitoring’s Exacerbating Effect

23/25 The introduction of online monitoring units has heightened public distrust, with accusations that the government prioritises surveillance over frontline policing. Critics, including Reform UK’s Zia Yusuf, call it an “Orwellian nightmare,” arguing it inflames tensions by limiting open discourse.
Government’s Broader Challenges

24/25 The Home Office’s reactive measures, police resource strain, and Starmer’s faltering response to international criticism have undermined public confidence. The monitoring units, intended to prevent unrest, may instead alienate communities, driving dissent underground and risking radicalisation.Image
Conclusion – Urgent Need for Balanced Action

25/25 The UK’s immigration protests, from Epping to Canary Wharf, reflect deep tensions exacerbated by poor communication, inadequate policing strategies, and the controversial online monitoring units. Without transparent engagement, community dialogue, and a balanced approach to free speech, the situation risks escalating into widespread unrest, threatening public safety and social cohesion beyond the state’s ability to manage.

Is the current government up to the task or are they part of the problem.

Opinions and thoughts welcome.
Facts, as always, can be challenged and corrected.Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with MtarfaLee

MtarfaLee Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MtarfaL

Jul 26
The Ajax Ares Platform: A Comprehensive Analysis of British Army Modernisation, Peer Comparison, Procurement Challenges, and Strategic Missteps

This is a long read (a shorter version will also be published). Views as always my own and facts or statements can be challenged. Source references are available on request. All sources are open. (I have background in this subject, I drafted some of the questions for the Defence Select Committee during their inquiry into AJAX.

For more in-depth information on this, FRES and other land systems check out @thinkdefence and for Army strategic direction and organisation check out @nicholadrummond

Forward

1/20 The Ajax Ares platform, a key component of the British Army’s Ajax family of armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs), is designed to provide protected mobility and overwatch, replacing the ageing Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) (CVR(T)) Spartan. Developed under the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) programme, the Ajax family has faced significant delays, technical issues, and controversies, collectively termed the “Ajax scandal.” This essay provides an in-depth examination of the Ajax programme’s original requirements, its historical context, and the technical specifications of the Ares variant, including its power plant, transmission, armour, C2 systems (with a focus on the delayed ZODIAC system’s role in intelligence dissemination), and limited weapon systems. It incorporates a recent statement by Defence Procurement Minister (Min DP) Maria Eagle, confirming Ares’ expanded role in infantry formations alongside Boxer, assessing its suitability, number of dismounts, and whether this reflects original requirements or poor strategic planning. The essay compares Ares with peer platforms—the Swedish CV90 and American M2 Bradley—to highlight its capabilities and shortcomings. It explores the MoD’s challenges, including noise and vibration issues, Parliamentary scrutiny, and the cancellation of the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (WCSP). It critiques the platform-for-platform approach, contrasts it with the Royal Navy’s Crowsnest programme, and evaluates the implications of emerging threats like First-Person View (FPV) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Finally, it assesses the MoD’s damaged credibility and its impact on securing Treasury funding, arguing that systemic procurement failures threaten the British Army’s readiness.Image
Table of Contents

2/20

1. Introduction

2. Historical Context: The Road to Ajax 2.1 Early Requirements and Predecessor Programmes 2.2 The Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) Programme

3. The Ajax Family: Overview and Variants 3.1 Ajax: The Reconnaissance Variant 3.2 Ares: Protected Mobility and Overwatch 3.3 Other Variants: Athena, Argus, Apollo, and Atlas

4. The Ares Platform: Technical Specifications 4.1 Power Plant and Transmission System 4.2 Armour and Protection 4.3 Command and Control (C2) and the ZODIAC System’s Role in Intelligence Dissemination 4.4 Weapon Systems and Limitations

5. Maria Eagle’s Statement and Ares’ Expanded Role 5.1 Ares in Infantry Formations: Statement and Context 5.2 Suitability for the Infantry Role 5.3 Number of Dismounts and Replacement of CVR(T) Spartan 5.4 Original Requirement or Poor Strategic Planning?

6. Comparison with Peer Platforms: CV90 and M2 Bradley 6.1 CV90: Design and Capabilities 6.2 M2 Bradley: Design and Capabilities 6.3 Comparative Analysis: Ares, CV90, and M2 Bradley

7. The Ajax Scandal: Challenges and Controversies 7.1 Noise and Vibration Issues 7.2 Parliamentary Defence Committee Scrutiny 7.3 The Sheldon Review and Lessons Learned

8. The Platform-for-Platform Approach 8.1 Comparison with the Royal Navy’s Crowsnest Programme 8.2 Implications for Capability Development

9. The Warrior IFV: Background, Upgrades, and Cancellation 9.1 Warrior’s Role and Legacy 9.2 The Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (WCSP) 9.3 The Recce Variant and Strategic Missteps

10. Emerging Threats: FPV UAVs and Ares’ Vulnerabilities 10.1 The Rise of FPV UAVs and Loitering Munitions 10.2 Ares’ Vulnerabilities and Required Upgrades

11. The MoD’s Procurement Challenges and Treasury Relations 11.1 Systemic Issues in UK Defence Procurement 11.2 Impact on MoD and Army Credibility 11.3 Financial Implications and Treasury Scepticism

12. Conclusion
1. Introduction

3/20 The Ajax family of armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs), developed by General Dynamics Land Systems UK (GDLS-UK), represents the British Army’s most significant attempt to modernise its armoured capabilities since the Cold War. Conceived under the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) programme, the Ajax family aims to replace the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) (CVR(T)) family, in service since 1971, with a networked, medium-weight capability for reconnaissance, protected mobility, and support roles.
The Ares variant, specifically, is designed to deliver protected mobility and overwatch for specialist troops, such as anti-tank Javelin teams and snipers, within Armoured Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and the Deep Recce Strike BCT.
A recent statement by Min DP (Maria Eagle), made this month (July 2025), confirms an expanded role for Ares in infantry formations alongside the Boxer wheeled vehicle, raising questions about its suitability and whether this reflects original requirements or poor strategic planning.
However, the Ajax programme has become synonymous with delays, technical failures, and mismanagement, earning the label “the Ajax scandal.”
With a £5.5 billion firm-price contract for 589 vehicles, the programme’s challenges—ranging from excessive noise and vibration to the cancellation of the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (WCSP)—have raised profound questions about the UK Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) procurement processes and the British Army’s ability to deliver modern capabilities. These issues have been compounded by the delay in the ZODIAC command and control (C2) system, critical for moving intelligence across the battlefield, which has limited Ares’ operational effectiveness.
This essay tries to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Ajax Ares platform, tracing its origins to FRES and earlier initiatives, detailing its technical specifications, and assessing Min DP’s statement on its expanded infantry role. It compares Ares with peer platforms—the Swedish CV90 and American M2 Bradley—to highlight its capabilities and shortcomings.
The essay examines the Ajax programme’s controversies, the platform-for-platform replacement strategy, and comparisons with the Royal Navy’s Crowsnest programme. It also addresses the Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV), its cancelled upgrades, and the implications of emerging threats like FPV Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Finally, it evaluates the MoD’s damaged credibility and its impact on securing Treasury funding, arguing that systemic procurement failures threaten the British Army’s readiness in an increasingly complex threat environment. For those involved is should be an uncomfortable read.Image
Image
Read 20 tweets
Jul 21
Introduction to the CAPTOR Radar

1/25 The CAPTOR radar is the beating heart of the Eurofighter Typhoon’s sensor suite, enabling its air superiority and multi-role capabilities. Developed through a multinational effort, it has evolved from a Cold War-era concept to a cutting-edge system. This thread traces its journey from requirement to operational use, its technology, variants, and relevance today, with a focus on the UK’s investment in the ECRS Mk2. As always views are my own and posts can be corrected if errors are found. This is third in series of UK airborne radars (Blue Fox/Vixen, Fox Hunter and now CAPTOR). Larger radars will be covered soon (Search Water etc).Image
Origins of the CAPTOR Radar

2/25 The CAPTOR, originally the ECR-90, was born in the 1980s under the Future European Fighter Aircraft (FEFA) programme, aimed at countering Soviet aircraft like the MiG-29. Led by the EuroRadar consortium (UK, Germany, Italy, Spain), it built on the Ferranti Blue Vixen radar from the Sea Harrier FA2, leveraging pulse Doppler technology for superior target detection in cluttered environments.Image
Image
Heritage and Technological Roots

3/25 The CAPTOR’s heritage lies in Cold War radar advancements, particularly pulse Doppler systems used in the Tornado’s Foxhunter radar. These provided robust electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) against Soviet jamming. Collaborative expertise from GEC-Marconi (UK), DASA (Germany), FIAR (Italy), and INISEL (Spain) shaped a radar that balanced performance, cost, and NATO interoperability.Image
Read 25 tweets
Jul 17
Introduction to MoD Information Security

Further update - part 3

I’m not a lawyer but I do have some knowledge of information security.

1/25 The Ministry of Defence (MoD) operates in a high-stakes environment where safeguarding sensitive information is critical to national security and public trust. This thread explores the MoD’s information security processes, their alignment with UK laws and standards, and the fallout from the 2022 Afghan data breach, revealed after a superinjunction was lifted on 15 July 2025. Here is how the MoD manages data and where (I believe) it went wrong.

Views my own.Image
The MoD’s Information Security Framework

2/25 The MoD’s information security is governed by the Government Security Classifications Policy (GSCP), which uses three tiers: OFFICIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET. Each tier has specific security controls to protect data based on its sensitivity and potential impact if compromised. This ensures proportionate safeguards for everything from routine admin to critical intelligence.
Technical and Organisational Measures

3/25 The MoD employs technical measures like encryption, secure IT systems, and access controls to protect data. Organisational measures include mandatory training, governance structures, and incident response protocols. These are outlined in the Defence Records Management Policy (JSP 441), which governs data retention and destruction to minimise risks.
Read 25 tweets
Jul 13
BLUF – A Two-Division Model for the British Army

1/25 The British Army should restructure into two divisions—one tracked, one wheeled—each with three brigades of three all-arms battle groups, to meet Strategic Defence Review (SDR) requirements. This suggestion aims to spark debate on sustaining NATO commitments in the High North and Baltics while enabling operations in the Middle East and Africa. The Heavy Division would sustain armoured battle groups, with brigades and divisions as resource providers, supported by modern equipment like Challenger 3 and Boxer. Cultural and structural challenges, including resistance to change and logistical constraints, must be addressed. A phased timeline from 2025 to 2032 aligns with equipment deliveries. Without significant reform, the Army risks irrelevance in a volatile strategic environment.

This thread has been put together following discussions with @thinkdefence and @MrSnaplegs last year (TD followed with a long read).

@nicholadrummond @509298 @BO3673 @PhilipIngMBE @BenWallace70 thoughts welcome on thisImage
Why Restructure the British Army?

2/25 The British Army faces evolving threats that demand a modern, agile force to remain relevant. The SDR, published in spring 2025, prioritises NATO deterrence and global deployability. A two-division model—one Heavy (tracked) for high-intensity conflict and one Expeditionary (wheeled) for rapid deployment—offers a solution. By focusing on all-arms battle groups, the Army can deploy flexible units while sustaining commitments. Reform is critical to avoid obsolescence amidst budget and personnel constraints.Image
The Heavy Division Structure

3/25 The Heavy Division, built on the 3rd (UK) Division, would comprise three Armoured Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs), each with three all-arms battle groups. Each battle group would include a squadron of 14 Challenger 3 tanks, an Ajax infantry company, an Ares mechanised company, and support elements like 120mm mortars and Javelin missiles. The division would sustain one battle group in the High North (three-year accompanied posting) and one in the Baltics (six-month rotations), aligning with NATO priorities.Image
Read 25 tweets
Jul 5
CSG25 and Fleet Air Defence in CEPP

1/25 The UK’s Carrier Strike Group 2025 (CSG25), led by HMS Prince of Wales, embodies Carrier Enabled Power Projection (CEPP). This thread clarifies fleet air defence as a core CEPP KUR, countering doubts, and covers CSG25 assets, RN limitations, and challenges like no AAR or MADL.Image
CEPP Overview

2/25 CEPP enables global power projection via CSG25, integrating naval, air, and land forces for combat, deterrence, and aid missions. Fleet air defence is a KUR, protecting the carrier to ensure CSG25’s effectiveness in contested Indo-Pacific regions, despite claims it is not central to CEPP.Image
Fleet Air Defence as a CEPP KUR

3/25 Fleet air defence is a defined CEPP KUR, as per the MoD’s 2011 Carrier Strike Key User Requirements: “The Carrier Strike capability must provide a layered defence against air and missile threats to ensure operational freedom.” This counters doubts about its role in CSG25’s Operation Highmast.
Read 25 tweets
Jul 5
Introduction to the NMH Programme

1/25 The UK’s New Medium Helicopter (NMH) programme, launched in 2021, aims to replace aging rotary-wing platforms but is mired in financial necessity and poor decisions by the MoD, DG Helicopters, and DE&S. The Puma HC2’s withdrawal has left a capability gap, with RAF Benson now without aircraft.Image
Historical Context

2/25 Announced in the 2021 Defence Command Paper, NMH sought to replace four platforms: RAF Puma HC2, AAC Bell 212, RAF Bell 412 Griffin, and AAC AS365 Dauphin. Aging airframes and high maintenance costs drove the need, but financial constraints, not user needs, shaped the programme’s scope.Image
Image
Image
Image
Initial Ambition

3/25 The NMH aimed to procure up to 44 helicopters within a £900m–£1.2bn budget for a “common medium-lift, multi-role platform” able to operate in all environments. The 2021 Defence and Security Industrial Strategy prioritised UK industrial benefits over global competition, shaping decisions.
Read 25 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(