The Collapse at Netflix Signals the End of Audience Capture The most popular strategy in the tech world has stopped working. That’s good news for all of us.

Interesting Graphs at source

That’s because savvy investors on Wall Street now grasp what’s really going on. They fear that the root cause of Netflix’s woes portends the collapse of the dominant business strategy in tech today.

This is hugely important—and not just for investors or technocrats. All of us will be impacted by how this plays out. And I have a strong hunch that what is bad for Netflix might just be good for you and me.

That’s because Netflix’s failed strategy is audience capture. And you and I are part of the audience it wants to keep in captivity.

More on that below—but let’s start by looking at damage done to Netflix’s stock. When I warned about it in June, the price had already dropped 45%….

The Honest Broker

The Collapse at Netflix Signals the End of Audience Capture The most popular strategy in the tech world has stopped working. That’s good news for all of us. Ted Gioia Jul 17, 2026

Today’s culture briefing is free for everyone. Enjoy!

If you value analysis of this sort, consider taking out a premium subscription.

Please support The Honest Broker by taking out a premium subscription (just $6 per month). Type your email… Subscribe A few weeks ago, I warned about problems brewing at Netflix (and other streaming platforms). In just the last few days, these problems have gotten worse, much worse—and the situation has reached crisis proportions.

Even more revealing—the crisis is now spreading through the tech world like a wildfire. It’s no exaggeration to say that Netflix dragged down the entire NASDAQ today, after the release of its disappointing quarterly results.

Source That’s because savvy investors on Wall Street now grasp what’s really going on. They fear that the root cause of Netflix’s woes portends the collapse of the dominant business strategy in tech today.

This is hugely important—and not just for investors or technocrats. All of us will be impacted by how this plays out. And I have a strong hunch that what is bad for Netflix might just be good for you and me.

That’s because Netflix’s failed strategy is audience capture. And you and I are part of the audience it wants to keep in captivity.

More on that below—but let’s start by looking at damage done to Netflix’s stock. When I warned about it in June, the price had already dropped 45%.

But today, shareholders woke up to this.

Source After today’s debacle, Netflix will have wiped out the entire last two years of stock price gains.

This is usually where I take a victory lap, and point out that I warned of the danger three weeks ago. But there’s bigger story here that must be told.

The disappointing revenue report yesterday is just the tip of the iceberg. The company’s reluctance to provide viewership numbers is an even more revealing sign of how bad things really are.

Netflix once bragged regularly about its growing user base. But yesterday they refused to share updated viewership numbers until 2027!

Source Yet even without those metrics, I’ve seen evidence of a coming corporate collapse—but only if you dug into the numbers.

Last week, for example, we learned that Netflix’s audience is skipping the second season of the platform’s hottest offerings.

Source: Flowing Data That’s scary stuff for Netflix. But it gets worse. The audience is also losing interest in the platform’s brand new series.

Source The situation is so dire that even Netflix’s biggest new series of the second quarter failed to get renewed. But if the platform can’t count on its new hits, will anything save it?

Source Netflix doesn’t want to tell us about users canceling their subscriptions. But just go over to Reddit and other platforms where people say what they really think about the company. You will get an earful.

This is typical:

Funny I was talking to my wife about how Netflix has practically nothing left we want to watch and maybe it was time to move on. If this price increase goes through that would be the final straw. I suspect a lot of others are getting close to that limit….

Another frustrated customer didn’t even make a comment—just shared some numbers. But the numbers paint a dismal picture.

Source Netflix got into this mess by pursuing a simple strategy: (1) Reduce the number of new scripted series (which peaked in 2022), but (2) Raise subscription prices.

That is the “audience capture” strategy mentioned above. The idea is that the audience got captured years ago with cheap subscription prices, and now the platform can squeeze them mercilessly—offering less and charging more. Netflix has been pursuing this agenda for several years now.

Ah, but Netflix isn’t the only company building its future on audience capture. It’s getting used at almost every streaming platform. And even companies outside of the media space are practicing variants of it. You see it at Google, Meta, X, Apple, etc.

It’s shocking how many companies have learned this technique. The entire printer and toner business is now built on audience capture. The same is true of the software industry—don’t even get me started on my Microsoft Office subscription fiasco. And, of course, all those customer loyalty programs (variants on the frequent flyer gimmicks that started this craze years ago) are examples of the same stale strategy.

Even the AI world is turning into an audience capture business—both for itself and its customers. This is one of the key reasons for my frequent criticisms of AI slop. It feeds into step one of the strategy outlined above. The companies use AI to reduce the cost of content, thus boosting margins while reducing their dependence on human creators.

Audience capture has always existed, but never to this extent. When I consulted at BCG we called it a milking strategy, where you raised prices and reduced capital investment in a business—which was now your cash cow. You squeeze all the money you can from it, for as long as you can.

But back then we realized that milking only worked in the short term. Eventually you killed the cow. And the risk is the same today with “audience capture”—which is just a new name for that poor old bovine.

Sooner or later, the audience refuses to be held captive. And that’s happening now at Netflix—hence the stock sell-off.

But it’s happening elsewhere too, although few are paying attention. Look at the share price at Spotify or Disney for ther examples.

Did you know that Mark Zuckerberg’s social media empire has stopped growing? In the first quarter, Meta saw a decline in users for the first time in the company’s history.

Source: Social Media Today This is not just a coincidence. Meta is the king of audience capture, and when it starts losing that audience, other tech companies ought to pay attention.

You should expect to see more problems of this sort at audience capture corporations. And that’s bad news for the technocracy, because this manipulative strategy is everywhere. If it stops producing results, they will need to take drastic steps.

But their nightmare is our blessing. That’s because the end of audience capture means tech companies will need to return to serving customers, not holding them in bondage.

They aren’t ready to take that step—not now, at least. Pleasing customers is hard work. Milking cows is a simpler business. But they won’t have a choice. The cattle are finally resisting. They might even stampede!

Moo, moo, moo!

Sometimes even cattle fights back (Source: Paul J. Everett) I give the leading audience capture companies 12-18 months at most before the worst consequences of their overreach hit their financial statements. And it may happen even faster.

If they were wise, they would start acting now. But whether they fix the root cause of their audience capture mess now or later, the end result will be the same. That captive audience will find itself liberated.

If I’m right, this may represent the biggest shift in the consumer economy of our time. So check back here for updates—because this will be a bumpy rodeo ride for all parties.

The Honest Broker

Marco Rubio Just Delivered the Most Devastating Case Against Communism Yet

Karl Marx’s economics, and it concedes valuable ideological ground to the left every time it’s repeated. It’s a line some conservatives still reach for, almost reflexively. It’s time that changed, because even the claim that communism works in theory is plainly false.

In a speech Thursday announcing a global crackdown on left-wing terrorism, Secretary of State Marco Rubio made exactly that argument: communism does not even work in theory. Socialism and communism, by their very nature, require the centralization of power, the destruction of the individual, and the abolition of private property, the very institution that has been instrumental to the development of the West and the greatest nations on Earth. Even as an abstraction, communism is the antithesis of nearly everything Americans have historically believed in.

“One of the criticisms you sometimes hear of communism, for example, is that it sounds good in theory, but it never works in practice. That’s actually not true,” the secretary of state said. “Communism does not sound good in theory. The world it envisions for all of us is small, flat, grey, leveled of all exception, drained of all that is good and noble in the human soul. The world it envisions is a world without courage, a world without creativity or ambition, a world without heroes or glory or great causes to strive towards, a world without miracles, without myths, without men who rise above the rest to do incredible and extraordinary things. And the world communism envisions is a world without God.”

DHS allows officers to review visa applicants’ use of welfare programs while considering permanent status qualification

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a final rule overturning a 2022 regulation from former President Joe Biden’s administration to allow immigration officers to consider an applicant’s use of welfare programs to determine if they qualify for permanent legal citizenship.

In a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) news release on Thursday, the DHS held that the decision will better align immigration law with “Congressional intent that aliens in the United States be self-reliant and not dependent on taxpayer-funded government benefits.”

Furthermore, under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a person applying for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status is ineligible “because of the likelihood of becoming a public charge.”

“With this final rule, USCIS officers are empowered to assess all pertinent facts on a case-by-case basis for each applicant,” the DHS stated.

“The Trump administration is upholding the rule of law and protecting American taxpayers from subsidizing aliens who may become dependent on public benefits. USCIS is committed to safeguarding the safety, security, and financial well-being of Americans,” said USCIS spokesperson Zach Kahler.

The rule will be effective on September 18th. A revised version of Form I-485, used to apply for permanent residence or adjust one’s status, will be released. The new version of the form will be required after the effective date.

The new policy could impact hundreds of thousands of migrants seeking green cards every year from inside the U.S., as well as deter migrant households from applying for taxpayer-funded social programs, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The rescission of the Biden-era policy also reverts some leeway back to federal immigration officers that they held during President Donald Trump’s first term, according to CBS News.

When effective, the new rule also allows reviewers to examine an applicant’s age, health, family situation, assets, finances, education and skills.

“This final rule is intended to help ensure that those seeking permanent residence are able to support themselves and are not likely to become primarily dependent on public assistance,” USCIS said in a statement on X Thursday.

This final rule is intended to help ensure that those seeking permanent residence are able to support themselves and are not likely to become primarily dependent on public assistance.

USCIS is committed to applying the law as enacted by Congress, providing clear guidance.

Katherine Mosack

Humiliation for hundreds of California colleges whose alumni earn less than high school grads

Hundreds of California college programs are facing renewed scrutiny after federal data revealed that many graduates earn less than those with only a high school diploma, placing these schools at risk of losing federal student loan access unless their outcomes improve.

A new federal requirement that took effect this month requires colleges, universities and certificate programs to prove graduates earn at least as much as the median worker in their state with only a high school diploma.

In California, that benchmark is about $18 an hour, or roughly $36,000 a year.

An analysis by Michael Itzkowitz — president of the HEA Group — found about 90% of nearly 3,000 California higher education programs met that standard.

Yet about 300 programs missed the mark, with many concentrated in fields such as cosmetology, medical assisting, theater, and fine arts.

If these programs continue to fall short of the earnings benchmark, students could lose access to federal loans as early as July 1, 2028. Schools, however, still have at least two years to boost graduate earnings.

Many of the underperforming programs are run by for-profit colleges, institutions that have already been under the microscope for years over concerns of student outcomes and high tuition costs.

Public institutions also made the list, with theater and fine arts programs at eight California State University campuses and three University of California campuses coming under fire.

Over 30 California programs in fine arts, music, theater, film, and photography failed to pass the new earnings test.

By comparison, about 100 similar programs cleared the federal bar, such as UC Berkeley’s film program and fine arts programs at San Diego City College and the University of Southern California, where graduates reported earning over $70,000 four years after graduation.

New York Post

Sen. Darline Graham Considers Running for a Full-Term, Source Confirms

Newly minted Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.) is considering running for her late brother’s old seat in the South Carolina special election, according to one person granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.

Graham was sworn in earlier this week to replace Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who died on Saturday. Her appointment, backed by President Donald Trump, was widely seen as a move to fill the seat with a caretaker who would leave Washington at the end of the term in January.

Graham’s interest in running for the seat was first reported by Semafor.

The filing window for candidates in the August 11 primary opens Tuesday. The field of candidates could include Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette; Reps. Russell FryNancy Mace and Ralph Norman; businessman Mark Lynch; and former Gov. Mark Sanford, among others.

On Wednesday, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) hinted that Graham could join their ranks. “Darline has so far been off to a remarkable start,” Scott, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told CBS News. “Why not her?”

A spokesperson for Graham did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The news of her interest in running for a full term came as a surprise to some prominent South Carolina Republicans. “My understanding is that she told Governor [Henry] McMaster that she would accept the appointment to fill the rest of the term, not to be a candidate for it,” said South Carolina Republican Party Chair Drew McKissick.

Cameron Arcand

Cameron Arcand 

10 Rejected Titles For Biden’s New Memoir

At long last, the wait is over — President Joe Biden has written a memoir about his time in the White House. The book, titled Promise Me, America, will be released this fall following the November midterm elections, but that wasn’t the only title that was pitched.

Here is an exclusive list of potential titles that were rejected:

1. If You Don’t Read This, You Ain’t Black: Close, but the marketing team wanted to cast a wider net.

2. My Time As, You Know, The Thing: All the trademark clarity of his presidency in one phrase.

3. Two Scoops of Mint Chocolate Chip, Waffle Cone, Please: Always ice cream with this guy.

4. Look, Fat: This option was ultimately discarded to avoid body shaming any potential readers.

5. The Last of the Dog-Faced Pony Soldiers: A tantalizing tease of the treasures found in the book.

6. My Life as a Chinese Asset: A little too raw and real-world.

7. Tales from a Truck Driving Lifeguard: This title was tossed after the fictional portion of the book was removed.

8. How We Finally Beat Medicare: An inspiring rallying cry everyone still hasn’t figured out.

9. If I Did It: His “hypothetical” confession to killing America, right there in black and white.

10. Truinnernationalundrepressure: Surprisingly, this is more legible than the rest of the memoir.

The Babylon Bee

Trump’s Speech Sends Beijing, And China-Watchers, Into A Frenzy

President Donald Trump’s explosive allegations against China Thursday night are already reverberating far beyond domestic politics.

Speaking from the White House on Thursday, Trump accused China of “the largest compromise of election data in history,” alleging Beijing illicitly obtained information from roughly 220 million American voter files during the 2020 election cycle. The Chinese Communist Party quickly denied the charges, while China-watchers in the United States questioned if the relationship between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping has been shattered.

“China has all along adhered to the principle of non-interference in others’ internal affairs,” Chinese Embassy spokesman Liu Chang said in a statement. “The U.S. election is an internal matter of the U.S. Its outcome is determined by the votes of the American people. China has never and will never interfere in the presidential elections of the U.S.”

The spat could have implications for a reportedly sought-after summit between Trump and Xi later this year.

Among longtime China observers, Trump’s accusations immediately prompted questions about whether the administration’s broader China strategy can withstand the allegations. Bill Bishop, publisher of the influential Sinocism newsletter, questioned how the allegations could be reconciled with Trump’s stated interest in maintaining a working relationship with Xi.

“So how can he still be friends with Xi after what he says the PRC [People’s Republic of China] just did in stealing 220m voter files?” Bishop wrote on X. “If any of these allegations are true how can this not be a rupture?”

China hawk Gordon Chang, author of “Plan Red” and “China Is Going To War”, argued that Beijing’s leadership would be deeply unsettled by Trump’s decision to publicly release the intelligence. “China’s leaders are almost certainly in a panic right about now,” Chang wrote. “Bravo, President Trump, for revealing China’s massive interference in our elections and in our society.”

“Trump just showed China who’s boss.”

Not everyone accepted Trump’s characterization of the newly released intelligence. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, dismissed the allegations, arguing that publicly available voter registration data has long been accessible to foreign governments and private organizations alike. “The idea that somehow these countries are gathering voter files — these are publicly available. You don’t have to hack into them. You can buy them,” Warner said to CBS News.

Trump’s allegations also go further than previously declassified intelligence assessments produced during his first administration.

A January 2021 intelligence community assessment concluded that China “probably continued longstanding efforts to gather information on U.S. voters and public opinion” in order to better predict election outcomes and inform Beijing’s policy toward whichever administration ultimately took office. Another assessment, partially declassified in 2022, similarly found that Chinese intelligence officials analyzed voter registration data from multiple states during the 2020 election cycle.

Neither assessment concluded that China attempted to alter vote totals or directly manipulate election infrastructure.

Just one day before Trump’s announcement, a Pew Research Center survey found that China is now viewed more favorably than the United States in 25 of the 36 countries surveyed — the first time in the organization’s two decades of polling that Beijing has surpassed Washington in a majority of participating nations. That shift, researchers argued, reflects both China’s expanding diplomatic and economic influence abroad and declining international perceptions of the United States.

The Daily Wires ^ | July 17, 2026 | Drew Berkemeyer

Democrats Are Panicking and Scrambling to Hide Something Big

Matt Margolis 

Things just keep getting worse for the Democratic Party, and at this rate, they may need a new metaphor because “keeps getting worse” barely covers it anymore. We already told you the polls are tightening heading into the midterms in November, which was bad enough on its own. Now it turns out the party’s situation is so much worse than we already know, and the people running the show apparently don’t want you to know just how bad it really is.

In a bizarre move, the Democratic National Committee required its senior leadership to sign non-disclosure agreements before a private meeting on the party’s finances, according to two people familiar with the conversations who spoke to Axios. That alone is a break from past practice. DNC officers are high-ranking members of chair Ken Martin’s team, not entry-level staffers. Officers at that level don’t typically get handed a confidentiality agreement before they can hear how much money they have in their piggy bank and what they plan to do about it.

Make no mistake about it, you don’t slap NDAs on your own leadership team unless you’re worried about what might leak. And boy, it’s gotta be something really juicy.

The private senior officers’ meeting happened on June 25, five days before the Supreme Court issued a ruling that reshaped party fundraising rules. Martin has been fending off a crisis of confidence among Democrat donors, operatives, and even DNC members over how he’s managing the party, especially with the Republican National Committee sitting on a huge fundraising advantage without any debt.

And the numbers justify the panic. Through the end of May, the DNC had nearly $15 million on hand but $18 million in debt. The RNC, meanwhile, had $125 million on hand and zero debt. In other words, the Democrat Party is running on fumes, and they know it.

ICYMIDemocrats Got Some Devastating News About the Midterms

Martin has been privately and publicly defensive about all of this for months. In a contentious Pod Save America interview earlier this year, he insisted, “to suggest that we’re not raising money is inaccurate.” He also argued the real gap between the parties isn’t about how much money comes in, but how much goes out. Dizzy from the spin yet?

The Supreme Court ruling that landed five days after that closed-door meeting didn’t do Democrats any favors either. It lifted limits on how much parties can spend in coordination with candidates and allowed parties to buy campaign ads at the same discounted rate that individual campaigns pay. As we reported, that decision was widely seen as benefiting the GOP, as it effectively wiped out much of the fundraising edge Democratic candidates were counting on this fall.

The DNC declined to comment on the specific NDA requirement for its officers. Chris Lowe, the DNC’s national finance co-chair, waved off the whole thing as a non-issue, calling confidentiality agreements for officers and board-meeting attendees standard practice in the corporate world, even though they are not. Lowe also said senior DNC staff already operate under confidentiality agreements and argued it would be poor practice not to have them in place when finance and political strategy get discussed at the highest levels.

Mark Margolis, PJ Media

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday announced the imposition of visa restrictions in a bid to target violent, far-left terrorist groups.

The announcement coincided with an international summit in which Rubio met with representatives of dozens of nations and warned of growing far-left extremism. He further invoked international coalitions to stop the Islamic State as a model for them to emulate.

“Today, in support of National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 and ongoing U.S. Government efforts to disrupt networks fomenting political violence before they escalate to criminal action, the Department of State is announcing a new visa restriction policy that targets members of Far-Left Terrorist and other aligned groups who have supported or incited acts of terrorism; supported violent criminal activity; participated in economic sabotage; financed, recruited, or provided logistical support for violent or criminal actions committed by Far-Left Terrorist and other aligned groups; and/or facilitated the convergence of Far-Left Terrorist and other aligned networks for the purposes of violent action,” Rubio wrote in a statement.

Far-left extremism has been increasingly in the eye of the administration since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, who was fatally shot during an open-air event at Utah Valley University in September 2025. His alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, was reportedly motivated by Kirk’s comments criticizing transgender ideology.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday announced the imposition of visa restrictions in a bid to target violent, far-left terrorist groups.

The announcement coincided with an international summit in which Rubio met with representatives of dozens of nations and warned of growing far-left extremism. He further invoked international coalitions to stop the Islamic State as a model for them to emulate.

“Today, in support of National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 and ongoing U.S. Government efforts to disrupt networks fomenting political violence before they escalate to criminal action, the Department of State is announcing a new visa restriction policy that targets members of Far-Left Terrorist and other aligned groups who have supported or incited acts of terrorism; supported violent criminal activity; participated in economic sabotage; financed, recruited, or provided logistical support for violent or criminal actions committed by Far-Left Terrorist and other aligned groups; and/or facilitated the convergence of Far-Left Terrorist and other aligned networks for the purposes of violent action,” Rubio wrote in a statement.

Far-left extremism has been increasingly in the eye of the administration since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, who was fatally shot during an open-air event at Utah Valley University in September 2025. His alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, was reportedly motivated by Kirk’s comments criticizing transgender ideology.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday announced the imposition of visa restrictions in a bid to target violent, far-left terrorist groups.

The announcement coincided with an international summit in which Rubio met with representatives of dozens of nations and warned of growing far-left extremism. He further invoked international coalitions to stop the Islamic State as a model for them to emulate.

“Today, in support of National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 and ongoing U.S. Government efforts to disrupt networks fomenting political violence before they escalate to criminal action, the Department of State is announcing a new visa restriction policy that targets members of Far-Left Terrorist and other aligned groups who have supported or incited acts of terrorism; supported violent criminal activity; participated in economic sabotage; financed, recruited, or provided logistical support for violent or criminal actions committed by Far-Left Terrorist and other aligned groups; and/or facilitated the convergence of Far-Left Terrorist and other aligned networks for the purposes of violent action,” Rubio wrote in a statement.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday announced the imposition of visa restrictions in a bid to target violent, far-left terrorist groups.

The announcement coincided with an international summit in which Rubio met with representatives of dozens of nations and warned of growing far-left extremism. He further invoked international coalitions to stop the Islamic State as a model for them to emulate.

John Horvat, American Thinker

Plucky Village Declares Independence To Avoid Being Overrun By Male Migrants

A tiny village is taking a stand against its own government as it faces the threat of being overrun by migrants.

The couple hundred residents of Piddington, Oxfordshire, in the United Kingdom, voted July 4 for independence against the United Kingdom in a bid against authorities who are seeking to flood the area with illegal male migrants. The vote to separate passed in an overwhelming 96 percent majority.

At the heart of the problem for Piddington is the Home Office’s (the UK equivalent of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security) June 26 decision to relocate almost 4,000 migrants to three rural former military bases. One of those bases — the Ministry of Defense Bicester — sits directly next to Piddington and has a fence that runs alongside many locals’ homes, one resident told GB News. The site also borders a playground for children and families created by the parish council.

An estimated 1,250 single adult male asylum seekers aged 18 to 65 are expected to be relocated to the Bicester base next to Piddington. This is over four times the population of the entire village.

The relocation of migrants is part of the British Labour Party’s efforts to end the temporary housing of illegals in hotels as they await case processing. The hotel system has sparked huge controversy and has cost British taxpayers billions of pounds, while contributing to housing shortages.

The Home Office plans to use the Bicester camp for a minimum of 10 years, according to a government fact sheet. The government says it will appoint a “specialist provider of asylum accommodation” to manage the camp and will provide 24/7 on-site security through “a provider of security services” and “CCTV monitoring and recording.”

Locals have expressed fear, however, that the sudden and overwhelming flood of single male migrants into the area will make the village unsafe for women and children.

Piddington resident Tim McNally, who chairs the village’s Parish Council, said his neighbors are distraught.

“[The camp] will just turn the village into a ghost town. It’ll just destroy the spirit of the village, and that’s how people feel absolutely trapped, stressed, concerned,” McNally told the Daily Caller.

“I’ve had men — grown men — crying to me because they’ve got young daughters of an age that for the next 10 years they’ll be young ladies,” McNally added. “One guy who’s got an 18-year-old said, ‘I will not let her go out. I will not let her leave the house alone.’”

Piddington — a village of just 150 homes — has no police force of its own. “We have no crime in this area,” McNally said. “There’s no police. There’s no need. The community is very tight. It’s very well connected.”

“There’s a lot of young people coming into the village, young families evolving, growing here now,” McNally added. “And they are absolutely beside themselves to determine what on earth to do.”

“We don’t have anything to defend ourselves with,” McNally said, “It’s against the law for us to carry a knife or have a gun.”

The government information page on the project reports that asylum seekers will undergo “mandatory security checks” before they reach the camp by “linking their biometric data to immigration, security, and criminality databases.”

But, as McNally observed, foreign criminal databases are not readily accessible, much less after Britain’s exit from the European Union in 2020. “They don’t have access to anything.”

“Only 10 days or 15 days before [the announcement],” McNally added, “I was listening in to BBC Radio Four. And they were interviewing […] the Home Office — these are the people who basically are responsible for managing these asylum seekers — and they were asking, how do they age-verify the people coming in? And [the Home Office] admitted they have no means to verify the age of any of these people.”

“They have no documentation,” McNally told the Caller. “There’s no database they can utilize. There is nothing they can do to verify who these people are by age.”

“If you can’t verify by age, what database can you review to link anyone together anyway? You can’t,” McNally said. “[The Home Office is] using the words to try and make [the camp] sound less risky than it is.”

But the migrant camp poses more threats to Piddington than just safety. McNally —who lives just a 10-minute walk from the base’s front gate — told the Caller it will take a serious toll on the financial stability of his neighbors.

“The values of their houses are virtually just dumped,” McNally said. “Even if they wanted to leave, some of them would have to pay money back to the bank to get out of the village, because no one is going to want to own their property in this village with 1,250 men having the freedom to run around as they wish.”


Lucy Spence, The Daily Caller