Hundreds of specially-trained police will be ready to deploy to potential London terror targets at short notice under a new plan called Project Servator.

The officers could be sent to patrol locations like shopping centres, transport hubs and tourist attractions in a move aimed at deterring, detecting and disrupting possible attacks.

The plans involve undercover and highly visible police trained in how to spot people planning such acts.

Project Servator has already been used for four years by City of London Police, and was trialled in Wandsworth and Lambeth last year.

In the past four years under Servator deployments, the force has carried out 938 searches leading to 547 arrests.

Advertisement

Superintendent Nick Aldworth said traditional techniques for stopping terrorism have not worked against new, simpler terrorist attack methods such as using vehicles as weapons.

Image: The aftermath of London Bridge terror attack where terrorists used a van as a weapon

He said: "When we look globally and nationally, we have seen that terrorists now use simple methodologies that perhaps have evaded some of our traditional techniques for countering terrorism.

"In terms of specific methodologies, we put a lot of time and energy into future forecasting.

"We look at Syria and some of the things that are happening there, and how that might be migrated back into the UK.

"That's an ongoing piece of work, not only by us but through our intelligence services colleagues as well."

The London Bridge and Finsbury Park attacks both saw rented vans hit and kill members of the public, while a car was used to kill people on Westminster Bridge last year.</s>Project Servator, the UK policing tactic used to deter, detect and disrupt terrorism and other crime – began officially operating across London on Thursday, April 5.

The tactic began in the Square Mile since 2014, and the Metropolitan Police launched two pilot teams in November 2016. The Met launched further teams, so that the whole of London, including London City Airport and Heathrow Airport, will be covered.

Project Servator sees the deployment of both highly visible and covert police officers, supported by other resources such as dogs, Mounted Branch, firearms officers, vehicle checkpoints, Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and CCTV. Police explain that the deployments can happen anywhere, and at any time, and include police officers trained to spot the tell-tale signs of people who may have criminal intent.

The tactics used have been developed and tested at the UK official Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI) with the City of London Police.

The new Met teams will work with colleagues from the City of London Police, British Transport Police (BTP) and the Ministry of Defence Police to carry out deployments across the capital, including busy areas such as shopping centres, tourist attractions and transport hubs. Pictured is a tourist posing for a photo in front of the statue of Churchill in a corner of Parliament Square, yesterday morning while a Servator deployment was around the Square; in the middle ground are Met and BTP officers at entrances to Westminster Tube station, part of the deployment.

Supt Nick Aldworth, Head of the Met’s Project Servator teams, said: “Working with the community is a vital part of making Project Servator a success, and record numbers of people have been contacting the police to report suspicious activity. Every day, Project Servator officers will enlist the help of businesses, security staff, community groups and members of the public to be vigilant and make it even harder for criminals, including terrorists, to succeed. By being vigilant, we can all create a hostile environment for potential terrorists who may be considering their targets and for individuals looking to commit crime.

“The public shouldn’t be worried if a deployment happens in their area. In fact, I encourage anyone to talk to the officers to find out more. The public can help keep their community safe from terrorism by reporting anything that seems out of place, unusual, or doesn’t seem to fit with day-to-day life.”

The Met give the case from October 2017, when Servator officers were deployed at the Changing of the Guard; they stopped a vehicle after becoming suspicious of the driver. Officers identified that he had no car insurance and was in possession of a bank card in a name different to his own. The officers arrested him and searched his home address in Westminster, recovering a machine used to fraudulently print bank cards.

Since February 2018, the Ministry of Defence Police have been carrying out deployments in and around Whitehall. They also have Project Servator teams operating at the Atomic Weapons Establishment sites in Berkshire and at Portsmouth Naval Base.

Supt Helen Isaac, of the National Project Servator Team based at the City of London Police, said: “Project Servator has been adopted by eight UK police forces since it was launched by City of London Police in 2014, with more to follow in 2018. Officers have made arrests on suspicion of a wide range of offences and have taken drugs and weapons, including firearms and knives off the streets, seized uninsured vehicles and located wanted criminals. Hundreds of pieces of intelligence about criminal activity have been gathered and shared across policing.

“Thank you to everyone who has worked with us and helped to make Project Servator an effective policing tactic.”

More words and pictures in the May 2018 print issue of Professional Security magazine.

For more on Servator visit the City of London Police website.</s>The Project Servator counter-terror police patrol tactic launched officially covering London yesterday. At about 9.15am, dozens of police from deputy chief constable rank down were gathered inside the Tower of London (see the Met Police website for the group photo). A deployment in Parliament Square at Westminster followed.

Professional Security magazine around that time, on its way to Parliament Square, had its own experience of Servator. For the magazine has, it turns out, followed Servator from its earliest days. In the spring of 2014 it reported on Servator at One New Change, the shopping centre across the road from St Paul’s Cathedral, inside the City of London Police area; the City force was first to do Servator and continues to have oversight of it, alongside the official Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI). Professional Security has since seen and reported on Servator at the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow (in use by Police Scotland); at King’s Cross main line railway station (British Transport Police); in the City again, around St Paul’s; at Sellafield nuclear power station (the 100pc armed, Civil Nuclear Constabulary); and last summer the intu shopping centre at Thamesmead (Essex Police). In every place – and others doing Servator, such as Stansted Airport – the same consistency of method, applied to a public space, ‘crowded place’ to use the counter-terrorism lingo of a train terminus, retail mall or wherever. Always the same attention to detail, and application of method; careful use of private security, and the public generally as ‘eyes and ears’; and (also part of that attention to detail) informing people of what Servator is about, to reassure. All for a purpose; to make life more difficult and uncomfortable for the ‘hostile’, whether someone carrying out reconnaissance, considering a terror attack; or a burglar or robber or street thief, anyone who would find the attention of the police unwelcome.

In spring 2014 at One New Change Professional Security saw police patrollers at work with the centre’s security staff, and retailers, to make the place more hostile to criminals. Four years on, Professional Security thought to take again a photo that it took in 2014; of the view of St Paul’s from the centre of the mall. We were riding a hire bicycle and parked it against a post and snapped away.

Having done that for a minute, and taken care to face the cathedral always, not to point the camera around – Professional Security looked over its right shoulder. In one of the shops, looking out the glass door, a man in a grey suit was looking directly at us.

This is how it must feel, as a ‘hostile’. Had someone asked our business, we could have explained – we had a copy of the latest issue of the print magazine in our bag. But it felt uncomfortable; knowing that we were under surveillance. It was a telling experience. You want to act normally, of course, and not attract (further) attention. But, you ask yourself, what is normal? In this case, is it for the best to undo the camera unhurriedly? Or to pack away as fast as you can, to show that you are not hanging around? Or, should you do it slower than you would do normally, to show that you are unconcerned? And above all, you feel that you ought not to take another look at the man – who had a short beard – because would that not be suspicious?

Yet how hard it is to resist a second look! Once we were done, we did look, and yes, he was still looking at us. There was nothing for it but to pick up the cycle and push it out of the mall and go on our way.

One of the beauties of Servator is, as police say, the unpredictability of it; police do patrols of varying sorts at various times, using a mix of ‘assets’ – uniformed police and plain-clothes, mounted officers on horses, sniffer dogs (and what are they sniffing for?!), even a helicopter. They deploy when and where they do according to intelligence, for a reason, not merely because it’s a nice-looking day. They may tell Security and local businesses in advance, they may not. Always the purpose of making maximum use of the ‘assets’ for best effect.

Another beauty is the doubt it sows in the minds of a ‘hostile’. No-one at One New Change came up to Professional Security, to challenge. Nothing was said. Professional Security has not been to One New Change since 2014 and has no cause to go back. We can only say that it looks like the Servator principles are alive and working at One New Change, four years on.

One last point. A couple of hours later Professional Security was in Parliament Square for the official launch of London-wide coverage of Servator, by the Met, British Transport Police, and Ministry of Defence Police (covering Whitehall, in this case), besides the City. While speaking to Supt Helen Isaac of the City force, of the National Project Servator Team, Professional Security mentioned the good experience (good as a citizen, unsettling if you had ill-intent) at One New Change. She replied: “Everybody in a Project Servator [deployment] is watching you. It’s about the person who works in the coffee shop who understands what Servator is and what to look for, it’s about taking that all-encompassing effect all the time, whether there’s police there or not.” She then said that she would pass on the good feedback to One New Change – a small but telling example of that attention to detail; and how thought-out Servator has been all along.

For more about Project Servator, visit the City of London Police website.</s>A London-wide counter-terrorism initiative which will see hundreds of specially trained officers on patrol at potential terrorist targets has been launched.

Project Servator sees the deployment of both highly visible and covert Metropolitan Police officers, ready to swarm locations at short notice in order to deter, detect and disrupt criminal and terrorist activity.

Officers inform members of the public about Project Servator today. Photo: Jonathan Brady/PA Wire.

The deployments can happen anywhere and at any time at locations including shopping centres, tourist attractions and transport hubs, undertaken by police officers trained to spot the tell-tale signs of individuals who may have criminal intent.

Project Servator has already been in place for four years with City of London Police, and was trialled in Wandsworth and Lambeth last year.

In the past four years, City of London Police have conducted 938 searches leading to 547 arrests due to Servator deployments.

Superintendent Nick Aldworth said that traditional techniques for stopping terrorism have not worked against new, simpler terrorist attack methods.

"When we look globally and nationally, we have seen that terrorists now use simple methodologies that perhaps have evaded some of our traditional techniques for countering terrorism," he said.

"In terms of specific methodologies, we put a lot of time and energy into future forecasting.

"We look at Syria and some of the things that are happening there, and how that might be migrated back into the UK.

"That's an ongoing piece of work, not only by us but through our intelligence services colleagues as well."

The new methodologies used by terrorists in the UK include using vehicles as weapons.

The London Bridge and Finsbury Park attacks both saw rented vans mow down and kill members of the public, while a car was used to kill people on Westminster Bridge last year.</s>Create a piece of music that is simultaneously in 3/4, 2/4, and 7/4 time.

Each Thursday in the Disquiet Junto group, a new compositional challenge is set before the group’s members, who then have just over four days to upload a track in response to the assignment. Membership in the Junto is open: just join and participate. (A SoundCloud account is helpful but not required.) There’s no pressure to do every project. It’s weekly so that you know it’s there, every Thursday through Monday, when you have the time.

Deadline: This project’s deadline is 11:59pm (that is, just before midnight) wherever you are on Monday, April 9, 2018. This project was posted in the morning, California time, on Thursday, April 5, 2018.

Tracks will be added to “>the playlist for the duration of the project.

These are the instructions that went out to the group’s email list (at tinyletter.com/disquiet-junto):

Disquiet Junto Project 0327: Time Zoned Create a piece of music that is simultaneously in 3/4, 2/4, and 7/4 time.

Step 1: This week’s Disquiet Junto project, the 327th consecutive weekly Junto project, running since January 2012, will engage with the number 327. Compose a piece of music with three separate and distinct through-lines. Think of each of the three lines as an individual voice. The important thing is that the three through-lines occur in your composition simultaneously. One voice should be in 3/4 time. One should be in 2/4 time. And one should be in 7/4 time.

Major thanks to Ethan Hein and Nate Trier for helping develop the project.

Six More Important Steps When Your Track Is Done:

Step 1: Include “disquiet0327” (no spaces or quotation marks) in the name of your track.

Step 2: If your audio-hosting platform allows for tags, be sure to also include the project tag “disquiet0327” (no spaces or quotation marks). If you’re posting on SoundCloud in particular, this is essential to subsequent location of tracks for the creation a project playlist.

Step 3: Upload your track. It is helpful but not essential that you use SoundCloud to host your track.

Step 4: Please consider posting your track in the following discussion thread at llllllll.co:

Step 5: Annotate your track with a brief explanation of your approach and process.

Step 6: Then listen to and comment on tracks uploaded by your fellow Disquiet Junto participants.

Deadline: This project’s deadline is 11:59pm (that is, just before midnight) wherever you are on Monday, April 9, 2018. This project was posted in the morning, California time, on Thursday, April 5, 2018.

Length: The length is up to you. Making it 3:27 would be perfect.

Title/Tag: When posting your track, please include “disquiet0327” in the title of the track, and where applicable (on SoundCloud, for example) as a tag.

Upload: When participating in this project, post one finished track with the project tag, and be sure to include a description of your process in planning, composing, and recording it. This description is an essential element of the communicative process inherent in the Disquiet Junto. Photos, video, and lists of equipment are always appreciated.

Download: It is preferable that your track is set as downloadable, and that it allows for attributed remixing (i.e., a Creative Commons license permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution).

Linking: When posting the track online, please be sure to include this information:

More on this 327th weekly Disquiet Junto project (Time Zoned: Create a piece of music that is simultaneously in 3/4, 2/4, and 7/4 time) at:

Major thanks to Ethan Hein and Nate Trier for helping develop the project.

More on the Disquiet Junto at:

There’s also on a Junto Slack. Send your email address to twitter.com/disquiet for Slack inclusion.

The image associated with this project was made by Nate Trier for the project.</s>The major USAAF effort to supply the Resistance movements and secret armies in Europe began in the summer of 1943 under the codename ‘Carpetbagger’, which someone had lifted from the annals of the American Civil War. At first the Americans had been as unprepared for Resistance support as the British had been in 1940. OSS was introduced to supplement SOE operations and by 1942 was functioning very effectively under the dynamic leadership of Colonel (later General) William ‘Wild Bill’ Donovan. In September 1942 the joint Anglo-American SOE-SO was formed and the Americans began participating in the planning of operations in many northwest European countries.

Eventually, OSS consisted of five major categories: Secret Intelligence (SI), responsible for intelligence gathering; Secret Operations (SO), the parachuting of agents into occupied countries; Morale Operations (MO), which involved propaganda broadcasts to the enemy to undermine his morale; and ‘X–2’, the counter-intelligence service. A Research and Analysis (R and A) Branch provided analysis of bomb damage and its repercussions on the German economy.

Unlike SOE, which came under the aegis of the British Government, authority for the Carpetbagger Project came from the American Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was they who directed that OSS would be the US Agency charged with sabotage and with the ‘Organization and Conduct of Guerilla Warfare’. In a cable dated 26 August 1943, from the Commanding General ETOUSA (European Theater of Operations USA), to the War Department, these directives were approved and three days later in a letter to Donovan the OSS was directed to work out with G–2 and G–3, ETOUSA, ‘the composition of Staffs for Army and Army group HO and to proceed with the organization and training of Jedburgh teams for the purpose of coordinating activities behind the enemy lines.’

Hundreds of Jedburgh teams were to be dropped into France just prior to and after the Allied invasion of Normandy. These teams consisted of three members, usually English, French and American. Most Jedburgh teams were dropped into areas well in advance of the allied invasion forces in order to provide a general staff for the local Resistance wherever they landed. They also organized sabotage and the disruption of enemy supplies and harried the retreat of enemy troops. Jedburgh teams usually remained in the field until overrun by the advancing Allied forces.

At first, Carpetbagger operations would be mounted from the English Midlands. Later in the war, missions were extended to include Scandinavia when a team headed by Bernt Balchen, the famous arctic explorer, mounted operations from Leuchars in Scotland. First, the ‘Sonnie’ project, as it was called, was so successful that ultimately, 3,016 passengers were evacuated, including 965 American internees. In July 1944 Carpetbagger crews were involved in the ‘Ball Project’ (so named because of the removal of the ball turret from the B–24), and carried out supply drops to the Norwegian underground.

Initially, personnel for the Carpetbagger unit were drawn from the 4th and 22nd Squadrons of the 479th Anti-Submarine Group, which had been disbanded in August 1943. They were selected because of their experience in long navigational patrols at night. For almost three months, operating from an aerodrome at Dunkeswell, Devon, these two squadrons, flying Consolidated B–24D Liberator aircraft, had carried out anti-submarine sweeps over the Bay of Biscay, flying lone patrols of between ten and twelve hours’ duration, looking for German U-boats. Their record was a good one. On one occasion they had taken on formations of twelve Ju–88s and had won through. They had even been fired upon by anti-aircraft batteries along the Spanish coast.

In October 1943 Anti-Submarine Command was disbanded and the task of keeping the Atlantic sealanes free of U-boats passed exclusively to the US Navy and RAF Coastal Command. On 26 October the ground section of the 22nd Anti-Submarine Squadron left Dunkeswell by motor convoy for Alconbury. They overnighted at Yettingdon and arrived at Station 102 the next morning. Meanwhile, the air echelon had flown north from Devon but bad weather prevented them from landing at the Huntingdonshire base. They were forced to land at other airfields over a wide area and many were fogged in for a week. Ground crews in the 4th Anti-Submarine Squadron had better luck, leaving Dunkeswell on 1 November by train and road. At Alconbury the 4th and 22nd joined the men and machines of the 482nd (Pathfinder) Group.

At first the ex-anti-submarine group crews did not know what their new role would be, although the later change in squadron designation from ‘anti-submarine’ to ‘bombardment’ made them draw the wrong conclusions. Existing squadrons in the 482nd were carrying out pathfinder missions but the two new squadrons took on a curious demeanour when their B–24D Liberators were painted black. It was an appropriate choice of colour because the new commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Clifford J. Heflin, was still in the dark.

Not until 24 October 1943 did Heflin learn what the new duties of his former 22nd Anti-submarine Squadron and of the 4th would be. On this date Heflin, his deputy, Major Robert W. Fish and Lieutenants Robert D. Sullivan and Akers, were summoned to attend a meeting at Bovingdon. They were met by Colonel Williamson, A–3 of VIII Bomber Command, Group Captain (later Air Vice-Marshal) E.H. ‘Mouse’ Fielden from RAF Tempsford, Colonel Oliver of 8th Air Force and Colonel Joseph F. Haskell and Major Brooks of OSS, London. While the Americans were new to the sabotage game, Fielden and the RAF Special Duty squadrons in complete contrast, were old hands. Fielden was a former Captain of the King’s Flight and had taken command of No. 138 Squadron in August 1941. RAF clandestine air operations on behalf of SOE had begun in August 1940 and by mid-1941 was operating with a handful of Lysander single-engined army co-operation aircraft and Whitley bombers. The Lysanders and later Hudsons, were used in the dangerous task of flying out SOE agents who had finished their spell of duty in France, or who were on the run from the Gestapo. Escaping RAF airmen were also plucked to safety on occasions. Altogether, the Lysanders delivered 304 agents to France and exfiltrated 410 to Britain for the loss of thirteen aircraft and six pilots.

War-weary Whitley and Wellington bombers and later Halifax, Stirling and Hudson aircraft, were used for long-range parachute operations. By February 1942 138 Squadron had been joined in special duty operations by No. 161 Squadron and both squadrons began operations from Tempsford in the spring of 1942. Their hard-won experience and techniques were made available to the USAAF.

Williamson explained that the former anti-submarine squadrons had been assigned duties as ‘Sabotage’ squadrons. Amazed at this development, Heflin and his junior officers listened attentively as they were briefed in turn by the OSS officers and the British Group Captain about their involvement in a new operation with the cover name ‘Carpetbagger Project’. For the most part, Heflin’s squadrons would come under Special Operations. OSS would direct operations and arrange details of reception grounds (working in close co-operation with SOE who would specify the contents of the containers and packages to be delivered).

SO-SOE anticipated that the strength of Resistance groups on D–Day would be about 160,000. The continual problem that this posed to the Allied high command was their leadership, communications and supplies. The Resistance forces had to be organized into well-disciplined units, controlled by an effective system of communications and be capable of carrying out military operations such as attacks on enemy installations, disruption of enemy road and rail systems and hindering the deployment of enemy troop and tank movements.

In France this aim was a commander’s nightmare. The Free French operated under a command network of no fewer than a dozen délégués militaires régionaux (DMRs) who were able to request arms drops, via radio contact with SOE, from the Allied air forces. The Resistance movements were also divided between the Front National and the Communist-directed Franc-tireurs et Partisans (FTP).

The situation was made even more intriguing by political infighting between the Allies. In London General Charles de Gaulle claimed to represent France and therefore argued that all operations in his country should come under his direction. Initially, the British and American governments opposed this on political grounds. They also mistrusted the apparent lack of security, justifiably on occasions, at Free French Headquarters. All this led SOE to establish an ‘independent French’ (or ‘F’) section headed by Colonel Maurice Buckmaster (which by June 1944 was operating 50 réseaux in France). Understandably, de Gaulle was unhappy about this arrangement, which persisted until 1944 when in preparation for D-Day, he formed the FFI (Forces Françaises de l’Intérieur).

It was proposed that the SO (Special Operations) Branch of the OSS undertake the delivery of supplies to Resistance groups in a plan coordinated with the SOE. Heflin’s crews would air drop the Jedburgh teams, supplies and small arms, light automatic weapons, munitions, explosives, demolition and incendiary equipment. Generally speaking, pinpoints suitable for dropping a certain number of containers or packages would be proposed by SO. It was envisaged that no more than three squadrons of aircraft would be needed to supply the Resistance groups in occupied Europe.

At first approval was given only for supplying Resistance groups on a limited scale, for previous British experience had shown that considerable time would be needed to train crews for this type of operation. Lieutenant Wilmer L. Stapel, pilot of one of the original twelve B–24Ds commanded by Colonel Heflin that arrived at Dunkeswell in early August 1943, recalls:

After numerous briefings and stern warnings about ever discussing our clandestine operation, with a constant threat of court martial, if we ever disclosed anything at any time, one more prerequisite remained to be done before our crews would be turned loose over the continent of Europe. Each pilot, navigator and bombardier had to fly two combat missions each, with a combat ready crew. Since the USAAF had none, we were sent to the RAF squadrons at Tempsford to fly with their crews.

As has already been mentioned, both Nos. 138 and 161 Squadrons were stationed at the airfield, located just to the north of Sandy in Bedfordshire. To maintain security, Tempsford was known simply as ‘Gibraltar Farm’ to civilians and servicemen alike. Seemingly, its only link with civilization was with the main London to Edinburgh railway which runs parallel to the base and which is bounded on the west side by the Great North Road. The Special Duty squadrons at Tempsford had amassed a wealth of experience on varied cloak-and-dagger missions to the Low Countries and France and as far afield as Austria, Norway, Poland and Czechoslovakia. The assassination of SS–Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich, the Nazi Reichsprotektor of Bohemia and Moravia, was carried out on 27 May 1942 by Czech agents who had taken off from Tempsford. Heydrich was mortally wounded and died on 4 June 1942.

MI6 and SOE agents departing from and arriving at Tempsford were held at staging areas at Tempsford and Hasells Halls, and at Farm Hall, an unimposing mansion on West Street in Godmanchester. In 1942-3 Farm Hall (Special Training School No. 61) was used by six members of the Gunnerside team, whose mission was to destroy the German heavy water plant at Vermork in Norway, near the region of Telemark close to the electricity-generating area and nitrate plant at Rjukan. It was known that German scientists were working towards developing an atomic bomb and it was crucial therefore towards developing an atomic bomb and it was crucial therefore to deprive them of heavy water, which was needed to slow down the process of atomic fission. Thirty-four commandos of the First Airborne Division had taken off from Scotland on 19 November 1942 in two gliders to sabotage the plant but the attempt had ended in disaster when one of the towing aircraft crashed into a mountainside in Norway and both gliders crashed. All the surviving commandos were captured and shot.

For three months the Gunnerside team trained at Farm Hall, practising the demolition of simulated heavy water concentration cells. One member of the team, Knut Haukelid, described the Hall thus:

It was a station for people who were going to Europe on secret errands and who had to wait for planes. The place was very closely guarded. A number of servicewomen kept the house in order, cooked the meals and gave the boys some social life … But if we asked the FANYs [First Air Nursing Yeomanry] about our comrades who had gone out before us, they became dumb and knew nothing.

According to Arnold Kramish in his book The Griffin:

Farm Hall was not just a staging area for agents going out; it was an interrogation centre for agents and their captives coming in. Every room in the house, and some of the garden trees, was wired with microphones and there was a listening post in an isolated room.

In the early 1990s, floorboards were removed and revealed underfloor bugging devices in ‘finely crafted containers, like pencil boxes, with wires in them … Loyalties were automatically questioned, and the wiring gave information sometimes not elicited through interrogation’. Kramish states that the bugging devices had been put there on the orders of Lieutenant Commander Eric Welsh, a Royal Navy intelligence officer in SOE. Professor R.V. Jones, in his book Most Secret War, says that he asked for microphones to be placed there in 1945 before the arrival of ten German nuclear physicists.

On 16 February 1943 the Gunner side team, led by Lieutenant Joachim Rönneberg, took off from Tempsford and parachuted into Norway where they rendezvoused with four men of the Rype (Grouse) advance scouting party which had been dropped on 18 October 1942 to reconnoitre the area. The sabotage team made its way to Rjukan and during the night of 27/28 February blew up the heavy water concentration cells without any casualties. In the event, the Germans were able to repair the damage and make the plant operational again but production of heavy water was denied them for a critical few months and a stock of about 350 kilograms of heavy water was lost.

Tempsford, therefore, provided an ideal training school for the eager young American aircrews. The Special Duty Squadrons’ ability to exfiltrate secret agents and escaping aircrews from Occupied Europe did not go unnoticed either. During 1943 no fewer than 157 pick-up operations,† of which 111 were successful, were attempted by Lysander pilots of 161 Squadron. During operations from Tempsford and the forward base at Tangmere 138 Squadron made over 2,500 sorties and dropped almost 1,000 agents in occupied Europe for the loss of seventy aircraft.</s>Vancouver, British Columbia--(Newsfile Corp. - April 5, 2018) - GoviEx Uranium Inc. (TSXV: GXU) (OTCQB: GVXXF) ("GoviEx" or "Company") announces the results of a review study ("Review") performed by Synexus (Pty) Limited ("Synexus") to identify and assess opportunities to use membrane separation technologies to reduce the capital and operating expenses, as well as increase efficiency in the recovery of uranium and molybdenum, at the Company's fully-permitted Madaouela Project in Niger (the "Madaouela Project").

"The potential operating and capital savings highlighted by the Review, while preliminary in nature, are very encouraging and support our decision to undertake this assessment. This work underlines GoviEx's strategy to focus on the optimization of the Madaouela Project," commented Daniel Major, CEO.

The Review considered five options whereby membrane separation could be potentially utilized in the process plant design as set out in the independent NI 43-101 technical report titled, "The Updated Integrated Development Plan for the Madaouela Project, Niger" with an effective date of August 11, 2015, and a revision date of August 20, 2015 (the "Technical Report"), published on SEDAR under the Company's profile and available on the Company's website at www.goviex.com. The five options described by the Review are as follows:
• Option 5 - to recover sodium hydroxide and carry-over uranium from the sodium diuranate precipitation filter filtrate (or from the precipitation thickener overflow).

Synexus' overall approach and methodology for the Review was to use the existing process design information as set out in the Technical Report for the membrane test data simulation models, which were then used to assess membrane performance for each option.

"I am very pleased with the progress our team has made to date in exploring potential mine design and process optimization opportunities for our Madaouela Project. If these efficiencies prove to be fruitful at the Madaouela Project, we will explore the possibility of applying them at our other fully-permitted project: the Mutanga Project in Zambia," stated Govind Friedland, Executive Chairman.

Membrane separation could contribute to both capital and operating cost savings because of one or a combination of the following possibilities:
• More efficient management of solution chemistry may optimize separation of uranium and molybdenum from the acid leach solution and from each other in the membrane concentration step.
• The required capacity of the sulfuric acid plant may be reduced, directly because of acid recovery and reuse, and indirectly because of the reduction in acid used for pH correction.
• Reagent consumption may be reduced, in addition to consumption of sulfuric acid, because of recovery and reuse, or because of the reduction in use for pH correction.

The results of the Review indicate that the inclusion of membrane separation in the Madaouela Project process design, as set out in the Technical Report, could potentially reduce operating and capital costs and hence improve project economics. The results in the Review, while based on the Technical Report inputs, are preliminary in nature and require further technical studies; however, these initial results are of a significant enough scale as to support the inclusion of membrane separation in the next-stage feasibility study for the Madaouela Project.

The Review sets out a series of recommendations, including the following, for GoviEx to consider in determining the possible inclusion of membrane separation in the Madaouela Project's process design:
• Assess membrane separation in more detail, considering integration and reuse of the membrane recovered solutions as part of the mass balance exercise above.

The scientific and technical information disclosed in this release has been reviewed, verified, and approved by Dr. Rob Bowell, a chartered chemist of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a chartered geologist of the Geological Society of London, and Fellow of the Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Materials, who is an independent Qualified Person under the terms of National Instrument 43-101 for uranium deposits.

Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

GoviEx is a mineral resource company focused on the exploration and development of uranium properties in Africa. GoviEx's principal objective is to become a significant uranium producer through the continued exploration and development of its flagship mine-permitted Madaouela Project in Niger, its mine-permitted Mutanga Project in Zambia, and its other uranium properties in Africa.

This news release may contain forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable securities laws. All information and statements other than statements of current or historical facts contained in this news release are forward-looking information. Forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties concerning the specific factors disclosed here and elsewhere in GoviEx's periodic filings with Canadian securities regulators. When used in this news release, words such as "will", "could", "plan", "estimate", "expect", "intend", "may", "potential", "should," and similar expressions are forward-looking statements. Information provided in this document is necessarily summarized and may not contain all available material information.

Forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements regarding the potential for membrane separation technologies to reduce the capital and operating expenses, as well as increase efficiency in the recovery of uranium and molybdenum, at the Company's Madaouela Project; statements regarding the possible application of membrane separation technologies at the Company's Mutanga Project; and other statements that are not facts. Forward-looking statements are based on a number of assumptions and estimates that, while considered reasonable by management based on the business and markets in which GoviEx operates, are inherently subject to significant operational, economic, and competitive uncertainties and contingencies.

Assumptions upon which forward-looking statements have been made in this news release include that the results of the Review will prove to be applicable to the Madaouela Project an Mutanga Project; that the utilization of membrane separation technologies at the Madaouela Project will result in reduced capital and operating expenses, as well as increase efficiency in the recovery of uranium and molybdenum as contemplated; and that the Company will produce a feasibility study for the Madaouela Project.

Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from expectations include, among other things, the inability to complete a feasibility study on the Madaouela Project or Mutanga Project for any reason, and the possibility that the utilization of membrane separation technologies for the Madaouela Project or Mutanga Project will not yield the expected reduction in capital or operating expenses. In addition, the factors described or referred to in the section entitled "Financial Risks and Management Objectives" in the MD&A of GoviEx for the year ended December 31, 2016, which is available on the SEDAR website at www.sedar.com, should be reviewed in conjunction with the information found in this news release.

GoviEx has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results, performance, or achievements to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements. There can be other factors that cause results, performance, or achievements not to be as anticipated, estimated, or intended. There can be no assurance that such information will prove to be accurate or that management's expectations or estimates of future developments, circumstances, or results will materialize. As a result of these risks and uncertainties, the results or events predicted in these forward-looking statements may differ materially from actual results or events. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements in this news release are made as of the date of this news release, and GoviEx disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise such information, except as required by applicable law, and GoviEx assumes no any liability for disclosure relating to any other company herein.</s>Lab41 is currently developing a new open-source project called Magnolia. Lab41 is a research firm that aims to provide a better understanding on how to work with and use data analytics. The company’s ongoing project Magnolia focuses on speech isolation using deep learning.

“Current technologies use expensive microphone arrays, are limited in the environments they can operate in, or can isolate a limited numbers of speakers. Magnolia proposes to use deep learning to break these constraints and isolate speech to work with COTS microphones in a variety of environmental conditions,” the company wrote on its website.

There are four main problems Lab41 plans to work on with Magnolia. The programs are monaural source separation, removing a source that is dynamic and loud, multiple moving sources, and standoff distance acoustic enhancement.

“This project will be primarily an analysis of cost functions (in supervised and unsupervised settings) that can be used in order to denoise and isolate signals. The resulting algorithms of interest will be a mix of cost function resembling ICA and simulated beamforming methods,” according to the project’s GitHub page.

Magnolia is just one of many project’s Lab41 is currently working on. Other projects include Pelops, which focuses on car recognition using deep learning; and Poseidon, which focus on software defined network situational awareness.
• tfjs: A JavaScript version of TensorFlow designed to provide a JavaScript library for training and deploying machine learning models
• Interview notebook: Still trending! The project is in Chinese, but it is designed to provide basic knowledge to mastering technical interviews
Police announce they will expand Project Servator to cover London. Project Servator involves the deployment of hundreds of armed counterterror officers in a bid to rapidly swarm potential terrorists.