In the first day of public hearings directed by retired judge Anthony Hughes – titled Lord Hughes of Ombersley – the evidence compiled over six years by the police, secret services, CCTV records, and witnesses is that Novichok, identified as one of the world’s fastest acting nerve poisons, was sprayed on the front door-handle of Sergei Skripal’s house in order to kill him by direct contact.
“As each of them touched the front door-handle on the way out of the house, that they were poisoned with Novichok,” reported the judge’s chief counsel, Andrew O’Connor KC. “It was this door handle that was the source or, in their [police] term, the ground zero of the Novichok contamination”, (O’Connor page 19, line 13, page 24, line 6).
In the official narrative, it then took at least two and a half hours to act on the alleged Russian assassination targets, Sergei and Yulia Skripal, as they sat on a bench in the centre of Salisbury town after drinking at a local pub and then eating at a restaurant. That was between 1:30 pm and 4 pm on March 4, 2018. Between the prosecution’s alleged murder weapon and the attempted murder, 120 to 150 minutes had elapsed. Click to follow — O’Connor page 20-21.
The evidence of the two assassins – Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov — charged with attempted murder of the Skripals includes “plentiful evidence of their movements and actions and we will review it in detail during the coming hearings. The evidence is complex and of course the detail matters. For today’s purposes, I propose simply to outline the effect of the CCTV evidence regarding Petrov and Boshirov’s movements in the course of their two visits to Salisbury.”
In the summary presented to Hughes’ courtroom for the first time of CCTV imagery, there is no evidence at all that the assassins came close to the Skripal house, neither on their first walking tour of the town on March 3, nor on the following fateful day, March 4.
“Of course the detail matters” – but there is no fresh evidence of how close or how far the alleged assassins came to the Skripal house. All that is now alleged in the photographic and map displays presented during the hearing is that “both Petrov and Boshirov and the Skripals are in very much the same area at very much the same time. One has to aim off course because two of them are on foot and then there’s the car. But it does seem at least possible that Boshirov and Petrov may even have been in the vicinity of Sergei Skripal’s house at the time that the Skripals were leaving.”
For the inquiry team and its police and government sources, O’Connor admitted the CCTV evidence for the allegation that Boshirov and Petrov sprayed their poison on the Skripal door-handle is missing. “They were then lost from the view of CCTV cameras for 31 minutes before they re-emerged at the junction of the High Street and Bridge Street — that’s the blue marking to the right that you can see there – and walked back towards the station. You will hear evidence, sir, as to where they might have been and what they might have done during that 31-minute period.”
The closest the official evidence against the Russians can place them to the Skripal door-handle is at a street roundabout where Wilton Road and Devizes Road intersect.
The roundabout is at lower right of the map – source: https://dsiweb-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/
According to the map scale, the distance from the roundabout to the Skripal house is about 700 metres as the crow flies. To reach it on foot is a distance of about 1 kilometre.
“It is about half a mile from the roundabout, is Christie Miller Road where Sergei Skripal’s house was located.” O’Connor said; click to read at page 43, line 3. Half a mile, or 800 metres, is beyond the range of all known lethal poison spray technologies, even Russian.
To connect the assassins to their murder act the summary British evidence is revealed in four phrases – “at least possible”, “may even have been”, “might have been”, and “might have done”. By the British legal and courtroom standards of “beyond reasonable doubt” and “balance of probabilities”, these admissions reveal the trial of the Russian Novichok is based on speculation which a judge would be required to order the jury to disregard as inadmissible.
The counsel to the Inquiry then read out a Russian Embassy statement: “‘It has never been explained how it was possible for the Skripals to lose consciousness simultaneously several hours after coming into contact with the nerve agent, despite them being persons of different age, gender and body constitution.’ Then again in the final paragraph: ‘It has never been explained why not a single person providing first aid and further medical assistance to the Skripals ever developed any signs or symptoms of nerve agent poisoning, even if the nature of the poisoning was not known at least for two days.’”
For the time being, O’Conner told his judge, “So we will carefully explore all the issues that have been raised with the witnesses who are called to give evidence in the coming weeks.”
Follow the hearings in their improbable detail at the Sturgess Inquiry website.
For the only book of the case evidence tested at the British legal standards, click here.
In a David and Goliath battle, two doctors have won a libel case against a British tabloid and journalist Barney Calman, in what the judge described as “the most significant piece of defamation litigation” he had seen in a very long time.
The UK’s High Court found that Calman and his publishers, Associated Newspapers Ltd, had falsely accused Malcolm Kendrick MD and Zoë Harcombe PhD of deliberately making false statements about statin drugs and putting many people at risk of heart attacks and strokes, with far graver consequences than the MMR scandal.
Further, Calman’s article inappropriately branded the two doctors as dishonest brokers, who were focused on the business of selling books that downplay the role of cholesterol in heart disease.
Barney Calman, journalist at Associated Newspapers Ltd
Calman and his publishers refused to apologise, remove or alter the offending articles which were published in March 2019, so Kendrick and Harcombe sued for libel arguing the articles “caused serious harm” to their reputations.
Calman and his publishers claimed the articles were “honest opinion” published in the public interest, and therefore protected under the Defamation Act 2013. But Justice Matthew Nicklin denied them a public interest defence in June 2024. (See previous coverage)
Since then, the publishers decided not to appeal the decision.
Today, the Mail Online issued an apology to Kendrick and Harcombe, conceding that the allegations it printed were “untrue and ought not to have been published.”
It added, “We are happy to set the record straight, and apologise to Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick for the distress caused. We will not repeat the allegations and have agreed to pay substantial damages and costs.”
In response to the announcement, Dr Zoë Harcombe said, “I’m delighted to say it’s finally over. Malcolm and I are so grateful to those who made this possible – especially our legal team Claire & Dominic at Carter-Ruck and Adrienne & Godwin at 5RB.”
The offending articles have been removed from the website. The case serves as a stark warning to journalists who use their platform to try and discredit those who challenge orthodoxy.
Alternative energy is exploding—literally. Lithium battery fires are breaking out on highways and in factories, home garages and storage rooms. The rise in these fires is caused by government efforts to force the adoption of “green” energy.
Lithium batteries have high energy density, making them valuable for phones and portable appliances. But when they catch fire, they burn with high heat and can even blow up. That’s why airlines prohibit lithium batteries in checked baggage.
On June 24 a battery factory in Hwaseong, South Korea, caught fire, triggering explosions and killing 22 workers. Experts estimate that most were killed by toxic gases emitted by the burning batteries.
Scotland has suffered two major fires in battery-recycling centers this year. On April 8 a large fire broke out at Fenix Battery Recycling in Kilwinning. More than 40 firefighters and personnel from six different stations responded to the blaze, which burned for several days. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service urged nearby residents to remain indoors with windows closed as long as two days after the fire started.
On June 23 a large fire broke out at the battery-recycling facility of WEEE Solutions in Glasgow. Eyewitnesses reported explosions, noises like gunshots, “steel flying everywhere” and a huge plume of black smoke. Ten fire trucks were needed, and the blaze lasted four days.
E-bike battery fires are a leading cause of fires in New York City, causing 270 blazes last year and killing 18 people. These have become a serious problem in Australia, Canada and other nations as well. E-bicyclists often store their bikes in first-floor storerooms, where they can self-ignite and destroy the buildings. Even high-quality batteries are prone to self-ignition after damage or when connected to a faulty charging system.
Lithium batteries have been used for the past 30 years in phones and small appliances. But the introduction of electric cars led to a massive increase in battery size—and potential destructiveness. On Aug. 19 a Tesla semi truck crashed into trees along Interstate 80 in California. The crash ignited the truck’s large lithium battery. Firefighters required 50,000 gallons of water to extinguish the flames, and the highway was closed for 15 hours. The California Advanced Clean Fleets regulation passed last year requires all new semi trucks to be zero-emissions vehicles by 2036, which in practice means electric trucks with batteries prone to fire.
Automakers have contended with lithium-battery fires for more than a decade. Alfa Romeo, BMW, Ford, General Motors, Hyundai, Porsche, Tesla and other manufacturers have recalled millions of EVs because of battery-fire problems. Batteries can self-ignite while the vehicle is in motion, when connected to a charger, or even when sitting in a parking lot. EVs prone to self-ignition have been banned from parking lots in China, South Korea and across the U.S.
On Aug. 24 a fire broke out in the parking lot of EV manufacturer Rivian in Normal, Ill. More than 50 vehicles were destroyed. The same plant also reportedly suffered three other battery fires in the last year and three more in 2021-22.
On July 26 a truck containing several large lithium batteries ignited after a crash on Interstate 15 near Baker, Calif. The road was shut down for 44 hours as firefighters worked to put out the blaze. Hundreds of motorists were stranded in the desert in 100-degree heat. Ambulances and medical teams with fuel and water were dispatched to the site to help stranded motorists.
How are governments responding to the rash of battery fires? They are doubling down, promoting the use of even larger high-density lithium batteries as part of their efforts to phase out coal, oil and natural gas in favor of wind and solar energy.
Grid-scale batteries are viewed as the solution to wind and solar intermittency. They store excess electricity when wind and solar output is high and release it when wind and solar output is low. The number of grid battery fires is growing, and grid batteries are hundreds of times the size of EV batteries.
In a new interview with Hungarian newspaper Mandiner, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó reveals that he actually saw the finished peace treaty that would have ended the war between Ukraine and Russia. He said that all that was missing were the signatures of the two warring parties. He explains why peace never came, laying the blame firmly on the West.
At the end of March, beginning of April 2022, an agreement was almost reached at the peace talks, known as the Istanbul agreements.
“I saw the document that was almost signed, and which, according to the realities of the time, would have ended the war. What happened? The Westerners came and told the Ukrainians to keep fighting, no agreement should be accepted,” said Hungary’s foreign minister.
The decision to prolong the war, which was backed by the West, has had profound global implications and led to hundreds of thousands of deaths across Russia and Ukraine, along with a catastrophic effect on Ukraine’s birth rate and demographic outlook. It has also fueled inflation and economic certainty across Europe.
Szijjártó noted that although the goal of the EU leaders was to bring Russia to its knees at the beginning of 2022, this has not happened to date. He notes that people are dying on the frontlines every day, while the parties have not come any closer to peace.
According to David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine’s ruling party, Ukraine was ready to sign the document when Western leaders saw a draft of the negotiations. The Ukrainian politician said then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson allegedly worked hard to nix the potential peace agreement.
Szijjártó says Hungary backs the China-Brazil peace plan and noted that only three countries, Hungary, France and Switzerland, were invited to the inaugural meeting of the Friends of Peace group organized by them.
This feature length investigation by Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit exposes Israeli war crimes in the Gaza Strip through the medium of photos and videos posted online by Israeli soldiers themselves during the year long conflict. The I-Unit has built up a database of thousands of videos, photos and social media posts. Where possible it has identified the posters and those who appear. The material reveals a range of illegal activities, from wanton destruction and looting to the demolition of entire neighbourhoods and murder. The film also tells the story of the war through the eyes of Palestinian journalists, human rights workers and ordinary residents of the Gaza Strip. And it exposes the complicity of Western governments – in particular the use of RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus as a base for British surveillance flights over Gaza. “The west cannot hide, they cannot claim ignorance. Nobody can say they didn’t know,” says Palestinian writer, Susan Abulhawa. This is “the first livestream genocide in history. If people are ignorant they are wilfully ignorant,” she says.
A phalanx of the UK’s most influential journalists brought this odious article to print, decrying as a ‘blood libel’ the reporting of Israel’s killing of thousands of children in Gaza
I can’t put this strongly enough. Howard Jacobson’s article in today’s Observer newspaper may be one the vilest pieces of journalism published in Britain in living memory, arguing that any reporting of Israel’s documented slaughter of many thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza is a “blood libel” and antisemitic. It is pure genocide apologism.
But far worse is the fact that the Guardian Media Group signed off his column. This isn’t the work of one Zionist loon. A whole army of journalists brought it to print.
And note: Jacobson, odious as he is, isn’t responsible for the choice of photo. That is entirely down to the Observer newsroom.
I worked at both the Guardian and the Observer, its Sunday sister paper, for many years. The comment editor, the photo editor, the revise sub-editor, the Observer’s chief editor and all the section heads would have approved not only Jacobson’s text but that photo too.
What on earth did they all imagine that “illustrative” photo of a blood-smeared doll suggested?
That the many thousands of children blown to pieces by Israeli bombs are a fiction.
That all the children decomposing under rubble are made up.
That all the unidentified children buried in Gaza’s sands are a lie.
That all the children dying of epidemics like polio or starving to death from Israel’s aid blockade are an invention.
That any single journalist imagined for a moment that this was an acceptable article or photo in the midst of a genocide is astounding enough.
But that a whole phalanx of the most influential and “liberal” journalists in the country backed it without a second thought tells us something about the depraved culture that passes for journalism in the western establishment media.
These elite journalists are completely divorced from reality. They have no moral core, they live and work as fanatical ideologues for western supremacism. They are as racist as their forebears who cheerled Britain’s subjugation and colonisation of the rest of the globe.
There is no hope of ever having a healthy world as long as these war-mongers and genocide apologists are allowed to remain in charge of shaping our consciousness.
Adding fluoride to drinking water provides very limited dental benefits, especially compared with 50 years ago, according to an updated Cochrane Review published today.
The review follows less than two weeks after a California federal judge ruled water fluoridation poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children and must be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
It also comes as some U.S. cities and towns have moved to pause or stop fluoridating their water in response to the verdict, signaling that fluoridating water, a long-term and largely unquestioned practice in the U.S., is facing heightened scrutiny.
To determine if water fluoridation leads to reduced rates of tooth decay, researchers from the University of Manchester and other U.K. universities reviewed 157 studies comparing communities that fluoridated their water to those that don’t.
They concluded that contemporary evidence shows community water fluoridation may lead to a very small reduction in cavities in children’s baby teeth over time. Fluoride in water reduced tooth decay only by about one-quarter of one tooth, they found, and even that conclusion was made with “low certainty.”
“Adding fluoride to water may slightly increase the number of children who have no tooth decay in either their baby teeth or permanent teeth,” the study authors wrote. “However, these results also included the possibility of little or no difference in tooth decay.”
They said studies conducted in 1975 or before showed a larger benefit of water fluoridation on tooth decay, CNN reported — a reduction of about one less cavity in baby teeth. However, those findings no longer apply to populations today who have better baseline dental health and exposure to other sources of fluoride, like toothpaste, they said.
The findings also confirm recent observational studies, including the LOTUS Study, which found only a 2% reduction in cavities among people living in fluoridated areas in England.
The conclusions — taken together with recent scientific research and the federal court decision — raise serious questions about the practice of community water fluoridation.
“When interpreting the evidence, it is important to think about the wider context and how society and health have changed over time,” said co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, professor of Health Sciences Research at the University of Manchester.
“Given that the benefit has reduced over time, before introducing a new fluoridation scheme, careful thought needs to be given to costs, acceptability, feasibility and ongoing monitoring,” said co-author Lucy O’Malley, Ph.D., senior lecturer in Health Services Research at the University of Manchester.
They maintain water fluoridation is a safe and effective strategy for oral health.
“I find it incredibly irresponsible that agencies like the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have lauded and promoted this harmful practice of fluoridation for far too long,” integrative dentist Dr. Griffin Cole told The Defender.
Cole said that given the known neurotoxic effects of fluoride, there was never any justification for fluoridating water. He said:
“It is accurate to say we are all exposed to so many other sources of fluoride that continuing to add it to our water supply is now not necessary, but it’s disingenuous and unconscionable to say the statistically insignificant effect on tooth decay was worth poisoning millions of Americans and children’s brains for nearly 80 years.”
In last week’s 80-page federal court decision, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen evaluated and summarized the extensive scientific data presented at trial demonstrating that fluoride has neurotoxic effects on the developing brains of fetuses and children.
According to Chen, the “optimal level” of water fluoridation currently used in the U.S., which is 0.7 milligrams per liter, is too close to the known level at which fluoride poses a neurotoxic risk and may itself be neurotoxic.
Research published in JAMA Network Open in May shows that children born to women exposed during pregnancy to fluoridated drinking water at optimal levels were more likely to have neurobehavioural problems.
The authors of the Cochrane study also found insufficient evidence to show that water fluoridation reduces oral health inequalities, which is one of the key claims supporters like the ADA used to justify the practice.
Last week, the ADA and the AAP confirmed they remain staunch supporters of water fluoridation.
ADA President Linda J. Edgar said in a statement that scientific evidence shows community water fluoridation reduced cavities by 25% — a significantly higher claim than found in the Cochrane review. Dr. Charlotte W. Lewis, a member of the AAP Section on Oral Health, said water fluoridation is “a public health policy based on a solid foundation of evidence.”
Neither organization immediately responded to The Defender’s request for comment.
The CDC, which has long advocated for water fluoridation as a “cornerstone strategy” for limiting tooth decay, and the EPA, which has refused to regulate it, also did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment on the study.
Over 200 million Americans are currently exposed to fluoridated water on a daily basis.
Pro-Palestine students at the University of Manchester have occupied part of its campus in protest against the institution’s complicity with Israel and its ongoing occupation of Gaza and the Palestinian territories.
In a press release by Manchester Leftist Action, a coalition of left-wing student activists from universities across Manchester, it announced that “As part of students’ actions against the senior leadership of their academic institutions that have been ignoring the demands to cut ties [with Israel], on Friday 04 October, students occupied the Samuel Alexander building” at the University of Manchester’s campus.
The move was taken amid the university’s hosting of the THE World Academic Summit, set to take place from Monday 7 October to Wednesday 9 October, of which senior academics and leadership figures from across the country and the world will reportedly attend.
Iterating the students’ stance “against British complicity and in honour of Palestinian martyrs” killed throughout Israel’s ongoing invasion and occupation of the besieged Gaza Strip, the press release announced a mass demonstration on the Sumit’s opening day, expected to be joined by community members and students from across the UK.
‘Gaza encampments symbolise a rising tide of global support for Palestinian liberation’
According to the press release, the students “are protesting the University of Manchester’s deep complicity in Israeli crimes, working with BAE systems who produce parts of the F35 fighter jets used to bomb civilians in Gaza and partnering with Hebrew University of Jerusalem which is built on illegally occupied land, and Tel Aviv University which produced the Dahiya doctrine – the military strategy that calls for the destruction of civilian infrastructure such as schools and hospitals”.
A spokesman for the students further stressed that “we cannot stay silent while our counterparts in Gaza have no universities to go to. Last year, students were at the forefront of global solidarity with Palestine, and we continue with the same spirit of defiance this year.”
They added that the pro-Palestinian students “begin this academic year relentless as ever in our pursuit of justice. The University’s shameful ties to a settler-colonial regime must end on our watch, and this is the minimum we could do for the Palestinian people that have been enduring Zionist violence for over 76 years”.
The demands toward the University of Manchester which the press release outlined consisted of cutting ties with Tel Aviv University and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, ending the partnership with BAE Systems, adopting a policy ensuring all research is ethical and does not contribute towards the arms trade, and guaranteeing that no disciplinary actions will be taken against students.
The BBC no longer bothers to hide the fact that its news service acts as nothing more than the British state’s willing propaganda channel.
Last night on the News at Ten, Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen secured a rare interview with Hamas’s deputy political chief, Khalil al-Hayya.
Anchor Clive Myrie introduced the segment by warning: “Many will find his comments abhorrent.” But the only person making abhorrent assertions was Myrie himself, observing that, in the interview, the Hamas leader “claims the Palestinian people have faced violence at the hands of Israel for several decades”.
No, Clive. The world’s highest court, the International Court of Justice, as well as every major human rights organisation, has concluded that Israel’s belligerent military occupation of the Palestinians’ territory is illegal and violent – not as a claim, but as an indisputable fact.
Israel’s refusal to recognise a Palestinian state and allow Palestinians self-determination; Israel’s building of hundreds of illegal settlements on Palestinian land and the transfer of Israeli Jews, often militia groups, into those settlements; Israel’s 17-year siege of Gaza; and Israel’s collective punishment of the Palestinian people to force them to submit to these indignities, are all forms of structural violence. Again, that is not a claim. It is how international law judges what Israel has done and is doing.
Next, Myrie required Bowen to justify at length why the BBC was allowing a Hamas political leader – not a military leader – to be given air time. Note, al-Hayya’s boss, Ismail Haniyeh, was assassinated by Israel while he was involved in negotiations to bring about a ceasefire. Like some kind of gangster, Israel murdered the man on the other side of the table it was supposed to be talking to.
The BBC provided none of that as context, of course, for its interview. It was too busy placating Israel and the British government by issuing apologies and warnings before it offered a rare insight into Hamas’ side of the story.
So what did al-Hayya say that was so “abhorrent”? Here are the main points al-Hayya raised in the interview – you can listen to his precise wording via this link – under Bowen’s mainly hostile questioning:
1. Hamas launched its attack on October 7 because the world had forgotten about Gaza even as Israel was slowly strangling the tiny territory to death through its 17-year siege. Hamas wanted to put Gaza back on the international community’s radar, and had decided it could do so only through military action.
2. Hamas fighters had been told not to target Israeli civilians on October 7, only Israeli occupation soldiers. Hamas does not endorse harming civilians. However, there were failings by individuals in sticking to that plan.
3. Israel, not Hamas, is the party responsible for destroying Gaza as evidenced through its bombardments of schools, shelters and hospitals. Hamas’ killing of 1,200 people could not be used to justify Israel killing more than 50,000 people in Gaza. Israel is “motivated by the lust to destroy”.
4. The accusation that Hamas uses the people of Gaza as “human shields” is not true. “They [Israel] destroyed mosques on the heads of their owners when there were no fighters. They destroyed houses and high-rise buildings when no one was in them… It is all Israeli propaganda.”
5. Netanyahu is the one obstructing a ceasefire. Even if Hamas surrendered today, Gaza’s next generation would take up the struggle because the Palestinian people want their freedom and have a legitimate right to resist the occupation. “People need to understand that Israel wants to burn the whole region.”
6. The Palestinians need a state and self-determination, and the Palestinian refugees a right to return to their homeland, if the region is ever to calm down.
7. It is Israel trying to eliminate the Palestinian people, not the Palestinians destroying Israel. “Give us our rights, give us a fully sovereign Palestinian state… Israel does not recognise a one-state solution or a two-state solution. Israel rejects it all.”
8. [Responding to a question about whether he considers himself a terrorist] “I’m seeking freedom and defending my people. To the occupation, we are all terrorists – the leaders, the women and the children. You heard what Israeli leaders called us: we are all animals.”
Now, one can debate whether al-Hayya’s statements are accurate or truthful, or whether he is being sincere. But nothing at all he says here can be viewed as “abhorrent” – unless you are shilling for Israel. He deplores attacks on civilians, he accuses Israel of bringing about Gaza’s destruction, he blames Netanyahu for blocking a ceasefire, and he appears to be ready to settle for a two-state solution, though he doesn’t believe Israel will agree to it.
In fact, his comments are far, far more moderate and far less inflammatory than statements regularly made by Netanyahu and most of the Israeli political and military leadership. Netanyahu, remember, is being sought by the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, while the country he leads is on trial for what its sister court, the ICJ, considers a “plausible genocide” Netanyahu has incited and overseen. Not that the BBC ever mentions either fact.
And yet the state broadcaster never prefaces remarks from Netanyahu or other Israeli leaders – such as the self-declared fascist finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich – with any kind of warning, let alone one that many viewers may find their remarks “abhorrent”.
And while we are at it, if al-Hayya’s remarks are the yardstick, how was Keir Starmer’s comment that Israel had a right to deprive Palestinian civilians of food, water and fuel – that is, to collectively punish them by starving them to death – not also deemed “abhorrent” by the BBC?
What becomes ever harder to deny is that the BBC isn’t reporting what is happening in the Middle East. It is aggressively framing it in such a way as to present Israel as the victim of events, and thereby assist it in carrying out a genocide in Gaza and beginning a second slaughter in Lebanon.
From loss of life for the greater good to sterilizations to medically assisted suicide, world government’s role in population control has become a matter for humanity. Is eugenics no longer being hidden in western culture?
The British Labour administration has ordered 100 surveillance flights over Gaza to help “Israel’, Declassified UK reported. Since Keir Starmer took over on July 5, there has been an average of more than one daily flight.
Despite halting 30 arms export licenses for “Israel” last month, alleging “a clear risk” that the weapons would be used in a “serious violation” of international law, the espionage flights have continued unabated.
Although the Ministry of Defense (MoD) declined to provide information, Declassified independently discovered planes departing from Akrotiri, Britain’s massive airbase on Cyprus, to fly over Gaza under Starmer’s supervision.
In August, the Labour Party’s first month in power, the Royal Air Force (RAF) performed 42 missions over Gaza.
Pro-Palestine and anti-war demonstrators took to the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force Akrotiri Airbase in Cyprus to denounce the UK’s implicit backing of the Israeli violations and aggression in Gaza and Lebanon.
On Monday evening, Starmer dispatched a massive A400M military cargo jet from Akrotiri to Tel Aviv. The jet can transport 116 fully equipped soldiers and 81,600-pounds of cargo.
Again on Tuesday evening, the UK sent Typhoon fighters from Cyprus to defend “Israel” from Iranian rockets.
Surveillance alleged to be for captive rescue ops
The UK planes are thought to have captured up to 500 hours of film of Gaza, carried out by the Shadow R1, an intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance (ISTAR) aircraft.
Earlier this month, Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin, a former British army officer who fought in Afghanistan, questioned the military if “UK intelligence is passed to Israel for the purposes of military targeting.”
Labour’s armed forces minister, Luke Pollard, reacted, stating the surveillance planes were “solely tasked to support hostage rescue.”
In addition, an Israeli insider told The New York Times that a covert British espionage team was sent to “Israel” early in its operation on Gaza.
The UK team “adds value” to its intelligence activities, he said, adding that Britain provides intelligence that “Israel can collect on its own.” There is no proof that the new Labour administration brought this surveillance crew back from “Israel”.
The surveillance flights began immediately after Labour gained control, with 11 flights in its first week in power.
Despite no flights taking off between September 10 to 17 following Labour’s suspension of some weaponry transfers to”Israel”, they quickly continued.
Over the last week, more than one plane has flown over Gaza for almost five hours every day from Cyprus.
After Labour seized control in July, 23 British planes flew over Gaza, followed by 42 in August and 33 in September. An additional two flights took off on Tuesday, October 1.
“Our mandate is narrowly defined to focus on securing the release of the hostages only, including British nationals, with the RAF routinely conducting unarmed flights since December 2023 for this sole purpose.”
In a discussion immediately following the announcement, five different MPs questioned Conservative defense secretary Grant Shapps if he would share footage from the planes with the ICC if it revealed evidence of war crimes. He always delivered evasive answers.
Nevertheless, the Ministry of Defense stated last week that “in line with our international obligations, we would consider any formal request from the International Criminal Court to provide information relating to investigations into war crimes.”
The missile force of the Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) struck military sites deep into the Israeli occupation entity using three Quds-5 cruise missiles that successfully reached their targets, YAF spokesperson Brigadier General Yahya Saree announced on Wednesday.
Saree pointed out that the Israeli occupation authorities remain tight-lipped about the outcomes of the latest operation, adding that it comes in support of the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples and in solidarity with their Resistance.
He extended the YAF’s congratulations on Iran’s Operation True Promise 2 against the Israeli occupation entity and affirmed their readiness to participate in any joint military operations in support of the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples, as well as in response to any Israeli aggression targeting support fronts.
The spokesperson warned that the continued American and British support for “Israel” places US and British interests in the region under fire.
The Brigadier General also underlined that the YAF will not hesitate to expand their military operations against “Israel” and those backing it until the aggression on Gaza ceases and the blockade imposed on the Strip is lifted and the aggression on Lebanon is ended.
Quds-5; one of Yemen’s advanced missiles
The Quds-5 cruise missile has entered service and is part of the long-range Quds system, a senior Yemeni military source told Al Mayadeen on Wednesday.
According to the source, Quds-5 is capable of traveling more than 2,000 kilometers and enjoys high stealth and maneuverability features.
It is also considered one of Yemen’s advanced missiles, designed for surface-to-surface strikes against military and vital targets.
The senior military source emphasized that the Quds-5 is characterized by its high speed, immense destructive power, and ability to penetrate all types of air defenses deployed in the region.
“The enemy was previously taken by surprise with the Quds-3 missile, and we say today that the fifth generation [of this missile] has entered the battlefield.”
“More is yet to come,” they added.
The latest top-tier attack comes a day after Saree announced that the YAF’s naval, missile, and UAV forces carried out three military operations in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.
The first operation targeted the Cordelia Moon British oil tanker in the Red Sea using eight ballistic and cruise missiles, a drone, and an uncrewed surface boat, resulting in severe damages.
The second and third operations targeted the Marathopolis tanker in the Indian Ocean with a cruise missile and a drone for violating the maritime ban imposed by the YAF on ships sailing in the designated operations zone toward the occupied ports of Palestine, Saree said.
Earlier, the spokesperson confirmed that the YAF’s UAV force struck an Israeli military target in occupied Yafa (Eilat) using a Yafa-type drone, as well as other military targets in occupied Umm al-Rashrash (Eilat) with four Samad-4 drones, pointing out that the two operations achieved their objectives precisely.
Trump claims Iran’s military is routed just as IRGC launched missiles strike American bases
RT | June 10, 2026
The Iranian military has been “completely defeated,” US President Donald Trump has claimed, warning Tehran it will “pay the price” for delaying a deal with Washington.
The warnings came after Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced missile and drone strikes on American military facilities in several Arab countries in retaliation for recent US attacks. US Central Command said the operations inside Iran were carried out after an AH-64 Apache helicopter was lost near the Strait of Hormuz, an incident it blamed on Tehran.
Trump posted on Truth Social on Wednesday that Iran “is all talk and no action,” adding that “The Bully of the Middle East is DEAD!!!” … Full article
HEAT exposure could drive a dramatic rise in cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden across the USA over the next 25 years, with researchers warning that climate change and population ageing may combine to reverse decades of progress in heart health.
Heat Exposure Threatens Future Heart Health A new modelling study estimated that heat-attributable CVD burden could more than triple by 2050 under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario, disproportionately affecting older adults and economically disadvantaged communities. … Full article
… Climate change and land use conversion have the potential to increase the frequency of encounters between snakes and humans. This situation arises due to changes in temperature and rainfall, the loss of natural habitats, and shifts in food sources, which drive snakes to move into areas closer to human activity.
Prof Mirza Dikari Kusrini, a lecturer in the Department of Forest Resource Conservation and Ecotourism, Faculty of Forestry and Environment (Fahutan) at IPB University, explained that climate change affects snakes’ behavior, distribution, and movement patterns. … Full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 