Subnostr

[1]: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C12178318

UK plotted ‘covert’ measures against Irish republican hunger strikers

The UK government planned “covert” measures to monitor “everything” which was said and written by Irish republican hunger strikers in prison in 1980, declassified files reveal.

The strike had been called in response to the removal of political status for convicted paramilitary prisoners, with seven men in HMP Maze refusing their first meal on 27 October.

It ended 53 days later, with some of the hunger strikers claiming the UK government had gestured towards meeting their demands before reneging.

The incident set the scene for the 1981 hunger strike, which saw ten Irish republicans including Bobby Sands starve themselves to death amid a showdown with Margaret Thatcher.

Files released to the [National Archives][1] in London now detail how the UK government was acutely concerned about the domestic and international implications of the 1980 hunger strike.

It produced weekly bulletins on the situation, monitored media coverage, liaised with the Catholic church, and even considered meeting some of the strikers’ demands, the files show.

Plans were also made to employ “covert techniques” in order to “find out as much as possible about the day-to-day state of mind of each striker”.

This would apparently include eavesdropping on the prisoners’ private conversations and intercepting mail so that the British state could know “everything” that was said and written.

The goal was to put the British state in a privileged position to put pressure on the strikers when they were most “vulnerable”.

The revelation comes after Keir Starmer’s government refused to engage with the “Prisoners for Palestine” hunger strike, the largest since the 1980s.

Britain’s prisons minister Lord Timpson sought to downplay the significance of the strike, which was mostly halted yesterday, claiming “we have averaged over 200 hunger strike incidents every year”.

But the government did not release data on how many of those were waged collectively or sustained over long periods of time.

Last month, UK justice secretary David Lammy even tried to claim ignorance about the issue, telling family members of one of the strikers: “I don’t know anything about this”.

Against this backdrop, the newly declassified files offer a window into the kinds of official deliberations – and underhand techniques – which may have taken place behind closed doors.

### RELATED

[

## David Lammy ‘waiting for us to die’, Palestine hunger striker...

][2] [READ MORE **][3]

## ‘Covert techniques’

The document discussing “covert techniques” against the hunger strikers was authored by B.A. Blackwell, a security official in the Northern Ireland Office (NIO).

Blackwell observed in November 1980 how the UK government had “acquired a world-wide reputation for being particularly adept at dealing with hostage-takers”.

He therefore contemplated whether there were “lessons to be learned from the well-tried tactics used to deal with the taking of hostages” when dealing with hunger strikers.

An important pre-requisite to advising ministers on possible courses of action, he wrote, would be getting “to know every possible detail about those with whom we are dealing”.

That would include gathering information on the “personalities” and the “views and state of mind” of the strikers.

“We need a complete psychological, historical and physical picture of each striker”, Blackwell wrote.

“We need his school records, his medical records, police records and every other possible piece of information so that we can assess as accurately as possible what makes him tick”, he added.

In terms of acquiring information about their “views and state of mind”, Blackwell wrote that “we need to know everything he says and writes”.

This might “require the sort of covert techniques used in dealing with hostage-takers and is almost certainly technically feasible”, he continued.

A small team would then need to be assembled, with support from a consultant psychiatrist, in order “to assist in interpreting the information”.

That analysis would then be used by Britain’s security agencies to understand “the timing” and “best way” to “influence matters” in a way which “assists the government’s objectives”.

Another official wrote how “much greater knowledge of the protesters… is needed if they are to be approached at the time when they are likely to be most vulnerable to the prospects of ending their protest”.

This was a “specialist matter referred to in Mr Blackwell’s paper”, they added.

### RELATED

[

## ‘Lodged in skulls’: The army’s deadly plastic bullets scandal

][4] [READ MORE **][5]

## Handling the media

The UK government also placed emphasis on monitoring domestic and international responses to the hunger strike, and sought to ensure “balanced” media coverage.

Work was done “conditioning leader writers, journalists and television companies”, with a booklet on the “facts” distributed to the press across the UK and Ireland.

Conor Cruise O’Brien, the Editor-in-Chief of the *Observer*, for instance, was given “full background material on the Dirty Protest and the Hunger Strike”.

Officials were informed – “by no less an authority than The Cruiser himself” – that a front-page spread would appear on the matter.

Further discussions were held on “countering provisional IRA propaganda in the USA”, with UK embassies reporting on how protests on the hunger strike were spreading across the country.

Apparently in order to counter this development, an “Ulsterman” had been appointed as “information officer attached to the British Mission in New York”.

The UK government also remained in close contact with prominent figures in the Catholic church, who they hoped would “help [in] keeping Catholic opinion in the north on the rails”.

## Concessions

The declassified files show how officials within the UK government were also open to permitting some concessions to the prisoners in order to bring an end to the hunger strike.

This was despite the government’s official position that it would “not and cannot make any concessions whatever on the principle of political status for prisoners who claim a political motive for their crimes. All have been convicted of criminal acts by due process of law”.

The hunger strikers’ demands were:

1. The right not to wear prison uniform

2. The right not to do prison work

3. Freedom of association

4. The right to organise recreational facilities, to one weekly visit, to one weekly letter in and out and one food parcel a week

5. Restoration of full remission

NIO official P.W.J. Buxton wondered whether the gap between both positions was really “unbridgeable” and asked if it would be possible to assemble a “package” of reforms which would be acceptable to both sides.

Buxton’s package would include:

1. Allowing prisoners to wear their own clothing of the same approved style and type as that provided by the official civilian-type prison dress and controlled by the prison authorities

2. Widening the scope of prison work to include many of the activities regarded as recreational and educational but within a framework controlled by the prison authorities

3. Making ad hoc provision for those prisoners who wished to do so, to associate together from time to time in self-constituted groups

4. Allowing prisoners to “buy back” remission lost on the protest subject to future good behaviour

5. Confirming those present were “privileged”, which [would] in effect meet the main part of the protesters’ other demands

In order to ensure the success of such a “package”, Buxton noted that it “should be put forward by some party outside Government” and therefore be seen as an “independent” proposal.

However, this party would not be altogether “independent”.

It would be “given precise terms of reference which would exclude the concession of political status or the recommendation of measures which concede de facto political status”, he wrote.

Buxton’s proposal appears similar to concessions that were drawn up for an MI6 officer to propose to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness.

MI6’s contact with the Republican leadership about the hunger strike was authorised by Thatcher, her permanent secretary at the NIO, Kenneth Stowe, said.

Stowe regarded the MI6 proposal as “a façade of concessions about the treatment of prisoners which gave them a ladder to climb down”, according to Thatcher’s official biography.

The post [UK plotted ‘covert’ measures against Irish republican hunger strikers][6] appeared first on [Declassified UK][7].

[2]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=61707

[3]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=61707

[4]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=12111

[5]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=12111

[6]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-plotted-covert-measures-against-irish-republican-hunger-strikers/

[7]: https://www.declassifieduk.org

https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-plotted-covert-measures-against-irish-republican-hunger-strikers/

[1]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/they-knew-victims-of-ira-executioner-condemn-british-collusion/

Police chief considering release of secret MI5 report on Troubles

Northern Ireland’s chief constable Jon Boutcher is reviewing the security classification of an MI5 file from 1973 to see if it can finally be made public.

Jack Morton, a senior MI5 officer, drew up a dossier on how police special branch should respond to the IRA more than half a century ago.

Morton completed his report at the height of the Troubles when the police, army and intelligence agencies were recruiting agents inside the IRA and loyalist paramilitary groups.

Throughout the conflict in Northern Ireland, state agents participated in terrorism including murder and [torture][1].

Boutcher revealed he was reviewing the Morton report’s classification while being questioned by the Northern Ireland Affairs committee in Westminster on Wednesday.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) previously refused to release the Morton report when taken to [court][2] by *Declassified*.

However that decision was made before Boutcher – who is seen by some as a transparency champion – became chief constable.

Claire Hanna MP asked him if releasing the Morton report and other files would “help us to understand better what those in power knew and when about the handling and mishandling of agents?”

Boutcher replied: “I have instigated a piece of work to do a security review of those documents – because this hasn’t happened from a government perspective.

“And my intention is – so this work is underway – is to then go to partners in the security agencies”, the Northern Ireland secretary Hilary Benn and other partners to ask them “how do you feel about that?”

### RELATED

[

## MI5 report on Troubles to stay secret, court rules

][3] [READ MORE **][4]

## **‘Culture of overreach’**

Boutcher anticipated that “having done the security check, these documents can now be put in the public domain.”

He had [recommended][5] that the classification of Morton’s report and a host of other “legacy” files from the Troubles be reviewed in 2024.

He explained that his colleague, Sir Iain Livingstone, “has been pursuing through the Cabinet Office a mechanism for those recommendations to be delivered upon. And that includes the Morton report. That’s on the list of reports.”

Other documents on the list are thought to include the so-called Stalker and Sampson reports into whether police operated a shoot-to-kill policy during the Troubles.

Daniel Holder, director of Belfast human rights group the Committee on the Administration of Justice, told *Declassified*: “We welcome the PSNI announcement that they will review the security classification of legacy reports and that that exercise importantly includes the Morton report.

“At the same time it is concerning that the UK government and Cabinet Office have done nothing to take forward the [2024] recommendation to review the security classification of reports in order for them to be made public.

“It remains unclear if it is the general culture of overreach on secrecy that has kept the Morton report under wraps to date or if there are specific issues in this report into RUC Special Branch or that someone is desperate it does not see the light of day.”

### RELATED

[

## Why I took the police to court over a 48-year-old...

][6] [READ MORE **][7]

## **Who was Jack Morton?**

Morton served as a [colonial][8] police chief in India and was director of intelligence in Malaya (now Malaysia) during a communist insurgency against British rule in the 1950s.

He strongly supported the British empire and once described[ Indians][9] as “a sort of immature, backward and needy people whom it was the natural British function to govern and administer.”

His colonial background gave him extensive experience of undercover operations and armed policing.

He was brought out of retirement in 1973 to review the situation in Northern Ireland.

Victims of the Troubles have expressed concern about what might be contained in his report because, a year after it was compiled, 33 people were killed by Loyalist car bombs in [Dublin][10] and Monaghan.

A subsequent inquiry by former Irish Supreme Court judge Henry Barron concluded: “A number of those suspected for the bombings were reliably said to have had relationships with British Intelligence and/or Royal Ulster Constabulary special branch officers.”

Morton advised the Foreign Office and Colonial Office on counter-insurgency strategies across the world.

He urged Sri Lankan security forces to seek training from battle-hardened SAS troops in 1979 when confronted by the Tamil independence movement.

It was at that stage mostly a peaceful struggle but the country soon became engulfed in a full-scale civil war, with Sri Lanka hiring former SAS mercenaries to help suppress Tamils.

Despite the secrecy around Morton’s report on Northern Ireland, other government departments have released even older dossiers he compiled on security situations in different countries.

Those include a strike at an asbestos mine in [Swaziland][11] (now Eswatini) in 1963.

Miners, who demanded £1 a day, were interrogated by Special Branch and army intelligence using torture methods known as the five techniques.

Morton died in 1985.

The post [Police chief considering release of secret MI5 report on Troubles][12] appeared first on [Declassified UK][13].

[2]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/mi5-report-on-troubles-to-stay-secret-court-rules/

[3]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=4201

[4]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=4201

[5]: https://www.kenova.co.uk/Kenova%20Report%202024%20Digital%20(002).pdf

[6]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=1315

[7]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=1315

[8]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/why-i-took-the-police-to-court-over-a-48-year-old-secret-document/

[9]: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/northern-ireland-police-cover-up-ruc-report-by-racist-officer-1.3248625

[10]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/who-bombed-dublin-the-50-year-cover-up-must-end/

[11]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/police-overzealous-in-censoring-mi5-report-on-northern-ireland/

[12]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/police-chief-considering-release-of-secret-mi5-report-on-troubles/

[13]: https://www.declassifieduk.org

https://www.declassifieduk.org/police-chief-considering-release-of-secret-mi5-report-on-troubles/

[1]: https://thatchercentre.com/otd-thatchers-defiant-stand-the-1986-house-of-commons-speech-on-the-libya-bombing/

US aggression, UK support: The ‘special relationship’

[Trump and Starmer at Chequers in September 2025. (Photo: Leon Neal / Alamy)]

Forty years ago, US warplanes bombed Libya, attempting to assassinate its leader Muammar Gaddafi. Failing in that task, they managed to kill dozens of civilians in Tripoli, Libya’s capital.

The attacks, which were in response to the bombing of a Berlin nightclub blamed on Gaddafi, were strongly supported by Margaret Thatcher’s government. Indeed, she allowed some of the US jets to take off from bases in Britain.

In the face of widespread public opposition to the US raid, a defiant Thatcher [told][1] parliament it was “a necessary and proportionate response to a clear pattern of Libyan terrorism” and to “uphold international law”.

However, the UN General Assembly, and most world opinion, condemned the attack as a violation of international law.

But for the British prime minister: “The United States has stood by us in times of need, as we have stood by her. To refuse their request for the use of bases here would have been to abandon our responsibilities as an ally and to weaken the fight against terrorism.”

Fast forward two decades, and we find ourselves in a not dissimilar situation over US attacks on Venezuela.

UK ministers give their backing to the kidnapping of a foreign head of state amidst a military intervention, condemned in the wider world but supported in Whitehall because of the so-called “special relationship”.

### RELATED

[

## How Britain helped Trump destabilise Venezuela

][2] [READ MORE **][3]

## **‘Our full support’**

It was always thus. Three years after the attack on Libya, the US invaded Panama in December 1989. US aggression killed up to 3,000 people in this instance, and overthrew President Manuel Noriega, who had been on the CIA’s payroll for decades.

The invasion was widely considered to be illegal and in violation of the charters of both the UN and the Organization of American States.

A Foreign Office legal adviser [wrote][4] on the day of the invasion that “it is not possible to conclude that the American action was justified in international law”.

This didn’t matter in the British corridors of power. In a private phone call, Thatcher assured US president George W Bush that the intervention “was a very courageous decision which would have our full support”.

In the days that followed, Britain even vetoed a UN Security Council resolution which “strongly deplores” the invasion.

## **Clinton/Blair double act**

A change in leadership in London and Washington made little difference to this pattern in the 1990s when the double act became Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.

In August 1998, Clinton launched a wave of cruise missile attacks on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for Al Qaeda’s bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania earlier that month.

Al Qaeda’s bombings were horrific, killing over 300 people. But while the US retaliation struck terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, its target in Sudan was a pharmaceuticals factory that produced medicines for the country’s population.

The US claimed the plant was manufacturing chemical weapons but no strong evidence ever emerged for this.

Amid the controversy, Bill Clinton [blocked][5] proposals for a UN investigation into the matter while Tony Blair strongly backed his ally’s attacks — against the advice of some British diplomats [reportedly][6] being appalled at them.

## **‘Proper legal authority’**

It was only a few months later, in December 1998, that Bill and Tony worked even more closely together in a new bombing campaign.

They authorised four days of air strikes on Iraq, ostensibly to degrade dictator Saddam Hussein’s ability to store and produce weapons of mass destruction (which, of course, never materialised).

The declassified files [show][7] that Blair and his closest advisers were consistently informed by UK legal advisers that attacking Iraq would not be lawful.

The only exception would be if a new UN Security Council resolution were to be passed saying Saddam was in “material breach” of Iraq’s previous commitments – which London and Washington never secured.

In a sign of Blair’s attitude towards legal requirements, he privately wrote at the time that he found his law officers’ legal advice “unconvincing”.

When he announced military action to parliament in November 1998, Blair misled the house by saying: “I have no doubt that we have the proper legal authority, as it is contained in successive Security Council resolution documents”.

### RELATED

[

## Blair misled parliament over 1998 Iraq bombing, files show

][8] [READ MORE **][9]

## **‘Act of war’**

Over 20 years later, it was the turn of Boris Johnson to acquiesce to Donald Trump in an overtly illegal US act of aggression.

In January 2020, Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds force, a branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps which the US had designated a terrorist organisation.

Washington tried to justify the killing by claiming it had intelligence that Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on US interests across the Middle East.

But a UN report [found][10] that the assassination was illegal. Indeed, the then UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Agnes Callamard, said it marked a watershed in international law.

“It is hard to imagine that a similar strike against a Western military leader would not be considered as an act of war, potentially leading to intense action, political, military and otherwise, against the State launching the strike”, she wrote.

By contrast, Johnson defended the US action and [said][11] that “we will not lament” Soleimani’s death. He [added][12] that “the strict issue of legality is not for the UK to determine since it was not our operation” — precisely what Keir Starmer has just said about Venezuela.

London’s support for Washington also came in the form of Johnson’s equally belligerent foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, who [added][13] that the US “had a right to exercise self-defence”.

## **Bombing Iran**

Trump attacked Iran again after Keir Starmer had been in office for nearly a year. In June last year, the US launched air strikes on nuclear-related sites in the country, ostensibly to prevent Tehran developing a nuclear arms programme.

A group of UN experts [condemned][14] the intervention, stating: “These attacks violate the most fundamental rules of world order since 1945 – the prohibition on the aggressive use of military force and the duties to respect sovereignty and not to coercively intervene in another country.”

Yet Starmer’s response was a rehearsal of his reaction to Trump’s recent kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. The British prime minister failed to condemn the US intervention, instead going along with it by [saying][15] it was “clear Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon”.

Similarly, foreign secretary David Lammy was repeatedly asked whether the US attacks were illegal, and [refused][16] to say.

### RELATED

[

## Britain’s long history of spying on Iran

][17] [READ MORE **][18]

## **Backing the law by violating it**

By the time the US under Trump overthrew the Venezuelan government earlier this month, the UK response was utterly predictable.

Starmer and other ministers welcomed Maduro’s overthrow, failed to identify it as an obvious violation of international law and even had the audacity to claim they remained strong supporters of that law.

Foreign secretary Yvette Cooper [said][19] in a parliamentary debate on Venezuela that “we will always argue for the upholding of international law”, precisely at a time she was supporting an obvious violation of it.

It was the same with her deputy. A day after telling parliament she welcomed the illegal US removal of Maduro, foreign minister Jenny Chapman [told][20] parliament the UK’s “support for international law… is unwavering”.

Maduro’s kidnapping was strongly [condemned][21] by UN experts while its human rights chief, Volker Turk, said it “violates the country’s sovereignty and the UN charter”.

This failed to deter the UK immediately proceeding with military collaboration with Trump’s rogue state. Four days after the kidnapping, the UK provided military support to Washington to help it seize a Russian-flagged oil tanker near the northwest waters of the UK.

*Declassified* [asked][22] legal experts to comment on Trump’s latest military intervention and many are concluding it is yet another violation.

The decades-long cycle goes on. The US and UK have long been repeatedly undermining what exists of a rules-based international order – while claiming to uphold it.

Who knows where it will lead us in terms of future wars and what price will be paid by ordinary people for the world’s leading states creating a global law of the jungle.

The post [US aggression, UK support: The ‘special relationship’][23] appeared first on [Declassified UK][24].

[2]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=61621

[3]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=61621

[4]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/bang-just-like-that-how-thatcher-backed-bush-in-panama/

[5]: https://www.hrw.org/news/1998/09/15/letter-president-clinton-urges-sudan-factory-inspection#:~:text=It%20is%20therefore%20with%20dismay,again%20for%20a%20long%20time.

[6]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/02/afghanistan.terrorism3#:~:text=The%20missiles%20that%20flattened%20al,backed%20him%20to%20the%20hilt.

[7]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/blair-misled-parliament-over-1998-iraq-bombing-files-show/

[8]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=12479

[9]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=12479

[10]: https://www.ibanet.org/article/45C796CC-3EAD-4F7C-BF63-5CC66C984079

[11]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51001236

[12]: https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/boris-johnson-says-qasem-soleimani-had-blood-of-british-troops-on-his-hands-as-he-defends-us-drone-strike

[13]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50996630

[14]: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/06/un-experts-condemn-united-states-attack-iran-and-demand-permanent-end

[15]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq53l41gl8jo#:~:text=He%20said%20the%20UK%20had,strikes%20on%20Iran's%20nuclear%20facilities

[16]: https://x.com/declassifiedUK/status/1937077346047008799

[17]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=59629

[18]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=59629

[19]: https://x.com/declassifiedUK/status/2008447611297055089

[20]: https://x.com/declassifiedUK/status/2009185936572338515

[21]: https://x.com/UN_SPExperts/status/2008923414241915342

[22]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/did-trump-and-starmer-break-international-law-with-tanker-seizure/

[23]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/us-aggression-uk-support-the-special-relationship/

[24]: https://www.declassifieduk.org

https://www.declassifieduk.org/us-aggression-uk-support-the-special-relationship/

[2]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/david-lammy-waiting-for-us-to-die-palestine-hunger-striker-claims/

David Lammy ‘waiting for us to die’, Palestine hunger striker claims

A pro-Palestine activist on hunger strike in a London prison has said the government is “just waiting for one of us to pass away”.

Kamran Ahmed, who has not eaten for over two months, told *Declassified* on Sunday that his body was “twitching” uncontrollably and he fears heart failure.

“If I pass out while I have this twitching, I can’t move. I’d probably just end up staying frozen on my bed,” unable to press the alarm button in his cell.

Ahmed, who spoke to *Declassified* by phone from Pentonville prison, described having chest pains and being on the brink of fainting.

The mechanic from east London has been hospitalised six times since going on hunger strike 64 days ago.

He is [protesting][1] at being denied bail following his arrest for an alleged break-in by Palestine Action at an Elbit System factory in 2024.

Elbit is Israel’s largest arms firm and provides 85% of the drones used by Israel’s army in Gaza.

Ahmed was arrested in November 2024 and his trial is not expected to start until June 2026.

Prosecution guidelines say prisoners should normally not be held on remand for more than six months.

Ahmed is among a number of Palestine Action suspects on remand beyond that time limit.

Eight have gone on hunger strike but Ahmed is one of the last still refusing food.

“I thought they would actually negotiate,” Ahmed replied, when asked about the stance of justice secretary David Lammy.

“I genuinely thought they would have negotiated by now, [or] at least meet some of the demands.”

“It seems that they are not willing to do anything really, they are just waiting for one of us to pass away.”

Another prisoner, Heba Muraisi, has not eaten for 71 days.

The Palestine Action hunger strike has drawn parallels with the protest by Bobby Sands and other IRA prisoners in 1981.

Ten Republicans died after going without food for between 46 and 71 days.

Ahmed’s sister, Shahmina Alam, told *Declassified*: “To watch your brother fading away – it’s hard and it’s painful.

“I don’t want to think that I could be burying my brother when he’s my younger brother. He was supposed to outlive me.

“A doctor told him that the muscles around his heart are shrinking…they’ve got concerns that he could go into a sudden cardiac arrest. The fear of him passing away was always there, but that made that fear that much closer.”

She said the family had “done everything within our power” to raise the case among ministers but “they all say the same thing”.

Alam confronted Lammy in public last month but felt his responses had been “insulting” and a “disgrace to his humanity”.

Prisons minister Lord Timpson told ITV News he wanted the hunger strikers to “start eating and get better”.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service has assured us all cases of prisoner food refusal are being managed in line with longstanding policy with daily access to prison and healthcare staff. Prisoners are being supported to end their food refusal at any time.

“Before Christmas, we offered to facilitate a meeting between the prisoners’ solicitors and healthcare officials. This offer was accepted on 8 January, and a meeting took place on 9 January.

“Ministers will not meet with these prisoners or their solicitors. They face serious charges, and no government could agree to their demands, many of which relate to ongoing legal proceedings, including immediate bail, which is a matter for independent judges.

“By law, Ministers must uphold judicial independence and must not intervene in ongoing legal proceedings. To do so would be unconstitutional and would undermine the independent judiciary, the cornerstone of our justice system.”

The post [David Lammy ‘waiting for us to die’, Palestine hunger striker claims][2] appeared first on [Declassified UK][3].

[1]: https://prisonersforpalestine.org/

[3]: https://www.declassifieduk.org

https://www.declassifieduk.org/david-lammy-waiting-for-us-to-die-palestine-hunger-striker-claims/

Declassified UK (RSS/Atom feed) 2w ago

Did Trump and Starmer break international law with tanker seizure?

[Footage of the US pursuit of the Marinera (Photo: US Coast Guard)]

The US seizure of a Russian-flagged oil tanker, with British military support, in the North Atlantic may have violated international law, legal experts tell *Declassified*.

“Overall, there would appear to be no credible basis in law for this interdiction,” Douglas Guilfoyle, professor of international law at the University of New South Wales in Sydney said.

The US Coast Guard intercepted the Marinera early Wednesday afternoon as it travelled in the wintry waters between Iceland and Scotland.

The US had been pursuing the ship, accused of violating US sanctions and being part of a fleet used by Russia, Iran and [Venezuela][1] to dodge sanctions, for two weeks after it evaded capture in the Caribbean.

Along the way, fleeing northwards into the Atlantic, the ship changed its name from Bella-1 to Marinera and re-registered as a Russian vessel.

A steady build-up of US aircraft at British air bases following the US attack on Venezuela last week sent plane spotters into overdrive and led to speculation that an operation on the tanker was imminent.

Just before 2pm on Wednesday, US European Command [announced][2] the ship’s seizure, with Britain’s Ministry of Defence confirming soon after that it had provided the US with “enabling support in full compliance with international law”.

The support included Royal Air Force surveillance and the provision of the RFA Tideforce, a Royal Navy auxiliary ship “designed to provide key underway replenishment at sea”.

Defence secretary John Healey justified the UK’s involvement, citing the ship’s “nefarious history” of Russian-Iranian axis sanctions evasion “fuelling terrorism, conflict and misery from the Middle East to Ukraine”.

Speaking in parliament several hours later, Healey claimed that the vessel was stateless and, therefore, could be “lawfully intercepted and subjected to the law of the interdicting state”.

Experts, however, say this is far from clear.

Professor Guilfoyle said that in order for a vessel to be stateless, it must “either have no claim to nationality or be carrying the paperwork required to claim nationality in two flag states and be using those at convenience”.

However Russia’s claim to have granted the ship temporary nationality “disposes of the issue” since ”one state cannot challenge the validity of another state’s grant of its flag to a vessel – the result would be legal chaos”.

### RELATED

[

## How Britain helped Trump destabilise Venezuela

][3] [READ MORE **][4]

## **‘Contested area of law’**

Karen Scott, a law professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, said that under the [UN Convention on the Law of the Sea][5] (Unclos), vessels cannot change their state of registration at sea or in a port of call “save in the case of a real transfer of ownership or change of registry”.

Whether the Marinera’s change of registry was “justified and indeed whether it has been properly completed” appeared unclear, Scott said.

“In this situation, there is precedent allowing a state to refuse to recognise the new state of registration and to treat the vessel as stateless. It is, however, a contested area of law.”

She added: “Of course the US is not currently acting in conformity with international law in a range of situations at the moment. The more interesting issue is the involvement of the UK and whether its support is lawful.”

Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, said a vessel could only be stopped, searched and seized on the high seas under four conditions.

These are if it is a pirate ship, engaged in unauthorised broadcasting, is stateless/not-flying a flag or acting in violation of US Security Council resolutions.

“None of those conditions appear to apply in this instance as I understand the tanker was Russian flagged (and that is not in dispute), and the only sanctions it was subject to were US sanctions imposed under US,” he said.

“So, on the facts, this would appear to be extraterritorial US national law enforcement taking place on the high seas/international waters, or even within the UK’s 200 [nautical mile] exclusive economic zone.”

The UK support, he added, was “not exceptional, especially as the tanker was off the coast of Scotland and would have in the normal course of events been under watch by the UK”.

### RELATED

[

## US Air Force deployment in Britain is third largest in...

][6] [READ MORE **][7]

## **Hot pursuit?**

Andrew Serdy, professor of public international law of the sea and director of the Institute of Maritime Law at the University of Southampton, has questioned whether the US was already pursuing the vessel when it changed its flag.

In this case, he [wrote in The Conversation][8], the US “may be entitled to disregard reregistration”.

That’s because, Serdy said, Unclos allows for “hot pursuit”, allowing a vessel to be pursued until the ship enters the territorial sea of its own state or a third one.

The US, he said, is left open to argue that it was “already pursuing the Marinera/Bella 1 and was thus not required to call off its pursuit”.However, he said that the argument has limited usefulness because it’s unclear “whether this was actually a hot pursuit at all”, noting that the term is used for pursuits that begin in one of the maritime zones of the state conducting it not on the high seas.

None of the MPs who spoke on Wednesday evening questioned the legality of the Marinera operation when Healey informed parliament about Britain’s role.

However, one voiced concern at the swift support the UK provided to the US so soon after its military operation in Venezuela which legal scholars [roundly agree][9] broke international law, even as British leaders have [refused][10] to take a public position.

Green MP Ellie Chowns asked: “In a week in which Trump rode roughshod over international law on Monday and threatened a NATO ally on Tuesday, why is it on Wednesday that the UK was so keen to hang on Trump’s military coat-tails when it did not have the courage to call out and condemn his breaking of international law earlier in the week?”

Healey responded: “Quite simply, the US asked for our UK military support because it wanted and needed our UK military support to conduct this operation.

“The legal basis for us doing so was sound and the purpose for this action and operation was strong.”

The post [Did Trump and Starmer break international law with tanker seizure?][11] appeared first on [Declassified UK][12].

[1]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/tag/venezuela/

[2]: https://x.com/US_EUCOM/status/2008897287691399504

[3]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=61621

[4]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=61621

[5]: https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

[6]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=9048

[7]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=9048

[8]: https://theconversation.com/us-boards-a-ship-sailing-under-a-russian-flag-what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-the-legal-position-272957

[9]: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2026-01-07-expert-comment-illegality-us-attack-against-venezuela-beyond-debate-how-world-reacts

[10]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/how-britain-helped-trump-destabilise-venezuela/

[11]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/did-trump-and-starmer-break-international-law-with-tanker-seizure/

[12]: https://www.declassifieduk.org

https://www.declassifieduk.org/did-trump-and-starmer-break-international-law-with-tanker-seizure/

Declassified UK (RSS/Atom feed) 2w ago

Britain refused to help Hugo Chávez amid Venezuela coup

Britain’s embassy in Caracas rebuffed appeals to help Venezuela’s democratically elected president during a right-wing coup, newly unearthed documents reveal.

The coup that ousted Hugo Chávez on 11 April 2002 was orchestrated by dissident military officers and opposition figures, with support from Washington.

After 47 hours, however, Chávez had been reinstated as Venezuela’s president following massive popular mobilisations against his removal.

Newly released documents reveal how, during those two tumultuous days, Chávez appealed to the British embassy in Caracas to help save his life.

The documents were obtained by *Declassified *through a Freedom of Information request to the Foreign Office.

Chávez asked to be flown to Havana, with the Cuban government impressing on the British embassy in Caracas that “they were very concerned” about the president’s welfare.

They were therefore trying to “get him on a plane to Cuba” and looking for a team of ambassadors “to accompany Chavez to the airport in convoy in order to assure his safety”.

On 11 April, shortly before resigning under duress, Chávez also phoned the UK ambassador in Caracas, John Hughes, to ask whether Britain could “help to preserve his wellbeing”.

Tony Blair’s government had more positive relations with Chávez than the US, having hosted him at Downing Street months prior.

However, the British embassy in Caracas was reluctant to help him during the coup.

UK officials worried about the possible reaction from Venezuela’s upper classes, who had overwhelmingly supported the coup against Chávez.

“Local public feeling – at least among the wealthier residents of Caracas – was that Chavez should be put on trial for his part in the recent violence”, one embassy official wrote.

Hughes was also unclear on who “was in control of the country” and recommended “we should not act precipitately [sic]… while a power vacuum remained”.

In addition, the British ambassador was not convinced that Chávez’s life was in “immediate danger”.

His view was that “if conditions deteriorated, then perhaps we should consider helping, given that Chavez was the democratically elected leader”.

After appealing for Britain’s help, Chávez was arrested and taken to a military base during the early hours of 12 April.

“As Chavez is now under arrest”, the Foreign Office noted later that day, “the question” of helping him travel safely to the airport “no longer arises”.

The post [Britain refused to help Hugo Chávez amid Venezuela coup][1] appeared first on [Declassified UK][2].

[1]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/britain-refused-to-help-hugo-chavez-amid-venezuela-coup/

https://www.declassifieduk.org/britain-refused-to-help-hugo-chavez-amid-venezuela-coup/

Declassified UK (RSS/Atom feed) 2w ago

How Britain helped Trump destabilise Venezuela

During the early hours of Saturday morning, US forces bombed Venezuela and kidnapped its president, Nicolás Maduro.

This was a clear breach of international law, violating the terms of the UN charter which prohibit interference in and the use of force against sovereign states.

Yet Keir Starmer, a former human rights lawyer, has refused to condemn the attack or even acknowledge its brazen illegality.

“I want to get all the material facts together and we simply haven’t got the full picture at the moment”, the prime minister told the BBC* *on Saturday.

Starmer then wrote on social media that Britain “regarded Maduro as an illegitimate President and we shed no tears about the end of his regime”.

By contrast, it took him less than 24 hours to call Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine a “war of aggression”.

Former British ambassador Sir Richard Dalton told *Declassified* the government has failed to stand up against “the law of the jungle” with its “cynical” stance on Venezuela.

While refusing to condemn Trump’s actions, Starmer insisted there “was no UK involvement in this operation”.

Royal Navy personnel have nonetheless been [embedded][1] in the US armada surrounding Venezuela over recent weeks, with the Ministry of Defence refusing to clarify whether they were present during the attack.

Defence secretary John Healey apparently [ordered][2] them not to take part in strikes on Venezuela and US-UK intelligence sharing was [reportedly][3] frozen in the Caribbean in order to avoid British complicity in breaches of international law.

This is in sharp contrast with the government’s current position that it cannot adjudicate on the legality of Trump’s actions.

But even if British forces did not directly participate in the military operation, the UK government has been quietly backing Washington’s destabilisation efforts in Venezuela for years.

Since 2019, Britain has frozen over $2 billion of Venezuelan gold in the Bank of England, sponsored anti-government initiatives, and even set up a secret “Venezuela Reconstruction Unit” to plan for the day after Maduro’s overthrow.

Starmer is therefore not speaking in abstract terms when he says “the UK has long supported a transition of power in Venezuela”.

### RELATED

[

## Why is Venezuela’s gold still frozen in the Bank of...

][4] [READ MORE **][5]

## Recognising Juan Guaidó

Seven years ago, the UK government made the bold decision to recognise a politician named Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s president.

Guaidó had never run for presidential office.

Yet on 23 January 2019, he[ swore][6] himself in as Venezuela’s “interim president”, using Article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution to declare that Maduro had abandoned his post and thereby left an “absolute vacuum of power”.

This vacuum, claimed Guaidó, would need to be filled by the president of Venezuela’s National Assembly – a post occupied by Guaidó.

Without the support of the US government, Guaidó’s legal gymnastics would probably not have gotten him very far.

However, the Donald Trump administration moved [quickly][7] to recognise Guaidó, and began pressuring the so-called “international community” to follow suit.

On 24 January, Britain’s then foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt visited Washington, attending a “mid-morning meeting with [US secretary of state] Mike Pompeo, and then Vice-pres Mike Pence”.

During this meeting, Hunt surprised everyone by “suddenly saying that we will consider recognising Guaidó”, according to former foreign minister Alan Duncan.

Duncan’s published diaries note how, the next day, Hunt said “we need to use Venezuela as an issue on which we can be as fully in line with the US as possible, because [Hunt] is out of line on a number of issues such as Syria”.

Weeks earlier, Hunt had vocally disagreed with Trump’s plans to pull US troops out of Syria.

Duncan’s diary entry continued: “It’s one of those trade-off moments which we need if we are to handle the Trump administration cleverly”.

Apparently quoting Hunt, Duncan added: “Venezuela is in their back yard, and it’s probably the only foreign adventure they might just pursue”.

Hunt thus seemingly viewed recognising Guaidó as a means of currying favour with Trump, but Britain also has longstanding interests in the region’s oil reserves.

“The revival of the oil industry [in Venezuela] will be an essential element in any [economic] recovery, and I can imagine that British companies like Shell and BP will want to be part of it”, Duncan had declared in 2018.

British firms are also interested in neighbouring Guyana, which has an ongoing border dispute with Venezuela over the oil-rich Essequibo region.

In January 2019, Guaidó’s representative in London, Vanessa Neumann, was recorded saying the “number one issue identified by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is that they won’t support us while we continue with the official line, that we want to take back the Essequibo from Guyana”.

Neumann thus instructed her fellow adviser to “drop the topic” of Venezuela’s claim to the region in exchange for Britain’s support for the coup.

### RELATED

[

## Secretive UK team met in Venezuela to promote British energy...

][8] [READ MORE **][9]

## Freezing Venezuela’s gold

Britain’s recognition of Guaidó was a key prerequisite for the Bank of England’s decision to freeze Venezuela’s gold in 2019 – a major British contribution to Washington’s coup efforts.

According to the former US national security adviser John Bolton, Hunt was “delighted” to help with Washington’s destabilisation campaign, “for example freezing Venezuelan gold deposits in the Bank of England”.

The Bank’s directors were uneasy about the legal implications of freezing a foreign state’s assets, but the Foreign Office worked to ease their nerves.

On 25 January 2019, Duncan [wrote][10] in his diary that he held a phone call with Mark Carney, then the Governor of the Bank of England, about Venezuela’s gold:

“I tell Carney that I fully appreciate that, although it’s a decision for the Bank, he needs a measure of political air cover from us. I tell him I will write him the most robust letter I can get through the FCO lawyers, and it will outline the growing doubts over Maduro’s legitimacy and explain that many countries no longer consider him to be the country’s President”.

In other words, the Bank of England required a robust legal rationale for keeping Venezuela’s gold frozen, and the Foreign Office was happy to provide it with one.

In May 2020, the Maduro government sued the Bank of England over its refusal to release the gold.

When the issue moved to the courts, the UK government [supported][11] Guaidó by re-emphasising its recognition of him, with the Foreign Office even spending £80,697 to promote his legal campaign.

This was despite repeated condemnations from UN special rapporteur Alena Douhan on the negative impact of unilateral sanctions on Venezuela.

In 2021, for instance, Douhan [noted][12] the “repeated refusals of banks in the… United Kingdom… to release Venezuelan assets even for buying medicine, vaccines and protective kits” during the Covid-19 pandemic.

With each hearing, Guaidó and his representatives also incurred substantial costs, with published accounts [suggesting][13] Guaidó’s team spent over $8.5m on legal fees – roughly £7m.

Remarkably, Guaidó’s UK legal fees were [paid][14] with money which was originally appropriated from the Venezuelan state in the US.

### RELATED

[

## UK spent public funds backing Venezuelan ‘president’ in gold dispute

][15] [READ MORE **][16]

## Venezuela Reconstruction Unit

After freezing Venezuela’s gold, the UK government set up a secretive “Venezuela Reconstruction Unit [VRU]” in Autumn 2019.

The VRU was [located][17] in the Foreign Office and directed by diplomat John Saville, with three other members of staff attached to it, one of whom was an “external consultant”.

Apparently tasked with planning for the day after Maduro’s overthrow, the VRU met with Guaidó in London in January 2020 and “had contact” with other members of his team, including Neumann.

After the VRU was exposed, the Foreign Office claimed the team had been established to “coordinate the UK approach to the international response to the dire economic and humanitarian situation in Venezuela”.

But documents obtained by *Declassified* exposed Saville holding meetings in Caracas to plan for UK involvement in Venezuela’s energy sector.

A whole day of meetings was scheduled for the topic of “UK involvement in the energy sector” of Venezuela, though the full agenda remains classified for reasons of “national security”.

Meanwhile, the Foreign Office [funded][18] an “anti-corruption” coalition in Venezuela to the tune of £450,000, with the money drawn from the controversial Conflict, Stability and Security Fund.

Following this reporting, the British embassy in Caracas complained internally that: “Articles on our programmes/operations here (particularly from McEvoy) are particularly sensitive”.

The Foreign Office is now refusing to disclose which non-governmental organisations it has been funding in Venezuela over recent years.

It justified this by saying information which “would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and [an]other state” needs to remain confidential.

The post [How Britain helped Trump destabilise Venezuela][19] appeared first on [Declassified UK][20].

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/17/uk-downplays-reports-stopped-sharing-intelligence-us-yvette-cooper

[2]: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37350097/brit-sailors-board-us-warships-caribbean-sea-venezuela-attack/

[3]: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/11/politics/uk-suspends-caribbean-intelligence-sharing-us

[4]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=11629

[5]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=11629

[6]: https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14304

[7]: https://2017-2021.state.gov/recognition-of-juan-guaido-as-venezuelas-interim-president/index.html

[8]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=7121

[9]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=7121

[10]: https://jacobin.com/2021/04/alan-duncan-diary-jeremy-hunt-tories-uk-us-venezuela-diplomatic-relations-gold-guaido-bank-of-england

[11]: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1003665/20210818_Foreign_Secretary_s_Case_18_June_2021.pdf

[12]: https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2021/02/preliminary-findings-visit-bolivarian-republic-venezuela-special?LangID=E&NewsID=26747

[13]: https://www.bcvadhoc.com/uso-de-los-fondos

[14]: https://www.thecanary.co/exclusive/2021/08/20/revealed-juan-guaido-used-millions-of-looted-dollars-to-asset-strip-venezuela/

[15]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=12607

[16]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=12607

[17]: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-06-01/52254

[18]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/revealed-uk-foreign-office-has-spent-nearly-half-a-million-pounds-in-aid-setting-up-anti-government-coalition-in-venezuela/

[19]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/how-britain-helped-trump-destabilise-venezuela/

[20]: https://www.declassifieduk.org

https://www.declassifieduk.org/how-britain-helped-trump-destabilise-venezuela/

[1]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/how-british-state-secrecy-just-got-worse/

How British state secrecy just got worse

The UK government must not use a new Supreme Court judgment as a blank cheque to conceal state wrongdoing

The post [How British state secrecy just got worse][1] appeared first on [Declassified UK][2].

https://www.declassifieduk.org/how-british-state-secrecy-just-got-worse/

[1]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/cameron-was-urged-to-meet-icc-prosecutor-days-before-threatening-him/

Cameron was urged to meet ICC prosecutor days before ‘threatening’ him

Foreign Office staff tried to convince David Cameron to support the ICC and meet Karim Khan shortly before heated phone call reported between them

The post [Cameron was urged to meet ICC prosecutor days before ‘threatening’ him][1] appeared first on [Declassified UK][2].

https://www.declassifieduk.org/cameron-was-urged-to-meet-icc-prosecutor-days-before-threatening-him/

[1]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/westminster-group-was-funded-by-israeli-government-inquiry-confirms/

Westminster group was funded by Israeli government, inquiry confirms

[Benjamin Netanyahu and Bezalel Smotrich at a 2023 news conference (Ronen Zvulun / AP / Alamy)]

Official probe was sparked by Declassified investigation into weapons firm

The post [Westminster group was funded by Israeli government, inquiry confirms][1] appeared first on [Declassified UK][2].

https://www.declassifieduk.org/westminster-group-was-funded-by-israeli-government-inquiry-confirms/

[1]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/lufthansa-resumes-military-deliveries-to-israel/

Lufthansa resumes military deliveries to Israel

[Lufthansa Cargo plane flies into Tel Aviv (Markus Mainka / Alamy)]

German air freight had halted the shipments for a week, citing UK regulations

The post [Lufthansa resumes military deliveries to Israel][1] appeared first on [Declassified UK][2].

https://www.declassifieduk.org/lufthansa-resumes-military-deliveries-to-israel/

[1]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/revealed-how-british-engines-ended-up-in-israeli-drones/

Revealed: How British engines ended up in Israeli drones

[The Apus 25 drone seen in promotional material (Israel Aerospace Industries)]

Documents obtained by Declassified suggest the government has allowed UK companies to send drone engines to Israel without export licences.

The post [Revealed: How British engines ended up in Israeli drones][1] appeared first on [Declassified UK][2].

https://www.declassifieduk.org/revealed-how-british-engines-ended-up-in-israeli-drones/

[1]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/release-gaza-footage-british-victim-demands-in-new-spy-flight-documentary/

‘Release Gaza footage,’ British victim demands in new spy flight documentary

[Neil Henderson’s son was killed by Israel in Gaza. (Photo: Alex Morris / Declassified UK)]

Father of former Royal Marine killed in Gaza says footage captured by opaque UK surveillance programme could clarify what happened to his son.

The post [‘Release Gaza footage,’ British victim demands in new spy flight documentary][1] appeared first on [Declassified UK][2].

https://www.declassifieduk.org/release-gaza-footage-british-victim-demands-in-new-spy-flight-documentary/

[1]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/palestine-action-policing-guidance-suggests-protesters-wrongly-arrested/

Palestine Action policing guidance suggests protesters wrongly arrested

[Jon Farley is arrested in July after holding up a Private Eye cartoon (Gerry Clarkson / Alamy)]

A previously unseen counter-terror police document clarifies how demonstrators should be treated. We are publishing it for the first time.

The post [Palestine Action policing guidance suggests protesters wrongly arrested][1] appeared first on [Declassified UK][2].

https://www.declassifieduk.org/palestine-action-policing-guidance-suggests-protesters-wrongly-arrested/

[1]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/they-knew-victims-of-ira-executioner-condemn-british-collusion/

‘They knew’ – Victims of IRA executioner condemn British collusion

[Moira Todd at the launch of Kenova’s final report. (Photo: Liam McBurney / Alamy)]

Families whose loved ones were killed by a British agent at the heart of the IRA say an official report stops short of revealing the whole truth.

The post [‘They knew’ – Victims of IRA executioner condemn British collusion][1] appeared first on [Declassified UK][2].

https://www.declassifieduk.org/they-knew-victims-of-ira-executioner-condemn-british-collusion/

Declassified UK (RSS/Atom feed) 6mo ago

The inside story of how America sent nuclear weapons to Britain

[A US C-17 Globemaster at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk, UK. (File photo: Gary Stedman / Alamy)]

Nukewatch UK explains how it tracked the bombs being flown across the Atlantic.

The post [The inside story of how America sent nuclear weapons to Britain][1] appeared first on [Declassified UK][2].

[1]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-inside-story-of-how-america-sent-nuclear-weapons-to-britain/

https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-inside-story-of-how-america-sent-nuclear-weapons-to-britain/

Declassified UK (RSS/Atom feed) 6mo ago

Israeli fighter pilots training with UK equipment

[Cadets parade with an M-346 Lavi. (Photo: Yagil Henkin / Alamy)]

Exclusive: The UK government suspended fighter jet exports to Israel but still allows the sale of parts which help Israeli pilots learn to fly F-35s and F-16s.

The post [Israeli fighter pilots training with UK equipment][1] appeared first on [Declassified UK][2].

[1]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/israeli-fighter-pilots-training-with-uk-equipment/