Fairford – apparently on the village noticeboard in Whelford there’s a telephone number for RAF Fairford, which you can use if you see anything suspicious. Unfortunately the lady farmer who called it didn’t get an answer, so she called the police. The base had been on high alert for months as it hosts the ongoing B-1B Lancer operations in the Middle East – not answering the phone is a massive security fail. The three white medium-sized panel vans she observed near Whelford were being driven by men of ‘middle eastern’ appearance. They were EV’s and each of them were filled with barrels of..
ANFO, also written as AN/FO (an acronym for ammonium nitrate/fuel oil; is a widely used bulk industrial high explosive. It consists of 94% porous prilled ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) (AN), which acts as the oxidizing agent and absorbent for the fuel, and 6% number 2 fuel oil (FO) road diesel.
The use of ANFO originated in the 1950s. It is highly insensitive as an explosive, requiring a quantity of secondary explosive, known as a primer or a booster (larger than a standard blasting cap), in order to be detonated. One or two sticks of dynamite were historically used; current practice is to use Tovex or cast boosters of pentolite (TNT/PETN or similar compositions). That is all.
Update 2: Unbeknownst to her in calling the police the lady farmer triggered an active counter-terrorism operation. To avoid exposure they went from observation to capture in a matter of minutes. If this had been a base in the USA they’d all be dead.
Update 3: Newspapers are saying the villagers were told of an ‘imminent threat’ to the base the day before it all kicked off? This afternoon Trump revealed they knew all about them (the five arrested) and he was surprised they were released [bailed]. He said: “I wouldn’t have done that”. SNAFU if you ask me.
Right. Rubio is getting into it:
Mor Edge on X (254.7K following):
I spent over two decades in counterterrorism and I’m still involved in many ways, so here are my views on what I see has happened over the past 24-36 hours in the UK:
Five British men in their twenties were arrested on Sunday near RAF Fairford on suspicion of explosives offences and the preparation of a terrorist act. On Monday they were released on police bail. That’s not what the terrorism clock looks like when the investigators are still in charge of it.
Under ordinary UK criminal law a suspect can be held for 24 hours, stretched to 36 by a superintendent, and to 96 hours by a magistrate. But under section 41 of the Terrorism Act the first hold is 48 hours, not 24 hours. A judge can then extend it, in stages, up to 14 days without a charge. If the case merits it, it can even be pushed to 28 days. That 14-day cap exists for exactly this kind of file of vans, an airbase the United States uses, a possible foreign hand, explosives (if there were any) and interviews that are not finished on the first night.
Counter-terrorism police said the inquiry isn’t over. They said conditions apply. They said a state link has not been ruled out. Those sentences he said only make sense if the evidence trail was still live. A live trail is why Parliament built the two-week window. But watching the guy read out the statement showed me in his body language, tone and eye movements that releasing those five men was NOT his or his department’s decision.
Walking five men after roughly a day is what you do with a pub fight, not with a suspected terrorist attack on a bomber base. I’ve sat in enough interrogation rooms to know the difference between a custody clock and a political ceiling. Nobody had to shout an order down a phone. Someone in the political building above the investigators decided that charging British nationals on Monday, with Iran already denying it, Washington watching the runway, and a Labour conference where the main topics of discussion were prioritizing Palestinian and other refugees settling in the UK, was uglier than bail and a holding statement.
The law allowed them to keep the door shut. Yet the door opened anyway in half of the most minimum time. That’s the story. That for me is the only story here. Not “they were innocent.” Not “the case collapsed.” The statute was not exhausted, but the appetite was. The real question is who, and most importantly, why?
Not the right kind of terrorist. I bet none of the had a Tom … in their name.
ReplyDelete