• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

27 Sep 2026 - British counterterrorism op near RAF Fairford

armrdsoul77 said:
Diesel bandits.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen this speculation- fuel thieves in the wrongest possible place at the wrongest possible time. It would jive with the fake fuel delivery branding, and what may have been empty fuel cans pulled from the vans. That would be objectively hilarious, had it not also potentially burned a major investigation.

Probably still hilarious even at that.
 
brihard said:
I’ve seen this speculation- fuel thieves in the wrongest possible place at the wrongest possible time. It would jive with the fake fuel delivery branding, and what may have been empty fuel cans pulled from the vans. That would be objectively hilarious, had it not also potentially burned a major investigation.

Probably still hilarious even at that.
Click to expand...
Or a couple of nefarious US airmen running a racket by selling fuel taken from the base to these guys.
 
A proper cock up - this is the most likely explanation of course ;)

Covert MI5 vs. overt police: Why did the UK release the US air base terrorism suspects?​


"Five suspects believed to have been planning an attack on a U.S. Airforce base in the United Kingdom have been released on bail. The announcement of the men’s release on Monday has sparked raised eyebrows on both sides of the Atlantic.

The arrest of the five British men of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent was dramatic. It came late on Saturday night following a call from a member of the public who reported a group of men in masks behaving suspiciously near RAF Fairford. While technically a British Royal Air Force base, RAF Fairford is U.S.-operated and home to heavy bomber aircraft. Some of these aircraft have been involved in the war against Iran.
Responding to the emergency call, armed police (most U.K. police are unarmed) detained the men and searched the three vans they had been driving. The men were subsequently arrested on suspicion of explosives offenses. They were then further arrested on suspicion of terrorism offenses. Numerous homes near the arrest site were evacuated over fears related to the apparent explosives.
Under U.K. law, terrorism suspects can normally be detained for up to 14 days without being charged. It has surprised many, then, that the men have been released barely 24 hours after their initial arrest. But this most likely theory for why this occurred is an inadvertent collision between covert and overt security operations targeting the men. It seems likely that the plotters were under surveillance by Britain’s MI5 domestic intelligence service and Counter-Terrorism police at all times on Saturday. But that a panicked call by a member of the public then led the local police force near RAF Fairford (Gloucestershire Police) to intervene, unaware of the MI5 operation.
That intervention appears to have occurred before MI5/Counter-Terrorism police had gathered sufficient evidence for optimal prosecutions. The suspects have now been released under intensive counterterrorism supervision by the authorities. This quick-release decision allows for the men’s possible 13-day (14-1 day already served) detention at a future point if more evidence is accumulated.
The best suggestion of a collision of covert versus overt security operations comes from comments by President Donald Trump and U.K. Defense Secretary Wes Streeting. And by the fact that RAF Fairford was put on higher alert two weeks ago."
www.washingtonexaminer.com

Covert MI5 vs. overt police: Why the UK released US airfield terrorism suspects

The U.K.'s arrest of five terrorism suspects near RAF Fairford suggests a collision of intelligence and local police operations.
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
 
daftandbarmy said:
A proper cock up - this is the most likely explanation of course ;)

Covert MI5 vs. overt police: Why did the UK release the US air base terrorism suspects?​


"Five suspects believed to have been planning an attack on a U.S. Airforce base in the United Kingdom have been released on bail. The announcement of the men’s release on Monday has sparked raised eyebrows on both sides of the Atlantic.

The arrest of the five British men of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent was dramatic. It came late on Saturday night following a call from a member of the public who reported a group of men in masks behaving suspiciously near RAF Fairford. While technically a British Royal Air Force base, RAF Fairford is U.S.-operated and home to heavy bomber aircraft. Some of these aircraft have been involved in the war against Iran.
Responding to the emergency call, armed police (most U.K. police are unarmed) detained the men and searched the three vans they had been driving. The men were subsequently arrested on suspicion of explosives offenses. They were then further arrested on suspicion of terrorism offenses. Numerous homes near the arrest site were evacuated over fears related to the apparent explosives.
Under U.K. law, terrorism suspects can normally be detained for up to 14 days without being charged. It has surprised many, then, that the men have been released barely 24 hours after their initial arrest. But this most likely theory for why this occurred is an inadvertent collision between covert and overt security operations targeting the men. It seems likely that the plotters were under surveillance by Britain’s MI5 domestic intelligence service and Counter-Terrorism police at all times on Saturday. But that a panicked call by a member of the public then led the local police force near RAF Fairford (Gloucestershire Police) to intervene, unaware of the MI5 operation.
That intervention appears to have occurred before MI5/Counter-Terrorism police had gathered sufficient evidence for optimal prosecutions. The suspects have now been released under intensive counterterrorism supervision by the authorities. This quick-release decision allows for the men’s possible 13-day (14-1 day already served) detention at a future point if more evidence is accumulated.
The best suggestion of a collision of covert versus overt security operations comes from comments by President Donald Trump and U.K. Defense Secretary Wes Streeting. And by the fact that RAF Fairford was put on higher alert two weeks ago."
www.washingtonexaminer.com

Covert MI5 vs. overt police: Why the UK released US airfield terrorism suspects

The U.K.'s arrest of five terrorism suspects near RAF Fairford suggests a collision of intelligence and local police operations.
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
Click to expand...
So the left hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing.
Nice.
 
dapaterson said:
Which, when dealing with intelligence driven operations is not uncommon. Local police not being aware of national policing / national counterintelligence operations is actually a feature, not a bug.
Click to expand...
A secret is only secure when only one person knows it.
 
dapaterson said:
Which, when dealing with intelligence driven operations is not uncommon. Local police not being aware of national policing / national counterintelligence operations is actually a feature, not a bug.
Click to expand...
100% this. That’s not to say there’s not careful liaison and limited sharing as needed with local police, but as a general rule of thumb there comes a time to share, and even then usually under particular caveats.
 
dapaterson said:
Which, when dealing with intelligence driven operations is not uncommon. Local police not being aware of national policing / national counterintelligence operations is actually a feature, not a bug.
Click to expand...

Nothing like watching two agencies shoot each other up while you stand there offering to help both of them ;)
 
brihard said:
CTP’s an interesting structure. It appears to be a standalone entity, though the senior execs are assigned from London Met. They have regional units led by the largest police service of that region and staffed by other services. For contrast, in Canada the closest would be RCMP INSET, but they’re all firmly and formally RCMP units under RCMP command, with a relatively modest number of provincial/municipal police, CBSA, and maybe a few others seconded in.

This one’s so hard to read… Given how much seemed to be in place ready to react fast, and the clear threat intelligence they obviously had, sure as hell they knew something imminent was coming. But if they knew of the three vans specifically and were waiting ‘in ambush’ for a takedown, I struggle to imagine they’d not have had a moving cordon some distance behind them, probably backed with aerial surveillance, and would have intercepted the bystander vehicle. Then again it’s possible because she was local that she went mobile while already within such a cordon. Frigged if I can tell.

I struggle to think they would have knowingly let multiple known threat actors dismount and get moving in a rural village; that’s all kinds of bad news bears. But then we only know a little, can reasonably infer a modest amount more, and we don’t know tons.

Now to add to the bizarreness of this, the Brits have announced the five arrested are being released on bail. To me that’s incongruous with a serious violent threat.

No announcement of charges yet, but it may be that the release on bail versus holding in custody is intended to allow more time to investigate and file. Yet I can’t help but think that had they found explosives or other weapons, there would be a strong push to remain in custody.

This one is increasingly baffling to me.

www.bbc.com

RAF Fairford suspects to be released on bail, head of counter-terror police says

Laurence Taylor says the five men arrested on Sunday are still under investigation as police consider multiple lines of inquiry, including the possible involvement of a foreign state.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
You could be right. I just trained under that country for command stuff and they have many examples of allowing files to go way farther than we would allow for the way their system works. More than a few bit them too. But dated knowledge for sure
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top