Pc Trevor Lock, who became a hero of the Iranian embassy siege, dies aged 85
Trevor Lock, the policeman who became a hero of the Iranian Embassy siege, has died at the age of 85.
Mr Lock was guarding the Iranian embassy in South Kensington when he and 25 others were taken hostage after terrorists burst into the building on April 30, 1980.
It led to a six-day stand-off that was ended when the Special Air Service (SAS) stormed the building, and saw Mr Lock receive the George Medal in recognition of his outstanding bravery.
He put himself on self-appointed duty with limited sleep, food and drink throughout the siege, where he remained calm and built up a rapport with the hostage takers – but then shoulder-charged the terrorist leader as the rescue operation was under way.
Mr Lock had managed to hide a handgun that was strapped to his body until the final day of the siege.
Photographs taken during the siege showed him speaking to police negotiators from a window at the embassy as a man of Middle Eastern appearance buries his head in his hands.
On Tuesday, a Police Federation spokesman said: 'Our thoughts are with his family and friends at this time.
'Pc Lock is remembered for calming his fellow hostages during the siege, acting as an intermediary between the terrorists and the security forces that ringed the building and – as the embassy was stormed – tackling the leading gunman.
'Pc Lock was awarded the George Medal for his 'outstanding courage, sustained bravery, calmness and devotion to duty'.
'We could not have said it any better.'
The hostage takers were Iranian-Arabs campaigning for the sovereignty of Khuzestan, a province in the south west of the country.
They demanded the release of prisoners held in Iran, as well as their own safe passage out of the UK.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wild word games between Iran, US about what is nuke 'enrichment'
Of course, allowing and blocking uranium enrichment are polar opposites, so the two by definition cannot coexist – or can't they? On April 12, the US and Iran held their first round of nuclear talks under the Trump administration and the first serious negotiations between Washington and Tehran since September 2023. Since then both US President Donald Trump and Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have been desperately searching for a formula which would allow a deal that both sides could live with. Many issues have been resolved, but one key dispute which the sides are dancing around and inventing new terms and phrases to try to solve is, to both allow but also block, low level Iranian uranium enrichment. Of course, allowing and blocking uranium enrichment are polar opposites, so the two by definition cannot coexist – or can't they? The first wild formula talked about the Islamic Republic giving up all uranium enrichment for one to three years – a symbolic period- followed by being allowed to enrich uranium at the 3.67% low levels – similar to the 2015 Obama administration JCPOA nuclear deal. This might still be the "winning" formula for the sides, but so far Tehran has bridled at even such a relatively short symbolic uranium enrichment freeze, demanding to be allowed to enrich at the 3.67% low level. Next, the latest wacky formula being discussed is a consortium of Middle East nuclear cooperation between Iran, the Saudis, the UAE, Turkey, and maybe others, with the US managing the joint venture. Somehow this would either lead to Iranians enriching uranium with their own centrifuges but not on their territory, or Iranians enriching uranium on their territory but along with other countries to somehow dilute their actions, or some mix of these arrangements on an island which Iran and other countries also have disputed claims to. There are also some potential points about improved inspector access to nuclear facilities and possibly some underground facilities being shut off (but not destroyed.) What all of these creative arrangements have in common is they are focused on symbolic victories for both Trump and Khamenei without seriously getting into the essence of what most endangers Israel about Iran's nuclear program. In truth, what is most dangerous about the Islamic Republic's nuclear program is its fleet of advanced centrifuges. It is not irrelevant whether these centrifuges are operating or in storage – it is certainly better to have them not operating. But as long as they are not destroyed, Khamenei, at any moment, can order them out of storage and these machines are so efficient that they could get Iran back to where it is now in terms of nuclear enrichment in a matter of months. This point was so aptly illustrated by the IAEA's report on Tehran's nuclear enrichment progress this past weekend which most of the world completely misunderstood. In public, Israel, like most of the world, wrongly focused on the fact that the quantity of the Islamic Republic's enriched uranium at the high 60% level was now, according to the IAEA, enough for around 10 potential nuclear weapons. But that was not the real danger illustrated by the report. When the last report was published three months ago, Iran had enough uranium for at least a potential six or so nuclear weapons in conservative estimates, and according to some hawks, already had enough for close to 10 nuclear weapons. Yet, Israel's problem is not six versus 10 nuclear weapons, but if Iran has even one. Preventing Khamenei from obtaining even one nuclear weapon is the reason why a record number of top Israeli defense officials want a green light to strike Tehran's nuclear facilities while they are the most vulnerable they have been in decades due to the success of Jerusalem's October 26, 2024 strike which destroyed Iran's best air defenses. So what was most disturbing was that the IAEA report showed Iran could enrich enough 60% uranium for three to four nuclear weapons in only three months using its advanced centrifuges. No one can say that warnings about what these advanced centrifuges could do if taken out of storage in the future is theoretical – they just did exactly what the worst-case scenario would be – confirmed by the apolitical IAEA. As long as Khamenei's advanced centrifuges are not destroyed, any wild or wacky words which he and Trump use to nail down a tightrope formula for a deal on Iran enriching uranium, will be more about each of those leaders saving face than about protecting Israel over any lengthy period of time.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump says Putin told him ‘very strongly' he will ‘have to respond' to Ukraine drone strikes in hour-long call
President Donald Trump on Wednesday said Russia's Vladimir Putin has informed him that his forces will respond to Ukraine's brazen and devastating attack on Russian airfields by a fleet of small suicide drones over the weekend. In a Truth Social post, Trump said he had spoken with the Russian leader for an hour and 15 minutes and described the call as 'a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace.' 'We discussed the attack on Russia's docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides ... President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields,' Trump said. The president also stated that he and Putin had discussed ongoing nuclear deal negotiations between the U.S. and Tehran, and said 'time is running out' for Tehran to come to an agreement 'which must be made quickly,' and revealed that he believes that Putin agrees with his stance on the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Trump added that Putin 'suggested that he will participate in the discussions with Iran and that he could, perhaps, be helpful in getting this brought to a rapid conclusion.' 'It is my opinion that Iran has been slowwalking their decision on this very important matter, and we will need a definitive answer in a very short period of time!' he said. The American leader's social media post is his first mention of the audacious strike on Russian bombers by Ukraine's security services since they were first reported days ago. The attack, dubbed Operation Spiderweb, by Ukrainian authorities, was carried out by the SBU and destroyed more than 40 Russian bombers, a significant portion of Moscow's strategic bombing capability. Ukraine has claimed the attack — a homegrown operation in which drones were concealed in false compartments within prefabricated sheds, smuggled into Russia, then launched en masse simultaneously many thousands of miles apart – and many thousands of miles behind enemy lines — destroyed 41 Russian aircraft, causing $7bn worth of damage to long-range bombers that carried the cruise missiles Putin has been using against Ukraine. Videos of the attack on one airfield in Belaya revealed aircraft bursting into flames, as drones, which may have been autonomous or semi-autonomous, dived onto planes sitting on the tarmac. Days later, a massive underwater bomb targeted a key bridge linking occupied Crimea to the Russian mainland. The two daring raids by Ukrainian special forces have stunned the Kremlin, bolstered Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and sent shockwaves through defense departments around the world. But Trump, who rarely misses a chance to opine on any particular topic, had remained silent for days. It was a rare period of reticence for a leader who once claimed he could bring about a peace deal between Moscow and Kyiv within 24 hours, and who infamously berated Zelensky by telling him during an infamous Oval Office showdown in February that he didn't 'have the cards' to keep up the fight against Russia. When The Independent asked the White House if Zelensky might have had some cards up his sleeve that the president hadn't known about during a press briefing on Tuesday, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump 'remains positive at the progress" the two sides have made in U.S.-brokered peace talks that just ended in Istanbul, Turkey. 'But he also is a realist, and he realizes these are two countries that are at war and have been for a long time because of his predecessor's weakness and incompetence,' she added.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Iran rejects U.S. nuclear proposal to abandon uranium enrichment
June 4 (UPI) -- Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Wednesday dismissed a U.S. proposal to halt Iranian uranium enrichment, appearing to reject a central U.S. demand in the nuclear program talks. Khamenei said the proposal was "100% against" Iran's interests. "The rude and arrogant leaders of America repeatedly demand that we should not have a nuclear program," Khamenei said. "They cannot do anything about this." Axios reported Monday that the U.S. proposal would bar Iran from building new enrichment facilities while establishing a strong system of monitoring and verification. The New York Times, citing unnamed Iranian and European officials, said the U.S. proposal would let Iran keep enriching uranium at low levels while details were worked out by the U.S. and other countries to block Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon. Khamenei said Iran won't agree to a nuclear deal that leaves it dependent on other nations. "There is one point that is a key element in the nuclear industry, and that is uranium enrichment," Khamenei said. "A nuclear industry without enrichment capabilities is useless because we would then be dependent on others to obtain fuel for our power plants." He added, "To the American side and others we say: Why are you interfering and trying to say whether Iran should have uranium enrichment or not? That's none of your business." Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said earlier this week that there won't be a nuclear agreement with the U.S. unless Iran's right to enrich uranium is respected. Araghchi wrote on X Wednesday, "Iran has paid dearly for these capabilities, and there is no scenario in which we will give up on the patriots who made our dream come reiterate: No enrichment, no deal. No nuclear weapons, we have a deal." Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
