Royal Navy shadows Russian warships through Channel
Two Royal Navy warships have shadowed a Russian task group as it sailed through the English Channel and North Sea.
Type 23 frigate HMS Somerset and minehunter HMS Cattistock, supported by RFA Tidesurge and naval helicopters, were involved in the operation to follow the vessels as they returned from Syria.
The Russian ships included destroyer RFN Severomorsk, landing ship RFN Alexander Shabalin and two transport ships, MV Sparta IV and MV Siyanie Severa.
A spokesman for the Royal Navy said: 'As the Russian ships sailed east through the Channel and the North Sea towards the Baltic Sea, the Royal Navy ships deployed powerful sensors and launched the Merlin and Wildcat helicopters to report on every move.'
Luke Pollard, the defence minister, said: 'Russia should be in no doubt that the UK will defend our waters. I'm grateful to all the personnel who shadowed this Russian convoy.
'National security is a foundation of the Government's plan for change and ensuring freedom of navigation contributes to our economy.'
Commander Joel Roberts, commanding officer of HMS Somerset, said: 'Over the last few days HMS Somerset has escorted Russian ships through UK waters in resolute support to our national priorities.
'As ever, the ship's company have shown great professionalism whilst conducting the operation that involved the integration and coordination of other ships, helicopters and maritime patrol aircraft, including those from our Nato allies.
'There is strength in a coordinated Nato response, and our unity and ability to deliver integration of air and maritime operations remain some of our greatest assets.'
The operation was the third time in six weeks that the Royal Navy has shadowed Russian task groups returning from Syria.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Tinkering with smartphone rules won't save our kids – the damage they do means we must BAN them now
Sophie Winkleman, Actress and campaigner Published: Invalid Date, ARE we finally witnessing the tide turning against kids' use of smartphones? Head teachers are now calling for a limit on children's screen time and the government is considering an 'app curfew.' 2 2 The government's Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has said he wants to 'break some of the addictive behaviour' of the online world. Okay B+ for effort Peter but could try harder. 'Some' was your downfall. There's no such thing as temperance when it comes to smartphones. They're unputdownable. A two-hour cap on each app is better than nothing but with Snapchat, Instagram and TikTok being just three of children's favourite brain-melters this is already six hours of social media before they've even got out their homework. The idea of a curfew with a 10pm cut-off point is also a good one but come on, go tougher on the app limits - make it a two-hour total - or, grow a pair and illegalise social media for the Under 16s. None of them would miss it and they might actually meet up with a friend, kick a football around or read a book. The 'nanny state' has a bad rap as a concept, and quite rightly when it comes to adults - let us do what we want please. But when children are malfunctioning this seriously a nanny state is exactly what we need. We parents are doing our best, but we just can't do it alone. Peer pressure is immense. What parent hasn't felt cruel denying their child a phone to 'keep up with friends' and ended up surrendering? 'It was so loud,' ex teacher says banning phones transformed school overnight But smartphones are turning fun-loving and inquisitive children into hollow addicts the minute they get hold of them. The premise that smartphones are 'connecting' our children in a positive fashion is false. Because rather than playing with their friends or family they are alone in the rooms with their phones. The Sun's revelation last week that a Year 6 primary school student received 9,000 messages on Whatsapp over a 15 hour period reveals exactly what we are up against. The stats are truly horrific. More than a million British children per year are referred to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services Services, the vast majority suffering from severe depression, anxiety, self-harm, eating disorders and suicidal behaviour. Conspiracy theories It is not surprising when they are subject to graphic images of real murders, massacres and terrifyingly violent porn, algorithms feeding on their insecurities and sending them more and more damaging content. Children are encouraged to take part in potentially lethal games and challenges, resulting in many accidental deaths. Girls are told that anorexia is empowering then sent starvation tips and 'how to make mum think you've eaten your dinner' pointers. Children are fed conspiracy theories, radicalising their eager young minds, they're connected to gang members in their area, they're groomed, sextorted, preyed on and they're even told how to kill themselves. While government action is welcome, none of the restrictions suggested go nearly far enough. Why can't we get tough like Australia and New Zealand and ban social media for the Under 16s? Why can't we get tough like Australia and New Zealand and ban social media for the Under 16s? Or the 16 US states which have done the same thing? Or France - where all pornography users now have to verify their age using government ID or a credit card. Britain was meant to lead the way in child safety with the Online Safety Act. But Ofcom, responsible for implementing the legislation, is just not as tough as many international regulators. Or why can't we ban smartphones for the Under 16s and come up with a brand new product - a child-appropriate, safe phone with limited app functionality for things like banking and travel, simple calls and texts? Also UK, just STOP IT with the EdTech (educational technology)!!! We don't want our kids drowning in screen time during class and for their homework!! Sure, teach them how to use AI judiciously in senior school but no more of these silly apps masquerading as educational PLEASE. Doctors advise that children up to 17 should not be spending more than 1-2 hours a day on any form of screen. Schools have a responsibility to heed this advice. Not only is too much screen time bad for children's eyesight but it damages their sleep rhythms, their hormones, their spinal health and their attention spans. Bill Gates himself has admitted that 'devices have a lousy record in the classroom'. Steve Jobs didn't let his own kids have iPads. UNESCO found that children who used computers frequently in the classroom did a 'lot worse' academically than their book-based peers. A massive study by educational researcher John Jerrim showed that students who revised for academic tests by reading books and handwriting outperformed their computer-based counterparts twenty times over - the equivalent of six months of extra school!! Sweden has kicked screens out of the classroom, reverting to books, pen and paper. They called EdTech a 'failed experiment' Sweden has kicked screens out of the classroom, reverting to books, pen and paper. They called EdTech a 'failed experiment'. Many Big Tech employees in the US send their children to low or no-tech schools such as the Waldorf School of the Peninsula in California. So why does our government continue to listen to social media and EdTech firms when they argue that their products are good for our children? Where is the clinical evidence? Because few children or parents believe it. I have spoken to countless teens around the country and they all say that they're only on social media 'because everyone else is'. Most would love to be liberated from it all and free to learn, relax, have fun and sleep well. A survey last year found that 77 percent of parents wanted a smartphone ban for under 16s. Saving our youngest, most vulnerable minds from these corrosive devices is a vote-winner. Come on, Peter Kyle. Must do better. Teachers want it, parents want it and children want it. It's time the government wanted it too.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Fury as BA calls Falkland Islands capital by its ARGENTINIAN name in ‘ludicrous and insulting' blunder
BRITISH Airways has been branded disgraceful for using the Argentinian name for the capital of the Falklands Islands on in-flight entertainment screens. The UK's flag carrier airline refers to Port Stanley as Puerto Argentino. 3 3 The British title is relegated to a set of brackets underneath. Ed West, of The Spectator magazine, spotted the blunder and said: 'Curious wording for a British Airways in-flight map.' Last night, BA promised to investigate as the error was described as 'ludicrous' and 'insulting' by Falklands war veterans. Argentina still claims sovereignty but its invading forces lost the 74-day conflict in 1982. British forces scrambled halfway around the world to put down General Leopoldo Galtieri's troops after they took Port Stanley in a surprise raid. This Saturday is the 43rd anniversary of Britain's victory. Former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Lord West, who won the Distinguished Service Cross during the war, said the name error was 'disrespectful' to islanders. He told The Sun: 'It's disgraceful. 'The Falklands are a British overseas territory and 99.9 per cent of islanders want to stay British. 'We have said very clearly there will be no discussions about sovereignty. The New British Airways First Class Seat 'For the flag carrier airline to give Port Stanley another name is unforgivable.' Lord West, whose HMS Ardent was sunk by Argentine forces, added: 'I don't know why they would do it. 'Everyone on the Falkland Islands calls it Port Stanley. 'They should change it back as soon as possible. 'This is insulting to the population of Port Stanley.' In all, 255 British personnel lost their lives defending the islands. In 2017 Argentina's senate voted to rename Port Stanley as Puerto Argentino and celebrate Sovereignty Day there if it is ever recaptured. The in-flight map shows only the names of world capitals and not countries' names. It means BA does not reference the Falklands by its Argentinian name Islas Malvinas. British Airways' parent company, International Airlines Group, is based in Spain. A BA spokeswoman said: 'We are grateful this has been brought to our attention. 'We'll be reviewing it with the third party supplier that provides the in-flight map service.'
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Spending review is ‘settled', says Downing Street
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to announce funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence along with a number of infrastructure projects on Wednesday, as she shares out some £113 billion freed up by looser borrowing rules. But other areas could face cuts as she seeks to balance manifesto commitments with more recent pledges, such as a hike in defence spending, while meeting her fiscal rules that promise to match day-to-day spending with revenues. On Monday morning, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was the last minister still to reach a deal with the Treasury, with reports suggesting greater police spending would mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget. Speaking to reporters on Monday afternoon, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'The spending review is settled, we will be focused on investing in Britain's renewal so that all working people are better off. 'The first job of the Government was to stabilise the British economy and the public finances, and now we move into a new chapter to deliver the promise and change.' The Government has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034. Ms Reeves' plans will also include an £86 billion package for science and technology research and development. Last week the Chancellor admitted that she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back, amid the Whitehall spending wrangling. Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned that Wednesday's announcement will include no new funding or projects for London. The mayor had been looking to secure extensions to the Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo line on the Underground, along with the power to introduce a tourist levy and a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police. A source close to the mayor said on Monday that ministers 'must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government', adding this would harm both London's public services and 'jobs and growth across the country'. They said: 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review and the Met doesn't get the funding it needs. 'We need backing for London as a global city that's pro-business, safe and well-connected.'
