Four people bailed after arrests over cyber attacks on M&S, Co-op and Harrods
A spokesperson for the National Crime Agency (NCA) said on Wednesday: 'All four individuals have been bailed pending further inquiries.'
They were all arrested from their home address on suspicion of blackmail, money laundering, offences linked to the Computer Misuse Act, and participating in the activities of an organised crime group, according to the NCA.
Empty shelves in a branch of the Co-op following a cyber attack (PA)
The police also seized electronic devices from the properties.
It comes after investigations by NCA into attacks against the three retailers, where hackers sought ransom payments after breaking into their IT systems.
M&S was the first of the retailers to be targeted by the hackers, with the retailer shutting a raft of systems down in response on Easter Sunday.
The company said the cyber attack has cost the firm around £300 million after it shut down its website for six weeks.
Meanwhile, Co-op saw payments disrupted and shelves become bare from May because of the fallout of its cyber attack.
Hackers also stole Co-op members' personal data, such as names and contact details.
Harrods restricted internet access across its websites in May following attempts to gain unauthorised access to its systems.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
27 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Reform tells energy firms it would scrap their clean power subsidies
Deputy leader Richard Tice has written to firms giving them 'formal notice' that the party would axe deals aimed at offering sustainable generators protection against market volatility. The Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme sees developers guaranteed a fixed price for electricity – independent of the wholesale price – in the hope of encouraging companies to invest in renewable projects. In a letter on Wednesday to companies including Octopus Energy and SSE Renewables , Mr Tice claimed 'there is no public mandate for the real-world consequences' of the clean power agenda. If Reform won an election, he said 'we will seek to strike down all contracts signed under AR7' – the upcoming allocation round for CfDs. 'Let me be clear: if you enter bids in AR7, you do so at your own risk. The political consensus that has sheltered your industry for nearly two decades is fracturing.' He added that participation in the upcoming CfD auction 'carries significant political, financial and regulatory risk' for company shareholders. Climate analysts said the move would drive away investment and put British jobs in jeopardy. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) said: 'Polling shows the public see clean energy as the number one growth sector for the UK. 'Arguing against British renewables is arguing for more foreign gas, which will increasingly come from abroad as the North Sea continues its inevitable decline – a geological fact. 'Ripping up long-term policies and changing agreed contracts is likely to destroy the UK's credibility as a solid place to invest and with it, leave us more reliant on gas from abroad whose price we have no significant control over.' Labour said the letter showed Reform was 'actively trying to discourage businesses from investing in clean energy in the UK – leaving bills higher for families, threatening hundreds of thousands of good jobs across the country and putting our energy security at risk.' 'They are disgracefully trying to undermine the UK's national interest,' a party spokesman said. Mr Tice's letter followed a Government decision to allow offshore wind farms to be able to apply for the energy contracts while they are still waiting for full planning consent in a bid to hasten development. Officials have said changes to the scheme will include increasing the length of contracts from 15 years to 20 years for offshore wind, onshore wind and solar projects. The letter also came shortly after Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said greater use of CfDs would cut bills for households by breaking the link between electricity costs and the price of gas. He said: 'We're all paying that higher gas price in our bills, even though most of the energy we're using comes from much cheaper, renewable sources.' Sir Ed also accused Reform leader Nigel Farage of peddling 'myths' about net zero and vowing to challenge 'snake oil sales' with 'thought through' policy.
South Wales Guardian
27 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Reform tells energy firms it would scrap their clean power subsidies
Deputy leader Richard Tice has written to firms giving them 'formal notice' that the party would axe deals aimed at offering sustainable generators protection against market volatility. The Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme sees developers guaranteed a fixed price for electricity – independent of the wholesale price – in the hope of encouraging companies to invest in renewable projects. In a letter on Wednesday to companies including Octopus Energy and SSE Renewables , Mr Tice claimed 'there is no public mandate for the real-world consequences' of the clean power agenda. If Reform won an election, he said 'we will seek to strike down all contracts signed under AR7' – the upcoming allocation round for CfDs. 'Let me be clear: if you enter bids in AR7, you do so at your own risk. The political consensus that has sheltered your industry for nearly two decades is fracturing.' He added that participation in the upcoming CfD auction 'carries significant political, financial and regulatory risk' for company shareholders. Climate analysts said the move would drive away investment and put British jobs in jeopardy. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) said: 'Polling shows the public see clean energy as the number one growth sector for the UK. 'Arguing against British renewables is arguing for more foreign gas, which will increasingly come from abroad as the North Sea continues its inevitable decline – a geological fact. 'Ripping up long-term policies and changing agreed contracts is likely to destroy the UK's credibility as a solid place to invest and with it, leave us more reliant on gas from abroad whose price we have no significant control over.' Labour said the letter showed Reform was 'actively trying to discourage businesses from investing in clean energy in the UK – leaving bills higher for families, threatening hundreds of thousands of good jobs across the country and putting our energy security at risk.' 'They are disgracefully trying to undermine the UK's national interest,' a party spokesman said. Mr Tice's letter followed a Government decision to allow offshore wind farms to be able to apply for the energy contracts while they are still waiting for full planning consent in a bid to hasten development. Officials have said changes to the scheme will include increasing the length of contracts from 15 years to 20 years for offshore wind, onshore wind and solar projects. The letter also came shortly after Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said greater use of CfDs would cut bills for households by breaking the link between electricity costs and the price of gas. He said: 'We're all paying that higher gas price in our bills, even though most of the energy we're using comes from much cheaper, renewable sources.' Sir Ed also accused Reform leader Nigel Farage of peddling 'myths' about net zero and vowing to challenge 'snake oil sales' with 'thought through' policy.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Broke Britain: how the Bank of England wrecked the economy
In February 2020, a few weeks before Britain was thrown into lockdown, Sajid Javid resigned as chancellor of the exchequer over a bust-up with the prime minister's chief adviser, Dominic Cummings. The fight was thought to be over Cummings's attempts to dictate who could and could not work in No. 11. In fact, it was just one skirmish in a long-running and bitter power struggle between the two men. Two months before his resignation, Javid had claimed victory in a different battle against Cummings – one over who would occupy the governor's office at the Bank of England. Cummings wanted Andy Haldane, then the Bank's chief economist, who he believed was intellectually curious, allergic to groupthink and might give the Bank the shake-up it needed. Javid put his foot down: it had to be Andrew Bailey, then chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority. Five years on, the British economy is teetering on the brink. Beneath it lies a deep fiscal hole, created by billions of pounds of unfunded spending – never-ending health promises, a spiralling welfare bill and a triple lock on the state pension which will cost three times as much as originally estimated. Then there is the crushing burden of debt interest, which costs twice the defence budget, pulling the nation closer to financial collapse. The Bank and its Governor have one job that matters above all: keeping inflation under control. Bailey and the other eight members of the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) are legally required to keep inflation at 2 per cent. For 46 of the 64 months that Bailey has been Governor, inflation has been above that target. At worst, it was in double digits. Politicians deserve much of the blame for the country's economic state. But behind four prime ministers over the past five years has been Bailey – the banker who has enabled their recklessness and whose decisions will determine the extent to which we can recover. Britain is addicted to cheap money and Bailey has been happy to deal it out. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, central banks across the world slashed interest rates and flooded markets with cash. Bailey was chief cashier of the Bank during this period. His signature appeared on the notes being printed. He was a symbol of this new age of cheap money, as well as an architect. Later, to finance pandemic spending during the Covid lockdowns, including the £70 billion furlough scheme, he let the money printers go into overdrive. Initially, the Bank created £200 billion. This was followed by another £100 billion and then a further £150 billion, just in time for Christmas. At the peak of his quantitative easing (QE) programme, nearly half a trillion pounds of new money had been pumped into the economy – suspiciously close to the amount the government ended up borrowing. During the 2008 crash, QE at least stayed largely confined within the banking system. In the Covid era, with the government's furlough scheme as the conduit, billions of pounds entered households and businesses directly. Inflation shot up. 'It's QE that's really put us up the shitter,' says one bank staffer. Every developed country printed money during the pandemic. But as prices started rising, Bailey appeared unconcerned. Even as inflation was reaching double the Bank's 2 per cent limit, he kept describing it as 'transitory'. Haldane, by comparison, spent the summer of 2021 warning that an inflation spiral was coming and the only way to counter it was to raise interest rates urgently. Bailey shrugged off the suggestion. 'Raising interest rates won't produce more gas,' he said in the autumn of that year. 'It won't produce more semiconductor chips.' Bailey's allies also treated warnings of a lasting inflationary risk with derision. One close confidant was seen rolling their eyes during a lecture on Friedrich Hayek – the free-market economist who warned that once inflation starts to spiral, it's nearly impossible to stop it. Now, after runaway inflation and a cost-of-living crisis, the Bank is desperately trying to play catch-up through quantitative tightening (QT) – essentially shredding the money it printed. But the cost of its mistakes is evident. According to the Financial Times, the process of buying and selling gilts to fund money-printing has led to a spectacular loss: four times what the US Federal Reserve lost. There is perhaps no one angrier at Bailey than Liz Truss. The former prime minister and her allies believe the Bank destroyed her premiership – and there are those in the world of finance who agree. 'Bailey is an absolute weapon and completely out of his depth,' says one investment banker. 'He's largely responsible for the fall of Truss.' Truss's defenders argue that the pension crisis, which came about in the days after her September 2022 mini-Budget and threatened to crash the entire bond market, is evidence of the Bank's fatal complacency, rather than her recklessness. Liability Driven Investments (LDIs), used by pension funds, were far more vulnerable to changes in interest rates then the Bank ever predicted. And it was Bailey's interest rate policy – ultra-low borrowing costs followed by sharp hikes – that made the system so volatile. The Bank announced gilt-selling just days before the mini-Budget, further pushing yields up. When the sell-off began, Bailey intervened – but gave pension funds only three days to 'get this done', which insiders say worsened the panic. The Bank later admitted the system was unstable before Truss's Budget. Regulators – overseen by Bailey – overlooked the risks. The Bank's own figures suggest nearly two-thirds of the spike in yields was not because of the mini-Budget but the LDI sell-off. The bomb had been armed long before 2022; Truss just happened to strike the match. One of the Bank's big problems is its failure to produce accurate forecasting. A review led by Ben Bernanke, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, found that its forecasting process was riddled with outdated models – its main one, 'Compass', was deemed unfit for purpose. Bernanke concluded that the Bank's performance was merely 'middle of the pack' – a blow to the credibility of the world's sixth-largest economy. In November 2021, after more than £500 billion was printed in just under two years, the Bank forecast inflation would peak at 4.8 per cent. In fact, it hit 11 per cent. During the pandemic, Threadneedle Street's GDP projections were the worst among major central banks. Britain was flying blind, refusing to acknowledge the disastrous state it was in. The result of all this, according to one former City chief executive, has been a generational delusion. 'If you think you can borrow close to zero, you are out of your mind,' he says. 'A large part of the population [suffered] when cheap debt suddenly became expensive debt. Bailey was asleep at the wheel.' The willingness of Bailey and his MPC to indulge the fantasy of 'free money' has had consequences beyond persistent inflation. It has created a drag on growth which is likely to continue for years. It has distorted the mortgage market even further, as a third of mortgage-holders still haven't had to grapple with refinancing since interest rates spiked. Perhaps most importantly, it has rewired how a generation of politicians and the public think about government spending and emergency support. Even as inflation rises again – the current rate is 3.6 per cent, almost double the Bank's supposed limit – Bailey talks about the prospect of interest rate cuts. Experts can't believe what they're hearing: the job of driving down inflation is not yet done, and yet the MPC has become, in the words of one former member, 'gung-ho'. Bailey's term as Governor isn't over until 2028. The only way governors leave office is by resigning or by going personally bankrupt. Mostly, it's a job you keep as long as you want it. But some in the City say it shouldn't be. 'If you were out by five times in normal businesses, you'd be sacked,' one former CEO tells me, referring to the Bank's missed inflation target. Still, Bailey has his defenders. They shift the blame for the concept of 'free money' on his predecessor Mark Carney, who normalised money printing after the financial crash. Others point out that Bailey is just one vote of nine on the MPC. The Governor can have great influence on the direction of monetary policy, but he is not an all-ruling king. Where Bailey's critics and friends agree is that he's 'steady and dull'. Perhaps, though, these times demand someone braver. One of Bailey's greatest sins has been to let groupthink take over the Bank. 'We need an operator, not a technocrat,' one senior industry figure says. Mervyn King, the former governor, has privately questioned Bailey's management and communication ability. Reform UK, who are at around 30 per cent in the polls, want to overhaul the Bank's independence and take particular issue with the interest paid on printed money given to banks and the losses experienced under QT. But one senior trader warns that any change to Bank independence risks a 'Reform premium' of two to four points on the cost of borrowing – tens of billions of pounds. Either way, many economists believe we're hurtling towards a crisis. Last year Britain's fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), warned debt could pass 600 per cent of GDP in 50 years. Yet it's hard to get a definitive idea from anyone of what that future crisis looks like. That's because it may not take the form of a sudden collapse, but more a constant state of anxiety. It's why the Treasury now operates like a liquidity manager, with departments scrambling just to keep up with inflation. It's why the government lives in fear of how the bond market will react to its announcements. It's why Peter Mandelson spent the run-up to last year's general election warning Keir Starmer that he could not afford to govern like a new Tony Blair. It's why one MP recently asked why 'just a few billion' from the government's welfare U-turn requires tax rises. It's why, as the OBR puts it, public expectations of the state 'seem to be rising' and yet many voters seem to believe that their expectations can be met without higher taxes. They can't be. But this is what monetary complacency looks like. This is what Bailey has enabled. Perhaps no one can say what a crisis will look like because we're not hurtling towards one – we're already living through it.
