Royal Navy shadows Russian ships through English Channel
The Royal Navy has shadowed Russian ships as they travelled through the English Channel.
Portsmouth-based destroyer HMS Duncan and patrol ship HMS Mersey were dispatched to track the movements of RFN Boikiy which was on its way back from deployment in the Gulf of Guinea.
Duncan met the corvette near the island of Ushant at the south-western end of the Channel on the French coast on June 20 before HMS Mersey took over duties off the Isle of Wight.
It is the latest deployment of a UK warship to follow Russian vessels.
It came soon after patrol ship HMS Trent and Wildcat helicopters from 815 Naval Air Squadron shadowed RFN Admiral Grigorovich as part of joint Nato efforts as the Russian frigate sailed past Gibraltar, through the English Channel and into the North Sea, the Royal Navy said.
Luke Pollard, Minister for the Armed Forces, said: 'Russian warships are increasingly sailing through the English Channel, and every time they do, a Royal Navy vessel will be keeping an eye on them.
'I have every confidence, as should the British public, that our Royal Navy will continue to defend our waters and keep our undersea cables safe.'
Commander Daniel Lee, Commanding Officer of HMS Duncan, said: 'Escorting foreign warships through waters near the UK is a vital part of our mission to protect our nation and uphold international maritime law.
'It's a clear demonstration of our commitment to ensuring the safety and security of our seas, which are so important to the lives and livelihoods of the British people.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
26 minutes ago
- Times
Bridget Phillipson: I want more young people to have children
Labour has said it wants more young people to have children, warning that Britain's 'plummeting birth rate' is a danger to society. Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, has raised the alarm about a younger generation who are 'thinking twice about starting a family' because of the rising cost of housing and childcare. She promised more help for young parents to make it easier for couples to have children, saying that 'families are the bedrock of our society and we need them to succeed'. Her comments signal growing political alarm about the UK's falling birth rate, which is down to 1.44 children per woman and in 2023 saw the fewest babies born for almost half a century. Phillipson raised the alarm over the trend, which means a future of fewer workers supporting a rising number of older people. • Britain needs babies but it will take some pushing Politicians have traditionally been wary of encouraging people to have more children, despite evidence that many couples have fewer babies than they would like. Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, thrust the issue into the mainstream last month when he promised tax breaks and welfare changes to 'help young, working British people who are not on particularly big incomes to have more children'. Phillipson rejected his focus on marriage, saying 'no opposition party has the answers to our plummeting birth rate — a trend which has worrying repercussions for society but tells a story about the dashed dreams of many families'. Saying she wanted to give people the 'freedom to choose', Phillipson wrote in the Daily Telegraph: 'It's why I want more young people to have children, if they choose; to realise the ordinary aspiration so many share, to create the moments and memories that make our lives fulfilling: having children, seeing them take their first steps, dropping them off on their first day at school, guiding them on their journey into the world of work or taking them to university for the first time.' • Falling birthrate to leave UK reliant on immigration until 2100 Support for young children was 'my number one priority', Phillipson said, promising help with issues such as breastfeeding and reading, as well as an expansion of child care. Experts have pointed to evidence that making it easier or cheaper to have another child can be effective. Under the previous Labour government, Gordon Brown's working families tax credit, which gave extra cash to low-income families, is estimated to have led to an extra 45,000 babies being born.
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Kneecap avoid prosecution over ‘kill your MP' recording
Irish rap group Kneecap will not face charges for comments made in November 2023, where a member allegedly said "Kill your MP," as the statutory time limit for prosecution has expired. This investigation was separate from an ongoing charge against band member Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh for allegedly displaying a flag in support of Hezbollah at a gig last year, which he denies. Kneecap has stated they do not support Hamas or Hezbollah and have been vocal campaigners against Israel's military campaign in Gaza. The group performed at Glastonbury Festival, where they led chants against Keir Starmer and for a free Palestine, despite calls from politicians for their removal from the line-up. Avon and Somerset Police are currently assessing footage from Kneecap's and another act's Glastonbury performances to determine if any offences were committed.
Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Energy companies are not ripping you off
A week ago, the Government announced with great fanfare that 'millions more families' would get £150 off energy bills this winter. This sounds great. Unfortunately, what the Government failed to mention is who would pay for this. The answer is everyone else. The Warm Homes Discount (WHD) is one of several non-energy obligations placed on suppliers. Suppliers get a bad name, but they are forced to do a lot of things that have little to do with energy supply, and are given little money to do it. Meaning fewer resources to do the things people expect them to do well. Of course, some suppliers could and should do better, but it's worth thinking about the various spurious obligations they face and why they make little sense. Take the WHD. This is how it works: Step 1: the supplier must ask the Department for Work and Pensions which of its customers are eligible to receive the discount; Step 2: the supplier calculates the total cost of the discount; Step 3: the supplier adds the cost of the discount to the bills of all its customers that are not eligible to receive it, plus an admin fee. This is wealth redistribution, pure and simple. Suppliers take money from one group of customers in order to give it to another group. It is quite simply not the job of corporations to do this – if governments want to redistribute wealth, there already exists a tax-and-benefits process for this. Make no mistake, the WHD is a benefit for a small group of consumers and a tax on the rest, and with over 6 million homes expected to be eligible, the overall cost will be close to £1bn. Another non-energy obligation imposed on suppliers is the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) that requires suppliers to help their customers cut energy usage through home improvements such as better insulation. What, you may ask, do energy suppliers know about building and construction? The answer is that they have had to learn, hiring builders and other contractors to carry out home retrofits. The scheme costs over £1bn per year. And how is this paid for? Through bills. Suppliers impose a charge on their customers to pay for the scheme. Again, this is inefficient. There are already people who know about insulation and building standards. They are called local authorities and they supervise the planning and building control processes. If the government wants to reduce heat losses in homes, it should provide funding to local governments to supervise such schemes, rather than asking energy suppliers, whose job is to supply gas and electricity, to do it. Smart-meter installation is another unnecessary supplier burden. No other country in Europe expects suppliers to install network equipment. Network operators do it instead. But in the UK, suppliers are required to meet strict smart-meter installation targets, despite it being entirely voluntary for consumers to accept one or not. On top of this, successive governments have repeatedly told consumers that suppliers are greedy profiteers who cannot be trusted. And then they wonder why consumers are reluctant to allow them to install devices that could, were market rules to change, allow suppliers to restrict their energy usage, or charge them punitive amounts to use energy at various times of the day. Again, the costs – also estimated at around £1bn per year – are recovered through bills.
