Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Counter terror police investigate possible Iran link to Fairford RAF bomb plot, thread 2

59 replies

Shudacudawuda · 01/10/2026 18:00

So it appears this incident was terror related after all.

Quite a few of us on the first thread were sneered at for not accepting the suggestion that it was just thieves stealing fuel. Lots on that thread who had NO DOUBT that if the incident was terror related, there was no way the police would have bailed them.

But what do you know, it looks like the authorities did cock up after all.

OP posts:
MushMonster · 01/10/2026 18:04

Oh, I have heard of this, but not being following properly. Last time I heard of it, police said there was no explosives in the vehicles?
So, with a bomb mentioned, have they now found them?
I want to think they are being strategic to catch someone. Because I do not want to believe they can be that thick.....

Original poster
Shudacudawuda · 01/10/2026 18:10

They've arrested one man now according to the BBC. And Andy Burnham has said the incident has been linked to Iran.

The chopping and changing in the story we are being told really doesn't inspire confidence that the security of our country is in safe hands.

OP posts:
OP posts:
MushMonster · 01/10/2026 18:27

Oh, it is the fuel found in the vans, isn't it?
Vans loaded with petrol have been used before, sadly.
Flipping easy to do and if they managed to park the van near enough to a sensitive location, then it can be rather devastating.

MushMonster · 01/10/2026 18:29

Only one arrested? From the 5 found on the spot?
Why did they release them on bail?
I am really hoping they were trying to fish communications with whoever is the mastermind......

BeautifulLittlePumpkin · 01/10/2026 18:30

Why am I not surprised at people’s denial in the first thread? And for a demographic that’s supposed to be educated it really is mind blowing. Maybe it’s a defense mechanism, they don’t want to face the realities of this country and the mess it’s in.

MushMonster · 01/10/2026 18:39

Well, there are not many reasons to wonder around a RAF base with balaclavas after 12 am, is it?
I am pretty sure they did not get lost walking their dog or were looking for an improvised camping site to have a few laughs with friends...
But, why did the police release them on bail? So quickly.....

Alternativelyviewed · 01/10/2026 19:48

My brain can't handle this one ! I can't make sense of any of it.
I did wonder where the men they caught actually on our side trying to stalk the baddies or perhaps undercover ops ?
Eg infiltrated the group ? .
The whole thing stinks.

I also can't help feel it was some sort of dummy run.

NoisyBrickDog · 02/10/2026 09:28

Bail - the police can only hold someone for 24 hours maximum. After this, they have to charge them with an offence - but this relies on sufficient evidence being present. If not, they either get released no-further-action or they can bail them while the investigation continues.

They can apply for an extension to the 24 hours, but again they need evidence of an offence and a reason for the extension - they can't just extend it because it looks a bit dodgy.

You also have to consider that you can't run the bail clock down to the 24 hour mark. When they come back on bail, the bail clock resumes - so you need to have enough time left on the original bail clock to resume the investigation/interview/charge advice etc.

Its not as easy as just 'keep them in custody'

EasternStandard · 02/10/2026 09:38

The first thread was a bit crazy with the fuel thieves stuff and sneering at the earlier terrorism posts.

But still not sure what happened.

JoeSikoraTommysStory · 02/10/2026 09:42

NoisyBrickDog · 02/10/2026 09:28

Bail - the police can only hold someone for 24 hours maximum. After this, they have to charge them with an offence - but this relies on sufficient evidence being present. If not, they either get released no-further-action or they can bail them while the investigation continues.

They can apply for an extension to the 24 hours, but again they need evidence of an offence and a reason for the extension - they can't just extend it because it looks a bit dodgy.

You also have to consider that you can't run the bail clock down to the 24 hour mark. When they come back on bail, the bail clock resumes - so you need to have enough time left on the original bail clock to resume the investigation/interview/charge advice etc.

Its not as easy as just 'keep them in custody'

Police can hold suspected terrorists for 14 days without charge in the UK

sittingonabeach · 02/10/2026 09:45

But can’t bail be refused in certain circumstances eg if you think they may be a danger

Westfacing · 02/10/2026 09:52

JoeSikoraTommysStory · 02/10/2026 09:42

Police can hold suspected terrorists for 14 days without charge in the UK

Show quote history

Yes, and for the life of me I can't work out why they were given bail - given the location there was always the possibility that it was terror-related

I've been really busy with family illness so haven't been following developments really closely so can anyone tell me about the story that one of the suspects phoned the police beforehand. I can't get my head around that bit - was he a 'plant' or some sort of undercover agent?

NoisyBrickDog · 02/10/2026 09:54

You need evidence to suggest they are terrorists - at the minute they have nothing. They were found in a couple of vans in a public place with nothing in the van of any concern. Where is the evidence to suggest they are terrorists?

Bail can be refused - but only at the point of charge. Therefore you need to be charging someone with an offence in order deny bail and remand them to a court.

If there is no charge - you can't deny bail

Westfacing · 02/10/2026 09:58

BeautifulLittlePumpkin · 01/10/2026 18:30

Why am I not surprised at people’s denial in the first thread? And for a demographic that’s supposed to be educated it really is mind blowing. Maybe it’s a defense mechanism, they don’t want to face the realities of this country and the mess it’s in.

I don't think it's denial - just that people assumed that bail wouldn't be granted for anything terror-related, so sighed with relief that it was 'mere' fuel thieves

A reasonable reaction I'd say

Neverstopwondering · 02/10/2026 10:03

MushMonster · 01/10/2026 18:39

Well, there are not many reasons to wonder around a RAF base with balaclavas after 12 am, is it?
I am pretty sure they did not get lost walking their dog or were looking for an improvised camping site to have a few laughs with friends...
But, why did the police release them on bail? So quickly.....

Once I heard that one of the men rung the police on himself the bail thing started to make sense in my head.

This is my own theory and probably wrong.

Basically the five men were recruited under false scenario that they were going to be part of a protest outside or in the grounds of the base. Face masks and wearing all black not unusual for this stuff.

However once there the orders from this british/Iranian guy just arrested began to get more dodgy. Vans full of petrol or asked to get the petrol etc rung alarm bells in heads.

One or more of the men realised this was not what they thought and didn't want to go through with a full on terriost attack which may kill people etc.

This meant the only way out they had was to ring the police himself/themselves. Therefore stopping the incident happening and hoping they would get treated lighter by the authorities.

Totally made up in my head but the only theory that joins the dots. Will be interesting to see if I am even a little right.

Westfacing · 02/10/2026 10:09

Neverstopwondering · 02/10/2026 10:03

Once I heard that one of the men rung the police on himself the bail thing started to make sense in my head.

This is my own theory and probably wrong.

Basically the five men were recruited under false scenario that they were going to be part of a protest outside or in the grounds of the base. Face masks and wearing all black not unusual for this stuff.

However once there the orders from this british/Iranian guy just arrested began to get more dodgy. Vans full of petrol or asked to get the petrol etc rung alarm bells in heads.

One or more of the men realised this was not what they thought and didn't want to go through with a full on terriost attack which may kill people etc.

This meant the only way out they had was to ring the police himself/themselves. Therefore stopping the incident happening and hoping they would get treated lighter by the authorities.

Totally made up in my head but the only theory that joins the dots. Will be interesting to see if I am even a little right.

Show quote history

Well that's feasible I suppose!

I read that the police arrived very quickly after the farmer phoned to report her sightings - maybe they were already on their way

NoisyBrickDog · 02/10/2026 10:23

Or they all just got into a massive argument in the van over their ill gotten gains and one decided to dob everyone in - no honour among thieves!

Katiesaidthat · 02/10/2026 10:28

MushMonster · 01/10/2026 18:39

Well, there are not many reasons to wonder around a RAF base with balaclavas after 12 am, is it?
I am pretty sure they did not get lost walking their dog or were looking for an improvised camping site to have a few laughs with friends...
But, why did the police release them on bail? So quickly.....

I am astounded that anyone thought it was anything other than criminal...

Katiesaidthat · 02/10/2026 10:30

Neverstopwondering · 02/10/2026 10:03

Once I heard that one of the men rung the police on himself the bail thing started to make sense in my head.

This is my own theory and probably wrong.

Basically the five men were recruited under false scenario that they were going to be part of a protest outside or in the grounds of the base. Face masks and wearing all black not unusual for this stuff.

However once there the orders from this british/Iranian guy just arrested began to get more dodgy. Vans full of petrol or asked to get the petrol etc rung alarm bells in heads.

One or more of the men realised this was not what they thought and didn't want to go through with a full on terriost attack which may kill people etc.

This meant the only way out they had was to ring the police himself/themselves. Therefore stopping the incident happening and hoping they would get treated lighter by the authorities.

Totally made up in my head but the only theory that joins the dots. Will be interesting to see if I am even a little right.

Show quote history

Interesting thought.

Strachalan · 02/10/2026 10:53

Was chatting with a friend last night who thinks it was a false flag set up by Trump.

professionalcommentreader · 02/10/2026 11:11

NoisyBrickDog · 02/10/2026 09:28

Bail - the police can only hold someone for 24 hours maximum. After this, they have to charge them with an offence - but this relies on sufficient evidence being present. If not, they either get released no-further-action or they can bail them while the investigation continues.

They can apply for an extension to the 24 hours, but again they need evidence of an offence and a reason for the extension - they can't just extend it because it looks a bit dodgy.

You also have to consider that you can't run the bail clock down to the 24 hour mark. When they come back on bail, the bail clock resumes - so you need to have enough time left on the original bail clock to resume the investigation/interview/charge advice etc.

Its not as easy as just 'keep them in custody'

Depends on the offence

NoisyBrickDog · 02/10/2026 11:36

professionalcommentreader · 02/10/2026 11:11

Depends on the offence

Show quote history

You still need evidence of an offence in the first place

What offence are you considering?

Westfacing · 02/10/2026 12:04

Katiesaidthat · 02/10/2026 10:28

I am astounded that anyone thought it was anything other than criminal...

Show quote history

I don't think anyone thought it wasn't criminal - just maybe not terror-related

Original poster
Shudacudawuda · 02/10/2026 13:04

Neverstopwondering · 02/10/2026 10:03

Once I heard that one of the men rung the police on himself the bail thing started to make sense in my head.

This is my own theory and probably wrong.

Basically the five men were recruited under false scenario that they were going to be part of a protest outside or in the grounds of the base. Face masks and wearing all black not unusual for this stuff.

However once there the orders from this british/Iranian guy just arrested began to get more dodgy. Vans full of petrol or asked to get the petrol etc rung alarm bells in heads.

One or more of the men realised this was not what they thought and didn't want to go through with a full on terriost attack which may kill people etc.

This meant the only way out they had was to ring the police himself/themselves. Therefore stopping the incident happening and hoping they would get treated lighter by the authorities.

Totally made up in my head but the only theory that joins the dots. Will be interesting to see if I am even a little right.

Show quote history

Interesting theory! I have heard similar on a radio talk show, plus as an alternative, that their job was to scope out potential for an attack on the base and called 999 to see how fast the response time would be.
I think your theory is the most plausible. Its a weird scenario by all accounts.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread