‘The world is on fire’ and Britain’s allies are ‘dismayed’ by our failure to prepare for war, MPs were told today in the starkest warning yet about a future conflict with Russia.

General Sir Richard Barrons and Lord Robertson, who wrote a defence plan rejected by Downing Street as unaffordable, offered a terrifying view of the UK’s vulnerabilities.

Appearing before a parliamentary committee today they exposed how this country is comfortably in range of Russian ballistic missiles and how its defences are near non-existent.

Gen Sir Richard and Lord Robertson previously wrote the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) which was published last year and set out the requirements for Britain to thwart Kremlin aggression.

The SDR was supposed to be followed urgently by the government’s Defence Investment Plan (DIP) but instead ministers wasted a year arguing what cuts to make.

A plan for an ‘Iron Dome’ to protect Britain’s major cities from Russian aerial attacks was costed at a basic £80billion – yet Labour offered just £1billion as part of the DIP.

General Sir Richard Barrons, a former UK government advisor on defence lambasted Labour’s record today, including that ministers wasted a year in the race to prepare for possible conflict with Russia.

Former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson criticised UK government failures to publish the Defence Investment Plan (DIP) and warned Sir Keir Starmer could face stinging criticism from US President Donald Trump, and other allies, at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey. 

Speaking in detail for the first time about the Labour government’s failure to address Britain’s vulnerabilities, Sir Richard told the Defence Committee:

‘The world is on fire now. The UK does not own the clock on when we need to be ready by. It is set by Russia and likely on the back of an outcome in Ukraine. Which is why people talk credibly about 2030 or sooner.

‘Integrated missile defence is the iconic thing that did not get into the SDR. But we got £1 billion for it in the DIP. That buys you some improvements to defence missiles, some improvements to the Type 45s [air defence warships] and advanced command and control. You’ll know better that you are going to be hit by a missile.

‘Entry level Integrated Missile Defence (IMD) is probably £80 billion over ten years. The IMD of my dreams is probably £120billion. People assume there is a sort of ‘Iron Dome’ over London but it is not even remotely there. We shouldn’t kid ourselves that if we have arguments around the margins of the DIP that we are somehow fixing defence. It’s just not true.’

Sir Richard continued that Labour’s delay over publishing the DIP has depleted the UK’s defence industrial base, as companies either went bust or accepted foreign orders for weapons as ministers awaited guidance on how much to spend.

Sir Richard said Labour’s shambles over defence was ‘profoundly dangerous’ and also made no sense considering Sir Keir Starmer has warned how Britain could be involved in direct conflict with Russia by 2030.

Another alarming factor is how President Putin appears increasingly willing to lash out towards the West and is targeting the UK, they told the committee.

It emerged yesterday how a Russian aircraft harassed the Royal Navy’s £3.5billion aircraft carrier the HMS Prince of Wales in the Norwegian Sea and how Kremlin drones launched from a shadow fleet vessel in the North Sea flew over UK nuclear facilities and airbases in 2024.

Meanwhile, Russia’s ally Iran fired a ballistic missile towards the UK’s airbase on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia after Downing Street accepted a US request to use the airbase for long-range bombing missions targeting Tehran’s Islamic dictatorship earlier this year.

MPs were warned Russian President Vladimir Putin appears willing to escalate the conflict in Ukraine.

Advertisement

Sir Richard added: ‘The delay publishing the DIP was significant as the SDR had articulated a narrative for war in the 21st Century, it had built a sense of expectation and relief. Then there was no money and nothing happened. By far the most dangerous consequence of the delay was the Prime Minister saying Russia could attack NATO by 2030 and then we lost a year of mobilising for that. That was profoundly dangerous.

‘We’ve gone from the UK being a major NATO spender to 12th and, ranked against our capability targets you are 31 from 32 and the other member does not have any armed forces. So how do you implement the SDR fast enough to deter your enemies and to be the leading influence we keep claiming to be? That brings you back to the money. Find more money sooner. Make different choices. That’s it.’

Sir Richard and Lord Robertson explained how the SDR was drafted on the assumption that the UK was going to spend 3.0 per cent of GDP ‘by the new parliament’, which would mean 2028 or 2029. Instead, based on current Labour spending projections, the UK will spend a mere 2.7 per cent by 2030.

Sir Richard explained: ‘It was clear by last summer that they [the government] had looked at the figures, added some new things in and it was clear there was a gap. Let’s say that was £24billion over four years –to implement the 62 recommendations and the money the government wanted to find in those four years.

‘We knew there was no new money for the first two years and then only a dribble for the rest of this parliament. That wasn’t a surprise. What it is exposed was a really clear choice. If you want to implement this review, and you have said that you do, you will have to find more money sooner.

‘If you won’t find more money sooner then what would you like to cut from the review you have just announced? And they went around in that circle three times a week, every week between September [2025] until basically when the announcement was made. And for me that just was not good enough.’

Lord Robertson said Sir Keir Starmer may face the wrath of allies, particularly US President Donald Trump, at the NATO summit due to the UK’s defence spending crisis.

He said: ‘Our allies are dismayed. They look at how long it has taken, the delay putting the flesh on the bones. It confused them. The Prime Minister is in Ankara for the NATO summit. He will be sitting beside President Trump in alphabetical order around the North Atlantic Council table. Relations may be quite frosty.

‘Allies around the table are stepping up to the mark and are spending more on defence and some of the bigger countries like Germany and Poland are spending considerably more than we are. The delay and the reality will have disturbed our allies who have expected more of the United Kingdom given we have always claimed to have a leading role in NATO.

‘We said in the SDR it may be necessary to go faster. The plan can be accelerated. We are running out of years. The reality is the challenge is bigger now, more serious and more clear than we anticipated. Yet the Defence Investment Plan itself doesn’t come up to it.’

Odhran Kelly’s body was found beaten and burned inside a car ablaze in the Edward Street area

Two women appeared in court today (Tuesday) on charges arising from the murder of 23-year old nursing student Odhran Kelly.

Mr Kelly’s body was found beaten and burned inside a car ablaze in the Edward Street area of Lurgan in December 2023.

The first accused to enter the dock of Belfast Crown Cour t today was Andrea Catherine Theresa Stevenson from Faulkner Heights in Bangor.

After she confirmed her identity to a court clerk, the 45-year old was charged with murdering Mr Kelly on December 3, 2023.

When asked how she pleaded, Stevenson replied “not guilty.”

She was then charged with assisting offenders on the same date – namely assisting others ‘in the removal and destruction of Odhran Kelly’s body.’

Asked to enter a plea to this offence, Stevenson again replied “not guilty.”

Following Stevenson’s arraignment, Stephanie McClelland (38) from Lagmore Grove in Lisburn then entered the dock.

She was also charged with assisting offenders by assisting others ‘in the removal and destruction of Odhran Kelly’s body’ on December 3, 2023.

When asked how she pleaded, McClelland replied: “Not guilty.”

Two other co-accused from Lurgan, who did not attend today’s hearing, appeared in court back in November 2024 when they both denied murdering Mr Kelly.

Gary Damien Scullion (34) from Edward Street and 34-year old Shane Harte from Garland Avenue were jointly charged with murdering Mr Kelly on December 3, 2023 – with both defendants entering ‘not guilty’ pleas to the murder charge.

After both women were arraigned on the charges today, they were released on continuing bail by Madam Justice McBride who said she would review the case on September 18.

Police received reports of concerns for a mother and two children who hadn’t been seen in several days

A murder investigation has been launched aftera woman and two children were found dead at a property. Bedfordshire Police were called on Monday (July 6) regarding concerns for a mother and two children who had not been seen for several days.

A number of enquiries were carried out and police forced entry into a property in Carnoustie Drive, Great Denham, Bedfordshire, close to St Neots and Eaton Socon.

Officers discovered the bodies of a woman and two children. The Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Major Crime Unit has launched a murder investigation.

Assistant Chief Constable John Murphy said: “This is a deeply distressing incident in which a mother and her two children are believed to have been murdered. Our thoughts are first and foremost with all those affected. We recognise that this will cause concern in the local community and beyond. This is the early stages of what is an incredibly complex investigation.

“We are committing all necessary resources to establish exactly what has happened and to find the person responsible. As a result of enquiries undertaken so far, we have identified a suspect, who was known to all three victims, and who we believe has since left the country.

“While there is nothing to suggest there is any wider risk to the public, we will be increasing the police presence in and around the area to support the investigation and provide reassurance to residents.

“I would ask anyone who may have information about this incident, or who may have heard or seen any suspicious activity in Carnoustie Drive, particularly on Friday and Saturday, to please come forward to police as soon as possible. Any information, no matter how small, could help our investigation.

“I would also ask people to be mindful of the privacy of the victims and avoid speculating about what might have happened.” Bedfordshire Police is appealing for information.

Anyone with information should call 101 or report it online and quote Operation Snowdrift.

The £50million phone hacking case brought by Prince Harry, Doreen Lawrence and a raft of other celebrities against the publishers of the Daily Mail was today dismissed in full. 

The case brought by the Duke of Sussex and six fellow claimants, also including Sir Elton John and Elizabeth Hurley, was heard at a three-month trial at London‘s High Court at the beginning of this year.

The trial judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, accepted that every article complained about was lawfully sourced.

The claim was brought against Associated Newspapers, which publishes the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday.

In an executive summary of his judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin said: ‘Associated called journalist witnesses who gave lawful explanations for the sourcing of the disputed articles and incidents.

‘The Court accepted their evidence, including their denials of UIG [unlawful information gathering].

‘The allegations were serious: they included allegations of dishonesty, unlawful conduct and deliberately false evidence. The more serious and less likely an allegation is, the more convincing the evidence must be before a court can find it proved.’ 

The judge said that in assessing Prince Harry’s evidence overall, ‘it was apparent that he wished the court to understand the personal impact of the matters in issue. At times, this led him beyond giving factual evidence into advancing arguments on the issues.’

‘As I indicated to Prince Harry at the time, that is not uncommon: many litigants feel a strong instinct to argue their case themselves.’

He added: ‘Overall, this did not affect the quality of Prince Harry’s evidence, which I accept. As with each of the claimants, Prince Harry has limited evidence to give on the contentious matters in dispute.’

An Associated Newspapers spokesman said: ‘Associated Newspapers welcomes today’s judgement, which is an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists, and for a free press generally.

‘Mr Justice Nicklin today cleared the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, and dismissed every single one of the 97 allegations made by the claimants. In every case, the Judge accepted the honesty of our journalists’ evidence on how they sourced their stories.

‘This is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism.

‘For some of the most outrageous allegations made when the case was launched in a blaze of publicity four years ago – placing bugs in people’s cars and homes, listening to calls as they were made and illicitly accessing bank accounts – no credible evidence was ever presented.

‘As we said at the time, these allegations were “lurid” and “preposterous”, and were a fishing expedition by the claimants and their legal teams in a politically motivated campaign to muzzle the free press.

‘The reputations of our decent and hard-working journalists were terribly impugned, and today they have been exonerated.

‘As the judgement clearly shows, every single article was legitimately sourced.

‘Associated Newspapers thanks Mr Justice Nicklin for the patience and wisdom he has displayed throughout this misguided legal action, which has wasted so much valuable court time and more than £50m in legal costs.

‘We will look to resolve outstanding issues, including the recovery of the costs we have incurred while defending ourselves against this egregious litigation.’

From the moment the case began in 2022, the Daily Mail has consistently denied the accusations, for which there was never any credible evidence.

Even the claimants’ own supposed star witness, a private investigator named Gavin Burrows, told them he had never worked for the Mail, yet they ploughed ahead with the case anyway.

Prince Harry, Ms Hurley, Sir Elton, his husband David Furnish and Baroness Lawrence all launched their claims on the basis of alleged ‘admissions’ from Mr Burrows about hacking their voicemails, tapping their landlines, bugging Hugh Grant’s car and, in Ms Hurley’s case, placing a sticky microphone on her dining room window – none of which was true.

Mr Burrows said his ‘confession’ statement had been penned by Prince Harry’s legal researchers and was ‘a pack of lies’ complete with a forgery for his signature. 

The fabricated statement was authenticated with a ‘certificate of compliance’ by Baroness Lawrence’s glamorous solicitor Anjlee Sangani. 

She quit the case just before the trial started.

Mr Burrows said Baroness Lawrence had been ‘duped’ into joining the case by the campaigners who boasted suing newspapers was a lucrative ‘gravy train’ and the ‘perfect scam’.

When Mr Burrows came to give evidence on oath, the claimants tied themselves in knots and were reduced to calling their star witness a liar and a drunk.

The judge dismissed all the Burrows allegations.

The Reform UK leader said he would stand again in the resulting by-election, describing it as a contest between “the people versus the establishment”.

Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, Mr Farage insisted he had “done nothing wrong” and denied breaking parliamentary rules or the law.

“I have done nothing wrong. I have not broken the law,” he said.

His decision comes after reports that long-time associate George Cottrell helped fund security and staffing in the year before Mr Farage entered Parliament.

Labour has asked the Electoral Commission to investigate whether that support should have been declared under electoral rules, arguing Mr Farage remained a leading political figure before he returned to Westminster in the 2024 general election.

Nigel Farage (Image: Jordan Pettitt)

The party has also questioned whether Mr Cottrell, who is based in Montenegro, was eligible to make political donations at the time because it is unclear whether he was registered to vote in the UK.

Mr Farage is separately under investigation by Parliament’s standards commissioner over whether he should have declared a £5 million gift from Reform donor Christopher Harborne before becoming an MP.

Under Commons rules in force at the time of his election, new MPs were required to register gifts worth more than £300 received during the previous 12 months unless they could not reasonably be linked to their political activities.

File photo dated 04/06/24 of Leader of Reform UK Nigel Farage with George Cottrell (left) , as Mr Farage has a milkshake thrown over him leaving the Moon and Starfish pub after launching his General Election campaign in Clacton-on-Sea, Essex. Farage (Image: James Manning/PA Wire)

‘People versus the establishment’

Announcing his resignation, Mr Farage said he wanted his constituents to decide whether he should remain in Parliament.

“I’ve decided today I will resign as a Member of Parliament for Clacton… thereby forcing a by-election,” he said.

“I’ve decided that the people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions.”

He added: “This will be a people versus the establishment by-election.”

Nigel Farage (Image: Chris RADBURN)

The Reform leader confirmed he would stand again, saying: “I will fight to win. I will fight to continue the political revolution that Reform has started.”

Farage says media scrutiny was ‘the final straw’

Mr Farage said recent reporting about his finances and support arrangements formed part of what he called an “establishment hit job”.

He accused political opponents, sections of the media and state institutions of attempting to damage Reform UK as it continues to lead opinion polls.

He also defended the £5 million gift from Mr Harborne, saying it had been made on an unconditional personal basis and would help fund security after years of threats and attacks.

Nigel Farage speaking during a rally at the Holiday Inn Norwich North in Norwich. (Image: Chris Radburn)

Labour calls for investigation

Labour Party chair Anna Turley has written to the Electoral Commission urging it to examine whether the reported support from Mr Cottrell should have been declared.

She said: “It is now abundantly clear that Mr Farage may have not only broken Parliamentary rules, he may have broken the law.”

“Farage can’t brazenly brush this off as being ‘none of your business’ any longer.”

“He needs to own his self-inflicted scandal and prove he’s not been secretly breaking the rules and taking the British public for fools.”

The Liberal Democrats have also called for Parliament’s standards commissioner to widen his existing investigation into Mr Farage’s financial declarations.

Trump backs Farage

As pressure mounted, US President Donald Trump appeared to publicly back Mr Farage.

On Monday, Mr Trump shared an article on his Truth Social platform arguing that Mr Farage was facing the same tactics used against him during the 2024 US presidential campaign.

According to The Times, Mr Trump also telephoned the Reform leader to congratulate him on what he described as his political success in helping bring about Sir Keir Starmer’s departure from Downing Street.

Who is George Cottrell?

Mr Cottrell has been a close associate of Mr Farage for years and reportedly remains one of his advisers.

According to reports, he recruited and paid three members of staff to work on Mr Farage’s social media before the general election and has continued to provide the use of a property near Buckingham Palace.

Reform UK’s Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick has described Mr Cottrell as “an old friend” of Mr Farage who has “no formal role within Reform”.

Mr Cottrell was jailed for eight months in the United States in 2017 after pleading guilty to wire fraud, having admitted attempting to defraud criminals on the dark web while posing as a money launderer.

What happens next?

Mr Farage’s resignation will trigger a by-election in Clacton, where he will seek re-election.

If he wins, he will return to Parliament with what he says will be a renewed mandate from voters.

If he loses, Reform UK would lose one of its highest-profile parliamentary figures at a time when the party continues to argue it represents the main electoral challenge to both Labour and the Conservatives.

Mr Farage continues to deny any wrongdoing in relation to both the parliamentary standards investigation and the latest allegations over undeclared support.

“We have decided that we do need to change your sentence.” With those words, Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr delivered the Court of Appeal’s ruling on two teenagers convicted of multiple rapes, overturning the non-custodial sentences the trial court had originally imposed. After hearing arguments from the crown and the defence advocates, the court concluded the original sentences were unduly lenient, and increased them to four years’ detention in a young offender institution.

Courts of all levels can err when determining sentence. The appeal process exists to prevent excessively harsh or lenient sentences from being imposed. All common law jurisdictions (where law is derived from the English system of judge-made law, such as the US and Canada) allow defendants and the prosecution to appeal a sentence.

Trial courts, also known as “first instance” courts, can make mistakes – even when they follow detailed sentencing guidelines as is the case in England and Wales and Scotland. Miscarriages of justice can arise from excessively severe or excessively lenient sentences.

The Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme in England and Wales accords the attorney general the opportunity to appeal sentences on the grounds that they were manifestly too lenient.

Originally enacted in 1989, the scheme is restricted to certain serious offences, including murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery and some child sex and child cruelty offences. Certain serious fraud, drug and terrorism-related offences are also included. If a sentence is imposed for a crime included in the scheme, the attorney general may ask the Court of Appeal for a sentence review. The court must first give leave to appeal. If leave is granted, the court will hear submissions on behalf of the attorney general, and also the offenders on whom the sentence was imposed.

In considering whether to amend the sentence, the court applies a high standard. If the court simply has the view that the sentence was somewhat lenient, this is insufficient to interfere with the trial court’s decision. The court must distinguish between a sentence that is less than the appeal court would have imposed, and one which is likely to be “unduly lenient”.

In referring the Fordingbridge case, Attorney General Richard Hermer said: “There has understandably been a huge amount of public interest, and concern, at this horrific case.”

Involving the public

The ULS scheme in England and Wales has a unique aspect not found in other countries. Crime victims or many members of the public can ask the attorney general’s office to examine sentences handed down by crown courts within six months of sentencing under the scheme (recently increased from 28 days), as long as the offence falls within the remit of the scheme. No other common law country allows members of the public to request a sentence review.

If a victim or other member of public requests a review, this does not guarantee the court of appeal will conduct a review. The decision to refer a sentence rests wholly with the attorney general – few referrals from victims or the public ultimately result in a review by the court of appeal.

Legal scholars are divided on the merits of allowing members of the public to request a sentence review.

Critics argue that the public seldom has sufficient knowledge of the case to reach an informed decision as to whether a given sentence is too lenient. News accounts of a sentence are often inaccurate, omitting important details of the case that may justify what appears to be a very lenient sentence.

There is also the risk of raising expectations that may not be fulfilled. How do victims feel when they seek a review of a sentence, only to learn that the attorney general has declined to refer the case to the Court of Appeal?

Defenders of public input argue that this feature permits greater democratic engagement with the sentencing process and encourages victim participation in the court system. As such, it may enhance public and victim satisfaction with sentencing overall. Advocates note that the decision to refer a sentence lies ultimately with the attorney general, so there is no danger of “victim-driven” justice.

Every year, several thousand defendants appeal their sentence. The number of attorney general references under the ULS is, by comparison, still relatively low – only a few hundred applications. But of these, almost all are granted leave (proceed to a review) – suggesting the court usually agrees that a review was appropriate.

In terms of outcomes, the court of appeal increased the sentence in approximately two-thirds of all cases referred by the attorney general that it agrees to review.

The ULS scheme has yet to be the subject of any formal review, and there is very little research on the issue. Many questions remain. For example, should the range of offences covered by the scheme be expanded? And most importantly, are victims – or the sentencing process more generally – better off by allowing this engagement with the appeal process?

La Liga president Javier Tebas has criticised the “complicit silence” which surrounds Fifa after United States striker Folarin Balogun was controversially spared from suspension at the 2026 World Cup.

Balogun was able to play in the 4-1 defeat to Belgium in the last 16 after Fifa’s disciplinary committee opted to suspend his one-game ban for 12 months.

Uefa, which has been at loggerheads with Fifa over a number of issues, strongly criticised the decision on Monday, calling it “unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable”.

But outside of Europe there has been little noise about Fifa’s decision from football officials.

Conmebol, the South American football confederation, issued a statement to back its referee, Raphael Claus, after US president Donald Trump called the Brazilian “a bit suspect”.

But it did not criticise Fifa or Trump, who revealed he asked for the ban to be reviewed.

Claus was the referee who showed Balogun the red card against Bosnia-Herzegovia following a video assistant referee review.

Tebas said that the Balogun decision was the “tip of the iceberg” following a series of events which had been “eroding the credibility of Fifa and football in general for many years”.

The 63-year-old accused Fifa of being a closed shop in which decisions have been made before any vote takes place and without consultation with domestic leagues.

“And the worst of all is that much of the football world is aware of it, but too many prefer to maintain a complicit silence,” Tebas said on X.

“Because staying quiet is more comfortable than defending independence, transparency, and good governance.

“World football deserves institutions that are accountable, respect the rules, and govern with transparency – not through unilateral, discretionary, arbitrary decisions that erode the trust of fans, clubs, leagues, and players.”

The Mirror’s Deputy Political Editor Ashley Cowburn writes in…

Nigel Farage teased on social media that he will make an announcement about his “future in public life”.

There were no further details and the void is being filed with speculation over whether the under-fire Reform boss will throw in the towel.

It wouldn’t be the first time. He quit as Ukip leader in 2016 saying: “I want my life back.”

And in 2021 he quit as chief of Reform – the rebranded Brexit Party – stepping back from frontline politics.

Today he faces immense pressure over financial support allegedly given to him by a convicted fraudster, and a £5 million gift he received from the Thai-based crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne.

But Farage is no stranger to a bit of political theatre and could use today’s statement – at 2pm – to launch another attack on the media and the “establishment” to get him.

Yesterday he whined: “It’s now clear the establishment will stop at nothing to hurt Reform – we want to smash their cosy consensus.” So, we could be in for more of this sentiment.

Farage is also facing a probe by the parliamentary commissioner for standards over the £5million gift.

If found to have broken the MPs’ code of conduct he could face a penalty, with one of the most severe outcomes being a suspension from Parliament of more than 10 days. In this scenario a by-election would likely be triggered in his Clacton constituency.

This has led to speculation the Reform boss could also use the 2pm statement to get ahead of the process and quit as MP – triggering a by-election in Clacton in an attempt to challenge his critics.

But even if he is returned as an MP, the standards probe would likely be revived.

At 2pm, we’ll find out.