Modern piracy and missile threats rarely meet a single line of defence. They meet layers of state power. To protect global shipping routes, national naval forces patrol high-risk corridors such as the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea, and the Strait of Hormuz, where traffic density and regional conflict raise the stakes for global trade.

In the Red Sea, Operation Prosperity Guardian illustrates how a multinational coalition can surge ships, aircraft, and intelligence sharing when the Houthis target commercial vessels. These deployments often combine escort missions with maritime domain awareness, while diplomats coordinate rules of engagement that minimise disruption to shipping. This posture aims to deter attacks before ships become easy targets.

Closer to shore, coast guards enforce law in territorial waters, investigate boarding incidents, and coordinate handoffs to naval forces when threats cross jurisdictions. Together, they support freedom of navigation through routine presence patrols and, when required, freedom of navigation operations that challenge unlawful restrictions and keep sea lanes open.

Private expertise also informs assessments. A maritime security consultant may provide risk snapshots alongside official reporting, helping operators understand threat patterns before vessels enter contested waters.

International Frameworks That Govern Maritime Security

Protection on the water depends on legal authority established through international agreements. Without these frameworks, coordinated anti-piracy efforts would lack the jurisdictional foundation needed to operate across borders.

The IMO and ISPS Code

The International Maritime Organisation sets baseline maritime security standards through conventions that flag and port states implement, creating shared expectations for vessel protection across busy shipping lanes.

Under the ISPS Code, ships and port facilities must translate those standards into practical controls. These include security assessments that identify likely boarding and sabotage risks, documented plans with designated officers and training to maintain readiness, and procedures for setting security levels and exchanging alerts with ports.

The official ISPS Code maritime security framework links security duties to broader safety rules, providing a reference point for compliance across the industry.

UNCLOS and Legal Authority at Sea

UNCLOS provides the legal authority that allows states to act beyond their territorial seas when piracy occurs on the high seas. It supports interdiction, seizure of pirate vessels, and prosecution decisions, while still requiring evidence handling and respect for jurisdictional limits.

This legal baseline enables international naval operations to coordinate boardings and handovers effectively. Regional agreements can then add local reporting channels and shared procedures tailored to specific corridors.

These add-ons often clarify who can pursue suspects into adjacent waters. They also guide how ports share incident reports without delaying cargo flows.

Private Security Companies and Armed Guards

Where naval patrols cannot cover every lane, private security companies fill practical gaps. This is especially true on merchant transits that must keep schedules. Their value often starts before a ship leaves port, with a structured risk assessment that shapes the entire voyage.

Intelligence Gathering and Risk Assessment

Consultants track piracy patterns, local conflict dynamics, and known threat actors using open-source reporting, port briefings, and shipboard surveillance practices. They translate this intelligence into routing advice, watch schedules, and communications plans tied to specific choke points.

The process involves drafting incident checklists that bridge teams can follow under stress, at night, or whenever conditions deteriorate. To connect security planning with wider context, crews often review current maritime security challenges alongside flag state guidance and insurer requirements.

This alignment helps decisions reflect both operational reality and compliance obligations.

Armed Teams on High-Risk Transits

When a voyage still requires additional protection, armed guards may embark for the highest-risk legs. Teams typically coordinate with the master to avoid escalation and to keep crew safety central throughout the passage.

On transit, vessel protection focuses on layered deterrence. This includes visible watchkeeping and clear rules for reporting contacts, hardened access points and rehearsed mustering procedures, and graduated response protocols if evasive manoeuvring fails.

Armed presence serves as a last line of defence, intended to buy time, break an attack, and allow the ship to exit the danger area without injury.

How Protection Differs by Regional Hotspot

No single protection model works everywhere. Threat profiles vary dramatically between regions, and defensive measures must adapt accordingly.

Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Operations

In the Red Sea, protection planning now reflects missile and drone risks linked to the Houthis. Naval forces concentrate on coordinated escorts and shared surveillance across air and surface assets, responding to threats that look more like state-adjacent warfare than traditional piracy.

Operators also rely on rapid threat reporting to adjust routes and watch levels. Managed corridors help responders cover traffic without diverting the main shipping lanes.

In the Gulf of Aden, however, procedures still draw on lessons from the Somali piracy peak. Patrol patterns and reporting points aim to increase visible presence against criminal networks rather than armed groups with military capabilities.

Crews log contacts early to trigger support before skiffs close. This consistency matters because ships still funnel through fixed shipping lanes where predictability creates vulnerability.

West Africa and Southeast Asia Protocols

West African waters often involve kidnapping and cargo theft closer to shore than open-ocean piracy. Protection leans on port state procedures, secure anchorages, and restricted access during cargo operations.

Regional navies focus on interdiction and evidence handling within coastal jurisdictions. Operators plan communications to limit time at low speed near approaches.

In Southeast Asia, by contrast, incidents concentrate in narrow straits where traffic density complicates detection. Watch teams use short-range surveillance to track craft that blend into routine movements.

Coast guard cooperation becomes central because vessels cross jurisdictions quickly. Local reporting networks help authorities coordinate intercepts before attackers reach sheltered waters.

Coordination Between Naval and Private Security Forces

Real-time coordination works best when naval forces and private security companies operate from a shared picture of risk. Standard reporting formats let shipboard teams pass contact reports, surveillance cues, and posture changes to military watch floors without delay.

Communication hubs such as UKMTO and regional maritime security centres relay threat alerts, route advisories, and incident updates to vessels and nearby patrols. If a ship with guards aboard transmits a distress call, responders may include coalition units or the U.S. Coast Guard, depending on location and tasking.

To avoid gaps at jurisdiction lines, operators use defined handoffs when ships enter territorial seas or leave escorted corridors. The master and security team confirm tactical control at each boundary.

Common mechanisms include agreed radio channels and call signs, time-stamped position reports, escalation criteria for warnings versus assistance, and post-incident summaries focused on crew safety and evidence preservation.

Evolving Piracy Tactics and Defensive Responses

Modern piracy groups increasingly borrow tools from state and criminal networks. Reports from recent incidents describe attackers using drones for scouting, GPS spoofing to confuse navigation, and encrypted communications to coordinate multiple craft.

The Houthis shifted the risk picture by pairing maritime harassment with missile and one-way drone strikes. This threat profile looks closer to terrorism than classic boarding-for-ransom operations. As a result, vessel protection plans now evolve around detection, disruption, and rapid reporting rather than just physical barriers.

Defensive responses often include enhanced surveillance that fuses radar, electro-optical cameras, and AIS analytics. Electronic countermeasures help mitigate jamming and spoofing effects, while tighter access control, drills, and escalation protocols align with terrorism scenarios.

These measures support earlier alerting when small boats loiter or when air contacts appear. They also help crews share clearer track history with naval responders quickly.

Protecting Global Trade Through Layered Security

No single navy, coast guard, insurer, or private team protects shipping lanes on its own. Modern piracy, drone harassment, and regional conflict shift quickly, so coverage depends on layers that overlap and backstop one another. When one layer misses a warning, another can still detect, deter, or respond.

That layered approach blends patrols and escorts, legal authority through international frameworks, and shipboard measures informed by private risk assessment. It also relies on shared reporting hubs, evidence handling, and clear handoffs at jurisdiction lines.

As threats evolve, sustained coordination keeps vessels moving and helps safeguard global trade across contested chokepoints and oceans.

The decision of a criminal court judge to enter not guilty verdicts for all of the remaining ‘Filton 24’ anti-genocide protesters has again exposed the lies told by successive Labour home secretaries to justify banning the ‘Palestine Action’ group.

Contrary to some reports, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) did not merely drop the charge of aggravated burglary lodged against all the 24. The judge ordered verdicts of not guilty, an acquittal just as concrete as any delivered by a jury. Six of the group were already acquitted on 4 February 2026.

‘Aggravated burglary’ involves burglary with prior intent to cause physical harm. The offence carries a potential life sentence and was brought by the CPS to justify the Starmer regime’s decision to ban Palestine Action as a terrorist group. The attempt was underpinned by claims from media and politicians that a policewoman’s spine was broken by the activists. In fact, the injury was only suspected, could not be identified on x-rays and will heal fully in a matter of months.

Not only that, but the prosecution presented no evidence to show the injury was caused by the activists. Instead, the only evidence of violence was entirely on the part of security guards working for Israeli weapons-maker Elbit. This caused considerable embarrassment when video evidence completely contradicted the claims of the prosecution and its witnesses. Or it would have, if the corporate media had bothered to report it.

Palestine Action questions

But then-home secretary Yvette Cooper had tried to justify the terrorist designation – which happened after the 24 were imprisoned – by lying that Palestine Action intended violence toward human beings. That lie has long been exposed and the disgraced Cooper was reshuffled to foreign secretary.

Her replacement Shabana Mahmood, however, continued the lie – and the regime needed convictions on serious charges involving violence to shore up its claims. That attempt has now collapsed entirely – except for the charge of grievous bodily harm still hanging over Sam Corner.

The High Court ruled on 13 February 2026 that the terrorist ban on Palestine Action was disproportionate and unlawful. The jury in the 4 February criminal trial refused to convict Corner of GBH and refused to convict any of the six of criminal damage.

Mahmood has appealed both decisions, claiming falsely that the jury’s refusal to convict was the result of ‘tampering’. The ‘tampering’ was protesters reminding jurors of their legal right to acquit – which a court has already ruled cannot be a crime. Mahmood and the Israel lobby are desperate to continue their long ‘lawfare’ war against solidarity with Palestine.

The government’s attempt to criminalise the group is not over, but the regime’s lies are teetering on the brink of collapse. The appeals court will rule on Friday 20 Feb whether Mahmood will be allowed to appeal the lifting of the proscription, keeping the ban in place for now, or it will be lifted immediately. For the time being, supporting Palestine Action remains a chargeable offence.

Featured image via the Canary

Jake Waterfield is a young finance professional in London. He ran the 2025 London marathon to raise money for St Bartholomew’s Hospital who saved his life in 2024. 

The Mandelson scandal has not created a crisis in the House of Lords – it has, unfortunately, merely exposed one. For years, the venerable Upper House has been left vulnerable by lax standards, an ever‑growing membership, and appointments that too often undermine theseriousness of legislative duty.

If Conservatives want to preserve the Lords as a cornerstone of our constitutional system, we must lead the clean-up before others use this moment to justify tearing it down.

I have always believed that British institutions have endured not because they are ancient, but because they are trusted – and trust, once lost, is painfully hard to recover. When a Lord is pictured in his pants in the home of a convicted sex‑offender, or when allegations emergethat raise questions about judgment, decency, or even national interest, the public isn’t seeing a one‑off lapse but instead a system that is simply incapable of policing itself.

The truth is uncomfortable: this is not about one man or one scandal, but about a structure that has allowed too many questionable appointments, too little accountability, and too much complacency. The House of Lords is full of dedicated, expert, and principled individuals – but it is also an institution whose weaknesses have been ignored for too long.

For decades, prime ministers of all parties have treated peerages as political currency – some appointments have been well justified, others have been baffling. A system that relies on the personal discretion of party leaders will always be vulnerable to patronage, favour‑trading, and the occasional lapse in judgment. Unfortunately, these patterns mean that when scandals arise, the public sees not an isolated error but a pattern.

The Mandelson and Doyle episodes are simply the latest reminder that the Lords’ disciplinary and appointments processes are no longer fit for purpose. Sanctions are limited, investigations are slow and the appointments process lacks the independence and rigour that the public should rightfully demand. At present, the Lords can suspend a peer or issue a reprimand, but it cannot strip a title – only an Act of Parliament can, and it has not done so in over a century – Lord Mandelson is still Lord Mandelson.

Here’s the key issue – if we do nothing, the argument for full abolition of the House of Lords will grow louder and it will be harder to resist.

The Conservatives should not be dragged reluctantly into reform, we should be the ones leading it – not because we want to weaken the Lords, precisely the opposite, but because we want to preserve it.

In my mind, a reformed Upper House would be smaller, more disciplined, more transparent – not to mention more clearly rooted in merit, service, and expertise. Crucially, we should be pushing for reform in a way that strengthens, rather than undermines, the Lords’ constitutional role.

First, stronger disciplinary powers: The Chamber must be able to suspend, sanction or, in the most serious cases, expel members whose conduct brings the institution into disrepute. At present, its powers are too limited and too slow – a modern legislature cannot rely on voluntary resignations or ‘polite’ pressure.

Second, a cap on membership: With nearly 800 members, the Lords is one of the largest legislative chambers in the world – larger than the European Parliament, larger than the US Congress (that’s right, both chambers!), in fact it’s larger than almost every other legislative chamber on Earth. Of course, size alone does not determine quality, but a bloated institution undermines efficiency, credibility, and public confidence. A cap, phased in over time, would restore seriousness and reduce the temptation for prime ministers to treat peerages as political rewards. Six hundred is the oft cited figure of what is politically achievable (including by the Lords’ own Burns Committee) – it’s certainly a step in the right direction

Third, statutory safeguards around appointments: The House of Lords Appointments Commission should be strengthened and given the power to veto nominations that fail basic tests of propriety, integrity, or suitability. Prime ministers should not be able to override its advice

Fourth, a minimum and maximum age for service: The Lords should be a chamber of active contributors, not a retirement home for political veterans and nor, frankly, a springboard for those barely out of their twenties. The recent appointment of Baroness Smith of Llanfaes, a Plaid Cymru peer elevated at just 28, is a case in point. The optics were terrible – an Upper House that already struggles with public confidence hardly strengthens its legitimacy by elevating people younger than many graduate trainees – not to mention the manner in which she was nominated by her party. It’s no secret that most of our democratic peers recognise that certain constitutional roles require a degree of life experience – the US sets a minimum age of 35 for the presidency and 30 for the Senate. Even the most ardent defenders of youthful energy would struggle to argue that Britain’s legislature should have lower thresholds than America’s executive branch. A minimum age of, say, 40, would ensure that peers arrive with meaningful professional and civic experience, whilst a maximum age would ensure appropriate turnover, generational balance and active participation (attendance records from the Lords shows that attendance begins to decline when a member is in their late 70’s and then significantly after 80)

Fifth, a clearer distinction between honours and legislative authority: If someone is tobe honoured for public service, let them be honoured – but legislative power should not be a by‑product of our honours system. A reformed Lords should make this distinction explicit.If Conservatives do not lead sensible reform, others will push for radical reform – or worse, abolition. Labour has already flirted with sweeping changes, but has not delivered them  – no surprise there. The public mood is shifting, scandals are accumulating and every new controversy chips away at the legitimacy of an institution that plays a vital constitutional role.

The Lords is at its best when it is reflective, expert, and independent – a chamber that scrutinises legislation with seriousness and depth. But that legitimacy depends on the belief that its members are there because they deserve to be, not because they were favoured bythe right person at the right moment, or that they can’t be removed despite serious wrongdoing.

The Mandelson scandal is a reminder that even the most venerable institutions can drift into complacency if their foundations are not maintained. The Conservatives should seize this moment – not to score political points – but to strengthen the constitutional architecture of the country.

A smaller, more disciplined, more transparent House of Lords is not a concession but instead a confirmation of the principles that have always underpinned good governance: integrity, accountability, and service.

If we want the Lords to endure for another 700 years, we must be willing to reform it today.

Will all winters be wetter from now on?

Ahead of the Gorton and Denton by-election on Thursday 26 February, Rob Ford analyses the prospects for Labour, Reform and the Green Party.

Next week voters in the South Manchester seat of Gorton and Denton will choose a new MP in the second by-election of Keir Starmer’s administration. Last May Labour lost the formerly safe seat of Runcorn and Helsby and with the government unpopular and unstable, Labour could again struggle in this once rock-solid constituency, and the loss of a second safe seat in less than a year could see the questions around Keir Starmer’s leadership get louder once again.

Gorton and Denton is a Frankenstein’s monster constituency, created in 2024 when the Boundary Commission stitched together pieces of three earlier Manchester seats. The seat is shaped like a battle axe, with the handle running Southwest through diverse and gentrifying wards in Manchester city council, while the head of the axe in the Northeast covers the three Tameside wards of Denton.

Demographic differences: Tameside and Manchester wards of Gorton and Denton

Source: Census 2021

Though both parts of the seat have long voted Labour, they are poles apart demographically. The four Manchester wards are on average nearly 60% non-white and 40% Muslim, and 42% of the residents are either students or graduates. These wards resemble places Labour has struggled in the last couple of years with challenges on the left. The three Tameside wards of Denton are on average 83% white, 86% UK born, and with a high share of residents doing working class jobs. Reform UK made hay in wards like this in last May’s local elections. But the two chunks of the seat are not equally matched – about two thirds of the population live in the more diverse, graduate and student heavy Manchester wards.

Gorton and Denton has long been deep red. Labour won 50.8% here in 2024, making the seat one of just 70 where Labour won an absolute majority, but this share was down sharply on an estimated 67.2% in 2019. The seat was one of four in central/south Manchester where Labour support dropped by double digits, all with large Muslim communities and many students and young graduates. Both the Greens and the Worker’s Party made major gains at Labour’s expense in 2024, winning nearly a quarter of the vote between them. While the Greens start in third place on 13.2%, the Worker’s Party are not standing in the by-election and have all but endorsed the Greens, saying “Labour and Reform must lose.” Reform are now the largest right wing party locally, having won nearly 15% in 2024, while the Conservatives, already marginal have now become irrelevant, having fallen to fifth place with less than 8% of the vote

2019 and 2024 election results in Gorton and Denton

Dark bars on left – 2019 notional results (Rallings and Thrasher); light bars on right – 2024 results

Three routes to victory

On paper, Gorton and Denton should not be a hard seat for Labour to hold. They have won every general election in this seat and its predecessors for generations, and almost every local election in every ward here since 2011. This is a Labour leaning seat in a Labour leaning city in a Labour leaning region. Alas things are not so simple for a governing party polling below 20%, led by the most unpopular Prime Minister in polling history, a Prime Minister who has particularly struggled with the young progressives and Muslim voters who congregate in the seat’s Manchester wards.

Labour’s national troubles provide a local opening for the Greens, who are campaigning both as the vehicle for discontent with the Starmer government among young progressives and Muslims and as the strongest local opponent to Reform. The Greens are hoping they can to do to Labour in Gorton and Denton what Plaid Cymru did to Labour in Caerphilly – convince disaffected Labour voters that they can indeed have their cake and eat it – voting for a party who are both more progressive than Labour nationally and better able to stop Reform locally.

But the Greens face greater obstacles in Gorton and Denton that Plaid Cymru did in Caerphilly. Plaid had an exceptionally high profile candidate, and benefitted from national polling showing them well ahead of Welsh Labour. The Greens have little organisation and no presence in local government in Gorton and Denton’s wards, and their candidate is little known in the area. With national polling ambiguous and no reliable seat polling, Labour and the Greens have been waging an intense leaflet war over who is the strongest “stop Reform” option.

The risk to both, and the opportunity to Reform, is that neither side wins that argument and the left vote splits evenly. A split left is likely a necessary condition for Reform success, but not a sufficient one, in an area which has never been receptive to right wing politicians of any stripe. The combined Conservative and Reform vote in 2024 was just 22.4% – whereas in Runcorn and Helsby, where Reform defeated Labour by just six votes last May, it was 34.1% (18.1% Reform, 16.0% Tory). Reform will need everything to go their way if they are to take this seat. They will need to dominate the vote in the more Reform friendly Denton wards, an even split between Labour and the Greens in the Manchester wards, and low turnout in less Reform friendly areas to reduce the inherent advantages to their opponents. There is a route to Reform victory here but it is a narrow one.

This fragmented and uncertain contest will go to the wire, but one thing is already certain: defeat for Labour would be a disaster for the Starmer government, regardless of who inflicts it. This would be the second time in less than a year that Labour loses one of the 70 seats where it started with an absolute majority. Results like that are not “typical mid-term blues” but signs of an existential crisis. The political fallout could be severe, as the drumbeat of defeat in once rock-solid areas, set to get louder still in May’s local and devolved elections, will lead ever more Labour legislators to worry not only about their own electoral prospects, but about the future viability of their party.

By Professor Rob Ford, Senior Fellow, UK in a Changing Europe and Professor of Politics, University of Manchester.

A longer version of this article was previously published at “The Swingometer”

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the Epstein buddy formerly known as ‘prince’, has been arrested this morning at the Sandringham estate in Norfolk.

Police arrived early this morning in unmarked cars. The exact reason for the arrest is still unannounced, though it is under the umbrella term of misconduct in public office. BBC correspondent Laura Manning speculated that:

My understanding is that there’s been a very significant development in the investigation into the Epstein files. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been arrested this morning on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

That goes back to documents from when he was a trade envoy, that are alleged to have been passed to Epstein.

Knowing the priorities of the British state, it is more likely to be linked to his leaking of secrets to serial chiild-rapist Jeffrey Epstein than his alleged trafficking of women.

For more on the the Epstein Files, please read the Canary’s article on way that the media circus around Epstein is erasing the experiences of victims and survivors.

Featured image via the Canary

The Royal British Legion (RBL) have announced an Iraq War ’15 years on’ memorial event. The veterans charity, which is backed by major global arms firms, said the event would be held in Staffordshire in May 2025 at the National Arboretum.

The Arboretum is a national site for military remembrance, and is known for partnering with military-linked firms.

The Legion’s press release says:

We will remember the lives lost and those affected and pay tribute to the professionalism and dedication of the men and women who served, from the initial invasion to the crucial rebuilding of Iraqi institutions and infrastructure.

That last little bit is particularly deceptive. It makes Iraq sound like a humanitarian mission, rather than a war crime-riddled heist.

Iraq denials don’t hold water

In fact, one Iraq veteran told the Canary that the RBL’s claim was flat wrong:

When I was on Telic one [the Iraq invasion] there was a planned campaign of arresting anyone that had membership of the Ba’ath party (this was after the government had fell). In effect teachers, dentists, doctors, or anyone with a skilled job, had to be members of the party under the old regime, or they wouldn’t have been allowed to work.

In effect, anyone that knew how to do something in society was removed, and when we questioned this on the ground, we were told that this policy had come from the very top (Downing Street)

So it wasn’t just the military campaign it was also the removal of all people that ran Iraqi society. At the same time the army was pretty much made redundant.

The institutions and infrastructure wouldn’t have needed building up or repairing without this.

When we asked the RBL about their links to corporate sponsors, they told us:

Which certainly doesn’t clear up the issue of their corporate sponsors as an organisation. And, when we asked the Iraq veteran about the Legion’s links to arms firms, he told us:

Yes the RBL are basically partnering with the arms business, which surely must be against the principles of when the organisation started.

The truth is that the Iraq War was illegal and killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people. The war destabilised the entire Middle East region, leaving a lasting impact on those who carried it out. By all measures, it was an unmitigated disaster. Yet, bizarrely, figures like Trump’s secretary of state Marco Rubio are clamouring to revive colonialism. Regime change in Iraq clearly taught them that war is profitable for the West.

In the pockets of Big Death

Since the ousting of the pre-2003 government, Iraq has become a lucrative cash cow for certain players, including global arms firms — what I prefer to call Big Death. Welcome to the military charity-industrial complex.

What makes the Iraq event and comments from the Royal British Legion striking is that both the legion and the National Arboretum proudly state their connections to the global killing business.

BAE Systems is a major partner of the RBL — to the tune of £400,000. The Arboretum’s website names Amey, Key Systems, Briggs Equipment  and Jaguar Land Rover among its partners and supporters. All of these firms make profit from war and global instability.

The press and RBL did not even attempt to reflect these galling truths in their coverage of the event.

Flattening Iraq: literally and ideologically

Instead, the Mirror led with stories about veterans horribly wounded in the war — yep veterans, not the countless Iraqis killed as a result of the war.

Certainly, these are awful and harrowing tales involving terrible injuries. But the point, my friends, is that the choice to focus on individual stories is deeply political.

In 2018 Professor Paul Dixon wrote a report called Warrior Nation: War, militarisation and British democracy. Dixon recently published a much-expanded book on the same issue.

In his original report, Dixon identified many different tactics used by pro-war groups and individuals to de-politicise and flatten discussions about war. One of these is ‘personalisation”.

As Dixon has it:

The personalisation of war refers to the focus on human stories and the plight of the troops. This may serve militarists well in ‘depoliticising’ the war (which is, ironically, to conceal the highly political motivations of those behind the war) diverting attention from wider questions as to why it was necessary to fight these wars.

He adds:

Personalisation can be combined with deflection in which opposition to the war is presented

as opposition to military personnel, militaristic ideals and the nation. War becomes ‘a fight to

save our own soldiers… rather than as a struggle for policy goals external to the military.’