£1.1bn works package lined up as Wylfa nuclear plans gather pace
22 Aug 2026, Mark Mansfield,
https://nation.cymru/news/1-1bn-works-package-lined-up-as-wylfa-nuclear-plans-gather-pace/
Preparatory works worth up to £1.1bn are being lined up as part of plans to build the UK’s first small modular nuclear reactors at Wylfa on Ynys Môn.
Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) has begun sounding out contractors for a major package of work including site clearance, earthworks, infrastructure and utilities.
The procurement notice does not name the site, but Wylfa has been selected for the UK’s first SMR development, with an initial three Rolls-Royce reactors planned.
GBE-N signed a contract with Rolls-Royce SMR in April to begin design work on the reactors, which are expected to generate enough electricity to power the equivalent of around three million homes.
The newly disclosed early works package has an estimated value of between £730m and £1.1bn and would prepare the site for the main construction programme.
Work could include species relocation, remediation, site clearance, construction utilities, drainage and haul roads, as well as extensive earthworks.
GBE-N said the work would establish the required ground levels and safe access routes for later construction, creating the physical platform needed for the main development.
The contract is currently expected to run from June 2028 until June 2034, with an option to extend it until June 2037.
GBE-N had considered dividing the work into two contracts but has opted for a single package in an effort to reduce the risks associated with different contractors working across interconnected elements of the project.
However, the organisation cautioned that the scope, timetable and estimated value could change as the programme develops.
The procurement process is expected to formally begin with publication of a tender notice in March 2027.
Webinar
GBE-N is also due to hold a webinar for potential suppliers on September 3 outlining the proposed procurement approach and details of the early works.
The package has been identified as particularly suitable for small and medium-sized businesses, potentially opening opportunities for companies in Wales to become involved in the supply chain.
The latest development follows the signing of the contract between GBE-N and Rolls-Royce SMR earlier this year.
The Wylfa project is expected to support around 8,000 jobs across the UK, including up to 3,000 locally during peak construction, according to industry estimates.
Rolls-Royce SMR chief executive Chris Cholerton said at the time: “This contract unlocks the delivery of our first three units at Wylfa and brings certainty to the UK SMR programme.”
The former nuclear power station stopped generating electricity in 2015 after more than four decades of operation.
Previous plans by Japanese company Hitachi for a new large-scale nuclear power station at Wylfa were abandoned in 2020 after funding could not be secured.
The Wylfa scheme is subject to regulatory approvals and a final investment decision, with electricity generation expected to begin in the 2030s.
Great British Energy -Nuclear (GBE-N) outlines £730M-£1.1bn early works package
21 Aug, 2026 By Lee Kenny
Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) has outlined plans for an early works package with an estimated contract value range of £730M to £1.1bn.
A preliminary market engagement notice published on 20 August sets out the scope of the package, which covers civils, infrastructure, buildings and MEP, and earthworks.
The package covers key enabling activities required to prepare the (unlisted) site for main construction.
The early works package forms part of GBE-N’s Owner’s Scope, which encompasses the planning, licensing, design and construction activities necessary to enable a Technology Partner to install and commission small modular reactor (SMR) technology.
SMR is a category of nuclear fission reactors that are significantly smaller in size and power output than traditional gigawatt-scale nuclear plants. GBE-N has spearheaded a competition to select preferred technologies, naming Rolls-Royce SMR as a preferred designer for projects at sites like Wylfa in North Wales (main image above).
The estimated contract period is from 1 June 2028 to 1 June 2034, with a possible extension to 1 June 2037 and the work includes design from RIBA Stage 4 and delivery of ground-related enabling activities, including species relocation, remediation services, site clearance, site establishment and construction utilities.
The package also includes supporting infrastructure such as drainage and haul roads to support bulk earthworks.
The early works will establish the correct ground levels and create safe access routes for subsequent phases. They will provide the foundational physical platform needed to de-risk, mobilise and accelerate the main works programme, according to the notice.
GBE-N considered splitting the packages into two but has decided to consolidate them into one package to minimise interface risk.
GBE-N cautioned that the positions and timelines presented are based on current information and assumptions. It said the scope, dates, values and sequencing may change as programme maturity develops and further validation is undertaken.
Why Britain and Europe MUST talk to Russia, and why no one wants to make the first move
In conversation with Mark Galeotti
Ian Proud, Aug 21, 2026. https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/why-britain-and-europe-must-talk?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=212103666&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
After four and a half years of war in Ukraine, European leaders are still largely stuck repeating the same empty mantras: “as long as it takes,” “no talks until Russia withdraws,” “dialogue is a reward for good behaviour.”
In my latest conversation on The Peacemonger channel, leading Russia expert Mark Galeotti explains why this approach has become deeply self-harming — and why someone, somewhere, is going to have to break the logjam.
Galeotti, honorary professor at UCL, director of Mayak Intelligence and host of the widely followed podcast In Moscow’s Shadows, is characteristically clear-eyed.
The war is no longer delivering strategic benefits for Europe (I’d argue that it has been a disaster from the start).
Russia is slowly advancing in the Donbas.
Ukraine is paying a catastrophic human and economic price.
Europe is bankrolling the conflict while outsourcing its diplomacy to Washington and preparing to phase out the last of its Russian gas imports — a move with predictably severe economic consequences.
Yet no one wants to be the first to say out loud what many now admit privately: that a negotiated end is necessary, and that talking to Russia is not a concession but a necessity.
Galeotti is particularly interesting on Britain’s potential role.
Outside the European Union and still regarded by Moscow as both a serious antagonist and a serious player, the UK has a rare opportunity to act as a pragmatic interlocutor.
The “only Nixon could go to China” logic applies.
Under a possible Burnham government more focused on domestic priorities, that opportunity may be greater than under previous administrations — but it will still require political courage.
The conversation ranges widely beyond the battlefield.
We discuss the urgent need to restore military-to-military contacts, law-enforcement cooperation and academic exchanges — the practical, professional channels that have been allowed to atrophy.
Galeotti is scathing about the hollowing-out of British diplomatic and academic expertise on Russia, and the long-term cost of cutting off the next generation of specialists from time on the ground.
He is equally clear-eyed about the Russia–China relationship: transactional, competitive and far more fragile than the “friendship without limits” rhetoric suggests.
Western policymakers who talk of a seamless “Dragon Bear” alliance are, in his view, peddling dangerous nonsense.
When the war eventually ends — and Galeotti, like me, does not expect it this year — European politicians will face the awkward task of polishing a strategic failure as success, as I have long said.
The longer the fighting continues, the more expensive and politically toxic the post-war period will become.
This is a sober, realistic conversation free of both Russophobia and wishful thinking.
If you want to understand why Europe is stuck, and what it would actually take to start moving toward a settlement, I strongly recommend watching the full discussion which you can find here.
Iranian hackers shut down UK power plant
Telegraph 22nd Aug 2026
Unprecedented cyber attack believed to be most successful of its kind
Iran shut down a British power plant for four days in an unprecedented cyber attack, The Telegraph can disclose.
It is thought to be the first time that hackers affiliated to the Iranian regime have succeeded in closing down such a facility in the UK, and is believed to be the most successful cyber attack of its kind.
The Telegraph understands that the incident took place at the same time as a series of attacks on US water infrastructure last month, which affected 12 states and caused concern in the White House.
Iran shut down a British power plant for four days in an unprecedented cyber attack, The Telegraph can disclose.
It is thought to be the first time that hackers affiliated to the Iranian regime have succeeded in closing down such a facility in the UK, and is believed to be the most successful cyber attack of its kind.
The Telegraph understands that the incident took place at the same time as a series of attacks on US water infrastructure last month, which affected 12 states and caused concern in the White House.
Advertisement
British officials refused to be drawn on which power plant had been affected, citing security concerns, but it is understood that the facility was disabled for four days while staff fought to bring it back online.
It is understood that the plant affected was relatively small and that the outage had no impact on the UK’s wider power supply or energy generation.
In response, the Government briefed the chief executives of power companies and wrote to businesses with advice, direction and next steps……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/22/iranian-hackers-shut-down-uk-power-plant/
‘Can we justify £15bn on nuclear weapons?’
By Andrea Dow, Rothesay1, 20 Aug 2026,
https://argyllbute24.co.uk/can-we-justify-15bn-on-nuclear-weapons/
EVEN if you believe in the logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Even if you think a nuclear base on the Clyde is a deterrent rather than a likely potential target.
Even if the phrase “increased readiness, availability and lethality” gives you a warm fuzzy glow rather than prostrating you with terror – does £15 billion not seem a lot to spend on something supposedly designed to never be used?
Aside from the repeated leaks of tritium and the inevitable cover-ups by both the MOD and Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (military bases are exempt from civilian pollution controls), the watchdog organisation, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, published a damning report stating the project is in doubt, with major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas, having “major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable”.
Faslane is the home of the nation’s nuclear deterrent and the new generation of hunter-killer submarines. Each submarine carries up to 16 missiles. Each missile carries up to eight warheads. Each warhead has a yield of 100 kilotons of TNT, six times greater than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima – is it just me, or does this make the case for increased lethality seem a little shaky?
To quote the independent organisation Scientists for Global Responsibility, “Nuclear weapons are the epitome of an unsustainable security strategy and create enormous risks for humanity and the global environment.” The case for abandoning this grandiose project and committing the UK to a future without weapons of mass destruction is becoming stronger by the day.
Maybe I’m just a pessimist, but as a child the regular sight of nuclear subs patrolling the Clyde during the Cold War did not make me feel safe.
They were the stuff of nightmares – nightmares I’d hoped we were beginning to collectively waken from. Apparently not so. And despite the clear and obvious risks to all, some few will continue to benefit richly from this folly (just as they will from the proposed data centre at Ardyne). Just another example of what author Kapka Kasabova calls the “genocidal, ecocidal greed” of the global industrial-military complex whose appetites are incompatible with the survival of a human Earth.
Frightened anyone? Or is it just me?
Building on shaky foundations – Whistleblower highlights serious safety and staffing concerns after Dounreay reorganisation
John O’Groat Journal, By David G Scott – david.scott@hnmedia.co.uk, 19 August 2026
Serious concerns have been raised regarding safety governance, staffing levels, and workplace culture at the Dounreay nuclear decommissioning site following a major organisational overhaul.
A former employee at the site warned that recent reorganisations have eroded independent oversight, drained vital institutional knowledge, and created what they describe as “a perfect storm for a disaster.”
At the heart of the concerns is a major site reorganisation known internally as Fit For the Future (FFF). According to the insider, the restructure resulted in the abolition of the dedicated Health and Safety Assurance Department. Historically, this department provided independent checks on project governance, ensured compliance with safety procedures, and tracked lessons learned from previous site incidents.
“The assurance department’s role is to check that people are following procedure, learning from incidents, and maintaining governance,” the source stated. “These were independent people overseeing projects to ensure nobody was cutting corners. Removing that independent oversight leaves the site dangerously exposed.”
Critics within the workforce have alleged that the costly restructuring failed to deliver improvements, claiming that leadership roles were increasingly filled by managers lacking hands-on nuclear safety expertise.
“Egos are driving the leadership team,” the whistleblower claimed. “They have been promoted into positions not because they were competent, but because they were confident. They have people running projects who aren’t experts in the field and won’t listen to the people who are.”
The site has also seen a significant drain of experienced staff through voluntary redundancy schemes including the so-called mutually agreed voluntary exit (MAVE). Decades of operational knowledge built up by long-serving local workers have been lost, leaving remaining teams stretched and reliant on less experienced personnel.
‘I would be perfectly justified in sending you to prison’: Community service for man who ran amok with fire extinguisher at Wick hospital‘I would be perfectly justified in sending you to prison’: Community service for man who ran amok with fire extinguisher at Wick hospital
“I truly believe that a good lot of the people who left under MAVE were people who spoke up about concerns,” said the former employee. “They want people in positions who will just say ‘yes sir, no sir’ – they don’t want to know something is wrong, they want you to cover it up.”
This turnover has driven a decline in the proportion of Suitably Qualified and Experienced Persons (SQEP) holding technical management and safety leadership positions across the site, they suggested. “For positions where years ago you had to have specific degrees and years of hands-on experience, they have watered those standards down across the board,” added the source.
At the same time, accusations have emerged that experienced personnel who voiced concerns about safety protocols or restructuring plans were sidelined or encouraged to leave.
Reports also highlight ongoing workplace bullying alongside a management culture that prioritises public image over addressing root-cause operational issues.
“The bullying that goes on is swept under the carpet. HR know about it, but what they do is move the victim to another area and allow the bully to continue.”
Furthermore, critics argue the scheme represents a false economy, as replacing experienced staff with newer personnel fails to yield genuine savings once additional workforce numbers and extensive training are factored in to fill the capability gap.
Highlighting the practical impact of weakened governance, the source pointed to a recent incident in the site’s laboratories which resulted in staff being exposed to a chemical leak………………………………………….
https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/building-on-shaky-foundations-whistleblower-highlights-ser-442770/
Anglers win Hinkley information battle
Hinkley generation company must now respond to requests for information
Tuesday 18th August 2026,
https://www.wsfp.co.uk/news/environment-news/angling-fishing-environment-hinkley-point-938586
An anglers’ pressure group has won a landmark legal ruling confirming that the company building Hinkley Point C cannot refuse to answer environmental information requests simply because it is privately owned.
A London tribunal ruled this week that NNB Generation Company, the EDF subsidiary responsible for Hinkley Point C, must now respond to requests for information about the power station’s cooling water intake, environmental protection measures and possible environmental compensation.
A spokesperson for the pressure group Fish Legal, which uses environmental law to protect rivers, lakes and coastal fisheries on behalf of anglers, said: “The company must now either provide the information or identify specific legal grounds under environmental law for withholding it”
“The judgment confirms that when a private company is entrusted with major public functions and granted exceptional statutory powers, private ownership does not necessarily place its decisions beyond public scrutiny.
“The ruling may influence future cases involving other private companies exercising comparable functions and powers.”
Zoe Wedderburn-Day, head of policy and strategy at Fish Legal, said: “The new government wants essential infrastructure built more quickly. Much of that programme will depend on private companies using powers granted to them by the state.
Those companies cannot be given exceptional public powers and then close the door when people ask how the powers are being used. Public confidence depends on meaningful transparency and accountability.”
Ms Wedcderburn-Day added: “This judgment does not decide which environmental protection technology should be used at Hinkley Point C. It confirms that NNB cannot avoid answering environmental information requests simply by saying that it is a private company.
“The immediate issue is whether the company will now provide the information or explain clearly why it believes any part of it should remain withheld.”
NNB may seek permission to take the case to the Court of Appeal.
British Foreign Policy on Autopilot: Escalating in Ukraine Without Strategy, Consent or Hard Power
In conversation with Mary Dejevsky
Ian Proud, Aug 19, 2026
I spoke with veteran journalist and commentator Mary Dejevsky about the mounting sense of drift in British foreign policy. Our discussion ranged widely—from her recent travels to Greenland and an upcoming trip to Mongolia—to the sharpening tensions with Russia and the quieter but consequential contest unfolding in the Arctic. What emerged most clearly was a picture of a United Kingdom continuing to deepen its military commitment to Ukraine while lacking a coherent strategy, public consent, or the hard power to underwrite the risks it is taking.
Mary described a Whitehall that appears to be on autopilot. Neither the new Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, nor the Prime Minister rushed to Kyiv as an opening gesture, yet both have doubled down on the previous government’s maxim that “Ukraine’s defence is our defence.”
In recent days this has extended to reports of British-made drones striking deep inside Russia. The Russian embassy in London responded with warnings of consequences; British officials expressed indignation.
Mary found both the escalation and the surprise at Russia’s reaction astonishing.
There has been no meaningful parliamentary debate, no clear statement of heightened risk to the United Kingdom itself, and no recognition that such support may actually prolong a proxy war that is already catastrophic for Ukraine’s demographics and future viability as a state.
This policy sits uneasily alongside Britain’s diminished military capacity. Submarines are in repair, stocks of munitions have been drawn down, and the army is a fraction of its former size.
Russia, by contrast, fields a far larger force and a shipbuilding programme that eclipses our own. Any retaliation is more likely to occur in the legal grey zone of the high seas—seizing vessels—than through direct attack on British soil.
Yet the absence of a defence attaché in Moscow for over a year, and the collapse of earlier post-Cold War naval cooperation, leaves little room for de-escalation.
As Mary observed, Europe has forfeited any plausible role as mediator in the Ukraine war and now appears content to keep the conflict alive long after American enthusiasm has cooled.
Threaded through our conversation was the Arctic dimension, where commercial rather than purely military competition is gathering pace.
Mary’s recent voyage along Greenland’s west coast revealed a sparsely populated, logistically forbidding territory still heavily dependent on Danish subsidies.
Chinese attempts to secure mineral footholds failed on commercial grounds.
Yet Beijing has now announced a regular “Silk Ice Road”—a summer trade route hugging Russia’s Arctic coast and destined, in practical terms, for European ports such as Felixstowe.
This is not primarily a challenge to American maritime primacy in the Pacific; it is a bid to tighten commercial ties with Europe and reduce transit times.
Therefore, Washington’s renewed interest in Greenland—bases, the Northwest Passage, and the so-called Golden Dome—can be read partly as a bid to lock in European allegiance in the face of a growing reality of Eurasian interconnectedness, driven by China.
Russia, already possessed of the world’s longest Arctic coastline and its own Northern Sea Route, has little incentive to seek additional territory but does, ultimately, see itself as a key Eurasian power broker.
Taken together, these strands expose a deeper problem.
Britain continues to trade on past martial glories while its strategic reviews dissolve into unfunded pick-and-mix lists and domestic voices—concerned with jobs, infrastructure and everyday security—remain largely unheard.
The result is policy that heightens risk in the absence of strategy.
Conversations such as this one with Mary Dejevsky are a small counterweight: an insistence that peace, not perpetual escalation, remains the more responsible national interest for Britain and Britons alike.
You can watch the full conversation here:
Special investigation: UK’s nuclear waste a ‘calamity for future generations’.
Plans to dispose of high-level nuclear waste over the long
term remain uncertain. Plans to deal with nuclear waste must be considered by the new energy secretary Miatta Fahnbullaeh.
Britain is planning a new fleet of nuclear reactors – without a repository for high-grade legacy waste. The UK’s efforts to find a location for an underground nuclear waste burial site have stalled. New energy secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh must review two remaining areas in Cumbria, after three were abandoned following community pushback, Energy Voice has learned.
Two sites, Mid Copeland and
South Copeland, near existing nuclear waste storage facilities at
Sellafield, are being assessed for “permanent” nuclear waste storage in
a planned geological disposal facility (GDF), the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority (NDA) confirmed in an emailed statement.
With a UK nuclear burial site undetermined, storage at Sellafield time-limited, and three major nuclear projects expected to operate beyond 2055, government has been accused of “kicking the can down the road”. Further, the National Wealth Fund (NWF) did not factor long-term waste disposal into decisions to invest in Sizewell C, Energy Voice has also learned.
The state-owned body backed the UK’s new 3.2GW nuclear power station in Suffolk with £36.6 billion in debt finance. Its chief investment officer Ian Brown told Energy Voice during an interview in March, months after the project reached a final investment decision: “I wouldn’t say it’s not something we look at, but at the moment… the proposal is that the waste material will just stayon site.
“It’s going to take a while to work out where in the country
we’re able to drop the stuff into the ground, if ever.” Professor Andrew
Blowers, co-chair of the NWS/NGO Exchange and former member of RadioactiveWaste Management Advisory Committee, said: “The new build programme is costly, risky with long timescales and makes little sense as a part of the energy mix needed to achieve net zero.
“Far from helping to deal with
climate change, the wastes from such a programme will add yet more calamity o future generations.”
NDA subsidiary National Waste Services (NWS),
created in 2022 to handle the UK’s “future radioactive waste”, has
submitted a decision to the energy secretary on where to locate a
high-grade nuclear waste burial site, a spokeswoman said. The energy
secretary must now formally respond to its proposal.
However, the Office
for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) told Energy Voice that NWS needs to “find a
suitable site and a willing community” to host nuclear waste. It said:
“No site has yet been identified.” Of five potential sites, three were
ruled out, including the coastal region of Seascale, a site near Sellafield
in Cumbria, and another in Lincolnshire, where the county council voted
unanimously to withdraw from the plans. “
Three other communities have
previously been involved in the process but are no longer,” the ONR said
in a statement to Energy Voice. “Allerdale in Cumbria was withdrawn due
to insufficient suitable geology. Theddlethorpe (Lincolnshire) and South
Holderness (Yorkshire) voluntarily withdrew from the process.” Blowers
said,
“At present a GDF is uncertain, its location unclear and its
timescale already far into the later part of this century. It is
irresponsible and immoral to create yet more wastes arising in the next
century for which no management provision can conceivably be made.”
“The mad rush to building yet more dangerous nuclear power stations with
their eternal dangerous radioactive debris should be stopped dead in its
tracks now,” Blowers said.
Energy Voice 17th Aug 2026,
https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/nuclear/602330/uk-nuclear-waste-management-problem/
Hinkley Point C subsidiary must comply with environmental information rules, UTT rules
“Those companies cannot be given exceptional public powers and then close the door when people ask how the powers are being used. Public confidence depends on meaningful transparency and accountability.”
17.Aug.2026, Adam Carey, https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/information-law/398-information-law-news/101448-hinkley-point-c-subsidiary-must-comply-with-environmental-information-rules-utt-rules
The subsidiary responsible for a new nuclear power station currently under construction is a public authority for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, the Upper Tribunal (UTT) has ruled.
In NNB Generation Company (HPC) Ltd v Information Commissioner & Anor [2026] UKUT 241 (AAC), Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs dismissed an appeal by NNB Generation Company (HPC) Ltd against a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision.
The case arose after NNB Generation Company, the EDF subsidiary responsible for the power station known as ‘Hinkley Point C’, refused an information request from Fish Legal in March 2024. It refused to process the request under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) because it did not consider itself a public authority.
Fish Legal appealed the refusal to the Information Commissioner, which found that NNB was a public authority under regulation 2(2)(c) of the Regulations.
The FTT later confirmed that decision, leading NNB to appeal to the UTT on three grounds.
Following a hearing in April 2026, Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that the First-tier Tribunal had not made an error on a point of law.
One of the main thrusts of the appeal centred on the FTT’s decision that NNB was vested with special powers.
NNB has a range of powers under its Development Consent Order and electricity licence, including powers of compulsory acquisition, entry, street works and works affecting watercourses, as well as harbour authority powers.
Jacobs J said the question was whether HPC had powers which were “not powers available to HPC as a matter of general private law”. Having those powers conferred “a practical advantage” on the company should it wish to use them, making them special powers.
This aspect of the judgment relied on the test for special powers set out by the Upper Tribunal in Fish Legal in 2015. That case concerned the application of the Environmental Information Regulations to bodies carrying out public administrative functions, including the question of whether they were vested with special powers.
Zoe Wedderburn-Day, Head of Policy and Strategy at Fish Legal, said: “The new government wants essential infrastructure built more quickly. Much of that programme will depend on private companies using powers granted to them by the state.
“Those companies cannot be given exceptional public powers and then close the door when people ask how the powers are being used. Public confidence depends on meaningful transparency and accountability.”
“Fish Legal established that basic legal principle for privatised water companies more than 10 years ago. The Upper Tribunal has now confirmed its relevance to the private company building Hinkley Point C.”
HPC must now respond to Fish Legal’s EIR or rely on specific EIR exemptions. The deadline to response is 20 August, with any application for permission to appeal due by 16 August.
WhatDoTheyKnow provides proof it sent Freedom Of Information request to AWE, (the Atomic Weapons Establishment)
Tom Pashby, Aug 21, 2026
Digital proof has been shared with 20 Working Days that a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request was sent to AWE (the Atomic Weapons Establishment) – which AWE claimed it didn’t receive.
The FOI request is now the subject of an Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decision notice – a type of enforcement action – over its failure to respond to a FOI request sent by 20 Working Days on 6 May, via WhatDoTheyKnow.
WhatDoTheyKnow describes itself as “a site to help anyone submit a Freedom of Information request. WhatDoTheyKnow also publishes and archives requests and responses, building a massive archive of information.” It is built by a pro-democracy and transparency non-governmental organisation called MySociety.
The decision notice has since been published on the ICO’s website. The ICO explains what decision notices are. It says: “When we do take formal enforcement action, this will likely be in the form of a decision notice.
“A decision notice is a formal document that explains whether the Information Commissioner thinks a public authority has complied with the law when dealing with a specific request.”
The decision notice it issued to AWE about the 6 May FOI request said: “A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days.
“Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.”
Setting out the next steps required by the ICO, it said: “The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
“The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.”
20 Working Days offered AWE the opportunity to comment on the decision notice ahead of publication of its 12 August article covering the enforcement action.
The day after the article was published, on 13 August, an AWE spokesperson said: “AWE has received, and processed, previous requests from the requestor (FOI2026-020, FOI2026-042 and FOI2026-044) and has also received and acknowledged FOI2026-047) via the WhatDoTheyKnow platform. A response to that request is currently being considered.
“However a further request, understood to have been submitted on 6th May, was not received by AWE. AWE was therefore unaware of its existence until contacted by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in July.
“Following correspondence with the ICO, the ICO issued a Decision Notice on 10 August 2026, requiring AWE to provide a substantive response within 20 working days.
“AWE is processing this and has formally acknowledged this (reference FOI2026-049). A response will be provided within the applicable time limit.”
The spokesperson added: “This is equivalent to a signed-for physical letter delivery where the receptionist signs for the letter. Whether that letter got routed to the desk of the responsible person is the authority’s responsibility and out of our control.”
WhatDoTheyKnow later provided additional technical information to show it had evidence that the message was sent properly and received by AWE’s systems.
All the evidence shared by WhatDoTheyKnow was forwarded by 20 Working Days to AWE.
In response to the digital evidence, an AWE spokesperson said: “We have carried out enquiries using the additional log information supplied by [20 Working Days], but have not been able to locate any reference to the message that you are referring to.
“Our position therefore remains that the message in question was not responded to because it was not received by the team dealing with such requests. As stated previously, the team now has the request and will respond within the relevant timescales.”
Russia has accused the UK of “deliberately opting for an escalation of the Ukraine crisis”.
BBC 18th Aug 2026
Russia has accused the UK of “deliberately opting for an escalation of the
Ukraine crisis” following confirmation that British-made drones had been
used in strikes on targets in Russia. “In doing so, the United Kingdom is
acting as an accomplice and co-perpetrator of the bloody crimes and
terrorist attacks,” the Russian Embassy to the UK wrote in a statement.
“London’s actions will inevitably carry consequences for which it will have
to answer,” it said, adding that the deeper its involvement in the
conflict, “the higher the price it will pay”. In response, a spokesperson
for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told BBC News that Britain stood
“shoulder to shoulder” with Ukraine.
Russophobia: Elite Obsession or Deep-Rooted Prejudice?
A conversation with Professor Geoffrey Roberts
Ian Proud, August 12, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/russophobia-elite-obsession-or-deep?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=211518204&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Professor Geoffrey Roberts, one of Britain’s leading historians of Soviet and Russian history, recently took part in an academic conference on Russophobia held as part of the annual cultural festival in Pskov, Russia.
The discussions there, and our subsequent conversation, offer a clear-eyed look at a phenomenon – Russophobia – that has intensified dramatically since 2022.
One striking difference emerged immediately between western and Russian participants at the conference.
Russian participants tended to view Russophobia as a deep-rooted cultural feature of the West, particularly Britain, stretching back two centuries to Russia’s emergence as a great power after the Napoleonic Wars.
Western speakers, including Roberts, saw it as far more contingent and episodic — a political instrument that surfaces when it serves a purpose and can recede just as quickly.
Roberts argues that today’s Russophobia is primarily an elite phenomenon.
It thrives in the Westminster bubble, among sections of the media, the intelligence services, the defence industry and the chattering classes.
Ordinary people are often more open-minded. Taxi drivers still express genuine curiosity about life in Moscow rather than reflexive hostility. Public opinion has proved remarkably resistant to years of daily propaganda; the extreme narrative has failed to mobilise a durable popular majority for confrontation.
Within the elite itself there are different strands: a large “herd” that follows the prevailing narrative for career reasons; those with financial or institutional interests in keeping the confrontation alive; and a smaller group of true believers.
The late Lord Robert Skidelsky, whose writings on Russophobia formed the basis of Roberts’ own paper in Pskov, described it as a ready-made repertoire of stereotypes and attitudes that can be activated when political circumstances demand.
Its current intensity is instrumental — it helps mobilise support for Ukraine and for the West’s proxy war against Russia.
History suggests such episodes can reverse rapidly.
Britain and Russia fought as allies in both world wars.
The anti-Soviet version of Russophobia collapsed with surprising speed under Gorbachev.
Roberts remains cautiously optimistic that a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine would undermine the extreme forms of Russophobia and open space for more pragmatic voices. Without an end to the fighting, however, the instrumental value of the narrative remains high.
The conversation also touched on deeper strategic realities.
You cannot fight a war by committee.
Russia’s more centralised decision-making and industrial capacity have allowed it to adapt and sustain the conflict, while Western policymakers continue to underestimate Russian resilience and overestimate the prospects of Ukrainian victory or regime collapse in Moscow.
The result is a prolonged, self-defeating policy that has already cost Ukraine dearly and eroded the legitimacy of European governments at home.
Roberts’ message is ultimately a hopeful one. Most people in any country want peace. Ending the war would not only stop the bloodshed; it would also deprive Russophobia of its most powerful current fuel and create the conditions for a more rational relationship between Russia and the West.
In the meantime, moderate, evidence-based voices remain essential.
You can watch the full conversation here:
The result is a prolonged, self-defeating policy that has already cost Ukraine dearly and eroded the legitimacy of European governments at home.
Roberts’ message is ultimately a hopeful one. Most people in any country want peace. Ending the war would not only stop the bloodshed; it would also deprive Russophobia of its most powerful current fuel and create the conditions for a more rational relationship between Russia and the West.
In the meantime, moderate, evidence-based voices remain essential.
You can watch the full conversation here:
Looking Back….Going Forward
Andrew and Varrie Blowers writing for the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) for Energy and Environment Regional Life Column for August, 2026
This month we’ve decided to look back over previous August issues of
this column to reflect on our preoccupations over the past decade. We’ve
picked on two themes – radioactive wastes and new nuclear power – covered
in four columns which focus on our successes as well as our continuing
concerns during these years. August 2017: BANNG led a successful campaign
to force the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) to abandon its
experimental scheme to flush dissolved Fuel Element Debris (FED) residue
into the Blackwater. As a result, Magnox cancelled its plans to use FED
dissolution at its other sites. August 2020: In the midst of the pandemic,
the Chinese project to build reactors at Bradwell reached its apotheosis
with its pre-application for planning consent. The outrage against the
project was palpable. Combined with local political and public opposition
and government concerns around national security risks, BANNG was
emboldened to conclude the project was dying. Later, when the Chinese
walked away, we could presume the project dead.
BANNG 5th Aug 2026, https://www.banng.info/news/regional-life/looking-back-going-forward/
Benjamin Netanyahu describes UK as ‘first Islamic republic to get a nuclear weapon’
Israeli PM criticised by political rival for attacking an international ally and overseeing ‘horrific diplomatic failure’
Emma Graham-Harrison in Jerusalem and Rowena Mason, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/14/benjamin-netanyahu-describes-uk-first-islamic-republic-to-get-nuclear-weapon
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, called the UK “the Islamic republic of Britain” in a podcast interview, where he also described the country as the “first Islamic republic to get a nuclear weapon”.
His comments, made during an interview for Israel’s army radio, played into a common far-right Islamophobic trope about Britain’s small Muslim population.
Netanyahu praised positive coverage of Israel by the journalist Randolph Churchill, the son of former prime minister Winston Churchill, over half a century ago, then said: “Go find that in today’s Britain, in what is called the Islamic republic of Britain.”
Rather than challenge Netanyahu’s comments, the host questioned whether he is unfairly singling out the UK, asking: “Isn’t all of Europe is like that?”
Netanyahu replies by doubling down. “Yes, but you know someone said the first Islamic republic with nuclear weapons will be the Islamic republic of Britain.”
Pakistan, officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, has had a nuclear arsenal since the 1990s.
Relations between the UK and Israel have been increasingly strained in recent months, especially since Andy Burnham took over in No 10. Shortly before becoming prime minister, he apologised for Labour’s initial response to Israel’s military action in Gaza, saying the party “didn’t get it right” and needed to “do better” under his leadership, signalling a significant shift in the UK’s approach to the Middle East.
In July, he said he would “do more to put pressure on the Israeli government”, including through further sanctions on individuals and entities, as well as a potential ban on the trade of goods with illegal settlements.
The US vice-president, JD Vance, made remarks similar to Netanyahu’s comments during the 2024 presidential campaign, saying the UK could become the first “truly Islamist country that will get a nuclear weapon”.
London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, has also been a frequent target of racialised attacks from rightwing leaders abroad, including Donald Trump, seeking to gain political advantage from Islamophobic lies.
Muslim leaders in the UK have said that hate crimes targeting their community are hitting new levels amid a rise in far-right rhetoric and growing support for anti-immigrant political parties.
Avi Dabush, who is running for the Knesset with Israel’s opposition Democrats party, attacked Netanyahu for mocking a critical ally at a time when Israel faces unprecedented global isolation. “That’s what happens when there’s a horrific diplomatic failure, and an inability to rally countries in the world in favour of our interests,” he said in a social media post.
Leading the most far-right government in Israel’s history, Netanyahu has alienated traditional allies while aligning with far-right figures, including some with a history of antisemitism.
The British Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said: “These comments are completely unacceptable and we have raised them with the Israeli government.”
The Prime Minister’s Office did not respond to requests for comment on whether Netanyahu’s statement represented the official position of the Israeli government.
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (184)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 