司法 · RAF Fairford调查持续报道 · 第 3 篇，共 3 篇

RAF Fairford附近未发现爆炸装置，英国怀疑伊朗参与

警方在三辆车中查获汽油，但未发现简易爆炸装置。英国现怀疑伊朗参与其中，但未披露相关证据；五名男子仍获准警方保释。

播出 文字 阅读需 7 分钟188 个来源HeyDay News Desk · About usWatch report
与 HeyDex 一起探索

通过 RSS 关注

原语言视频

文字实录 · 正在加载

译自英文原文。

持续报道第 9 天

3 篇报道83 家媒体188 个来源44 个视频

完整报道
5 天无进展
  • 暂无标注日期的事件
  1. 第 1 次更新韦尔福德居民遭疏散，陆军检查皇家空军费尔福德基地附近车辆
  2. 第 2 次更新费尔福德五名嫌疑人获保释；邻居仍在等待解除警报
  3. 第 3 次更新RAF Fairford附近未发现爆炸装置，英国怀疑伊朗参与当前位置

自上次报道以来的变化

2 天后

当时

费尔福德五名嫌疑人获保释；邻居仍在等待解除警报

我们当时说尚无定论的问题

  1. 车辆检查结果、确切数量、警方应对的原因以及与RAF Fairford的任何关联，仍未得到证实。

    尚无定论

    五人被捕、三辆车接受检查，这些事实已经确认；检查未发现简易爆炸装置，并查获汽油。疏散人数仍有不同说法，而据报有嫌疑人曾打电话，并不能证明这些男子的目的或他们意图与基地建立何种联系。 6237161

  2. 任何疑似装置是否可用、预定目标是什么，或是否有外国政府参与。

    尚无定论

    未发现简易爆炸装置。预定目标仍未得到证实，政府关于伊朗参与的判断也没有附带公开披露的支持证据。 6178

  3. 警方确认检查已经完成、警戒线已经解除且居民可以返回。

    尚无定论

    据报道，居民在9月28日通过安全检查后获准返回。预计于9月30日完成对剩余调查现场的封闭工作一事，尚未得到确认。 86

  4. 公开车辆检查结果，并确认居民何时可以返回。

    已有答案

现在

警方在三辆车中查获汽油，但未发现简易爆炸装置。英国现怀疑伊朗参与其中，但未披露相关证据；五名男子仍获准警方保释。

此后已有答案

  1. 公开车辆检查结果，并确认居民何时可以返回。

    警方于9月29日公开宣布，未发现简易爆炸装置并查获汽油。CBC报道称，内政大臣于9月28日宣布居民获准返回；这并不能证明每户人家都已实际返回。 68

在RAF Fairford附近检查的三辆车中，未发现简易爆炸装置。疏散人员、设置武装路障并在军方协助下进行法证检查后，这一发现最能改变公众对这起事件的认识。此案最初被描述为一起疑似炸弹阴谋。调查人员查获的是汽油，而非经确认的自制炸弹。汽油的用途仍未得到解释。6

然而，政治层面的指控已经变得更加明确。2026年9月30日，首相Andy Burnham表示，有“强烈迹象表明伊朗参与了这起事件”。政府的公开立场已从不愿直接将事件与伊朗联系起来，转为公开表达这一判断——但没有披露背后的证据。五名被捕男子仍在接受调查，并获准有条件保释；现有报道并未证实有人受到刑事指控，也未确定任何具体的预定袭击。183 178 6

关键事实

  1. 0检查车辆中发现的简易爆炸装置 6155
  2. 3在RAF Fairford附近接受检查的车辆 155
  3. 5获准警方保释、仍在接受调查的男子 6

在我们9月28日的报道中，我们描述了五名男子获准保释、车辆检查仍在继续，以及邻近居民仍在等待确认解除警戒。我们没有报道任何已证实可用的炸弹、目标、动机或外国赞助者。警方随后公布的结果回答了车辆检查方面的问题。后续报道也证实居民获准返回，但调查现场是否已全部解除警戒仍未确认。

助理警务处长Laurence Taylor在9月29日的通报中称，在军方力量和法证专家协助下开展的大范围检查未发现简易爆炸装置。警方查获了“一定数量的汽油”，并称其为助燃剂。具体数量尚未披露。汽油可以加速燃烧，但发现汽油并不能证明有人意图纵火、已选定目标，或解释这些男子为何在场。6 158

早期评估称相关物品与简易爆炸装置相符，这只是初步判断，并非法证检查完成后的结论。Bloomberg Television于9月28日报道，消息人士称，一起严重的袭击企图在最后阶段被阻止。后续检查并未证实这一描述。同样，没有发现爆炸装置也不意味着认定没有犯罪行为：刑事调查仍在继续。1 6

五人被捕，但尚未确认有人受到起诉

这些男子于9月27日星期日凌晨在格洛斯特郡Whelford附近被捕，地点在RAF Fairford以外。格洛斯特郡警方最初以涉嫌违反《爆炸物法》为由拘留他们，随后又以涉嫌依据《反恐法》第5条准备实施恐怖主义行为为由逮捕他们。这些是逮捕理由，并非起诉或有罪认定。反恐警务部门接手了调查。25 2

五人均为居住在伦敦的英国籍男子，年龄在20多岁。《卫报》9月28日的报道援引警方信息称，其中三人24岁，一人23岁，一人25岁。现有材料并未公开证实他们的姓名。27

警方获准延长问讯时间后，于9月28日星期一在进行面谈和调查后释放了五人。保释条件限制他们的行动及与他人联系；完整条件和下一次保释日期尚未确定。此前有关他们仍被拘押的报道，描述的是后来已发生变化的阶段。广泛报道的14天拘留期限是法律规定的最长时限，并非他们实际被拘留的时间。21 20 6

这里存在一处影响重大的报道分歧。C-SPAN的Peter Knowles于9月29日称，嫌疑人已被起诉并获准保释。同日，《独立报》的报道转述了警方声明：五名男子获准警方保释，仍在接受调查。警方保释相关报道并不能证明他们受到起诉，因此不能安全地将C-SPAN的说法作为已核实的程序事实重复传播。保释既不等于无罪，也不代表调查结束。4 6

一项最新披露的细节也改变了对警方如何开始应对事件的描述。BBC于9月30日报道，后来被捕的五名男子中有一人于英国夏令时00:45自行致电警方——这比一名女农场主看到几名戴着巴拉克拉法帽的男子后报警早了近一小时。BBC称这是其所了解的该男子身份，并非直接引用警方确认。该男子打电话时的具体言辞和来电原因仍不清楚。161

警方最初的时间线称，27日英国夏令时约00:45接到报告，称三辆可疑车辆似乎正驶向Fairford。后来披露的两通报警电话的说法，有助于解释这一时间与农场主早些时候回忆称自己在01:30刚过就打电话之间的差异。但这并不能证明两名来电者之间存在协调，也没有解释那些男子的意图。27 161

这名农场主描述称，三辆白色厢式货车堵住了一条道路和她的车道，附近还有戴兜帽或蒙面的男子。她说，自己尝试联系国防部警察但无人接听，随后拨打了999。她认为自己“纯属幸运”地挫败了相关计划，这是她个人的解读；那些计划究竟是什么，仍未得到证实。警方称，应对行动参考了包括公众报案在内的多方面信息，但没有公布完整的情报时间线。25 38 3

指控力度加大，证据仍未公开

Fairford驻有美军，曾被用于美国轰炸机执行任务以及对伊朗发动打击。这使潜在的外国国家关联具有重大影响，但这并不能证明该基地是预定目标，也不能证明这些男子是受其军事用途驱使。调查人员正在考虑，是否有人可能在知情或不知情的情况下充当外国国家的代理人。5 7

9月28日，国防大臣Wes Streeting拒绝将事件与伊朗直接联系起来。Burnham于9月30日的声明标志着政府公开立场进入新阶段，并非重申此前的谨慎态度。他表示“我们认为伊朗参与其中”，并称“我们会适时作进一步说明”，但现有报道没有提供更多证据细节。关于谁据称指使了谁、伊朗被归咎于何种行为，以及嫌疑人知道些什么，目前都没有公开证实。41 178

美国国务卿Marco Rubio此前已于9月28日在接受福克斯新闻采访时指称有外国势力介入；相关内容于次日报道，但他没有提供证据或更多细节。Donald Trump称这些男子意图造成“重大破坏”，并且“长期以来一直受到监视”。这些说法并不能证明存在可行的袭击计划、选定目标或有记录可查的监视历史。公开求助电话在逻辑上并不排除此前已有情报活动——但同样也不能证实Trump的说法。173 39 38

对邻近居民来说，眼前的后果没那么抽象：重大事件、专业车辆检查以及疏散。受影响住户数量仍未明确。BBC News在9月30日的节目中报道约85户；Sky News于9月28日报道45户。其他报道也给出约85户。这些说法彼此不同，并非经核实后从45户修订为85户，也都不是疏散人数的统计。2 37 24

CBC News于9月28日报道，内政大臣Shabana Mahmood表示，军方检查已确定这些车辆及周边区域安全，疏散居民可以返回。这意味着居民获准回家，并不能证明每户人家都已实际返回。警方9月29日的通报称，伦敦房产的搜查已完成，Fairford附近剩余现场预计于9月30日解除封锁。截至当天20:58 UTC的现有通报，尚未确认相关工作已完成。8 6

逮捕行动后，基地安保有所加强，但目前没有证据证实基地内发生袭击、造成伤亡或影响飞机运行。接下来影响重大的发现，不是再描述这起事件可能有多严重，而是调查人员能否确认存在犯罪行为、解释汽油的用途，并证实——或驳斥——有关伊朗参与的指控。23

播出原貌 16 行
  1. On September 28 we reported ongoing vehicle checks. Those examinations found no improvised explosive devices. Petrol was recovered, five men remain under investigation on bail, and the government now suspects Iranian involvement without disclosing its evidence. What can investigators establish about the petrol, the men's purpose and possible foreign direction?
  2. Petrol is the confirmed recovery, not a homemade bomb. Extensive examinations of three vehicles, assisted by military assets and forensic experts, found no improvised explosive devices. The finding announced on September 29 changes the original suspected-bomb description. Early assessments of material consistent with explosive devices were provisional. Claims that explosives had been found, or that a serious attempted attack was disrupted at a late stage, are not confirmed by the completed examinations. But finding no device does not establish that no criminal offence occurred. Petrol can accelerate burning; its presence alone does not establish an intended fire, a target or the men's purpose. No numerical quantity has been disclosed.
  3. All five men are out of custody, but their movements and contacts remain restricted. They were released on September 28 after interviews and inquiries, following an extension of the time available for questioning. They are British nationals living in London, all in their twenties, and have not been publicly named. The more detailed age breakdown is three aged twenty-four, one twenty-three and one twenty-five; that breakdown has not been independently verified. Nor has a complete borough-by-borough residence list. An unclear fifth location cannot safely be identified by guessing its spelling.
  4. No criminal charges are established in the available account. A description of the men as charged conflicts with the police-bail accounts and cannot be treated as a verified procedural fact. Gloucestershire Police initially arrested them near Whelford, outside RAF Fairford, in the early hours of September 27 on suspicion of Explosives Act offences. They were subsequently arrested on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act under section five of the Terrorism Act. Those are arrest suspicions, not charges or findings of guilt. The widely cited fourteen days was a legal maximum for detention without charge, not their actual time in custody. Release on bail is neither an acquittal nor the end of the inquiry. The complete bail conditions and next bail dates are not established.
  5. The release date remains September 28. A police update delivered on September 29 referred to release the previous day; its later publication does not move that release to September 29.
  6. One of the arrested men is now understood to have made the first emergency call himself. The initial chronology placed a public report at about twelve forty-five in the morning on September 27, concerning three suspicious vehicles apparently travelling towards RAF Fairford. The newer account describes that man's call almost an hour before a female farmer's alert. His precise words and reason for calling remain unknown, and his identification as the caller is not a publicly quoted police confirmation. Two calls help explain the difference between the official twelve forty-five timing and the farmer's recollection of calling just after one thirty. They do not establish coordination or intent.
  7. The farmer's alert concerned three white vans blocking a road and her driveway, with hooded or masked men nearby. Her account included an unanswered attempt to contact the Ministry of Defence Police before calling nine-nine-nine. Her belief that she had foiled plans by pure luck does not establish what those plans were. Another account placed her call around twelve forty-five, but that should not erase the newer distinction between two alerts. Armed officers were described as making arrests within about an hour of a report; an exact arrest time is not established. The response drew on a range of information, including a public report, without a complete intelligence chronology being made public.
  8. Army explosive-ordnance specialists and remote-controlled vehicles examined the vans during a declared major incident. Armed officers and roadblocks restricted access. The cordon's reported extent was about four hundred metres, not a verified radius. A separate account placed the arrests about four hundred metres from the base; those descriptions are not interchangeable measurements.
  9. The evacuation accounts differ by forty homes or households, and that difference has not been reconciled. Several accounts put the number advised to evacuate at approximately eighty-five; another gave forty-five homes. Neither figure counts individual people. Whelford was described as a community of about two hundred residents and almost totally evacuated, an approximate description rather than a household census. Evacuees went to Cirencester leisure centre, and nearly thirty people reportedly spent Sunday night in a hotel.
  10. Residents were permitted to return after Army checks determined the vehicles and surrounding area were safe. That September 28 safety announcement answers the earlier uncertainty about permission to go home. It does not establish that every household actually returned or that every investigative cordon closed. London property searches were complete by the September 29 update. The remaining scenes near Fairford were being reduced, with closure expected the following day, September 30. Completion of that expectation is not confirmed. Local safety, completed searches, release from custody and closure of investigative scenes are separate developments; none means the criminal inquiry is over.
  11. RAF Fairford hosts American forces and has been used for US bomber missions and strikes against Iran. That role explains the scrutiny of possible foreign involvement, but does not prove the base was the intended target or that its military use motivated these men. The area is broadly eighty to ninety miles west of London, not an exact incident-site measurement. Security increased after the arrests. An early account put the base at Delta, described there as the highest alert level; its current alert level is not established. American citizens in Britain were urged to exercise caution and attend to personal security. No attack inside the base, resulting injuries or disruption of aircraft operations is established.
  12. The government now believes Iran played a part. That September 30 assessment is more explicit than the earlier refusal to draw a direct Iranian connection. It comes with a promise of more detail in due course, but no disclosed supporting evidence. The public position has changed; the public evidentiary picture has not caught up. Who allegedly directed whom, what conduct is attributed to Iran, and whether the men knew of any foreign involvement remain unestablished.
  13. Investigators have considered whether people could have acted for a foreign state knowingly or unknowingly. An Iran-linked motive was described early on as the leading possibility, with a possible Russian operation also under examination. Those were lines of inquiry, not established responsibility. Counter Terrorism Policing continues to pursue multiple possibilities, including why the men were there, what the petrol was for, whether any preparations constituted an offence and whether other people were involved.
  14. Claims of planned big damage and longstanding American surveillance remain unverified. Praise for British-American cooperation does not establish a workable attack or a documented surveillance history. Even the description of the alleged target varied between our fort and a US port; neither is a British investigative finding. A local emergency call does not logically exclude earlier intelligence activity. The newly described call by a suspect complicates the public chronology, but still does not verify what intelligence existed beforehand. A separate American foreign-actor allegation, made in a September 28 interview and published the next day, came without supporting evidence or further details. Its longer exact wording is unsettled, with accounts differing between the hand and the hands of a foreign actor.
  15. Iran categorically denies involvement. Its London embassy condemned the speculation as unfounded and malicious, warned that it could fuel Iranophobia, and reserved the right to take legal measures to safeguard its rights and interests. That denial does not resolve the inquiry, just as the government's assessment does not publicly substantiate responsibility.
  16. The vehicle question now has a clear answer: no improvised explosive devices were found, and petrol was recovered. The questions about purpose and foreign direction remain open. Residents had permission to return, but every household's return and complete scene closure are unverified. The first caller's reported identity helps explain two different call times, not the men's intentions. No specific intended attack or criminal charge is established. Five unnamed men remain under investigation on conditional police bail.

来源

188 个来源83 家媒体44 个视频3 篇通稿

来源地图

追溯本篇报道的依据。图谱展示其关联；下方链接可打开本文引用的来源。

来源图谱将在您阅读时加载。

探索完整的新闻编辑室图谱 ↗

译文更新于

修订记录

  1. r1首次发布。