LONDON, Oct 27 (Reuters) - Two men were charged under the National Security Act on Tuesday over last month's incident at the RAF Fairford military base, with prosecutors accusing a British national of trying to help Iranian intelligence in Britain. RAF Fairford had been used by US bombers to carry out strikes on Iran, but they were withdrawn on security grounds shortly after five British men were arrested outside the base in southwest England in the early hours of September 27.
British national Mohmed Abdulkarim, 24, was charged with engaging in conduct that was likely to materially assist a foreign intelligence service between August 31 and September 28, with police saying the country is believed to be Iran. British Prime Minister Andy Burnham said earlier this month that the activity at RAF Fairford was likely to have been coordinated in Iran, which Iran's ambassador to Britain has denied. Nouman Essghir, a 24-year-old dual British-Iranian national who was first arrested outside RAF Fairford on September 27, was charged with one offence of entering a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the UK on August 22.
The pair will appear at London's Westminster Magistrates' Court later on Tuesday. Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor, Head of National Counter Terrorism Policing in the UK, said in a statement: "We have seen a range of incidents in recent months that we believe have been directed by the Iranian state and, as the Director General of MI5 said just the other week, we are working together to intervene, identify and respond to that threat."
Police said that six other people, four of whom are British nationals who were arrested outside RAF Fairford on September 2027, remain on police bail. (Reporting by Sam Tabahriti and Sam Tobin; Editing by Kate Holton)
Al-Monitor runs Reuters copy whose headline says both men were charged with helping Iran, when its own body says only one faces that charge, and only for a service police believe to be Iran's. It also calls the second charged man, Nouman Essghir, a dual British-Iranian national, while the police statement quoted by the Daily Mail calls him a British national and says the dual national was a different man released without charge. A garbled arrest date is a smaller error.
Headline goes beyond the article
Serious
“Two men charged in UK with helping Iran”
Why this matters
The headline says both men were charged with helping Iran and drops the police's 'believed to be'.
The impression it gives
Both men stand accused of working for Iran, and Iran is established as the foreign service involved.
The context
The body says only Abdulkarim was charged with assisting a foreign intelligence service, which police only 'believe' to be Iran. Essghir was charged with entering a prohibited place, an offence with no foreign power named in it.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“was charged with one offence of entering a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the UK”
Elsewhere in the article“with police saying the country is believed to be Iran”
Elsewhere in the article“prosecutors accusing a British national of trying to help Iranian intelligence”
Two men charged over RAF Fairford incident, one accused of helping an intelligence service police believe is Iran's.
Makes a false claim
Serious
“a 24-year-old dual British-Iranian national”
Why this matters
The article calls Nouman Essghir, a charged man, a dual British-Iranian national.
The impression it gives
The man charged with entering a prohibited place holds Iranian nationality, which ties him to Iran.
The context
The police statement quoted by the Daily Mail calls Essghir 'a British national'. It says the dual UK/Iranian national was a different man, aged 25, who was released without charge. Al-Monitor's own earlier report that day said both charged men were British.
Nouman Essghir, a 24-year-old British national, was charged with entering a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the UK. A 25-year-old dual UK-Iranian national was released without charge.
Makes a false claim
Minor
“September 2027”
Why this matters
The article dates the arrests outside the base to 'September 2027', a date that has not yet come.
The impression it gives
The arrest date is confused or wrong.
The context
The article's own earlier sentence and other reports of the same wire copy give the date as September 27.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“in the early hours of September 27”