How the biggest online troll was unmasked as a man posing as a woman

It was a moment cemented in pop culture legend when, in October 2019, Coleen Rooney uttered the immortal line, “It’s…Rebekah Vardy’s account”. The seismic tweet heard around the world had been sparked by Rooney’s internet sleuthing to deduce who had been trying to destroy her reputation, with the finger pointed firmly at her fellow footballer’s wife. It wasn’t, however, the only sleuthing scandal which caused a stir that year. A few weeks later, in November 2019, a group of mumfluencers, aka mummy bloggers, exposed a shocking story which laid bare a very toxic underbelly of influencer culture.

Blogger and midwife Clemmie Hooper, known on social media as “Mother of Daughters”, who then had 670,000 followers on Instagram, was revealed to have been using message board forum Tattle Life to anonymously pull apart other online influencers, even her own husband Simon, aka Father of Daughters, whom she referred to as a “class-A twat”.

Using the pseudonym “Alice in Wanderlust”, she anonymously accused fellow content creator Candice Brathwaite, with whom she had recently recorded a podcast, of being “aggressive” and of using her “race as a weapon”. After being exposed, Hooper deleted her Instagram account and never returned.

That was the first that most of us had heard of Tattle Life, a site which existed simply to give internet trolls a platform to slag off, gossip about and even issue death threats to – mostly female – influencers and celebrities. It now attracts an astonishing 12 million visitors a month and has caused untold misery to those it attacks, which often extends to their victims’ families and friends too.

But four years ago, two of their victims said enough is enough and started their hunt to unmask the founder of Tattle Life.

Last week, Irish couple Neil and Donna Sands won £300,000 in libel damages after taking Tattle Life to court, undertaking a two-year legal battle that has cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds. The couple sued the site for defamation and harassment, claiming they were relentlessly targeted with nasty, abusive comments on vicious threads which filled 45 pages on the site.

They told the court of the barrage of false, damaging claims and personal attacks they had been subjected to, which included harassment and doxxing (exposing their home address). One troll even wrote that they were “watching you in real life”, implying stalking.

Donna described waking “every morning” and wondering, “What have they said in the last seven hours?” Her body would physically shake on seeing updates, and she struggled with confidence.

After two years of lengthy and expensive battles, they have walked away with £150,000 each, plus legal costs, in a case they said was about standing up to online “hate speech”.

Until this moment, nobody had known who ran the site apart from a name: Helen McDougal, which was known to be a pseudonym. Whilst no one had ever met her, she was often referred to on Tattle only as “Helen”, with users often claiming she had multiple accounts, would shadow-ban her critics and would dole out uneven moderation.

However, what people didn’t realise was that Helen was in fact a 41-year-old man, Sebastian Bond, who was revealed by a judge at Belfast’s High Court after reporting restrictions were lifted to reveal the identity of the suspected operator.

And Helen McDougal wasn’t his only pseudonym either: he also used Bastian Durward, under which he operated a vegan cooking brand Nest and Glow, which includes an Instagram account with around 135,000 followers (though it’s been inactive since 2020).

Bond had also set up multiple companies, including Yuzu Zest Ltd in the UK and Kumquat Tree Ltd in Hong Kong, through which he’s believed to have managed Tattle Life and channelled advertising revenue. The court froze over £1m in assets tied to these companies alongside the £300k damages award. Reports have suggested that Bond, who has been dubbed “King of the Trolls”, has now fled to Asia, and is thought to be in Hong Kong, although he has not commented on the legal drama.

That a man was behind the platform which encouraged, and profited from, such blatant hatred towards women and their children, made it all the more outrageous, with one mumfluencer, who asked not to be named, saying, “The misogyny that Tattle has unleashed on innocent women is shocking. Women have had their addresses leaked, their homes visited and their children threatened. It’s one thing not to like an online influencer, but it’s another to wish illness or even death on them. This has to mark a turning point; it’s simply gone too far.”

Outside the court last week, Neil Sands said the case had been taken on behalf of others who have suffered serious personal and professional harm through anonymous online attacks – and there are certainly a lot of them.

With 374,000 current members on the forum, there have been over 22 million messages posted under threads relating to specific – mostly female and mostly British – influencers and celebrities. It is so full of overwhelmingly nasty content that it has been referred to as “the most hate-filled corner of the web”.

A 2023 report by Collabstr found that 79 per cent of influencers are female, and so the abuse and trolling of influencers is predominantly a women’s problem. The thread titles are aimed at their subjects’ parenting choices, looks and marriages, such as, “We don’t care that you’re pregnant, hun” and “Ratty fringe, gifted cringe”.

Beauty writer Sali Hughes, who has been subjected to malicious threads for years, described the site as a place where users “screen grabbed every post, every article, scuttling back to their sewer to mock and belittle me.”

In 2020, Hughes took part in a Radio 4 documentary during which she highlighted how the site’s content veered into harassment, sparking a petition demanding its closure.

But why would anyone want to take the time to create a false identity to attack people they didn’t know in the first place? One Tattle reader, who stressed she didn’t actively post herself, and who asked to remain anonymous, explained that it felt “cathartic” to read negative takes on influencers who publicly received such “outpourings of adoration”.

“These people are told every day how wonderful they are, how great they look, how perfect their homes are, and earning ten times what we do and getting endless freebies,” she said. “Influencers can be out of touch and really annoying, why shouldn’t people share how that makes them feel?”

The argument that influencers, like celebrities, put their lives out there for consumption, so are fair game is a well-trodden path. But what about when things cross the line, pushing couples like Neil and Donna Sands to breaking point? What about when their children are discussed, posters describe seeing them in doctors’ offices and speculating about their health, or countdowns are set to when their marriages might end – all subjects faced by victims of the site.

Several creators, including Irish-born Eimear Varian Barry, have shared devastating Tattle experiences. Barry revealed that one thread had even shared the Rightmove link when her house was for sale and users threatened to “pay her a visit”.

Another found that a thread had identified her children’s school. Influencer Vickaboox, real name Victoria Wright, was horrified to read malicious posts about her mother’s cancer, with one claiming her boyfriend had left her as a result of it.

Abuse isn’t just happening on anonymous platforms, but in plain sight in the comment sections on social media. Last week in Australia, 27-year-old content creator Indy Clinton, who shares her life as a mum of three to over two million followers on TikTok, revealed that she had taken action against anonymous online trolls by hiring a private investigator to unmask those who had been posting hateful comments about her.

She too wants those trolls to be held accountable and has said she is planning to take legal action.

Psychologist Tara Quinn-Cirillo says that the very fact that sites like Tattle allow users to be anonymous makes them feel removed from the “subject” they are talking about, which leads to more intense and abusive commentary.

She explains, “If we feel disconnected, we can forget that there is a person with thoughts and feelings behind the public image. It is also easy for people to then follow suit and collectively snowball on comments and abuse.”

Of course, some may think that influencers can just ignore them, or just not read what is being written about them. But it’s not always so easy. Sometimes others will email or screenshot what is being said and send it to someone out of “concern”. If someone is making specific threats, others may assume a person would want to know if they could be potentially in danger.

Stefan Michalak, who along with his wife Hannah, has been sharing their family life with their two children via their Instagram accounts and their YouTube channel for over 10 years, has had thousands of Tattle posts devoted to them.

“The handful of times I’ve looked [at Tattle] over the years, it felt like wading into something dangerously radioactive. It sticks with you.” He adds, “It would be great to see these people come out of the shadows and put their faces and names to their opinions but I’m sure that won’t happen.”

Last week’s ruling has, however, changed things for Tattle Life and its users. Comments and threads are said to be in the process of being locked or deleted and panicked users are deleting their accounts, in fear of their own identities being exposed and their employers notified.

Tackling online hate is a mammoth task, but with their court case, Neil and Donna Sands have taken some big steps towards it. As one influencer said yesterday, “It shouldn’t take the threat of being exposed to stop people being hateful to strangers on the internet. But if it stops even a few of them, fighting back will become worth it.”

MPs vote to decriminalise abortion in historic move

MPs have voted to decriminalise abortion in England and Wales in a historic step that will usher in the most far-reaching change to reproductive rights in decades.

After an emotional and impassioned debate in the House of Commons, MPs voted by 379 to 137 in favour of the reform.

They overwhelmingly backed an amendment by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi to remove “the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment” of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy.

The reform is designed to protect women while retaining penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals who terminate a pregnancy outside the current framework of the law.

During the debate, MPs had argued that the UK’s “Victorian” abortion law was “increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls”.

Under the current law, abortion in England and Wales is a criminal offence but is legal up to 24 weeks, with the sign-off from two doctors.

It is also allowed under limited circumstances after this time, including when the mother’s life is at risk.

Women can also be prescribed medication to end a pregnancy at home if they are less than 10 weeks pregnant.

In recent years, there has been a rise in calls for law reform, coinciding with a growing number of prosecutions of women accused of undergoing illegal abortions.

However, the move faced stiff opposition from the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, who described proposed reforms as “extreme”.

Ms Antoniazzi said police had investigated more than 100 women for suspected illegal abortions in the past five years, “including women who’ve suffered natural miscarriages and stillbirths”.

In the Commons, she told MPs: “Each one of these cases is a travesty, enabled by our outdated abortion law.

“Originally passed by an all-male parliament elected by men alone, this Victorian law is increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls.”

Labour MP Lizzi Collinge told MPs that 88 per cent of abortions happen before nine weeks and that the change would protect women from “brutal investigations”, which she described as “intrusive”.

But Conservative MP and father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh, described the reforms as “not pro-woman” and argued they “would introduce sex-selective abortion”.

And DUP MP Carla Lockhart insisted “both lives matter”, saying the changes “would be bad for both women and unborn children”.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch voted against Antoniazzi’s new clause one. She was joined in the “no” lobby by her shadow cabinet colleagues Sir Mel Stride, Richard Fuller, Dame Priti Patel, Chris Philp, Alex Burghart, James Cartlidge, Kevin Hollinrake, Helen Whately, Andrew Griffith, Robert Jenrick, Edward Argar, Stuart Andrew, Gareth Bacon, Alan Mak, Mims Davies, Andrew Bowie, and Jesse Norman according to Commons data.

The issue hit the headlines in recent months with high-profile cases such as those of Nicola Packer and Carla Foster.

Ms Packer was cleared by a jury last month after she took prescribed abortion medicine at around 26 weeks pregnant, beyond the legal 10-week limit.

During her trial, more than four years after the police investigation began, she told jurors that she did not realise she had been more than 10 weeks pregnant.

The case of Ms Foster, jailed in 2023 for illegally obtaining abortion tablets to end her pregnancy when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant, eventually saw her sentence reduced by the Court of Appeal and suspended, after a senior judge said that sending women to prison for abortion-related offences was “unlikely” to be a “just outcome”.

Ms Antoniazzi’s amendment originally received backing from MSI Reproductive Choices, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG).

The voting decision was lauded by the BPAS, which initially launched a campaign to decriminalise abortion in 2016, as a “landmark moment for women’s rights”.

Chief executive Heidi Stewart called it “the most significant change to our abortion law since the 1967 Abortion Act was passed.

“There will be no more women investigated after enduring a miscarriage, no more women dragged from their hospital beds to the back of a police van, no more women separated from their children because of our archaic abortion law.

“This is a hard-won victory, and we thank all those who have campaigned alongside us, and in particular those women, like Nicola Packer, who have spoken out about their traumatic experiences in the hope of achieving the change parliament has delivered today.”

Professor Ranee Thakar, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, called it a “victory for women and for their essential reproductive rights”.

She added: “This sends a powerful signal that women’s rights and autonomy matter. The college has been campaigning to see this achieved for many years, and the decision reflects the voices of over 50 medical, legal and public health organisations. It also reflects the views of the public, who overwhelmingly support the right of women to access abortion care safely, confidentially, and without fear of investigation and prosecution.”

Professor Thakar added that it was “absolutely right” that an amendment by MP Caroline Johnson was rejected, citing a wealth of eeidence which showed telemedicine for early medical abortion was not only safe, but allowed women access to treatment sooner, adding that “it is now time for this attack on abortion provision to stop”.

Humanists UK’s public affairs manager Karen Wright thanked the MPs who voted in support of the law change, declaring: “MPs today have made history in shaping a more humane law that prioritises treating women with compassion instead of suspicion in their hour of need.”

The latest attempt to change the law follows repeated calls to repeal sections of the 19th-century law, the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, after abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019.

MPs had been due to debate similar amendments removing the threat of prosecution against women last year, before parliament was dissolved for the general election.

Earlier this month, a debate at Westminster Hall heard calls from pro-change campaigners that women must no longer be “dragged from hospital bed to police cell” over abortion.

But opponents of decriminalisation warned against such a “radical step”.

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (Spuc) urged MPs to vote against the change, saying it would bring about “the biggest expansion of abortion since 1967”.

The world hasn’t felt this dangerous since the Cuban missile crisis

I have been frequently asked in the last few days whether I could recall a time as dangerous as this feels today. Yes, the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. That was terrifying for the whole world, as the two major superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union, faced off. I was scared stiff. After 13 days, when the world really did appear to hold its breath, the crisis was resolved by diplomatic means.

And so to the question today and the threat of this sparking a nuclear armageddon we live in fear of – existential or otherwise. Violence is literally chaos. Wars rarely go according to plan. History shows us that a relatively prosaic error by one commander on the ground can sometimes spark a conflagration. Thus, nothing is certain about the Iran–Israel conflict right now.

Could Pakistan – and other countries in the region – come out actively to support Iran in its struggle with Israel, as was reported yesterday?

Frankly, I see little prospect of Pakistan, or other key Muslim countries, or Russia or China, getting involved militarily in this conflict. Suggestions on Monday that Pakistan could use its nuclear arsenal against Israel if the latter uses nuclear weapons against Iran came not from any official Pakistani spokesperson, but from a General Mohsen Rezaee of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps in a TV interview in Tehran.

These suggestions have not been confirmed by any official Pakistani source. The odds of Israel using nuclear weapons against Iran are long, to non-existent. It is almost certain that Donald Trump would veto such a move, and the Israelis have such an upper hand in the conflict that they would not need to contemplate this. Iran itself is close to being able to produce a nuclear weapon, but it has not yet done so.

On Sunday, Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian was reported as telling his cabinet, “We expect Muslim and [Middle East] regional countries to adopt a clear, firm, and effective position against the aggression of the Zionists and their supporters”.

But even if there were such a crazy attack by Israel, would Pakistan join in? Almost certainly not. Pakistan is Iran’s neighbour, but relations between the two countries have in recent times been far from easy, and Pakistan’s military leaders would be taking leave of their senses to use nuclear weapons in support of Iran. The US, a major financial backer, would be strongly opposed, and so would China, Pakistan’s most important and long-standing ally.

Sadly, however, for the beleaguered Iranian president, all that Iran’s erstwhile allies, like Russia and China, have done so far is to issue formulaic statements condemning Israel’s aggression. Yes, countries in the region have expressed mounting concern and have called for restraint, but no more. In Lebanon, the secretary general of Hezbollah, Naim Qassem, has declared his “support [for] the Islamic Republic of Iran in its rights and position, and in all the steps and measures it takes to defend itself and its choices”.

To my mind’s eye, what is striking is that no action in support of Iran has followed. Hezbollah plainly do not wish to get involved.

Before he was ousted last December, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad could have proved a formidable ally of Iran, but his regime is no more. Hamas is but a shadow of what it was. Indeed, only the Houthis in Yemen appear so far to be willing to take concrete military action in support of Iran, though the damage they could do, not least to impede shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, could be serious with a spike in oil prices.

Where else could we feel the sharp end of an attack? Britain does have two important military bases in its “sovereign areas” in Cyprus; there’s also a UK Naval Support Facility in Bahrain. The UK also has a military presence in other Middle East nations like Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the UAE. These could be attacked by Iran or its proxies with the idea of dragging the UK directly into the war.

I am sure adequate steps are being taken to increase security at each base, and it’s also hard to see what advantage Iran would gain from any attack.

One of the many fascinations about Iran (and I confess, I am addicted, for which there is no known cure) is that although those who speak out too far can easily end up in Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison, there are still quite a variety of views being reported in the Iranian press, or being published by courageous bloggers.

While Iranian papers carried entirely predictable denunciations of the “Zionist entity” – hardliners cannot bring themselves to use the word “Israel” – and of its allies, including the US, France, Germany, and the UK, there is something more curious happening that is worth noting.

There is a really very surprising public debate that is being had alongside this rhetoric, discussing whether Iran should continue negotiations with the United States on a new nuclear deal. To the moderate newspaper, Arman-e Melli, talks with the US would be “a sign of strength”; even the conservative paper, Jomhouri-e Eslami, has urged that talks with the US should be maintained.

However, whether any proposed talks or deals by the Trump administration would play out is still debatable. What’s different – and more concerning – about the current conflict from the one back in 1962 is that neither the US nor the Soviet Union were committed to eliminating the other nation.

Since the early 1990s, Iran’s religious and military leaders have fomented a visceral, irrational hatred even for the idea of Israel. Israel’s foundation in 1948 was controversial – but so have plenty of other nations too. Israel is recognised by the UN in just the same way as Iran. It’s a tragedy for the Iranian people that they are now paying a high price for this mad conceit of their supreme leader that denies the right of a fellow member of the UN to exist.

Israel will be able to delay Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, but military action alone will not wipe out the accumulated knowledge and skills of Iran’s nuclear scientists. The only way to achieve that would be by a new nuclear deal, with intrusive inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Donald Trump is right to suggest that ‘better than a ceasefire’ between Israel and Iran. For Iranians, a serious deal is the only way out of the doom loop they’ve been placed by their myopic leaders.

The great irony is that there was a serious deal of the kind which Mr Trump is now seeking, agreed not least by the US back in 2015, the ‘Join Comprehensive Plan of Action’. It was Benjamin Netanyahu who reportedly persuaded Donald Trump in 2018 to pull out of that agreement, and the Iranian hardliners (always opposed to a deal) got to work on enriching uranium to levels needed for a nuclear bomb.

Jack Straw is the author of ‘The English Job: Understanding Iran and Why It Distrusts Britain’

What’s the secret to a truly stress-free holiday?

High-end cruising has entered a new era. Today’s luxury travellers aren’t looking for big flashy experiences. They want slow-paced, intimate travel and authentic cultural immersion. More than anything else, they’re looking for ease: that feeling of being genuinely cared for, safe in the knowledge that they’re experiencing the best of the best.

That means excellent quality food and drink, of course – it’s got to be restaurant standard and cater to all tastes – but also onboard enrichment experiences of the highest calibre. The great beauty of cruising has always been that not a second is wasted. Savvy travellers get to explore a rich and rewarding variety of exotic, off-the-beaten track locations, but instead of spending half their holiday stuck in motorway traffic, they’re honing their swing in the golf net, or sipping on a cocktail on the upper deck as they travel from destination to destination.

When they’re onshore they want genuinely immersive experiences that get them under the hood of a destination: think cellar tours of local vineyards or speedboat cruises to hidden beaches. Done right, a high-end all-inclusive cruise is the ideal form of slow travel, offering a perfect balance of adventure and indulgence, proper pampering and a thrilling sense of discovery.

The world’s most luxurious fleet

First among equals when it comes to the new era of luxury cruising is Regent Seven Seas Cruises, which offers more than 170 different itineraries visiting over 550 ports of call worldwide. Each of the six ships in their fleet is opulently appointed with beautifully designed communal areas and a huge array of amenities, but none of them has a capacity of more than 746 guests, ensuring space and freedom for all aboard.

The all-suite accommodation means that the private spaces are similarly roomy, each having a private balcony and marble bathroom. And service is always impeccable with a crew-to-guest ratio that’s nearly one-to-one, meaning that the team can always go that mile extra for all travellers.

Across the ships, the food is uniformly excellent. As well as Regent’s signature Compass Rose restaurant, with its daily changing menu of bistro classics like lobster bisque and New Zealand lamb chops, the different ships also feature a range of speciality dining venues. These include Prime 7, a New York-style steakhouse, Pacific Rim with its pan-Asian menu (be sure to try the miso black cod), and fine-dining destination, Chartreuse, where the chefs turn out sophisticated plates of upscale French cooking like Beef Tenderloin Rossini and Seared Foie Gras.

With a number of long cruises on their roster, Regent has made sure that each of its ships is akin to an ultra-luxury, boutique floating hotel with an incredible variety of things to do during the day and top-level entertainment at night. There are courts for paddle tennis and bocce, and the onboard spa offers a range of exclusive bespoke treatments. The ships host talks by experts in their field and cooking lessons are also available on some of the ships at the culinary arts kitchens where visiting chefs guide guests in how to make wow-factor dishes that relate to the ports of call. In the evening, the Constellation Theatre hosts lavishly staged productions from a team of Broadway choreographers and artists.

Destinations that match the onboard luxury

Of course, none of this onboard luxury would mean much if the destinations weren’t up to scratch, but Regent’s superbly curated itineraries are up there with the very best. Its week-long trips include culture-packed European tours like Glories of Iberia which sails from Barcelona to Lisbon, and thrilling frontier explorations such as the Great Alaskan Adventure from Whittier to Vancouver.

Longer trips include four-week Legendary Journeys from Athens to Montreal, and fully immersive explorations of the Arctic. Long or short, these itineraries are all underpinned by a commitment to taking guests right to the heart of a destination with the kind of bespoke onshore activities and expert-led insights that mean on a Regent Seven Seas Cruises voyage, adventure is guaranteed.

Visit Regent Seven Seas Cruises now to uncover the true meaning of luxury and start booking your ultimate stress-free getaway

Should we be worried about flying? Simon Calder answers your questions

Welcome to an exclusive Ask Me Anything session with me, Simon Calder, travel correspondent at The Independent.

Keep scrolling for more. If you want to jump straight to the Q&A, click here.

The heartbreaking crash of Air India flight AI171 from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick has shocked many and raised serious questions about aviation safety.

This tragedy follows a series of fatal accidents involving passenger jets in South Korea, Azerbaijan, Brazil and the United States over the past six months. Understandably, many prospective travellers are asking: is flying becoming more dangerous?

Yet while these incidents are deeply troubling, it’s important to remember that this is still the safest era in the history of aviation. In 2023, no scheduled passenger jets were involved in fatal accidents. And since the 1980s, there hasn’t been a single fatal crash involving a UK passenger jet.

The risks that once haunted aviation have, for the most part, been engineered out – but recent events, from mid-air structural failures to fatal runway collisions, show that no system is immune to failure.

So what lessons are being learned from the latest disasters? What role does aircraft design – especially at Boeing – play in these incidents? And how can passengers assess risk and stay informed without succumbing to fear?

I’ll be answering all your questions about air safety, recent crashes, aviation regulation and what it all means for travellers in 2025 and beyond.

If you have a question, submit it now or join me live for our “Ask Me Anything” Q&A on Wednesday, 18 June at 1pm BST.

Register to submit your question in the comments box under this article. If you’re not already a member, click “sign up” in the comments section to leave your question.

For a full guide on how to comment click here.

Over 1,000 young tourists stranded in Israel evacuated on luxury ship

More than 1,000 young adults visiting Israel on a heritage trip have been evacuated to Cyprus by luxury cruise ship amid ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran.

Crown Iris, an Israeli cruise ship operated by Mano Maritime, arrived in Cyprus today (17 June) with approximately 1,500 program participants of Birthright Israel onboard.

The ship’s 13-hour journey from Ashdod Port, south of Tel Aviv, to Larnaca, Cyprus, was escorted across the Mediterranean by the Israeli navy.

Birthright Israel, an organisation part funded by the Israeli government, is a free 10-day “heritage trip” to Israel for Jewish young adults aged between 18 and 26.

Nearly 2,800 international participants had been stranded in Israel since the country first attacked Iran’s nuclear sites and capital of Tehran on Friday morning, escalating regional tensions.

The majority of these are young adults from the United States, said the organisation.

Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis chartered four wide-body planes to fly all evacuated US participants from the Cyprus port to Tampa, Florida.

In an update on 13 June, Birthright Israel said: “All participants are safe, currently located near secure zones and shelters, and are being closely cared for by the operational teams and staff on the ground.”

According to Birthright Israel, evacuation efforts “whether by air or sea” will continue for the remaining international participants in Israel.

It said that priority had been given to participants towards the end of their 10-day educational experience.

Gidi Mark, CEO of Birthright Israel, said: “This was a complex and emotional operation, carried out under immense pressure, and we are proud to have brought 1,500 young adults safely to Cyprus. Our team continues to work around the clock to secure solutions for the remaining participants still in Israel.”

For more travel news and advice, listen to Simon Calder’s podcast