‘We weren’t at fault’: British yacht couple bristle at ‘armchair sailors’ and Russian denials 69%

By Steven Morris90%

7/16/2026, 1:00:39 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 21.4% saturation with 143 hits. Analysis detected 1,071 faulty-reasoning hits from 668 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.1% and a BS Rank of 69% (6,877 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.60% of the article peer group.

They found themselves at the centre of an international incident, the close encounter between their small sailing boat and a Russian warship making headlines around the world. 
A month later, Jane and Alan Kelvey are to be found berthed in a rainy harbour in north-west France, still taken aback by their brush with Vladimir Putin’s forces  but trying to get on with their fun sailing trip. 
“I was surprised about the amount of interest, to be honest,” Jane told the Guardian. 
“That was a real shock. 
But we’re fine, really. 
Nothing terrible happened.” 
The Kelveys bristle at the idea, put out by Russia and “armchair sailors” who have “trolled them”, that they did something wrong. 
“We weren’t at fault,” Jane said. 
Happily, there have been no fresh encounters with ships from hostile nations; poor weather rather than battleships firing warning shots have been their main challenge since. 
“We’ve just been sailing around,” said Jane. 
“We’re out here for another few weeks. 
It’s pouring with rain. 
Throwing it down, thunder and lightning.” 
Jane, 69, and Alan, 71, who retired from the successful signage business they had built from scratch, were a few hours into a two-month sailing trip on their 12-metre (40ft) boat Bright Future when they became embroiled in the international incident. 
They were about halfway across the Channel when a much larger vessel loomed ahead. 
“Because we berth her [Bright Future] in Portsmouth, we see warships all the time,” said Jane. 
“When we were approaching, and when we realised it was a warship, we just assumed it was French or British. 
“We never in a million years thought it would be a Russian warship. 
It wasn’t until we got much closer that we realised it was Russian. 
You don’t expect to find them in the English Channel.” 
The ship was the Admiral Grigorovich, a 125-metre (409ft) Russian frigate. 
The warship sounded its horn then fired warning shots with what Jane described as “whip-crack” sounds. 
She took cover while Alan steered Bright Future away from the Admiral Grigorovich. 
They weren’t really frightened. 
“It was obviously a surprise,” Jane said. 
During long hours of sailing since, they have replayed what happened and studied the different versions that have been put forward. 
Moscow claimed the yacht had been heading towards the frigate on a “dangerous course”, which the Kelveys say is wrong. 
Keir Starmer said the Russian vessel had been drifting and described the Russian actions as “reckless”. 
Jane said: “I don’t think I made a big enough point about it at the time but if they were adrift, they should have been displaying day shapes [signals indicating a vessel’s operational status] and they weren’t.” 
They have chatted through what happened with fellow sailors. 
“From what I’ve heard, they didn’t have their engines on  they’re trying to save fuel. 
We refuel at sea, but they’re not very good at that, apparently.” 
Asked what she thought about the Russians, Jane said: “Not a lot, really. 
I mean, they obviously did the wrong thing.” 
A UK government defence minster phoned the couple to check they were all right. 
“We haven’t had any more contact from the MoD [Ministry of Defence],” Jane said. 
They read with interest the UK government’s announcement that an extra £15bn was being invested to fund “key equipment and technology” for armed forces. 
“We’re quite happy about that,” Jane said. 
“I don’t think that was us, to be fair. 
But, you know, it may have helped.” 
Jane said she almost had a heart attack two days after the encounter when she remembered that in recent years they have flown a Ukrainian flag on Bright Future. 
“Ever since 2022, I’ve flown a Ukraine courtesy flag on our yacht,” Jane said. 
“I didn’t put it up this year.” 
They told a fellow sailor who was ex-military about this. 
“This guy covered his face and said: “Oh, my God, that could have been a different outcome.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.6%Steven Morris: 5.0%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias6.6%This article: 2.4%Steven Morris: 0.8%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias2.4%This article: 10.9%Steven Morris: 5.4%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 4.5%Steven Morris: 4.0%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic4.5%This article: 3.0%Steven Morris: 3.9%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 1.1%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Steven Morris: 8.5%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect2.1%This article: 4.3%Steven Morris: 1.4%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion4.3%This article: 3.6%Steven Morris: 1.2%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.1%Steven Morris: 4.6%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias12.1%This article: 0.4%Steven Morris: 0.1%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.4%This article: 9.1%Steven Morris: 4.5%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias9.1%This article: 4.0%Steven Morris: 3.4%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias4.0%This article: 7.3%Steven Morris: 3.8%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error7.3%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 2.6%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Steven Morris: 4.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.3%This article: 6.1%Steven Morris: 4.1%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect6.1%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Steven Morris: 0.7%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Steven Morris: 2.2%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem3.3%This article: 3.3%Steven Morris: 1.1%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man3.3%This article: 6.0%Steven Morris: 2.8%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority6.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.4%Steven Morris: 4.4%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization3.4%This article: 3.6%Steven Morris: 1.2%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring3.6%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.5%Steven Morris: 7.0%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion11.5%This article: 3.0%Steven Morris: 1.0%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question3.0%This article: 1.0%Steven Morris: 0.3%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.5%Steven Morris: 4.4%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal8.5%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.5%Steven Morris: 1.8%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.5%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 4.5%Steven Morris: 1.5%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity4.5%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 1.5%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 21.4%Steven Morris: 7.1%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice21.4%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 3.0%Steven Morris: 1.0%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steven Morris: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

668 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers50%attributed speech333writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageJane • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageJane • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageJane • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageMoscow • 20 words • 100.0% coverageKeir Starmer • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 29 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jane

84%flagged-word coverage
299 attributed words89% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-42.9 ptsWriter: 42.9%Jane: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.