Calls for remembrance day and monument honouring terror attack victims
A survey published by Survivors Against Terror (SAT) found 97% of British terror attack victims back a 'national day' being created in the UK and 78% would like a permanent memorial.
Terror survivors are scheduled to discuss the proposals with security minister Dan Jarvis on Monday.
The non-governmental organisation (NG) is demanding Government set up a 'proper strategy of memorialisation' that also includes an addition to the Royal Honours system.
Honours could be awarded to those killed and 'eligible persons injured' in terror acts.
An author of the report and co-founder of SAT, Travis Frain, who survived the 2017 Westminster Bridge attack, said: 'What we remember matters. It reflects on us as a country.
'Whether it is the wearing of the Poppy in solidarity with our servicemen and women in the days approaching Armistice Sunday, or the efforts of organisations like the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust to ensure that we do not forget the awful atrocities that have claimed the lives of millions.
'For people affected by terrorism, ensuring that their experience is not forgotten and that society does not only remember what happened to them and their families but also learns from the lessons of these past attacks, can often be at the heart of their recovery.'
Proper commemoration would provide a 'collective expression of togetherness and resilience' for the public and encourage people to challenge radicalisation, hate and extremism, he said.
SAT created a Survivors Charter following its 2018 survey of almost 300 survivors of overseas and domestic terrorism.
During the 2019 general election both major parties promised to consult the recommendations in the charter, according to the NGO.
However, SAT said it remains 'unpublished and unimplemented' despite the Government concluding a consultation on state-provided support to terror victims in February 2023.
Co-author Lisa Ghiggini survived the Fishmonger's Hall attack, where convicted-terrorist Usman Khan killed two others and injured three more near London Bridge on November 29 2019.
She said: 'These reforms enjoy widespread support amongst survivors and the wider public. The Government has already consulted on a Survivors Charter which includes these proposals, and the time for delay has long passed – now is the time to act.'
What we remember matters. It reflects on us as a country
Travis Frain, survivor of the Westminster Bridge attack
A similar Royal Honours system to the one requested is in place in France and Spain, SAT said.
It proposed an award comparable to Britain's Elizabeth Cross and Elizabeth Emblem, or 'even more closely' to the French National Medal of Recognition for Victims of Terrorism and Spanish Royal Order of Civil Recognition for Victims of Terrorism.
The group added that the US and several European countries have a national day of remembrance and tribute to survivors of terrorism.
Survivors' preferred day of remembrance day would be June 21, according to SAT's research.
The NGO recommended that survivors and victims are consulted on the monument's creation.
As well as guaranteed recognition and memorialisation, the Survivors Charter calls for guaranteed proactive personal support, access to rapid psychological triage and services and legal support.
It demands guaranteed immediate financial assistance and a state compensation fund.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Spectator
What Lewis Goodall gets wrong about inheritance tax
Do you want to live in a world in which you are forbidden from giving things, such as your time, your money or your labour, to other people? It has become increasingly common in recent years for those on the left of British politics to argue that it is illegitimate for people to receive a gift after someone has died – what we call 'inheritance'. For that is all that 'inheritance' is. A dead person gives you some things and you receive them. On Thursday, clips of Lewis Goodall's LBC show showed him saying people have no right to inherit from their parents and that he'd be happy if inheritance tax were 100 per cent. Abi Wilkinson argued for the same thing a few years ago in the Guardian. The position is that the only legitimate source of income or wealth is work. Money that is 'unearned' (of course it isn't actually unearned, unless it was stolen – it was earned by someone at some point then given to others) is not legitimate. How far does this objection to gifts go? Should people be forbidden from buying a car for their children or supplying the money for a house deposit? May spouses give things to each other? Could I give a friend money to help him set up a business? Can I give money to a charity or a church? Can I give money to my niece to help her with her maintenance costs through university? Can I pay for my son's food and let him live at home if he becomes unemployed? If the answer to all the above is 'yes' – as I suspect Lewis Goodall will say it is – then what is supposed to be different about gifts given upon death? Why does the fact that the giver (perhaps explicitly, through a will) decides to gift things only at the point of death make them any less legitimate than if the same gift were given ten minutes or ten years earlier? As alluded to at the start, if you ban receiving gifts (such as inheritance) you are also banning the making of gifts. Do you want to live in a world in which you are forbidden from giving things (your money; time; or labour) to other people? And of course money is only one kind of gift. We've already mentioned gifts such as cars, housing or food. But I might give someone my labour – for example, by helping paint a mate's garage; or helping my son learn finance by educating him from my own knowledge. People also give others advice and wisdom, or the gift of moral training, or the gift of praise (in Christian Communion services the Eucharist is described as a 'sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving'). If we banned financial gifts, how could we not also ban gifts in kind – especially if the ability to give gifts in kind depended upon the giver's financial circumstances (a rich person might be more able to take a day off work to help paint her friend's garage than a poor person would be)? Many people claim there is an inconsistency here, because those on the left do not typically object to gifts in the form of state benefits or public services. So their opponents say, 'Fine – if gifts are banned then let's ban benefits!' But to be fair to those on the left this point can be easily evaded by saying that benefits and public services aren't gifts. Instead, what happens is that all property – including all the fruits of everyone's labour – is owned collectively. Then 'we' decide how that property is spread out across society. So benefits are actually just like wages – they are the allocation that 'we', through our laws, make and permit. It is only when individuals attempt to subvert that collectively-determined allocation by giving things to other individuals that the problems start. Yet I reject the premise. I own my labour as myself. I am not a slave or intrinsically only a part of a social 'us'. The fruits of that labour are genuinely mine and I, as the genuine moral owner, am entitled to give them to other people. At which point it becomes genuinely theirs and they are entitled in turn to give it to or trade it with others. The fundamental defence of the moral ownership of property, including the moral right to gift that property to others and to receive such gifts myself, is that we own ourselves as individuals. And the fundamental objection to gifting – including to gifting in the form of inheritance – always boils down ultimately to the denial that we own ourselves. Which side are you on?
Times
28 minutes ago
- Times
Rising food prices mean hefty obesity costs
Stung by the price of olive oil? Burnt by the cost of your coffee? You are not alone. The cost of food and drink is increasing fast, faster than prices in general. This is a bigger problem, politically, socially and economically, than any politician has yet noticed. The government in particular should be paying attention to food bills, and taking action. The Office for National Statistics this week put the annual inflation rate at 3.8 per cent, but also showed that food and drink prices are rising at 4.9 per cent. The average household spends a bit more than £5,000 annually on food, so those numbers add up to about £250 a year. ONS tracking of public opinion shows that the cost of living remains the number one concern for the public, with more than 90 per cent of people citing rising food bills as a reason — well above the share who cite energy bills as an inflationary worry. Being reminded that things are getting more expensive — meaning that you feel poorer — every time you fill your shopping basket is not a happy experience. Food prices rising faster than the cost of other purchases has been a dismally common feature of the UK economy since 2022, for several reasons: war in Ukraine; too much rain; not enough rain; higher energy costs; not enough migrant workers to pick fruit and veg; higher taxes. The public's daily dismay at food prices, I'd bet, is a bigger reason for Britain feeling generally dissatisfied than noisier issues like immigration or crime. Yet it gets curiously little political attention, given how much it matters to voters' lives and outlook. Labour's spin team should give more thought to finding someone else to blame for rising food bills, not least because the problem is going to get worse. The Bank of England reckons food inflation will hit 5.5 per cent by the end of the year, while the British Retail Consortium says 6 per cent. Get ready for a winter of headlines about the painful cost of your Christmas lunch. Looking further ahead, the problem is even worse, reaching beyond simple political unease into questions of fairness, public health and economic performance. Rising food prices affect some groups more than others, with the poorest facing both the greatest financial pain but also the worst long-term consequences. The worst of these is rising obesity levels. Perhaps that will surprise some readers. How do rising food prices make poor people fat? Surely if it's getting harder to buy food, people will eat less of it and get thinner? In fact, a wealth of evidence shows that when low-income households face rising food prices, they trade quality for quantity, buying more cheap foods that are high in calories but low in nutrients. Social scientists grandly call this the 'food insecurity obesity paradox' but it's arguably just the human version of a common animal instinct to put on fat when times are tough and a hard winter is coming. • From peanuts to pomegranates — the 19 foods that will keep you young Almost a third of UK adults are obese, with rates highest among the poorest. There are many links between obesity and poverty but raw economics is a significant factor. According to the Food Foundation, a campaigning charity founded by former Tory MP Laura Sandys, recent years of inflation have made it almost impossible for poorer people to eat healthily. The foundation reckons that the poorest households would need to spend almost half of their disposable income on food to afford a healthy diet high in fruit and veg with limited sugars and fats. For poor parents, a healthy grocery shop could cost 70 per cent of disposable income. Healthier foods are just more expensive per calorie than stuff that's full of sugar and fat. Government calculations show that cauliflower and broccoli might cost almost 2p per calorie; for cheap biscuits it's less than half as much. Obesity means more sickness — diabetes and heart disease, in particular — and shorter lives. It means misery for individuals and mounting costs to taxpayers. My back-of-an-envelope calculations suggest that just a one percentage point increase in the obesity rate (roughly 550,000 more people getting too fat) costs the state more than £3 billion over ten years in higher NHS and care costs. We must make good food cheaper for poorer people, but that's far easier said than done. Continuing education to overcome ignorance about nutrition helps but new ideas are needed. What about Nutrition Impact Bonds? Building on NHS 'social prescribing' models, public and private investors could pay upfront for subsidised or even free healthy food for poorer households, then be paid back from the savings the state makes from lower obesity spending. The causes of higher food prices are big, complicated and long-term. Likewise the public health challenge of obesity and poor diets. It follows that fixing them will be a long-term project, the sort of job that no government, especially an unpopular one worrying about its next election, rushes to tackle. • Eating home-cooked food 'helps you lose twice as much weight' But Labour should lift food prices and obesity up its agenda, because they interact with the government's emerging economic focus. Ministers are planning an autumn drive on productivity, correctly identifying Britain's basic economic effectiveness — how much stuff do we generate from each hour of work we do? — as a national priority. Helping business to finance and deploy technology and training to make workers more effective is a key part of productivity, but so too is ensuring the availability of a healthy workforce. And our fatter, sicker population is emerging as a drag on productivity, as more and more people go off sick or leave work outright. Last month a paper by Nesta, a think tank, and Frontier Economics put the cost of productivity lost to obesity at £31 billion a year. The study shows that obesity doesn't just drag on the economy by taking people out of the workforce through sickness. Boldly, it says that obese people just aren't as effective at work as healthy colleagues and cost the economy almost £10 billion a year, it estimates. The government rightly wants to increase productivity but the fact is that Britain is simply too fat and ill to be fully productive. And in large part that's because of bad and increasingly expensive diets. Sadly, the cost of food is even higher than you think. James Kirkup is a senior fellow of the Social Market Foundation
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Farming Today 20/08/2025 Funding for rural councils, spinach, bioethanol
County councils say major changes to the way the government calculates funding for local authorities will penalise rural areas. The government says the new system will mean fairer funding and more stability which will help deliver better public services. However the County Councils Network says rural council tax payers will 'shoulder the burden' of redistributing hundreds of millions of pounds to urban areas and warn some councils will face deep cuts to their services. Growing spinach in the soaring heat - a seasonal look at producing salad. The Vivergo bioethanol plant on the Humber near Hull has now stopped production and started laying off staff after the government said it wouldn't provide support for the plant. The future of the business had been in doubt since tariffs were removed on bioethanol imports from the US in the recent trade agreement with Donald Trump. The company, owned by Associated British Foods, bought in locally grown wheat, around a million tonnes a year, and distilled it into bioethanol which is added to petrol to reduce emissions, and also produced large quantities of cattle feed. It's one of two plants in the UK. We speak to a renewable energy expert Dr Michael Short from the University of Surrey. Presenter = Caz Graham Producer = Rebecca Rooney
