This is when UK could send troops to Ukraine
A meeting of the "coalition of the willing", co-chaired by Sir Keir Starmer, saw over 30 international leaders discuss further sanctions on Russia and security guarantees for Ukraine.
Donald Trump has indicated the US is willing to provide security assistance, such as air support, but will not commit ground troops to Ukraine.
Volodymyr Zelensky has welcomed the promise of security guarantees as a major step forward, expecting them to be formalised soon.
Donald Trump stated he has spoken directly with Vladimir Putin to plan a meeting between the Russian leader and Mr Zelensky, followed by a three-way meeting including Trump.
UK preparing to send troops to Ukraine as part of 'reassurance force' if peace deal is struck
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
4 minutes ago
- Metro
'Trump's sanitising history for his own power - we've moved beyond an Orwellian
The world-renowned Smithsonian Museums give America a negative reputation. At least, that's what Donald Trump thinks. The museum is the latest target of Trump's 'clean-up' of Washington DC. He claims it focuses too much on 'how bad slavery was', and spreads 'anti-American ideology'. The White House has said current and former exhibitions at the museum will undergo a review to make sure they align with Trump's agenda and view of history. Historian and propaganda academic Ian Garner told Metro: 'What Trump is doing looks like a pretty naked attempt at sanitising history in order to maximise his own power.' If Trump's attempts to change how the Smithsonian retells the story of America, he could go beyond skewing understanding of the past and present – but also the direction of the future, Garner warned. 'Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. 'And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.' Those words were written by George Orwell in his dystopian novel 1984. Regarded as his magnum opus, it is a critique of authoritarianism and warns against the loss of individual thought. It ends with the protagonist Winston Smith agreeing with 'Big Brother', which represents the authoritarian government that wants him to believe that 2+2=5. But Garner points out: 'We now live in a world where we can have the main character believing that 2 + 2 equals 5, but also 10, 12, 14, 28, and anything else, because people can hold all of these things in their heads all at once in the digital world. And that's something that we haven't faced before. 'We've moved beyond Orwell, because we're no longer living in the world of analogue communications of television and newspapers. Orwell couldn't have conceived the confusion that we end up with in the present, in the social media era, where reality can be constantly reconstructed,' he added. That reconstruction of reality is still in its early stages, Garner said, but the danger is real and needs to be recognised. There are a few displays and museums that Trump isn't happy with. One exhibit is about Benjamin Franklin, and lists his scientific discoveries, linking them to the slaves he owned. Another reference is to George Floyd's death, which Trump says puts police in a bad light. Trump wrote on Truth Social: 'The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been.' But the museum has already made changes to its exhibits, removing mentions of Trump's impeachment at the American History Museum. If Trump goes further in his attempts to amend exhibits and how they portray history, Garner explained it would damage the reputation of the museum and perpetuate the idea that there is a 'false history' and a 'real history'. Past autocracies have had words for things they deem false, or not enough in line with the country – Stalin referred to these things and ideas that weren't loyal to the Soviet Union as 'cosmopolitan'. Trump's word of choice? 'Woke'. In a tangent on Truth Social about museums, Trump wrote: 'I have instructed my attorneys to go through the Museums, and start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities, where tremendous progress has been made. 'This Country cannot be WOKE, because WOKE IS BROKE. We have the 'HOTTEST' Country in the World, and we want people to talk about it, including in our Museums.' 'Woke' is an empty vessel of a word, which has become meaningless, Garner argues – but by deploying it, people like Trump and his allies are trying to shut off or close off discussion about the past. Historically, governments have always wanted to control elements of the past, pump out certain narratives. But the more authoritarian the government becomes, the more that version of the past becomes central to their governing idea, and the less tolerance they're able to allow in representing the past. 'Everybody does it,' Garner said. 'But more recently, Hitler did it, Mussolini did it, Stalin did it, and Putin does it. So it doesn't matter whether Trump now goes ahead and changes exhibits in the Smithsonian or not. 'What matters is that he's put out the idea that this should happen, that the Smithsonian is some sort of 'woke' institution that needs to be reformed.' 'They bury it under this torrent of emotion, so that we're not really talking about the past at all. We're just talking about anger, about fury, about rage, disillusionment,' Garner adds. More Trending 'And these are the emotions that brought Trump to power in the first place. That's what he wants people to be engaging in, not the history or the present or the future of the country at all.' It's unclear how far the overhaul of museums in Washington, DC, will go, but if it's anything like Orwell wrote about in his novel, it won't stop just at reangling history in museums: 'Big Brother is infallible and all-powerful. 'Every success, every achievement, every victory, every scientific discovery, all knowledge, all wisdom, all happiness, all virtue, are held to issue directly from his leadership and inspiration.' Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Trump says he wants to get to heaven but is at the bottom of the totem pole MORE: Zelensky should never have to hand over land to Putin MORE: What could happen if Zelensky and Putin actually meet?
The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why did Lucy Connolly receive a 31-month sentence for Southport tweet?
The case of Lucy Connolly has sparked intense debate since she was jailed for inciting racial hatred online following the Southport attacks, with some criticising her sentence as excessive. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Connolly's sentence was 'harsher than the sentences handed down for bricks thrown at police or actual rioting'. Here, the PA news agency explores her case and 31-month prison sentence. – What offence did Lucy Connolly commit? Connolly pleaded guilty in September to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X, formerly Twitter. On July 29 last year, she posted: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.' The post was viewed 310,000 times in three and a half hours before she deleted it. The charge, contrary to section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986, said that she 'published and distributed written material on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, which was threatening, abusive or insulting with the intent thereby to stir up racial hatred or whereby, having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred was likely to be stirred up thereby'. The 1986 Act covers offences around incitement, public disorder and harassment, and covers both online and offline offences. – How was Lucy Connolly sentenced? Connolly admitted a 'category 1A' offence, meaning that her culpability was deemed to be in 'category A', and the harm was in 'category one' – both the highest categories. Guidelines on how to sentence offenders for several crimes are published by the Sentencing Council, an independent body which is led by the judiciary. The guidance for racial hatred offences states that those who commit such a crime are to be deemed to have high culpability if they demonstrate one or more of three factors. These are using a 'position of trust, authority or influence to stir up hatred', showing an 'intention to incite serious violence' and demonstrating 'persistent activity'. A publication is considered to cause 'category one' harm if it 'directly encourages activity which threatens or endangers life', and there is 'widespread dissemination'. The maximum sentence for the offence is seven years behind bars. Defendants who commit category 1A offences can be sentenced to between two and six years in prison, with the 'starting point' for sentences – the point used before aggravating and mitigating factors are considered – being three years. – How did the sentencing judge categorise the offence? During sentencing, Judge Melbourne Inman KC said both prosecution and defence barristers agreed that the case involved a 'category 1A' offence. He said the timing of the post was a 'further significant aggravating factor' to the offence, which came amid a 'particularly sensitive social climate'. He added that in the three and a half hours between Connolly publishing and deleting the post, it was 'widely read', having been viewed '310,000 times with 940 reposts, 58 quotes and 113 bookmarks'. In mitigation, Judge Inman said Connolly had no previous convictions, that it was her first time in prison, that she did not repeat her statement and deleted the post, and that she 'sent some messages to the effect that violence was not the answer'. He also said he accepted she still 'very keenly' felt the loss of her own child several years ago, and that she regretted her actions. But he also found that Connolly had 'little insight into, or acceptance of' her offending. He said: 'Whilst you may well have understood the grief of those who suffered their own tragic losses in Southport, you did not send a message of understanding and comfort but rather an incitement to hatred.' He added that the sentence he would have imposed after a trial was one of three and a half years – 42 months – but then reduced this by a quarter because of Connolly's early guilty plea, resulting in the final sentence of 31 months. – What happened when Connolly appealed against her sentence? At the Court of Appeal in May, judges dismissed a legal challenge against her sentence. In a written judgment, Lord Justice Holroyde, said: 'There is no arguable basis on which it could be said that the sentence imposed by the judge was manifestly excessive.' Lawyers for Connolly had said that Judge Inman 'miscategorised' the offence, claiming her culpability should have been deemed as 'category B', and that the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating features. But Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mr Justice Goss and Mr Justice Sheldon, ruled that Connolly 'willingly pleaded guilty' to the offence and that Judge Inman was 'entitled, and indeed obviously correct, to categorise the case as he did'. Connolly's husband, Conservative councillor Ray Connolly branded the decision 'shocking and unfair'. The Northampton town councillor, and former West Northamptonshire district councillor, said his wife had 'paid a very high price for making a mistake'. But Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer defended it earlier this year. He was asked about Connolly's case after her Court of Appeal application against her jail term was dismissed. Asked during Prime Minister's Questions whether her imprisonment was an 'efficient or fair use' of prison, Sir Keir said: 'Sentencing is a matter for our courts and I celebrate the fact that we have independent courts in this country. 'I am strongly in favour of free speech, we've had free speech in this country for a very long time and we protect it fiercely. 'But I am equally against incitement to violence against other people. I will always support the action taken by our police and courts to keep our streets and people safe.' – What has the response been to her case? Lord Young of Acton, founder and director of the Free Speech Union, which funded Connolly's legal challenge, said: 'The fact that Lucy Connolly has spent more than a year in prison for a single tweet that she quickly deleted and apologised for is a national scandal.' Conservative and Reform politicians have decried what they call 'two-tier justice' in her case comparing it with that of Ricky Jones, a suspended Labour councillor who was found not guilty of encouraging violent disorder at an anti-racism rally in the wake of the Southport murders. Lawyers have said the cases should not be conflated as Connolly and Jones faced allegations of a different nature – and Jones faced trial where Connolly, having pleaded guilty, did not. Reform UK's deputy leader Richard Tice has also proposed 'Lucy's Bill' after Connolly's case in Parliament, which would allow people to mount mass appeals against punishments they deem to be too severe or lenient.
The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Watchdog urged to probe ‘dangerous shambles' of Afghan relocation data breaches
A watchdog has been urged to investigate the 'dangerous shambles' of Afghan relocation data breaches after the Ministry of Defence reportedly admitted more than previously known. A freedom of information request by the BBC revealed there have been 49 data breaches in the past four years, including four already known to the public. Seven breaches were serious enough to be reported to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), three of which had not been made public, the broadcaster reported. Those three included one in 2021 and two in 2022, the same year a major leak prompted the Government to obtain an unprecedented superinjunction barring journalists from reporting it. Sean Humber, a lawyer at Leigh Day, which acts for Afghan citizens affected by previous breaches, said the latest reports are 'shocking' and confirm the MoD 'appears to be institutionally incapable of keeping personal data safe'. He said: 'These data breaches betray a cavalier attitude to keeping such sensitive information safe as well as a complete disregard for the potentially life and death consequences of failing to do so. 'The Information Commissioner's Office must now roll up its sleeves and carry out a thorough and immediate investigation of what appears to be systemic failures of data protection policies, procedures or practices by the Ministry of Defence. This dangerous shambles cannot be allowed to continue. 'All those affected must be notified of the breach of their personal data, including the personal data affected, without further delay and appropriate steps taken to ensure their safety.' Adnan Malik, of Barings Law, which represents 1,500 affected people, said: 'This represents a deeply alarming data failure and the recent 49 Ministry of Defence breaches make clear that the Afghan case was not an isolated error but part of a wider and troubling pattern of negligence. 'Transparency is not optional; it is critical for protecting individuals, maintaining public trust, and ensuring that lessons are learned to prevent future breaches.' The MoD did not provide any details of the nature of each breach. Last month, a High Court judge lifted the gagging order relating to the major breach, which saw the details of 18,714 applicants for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme released in 2022. When the breach was discovered more than a year later in August 2023, the MoD was granted an unprecedented gagging order amid fears the Taliban could target would-be refugees for reprisals. It also saw the establishment of a secret £850 million scheme, the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR), to bring thousands of those affected to the UK. Arap was responsible for relocating Afghan nationals who had worked for or with the UK Government and were therefore at risk of reprisals once the Taliban returned to power in Kabul in 2021. An MoD spokesperson said: 'We take data security extremely seriously and are committed to ensuring that any incidents are dealt with properly, and that we follow our legal duties. 'All incidents that meet the threshold under UK data protection laws are referred to the Information Commissioner's Office and any lesser incidents are examined internally to ensure lessons are learned.' The ICO said it continues to engage with the MoD to be 'assured that they have made the required improvements'.
