Dunn family raise concerns Foreign Office will try to ‘hide' final review report
The review is not set to scrutinise the role or actions of the US government, but will examine the support the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) offered the Dunn family after the teenager was killed by a former US state department employee in a road crash in 2019.
The Dunn family spokesman Radd Seiger told FCDO officials they were concerned there was 'no explicit provision for the publication of the final report' in the review's proposed terms of reference.
His words prompted an invitation to meet with Mr Lammy on Wednesday afternoon ahead of the review's official announcement, which is expected on Thursday.
Mrs Charles said she was 'apprehensive' ahead of the meeting, adding: 'I won't accept anything less than a full, open and transparent process.'
Mr Seiger told the PA news agency the family will 'have no part in any process that lacks transparency'.
Anne Sacoolas, the American driver who killed Harry, had diplomatic immunity asserted on her behalf following the incident outside RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire before a senior Foreign Office official said they should 'feel able' to put her on the next flight home.
Ahead of the meeting, Mr Seiger told PA: 'We are grateful to the Foreign Secretary for making time to meet us today.
'That said, it is not lost on us that the only reason we appear to have been called in is because we asked for only one basic and reasonable assurance – that Anne Owers' report will be published.
'That request appears to have put the cat amongst the pigeons ahead of the government formally announcing the inquiry tomorrow.
Harry's mother, Charlotte Charles, as well as other family members, are due to meet David Lammy on Wednesday (Stefan Rousseau/PA)
'The fact that it has prompted such an urgent response gives us real concern that publication of the report may not have been the Government's intention.'
Mr Seiger continued: 'Although we will not get ahead of ourselves, if that proves to be the case, I can say categorically on behalf of the family that we will have no part in any process that lacks transparency.
'It would defeat the entire purpose of the inquiry and would represent a betrayal of everything Harry stood for and the brave fight the family put up on his behalf.
'We have always been grateful for David Lammy's support over the years.
'It must follow that Anne Owers' report, the first and only detailed look into those failures must be published. Without that, we cannot move forward.
'We owe it to Harry, to our public institutions, and to every future family who might find themselves in a similar nightmare.'
Mrs Charles said any attempt by the Government to 'hide' the final report 'fills me with dread'.
She told PA: 'I feel incredibly apprehensive going into this meeting.
'After everything we've been through, the idea that the Government might try to hide Anne Owers' report fills me with dread.
'We have never wanted anything more than the full truth and for lessons to be learned, not just for Harry, but to stop any other family from suffering like we have.
'I won't accept anything less than a full, open and transparent process.'
The FCDO has been approached for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Gen Z takes being American for granted
In the 2025 iteration of this poll, a staggering 92% of Republicans were "extremely" or "very" proud to be American, whereas just 53% of independents and 36% of Democrats reported feeling the same. Until 2016, Democrats and Republicans remained rather similar in their patriotism, with both reaching values above 80% before the election of President Donald Trump. However, modern patriotism among Democrats is dependent on who is in the White House, rather than any genuine love of America. During the time that Joe Biden was in the White House, Republican pride in being American bottomed out at 84%. Over the same period, Democrats rose to a peak of just 62%. One significant driver of this decline is Generation Z, born between 1997 to 2012, whose patriotism lags far behind previous generations. Just 41% of Gen Z is extremely or very proud to be American, and among young Democrats, that falls to just 24%. Partisanship is getting in the way of patriotism for Democrats Being proud to be American has absolutely nothing to do with being proud of our current leaders. In their fluctuations in pride depending on who is in the White House, Democrats have lost sight of this. I am one of the most critical people of our government out there, and I think of that as being borne out of my patriotism. Criticizing the government when it does not strengthen America's foundational principles is a patriotic act. My fellow columnist Rex Huppke has the right idea. "We can love this country and loathe the people in charge," he wrote in a recent column. "We can be simultaneously proud of this country and embarrassed of the things being done in its name." Tell us: This Fourth of July, are you proud to be an American? | Opinion Forum Now, obviously, I am no Democrat, but it saddens me that this same principle apparently does not hold for many of them. To many Democrats in modern times, it seems as if their love for this country is contingent on their preferred candidates being in power. Interestingly, this seems to be a problem unique to Democrats. While some Republicans seemingly faltered in their patriotism over the previous four years, they did not see the massive swing between the Biden and Trump presidencies that Democrats saw over the same period. This is all evidence of the fact that Democrats have attached their pride to a political movement, rather than to a love of America's founding principles. For some, this is a problem of them simply being blinded by partisanship. For others, however, it marks a much deeper problem. America's failures to live up to her founding principles at times are not evidence of those principles being bad; they are evidence of human nature being imperfect. Gen Z doesn't know how good we have it Much of Gen Z has been captured by the progressive left, many of whom do genuinely believe that America's institutions and system of government need to be torn down completely. These revolutionaries are responsible for the complete lack of patriotism among Gen Z. Opinion: Senate just passed Trump's Big Beautiful Bill - and made it even uglier Gen Z doesn't realize how lucky we are. We live in the greatest country and in the greatest time in history. There is no collective group that has it better at any point in history than we do right now. Many will disagree with me on this point, but they are mistaken. There is no place better constructed to safeguard your individual liberties than here. While we are very obviously imperfect in that goal, no other nation on earth is better equipped to pursue liberty through the freedoms that our Constitution protects. Tearing down the system that has led to such a wonderful place would be a mistake. Within a framework designed to preserve liberty is the best place to enact whatever political change it is that you want, unless your goal is not liberty. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Those who advocate against America's foundation might feel entitled - in the sense that they believe it is the job of government to provide for them - have taken the freedoms that we have for granted or are delusional about how good others have it. I do not know how to solve the problem of restoring patriotism to those who have lost it. I am sympathetic to the frustrations young Americans have with the state of our politics, and I am hopeful that Gen Z will learn that they are better off trying to change this country, rather than destroy it. America is a wonderful place, and you would do best to fight for your political causes within her structure of liberty, rather than attempting to tear it down. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump orders national parks to charge some tourists higher fees
"From the awe-inspiring Grand Canyon to the tranquility of the Great Smoky Mountains, America's national parks have provided generations of American families with unforgettable memories," Trump said in the order issued July 3. "It is the policy of my Administration to preserve these opportunities for American families in future generations by increasing entry fees for foreign tourists, improving affordability for United States residents, and expanding opportunities to enjoy America's splendid national treasures," he said. The order also calls for giving Americans "preferential treatment with respect to any remaining recreational access rules, including permitting or lottery rules." Any revenue generated by higher fees from foreign tourists will be funneled back into infrastructure improvements and other enhancements across federal recreation sites. Reservations required: Which national parks require them in 2025 Unrelated, the executive order also revokes a presidential memorandum signed by then-President Barack Obama in 2017 that promoted a range of diversity and inclusion efforts in the management of national parks and other public lands. It called for improving access for all Americans and "considering recommendations and proposals from diverse populations to protect at-risk historic, cultural, and natural sites." Diversity and inclusion were also priorities for parks during the Biden administration. Before leaving office in January, then National Park Service Director Chuck Sams told USA TODAY: "When I took my oath of office on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Secretary (Deb) Haaland said, on behalf of the president of the United States, myself and the American people, I'm charging you with these monuments, memorials and parks, but more importantly, we're charging you to find those stories that are less told or haven't been told yet, and to tell them fiercely. "So over the last three-plus years, working all across the park system, we've been able to tell stories to ensure that every American sees a reflection of themselves in the parks," he said. But the latest move comes after Trump on his first day back in office in January ordered an end to government diversity, equity, and inclusion programs established under Biden. USA TODAY has reached out the Interior Department and National Park Service for comment on the new executive order.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
No 10 regrets choice of ‘insipid' new cabinet secretary, sources say
Keir Starmer's No 10 increasingly has 'buyer's remorse' about the new cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald, who has only been running the civil service for six months, Downing Street and Whitehall sources have told the Guardian. Wormald, who was the permanent secretary at the Department of Health and Social Care during the Covid pandemic, was chosen by the prime minister from a shortlist of four names. Starmer made his pick in consultation with the head of the civil service and the first civil service commissioner, saying at the time that Wormald 'brings a wealth of experience to this role at a critical moment in the work of change this new government has begun'. However, multiple sources said some people around Starmer were growing to view the choice of Wormald as 'disastrous' for the prospects of radical reform of the civil service and had begun to explore options for how to work around him. One said Wormald was viewed as 'insipid' and prone to wringing his hands about problems rather than coming up with solutions, and too entrenched in the status quo. The Spectator reported on Thursday that Starmer had picked Wormald despite others being looked on more favourably by the expert panel that had shortlisted the candidates. It quoted a cabinet minister as saying: 'If you want to do drastic reform of the state, you don't appoint someone whose grandfather and father were both civil servants.' It is understood the panel did not rank the candidates, so there was no preferred choice, but gave four 'appointable' names who would do the job well and assessments of each one. The shortlist of four also included Antonia Romeo, now permanent secretary at the Home Office, Olly Robbins, the Foreign Office permanent secretary, and Tamara Finkelstein, the permanent secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. A government spokesperson said: 'The appointment decision was made in line with the usual procedures for appointing permanent secretaries. Under this process, a panel proposes a shortlist of appointable candidates for a final decision by the prime minister. 'The cabinet secretary is leading the work to rewire the way government operates, driving efficiency and reducing bureaucracy as part of prime minister's plan for change to renew our country.' The doubts about the choice of Wormald as cabinet secretary are not new but it has been a difficult few weeks for Starmer on domestic policy, with questions over why he became distracted by foreign affairs and missed the implications of a looming rebellion on welfare cuts. The cabinet secretary is the prime minister's most senior policy adviser and also responsible for running the civil service. In the past, prime ministers have attempted to solve problems with how No 10 and the government is run by splitting the role into a cabinet secretary, a Cabinet Office permanent secretary and a separate head of the civil service, as happened under David Cameron. These were merged back into a single cabinet secretary in 2014 after a three-year experiment in dividing power. The Times reported in April that No 10 was considering greater changes to the machinery of government to create more executive power at the centre, with fewer procedural demands on officials' time, a higher bar for public inquiries, and a civil service that better reflects Britain's class diversity. On his appointment, Wormald told civil servants they would have to 'do things differently' and promised a 'rewiring of the way the government works'. His position is likely to come under further scrutiny when the next stage of Covid inquiry reports are published in the autumn on core political and administrative decision-making. The first report found there had been 'a lack of adequate leadership' in Britain's pandemic preparation, saying the civil service and governments 'failed their citizens'.
