Prince of Wales joins those remembering victims 20 years on from July 7 attacks
In the afternoon William joined a number of relatives of those who died as well as survivors at the event, with music including Something Inside and Sometimes I Feel Like A Motherless Child performed by the London Gospel Choir.
The Hyde Park Memorial Service followed a morning ceremony at St Paul's Cathedral, which saw the Prime Minister and Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh among those who gathered to pay their respects.
The 2005 attacks, that also left several hundred people injured, were the worst single terrorist atrocity on British soil.
Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, survivors, emergency responders and bereaved relatives also attended St Paul's.
The moving tribute saw 52,000 petals fall from the dome of the cathedral as the names of those who died were read by Saba Edwards, daughter of Behnaz Mozakka who died on the Piccadilly line, and Thelma Stober, who survived the Aldgate bomb.
The pair showed clear emotion and Ms Edwards stifled a sob and paused as she read her mother's name.
Earlier, Sir Keir Starmer and Sir Sadiq laid wreaths at the July 7 memorial in Hyde Park at 8.50am on Monday, to coincide with the time that the first bomb went off.
They were joined by officials including Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley and Chief Constable of British Transport Police Lucy D'Orsi who also laid floral tributes.
In a statement issued to mark the anniversary, Sir Keir said: 'Today the whole country will unite to remember the lives lost in the 7/7 attacks, and all those whose lives were changed forever.
'We honour the courage shown that day — the bravery of the emergency services, the strength of survivors and the unity of Londoners in the face of terror.
'Those who tried to divide us failed. We stood together then, and we stand together now — against hate and for the values that define us of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.'
Mayor of London Sir Sadiq said Londoners 'will always choose hope over fear and unity over division'.
He added: 'We remember the 52 people whose lives were cruelly stolen on that dark day and our thoughts and prayers remain with all of their loved ones, as well as the more than 700 people who were injured by these cowardly acts of hatred.
'We also pay tribute to those who ran towards danger on that terrible day.
'From emergency service personnel, to transport workers and members of the public who showed incredible courage and compassion by putting their own safety at risk to help those in need, their bravery and selflessness will never be forgotten.
'Two decades on – as we unite for a day of commemoration – I have a clear message for those who seek to spread division and sow hatred – you will never win.
'London's determination to stand together is stronger than ever. We will always choose hope over fear and unity over division as we continue building a safer London for everyone.'
In his message to mark the anniversary, the King said comfort can be taken from the 'spirit of unity' in London and the country more broadly, which has allowed the nation to heal.
He said: 'Today, as we mark 20 years since the tragic events of 7th July 2005, my heartfelt thoughts and special prayers remain with all those whose lives were forever changed on that terrible summer's day.'
'We remember with profound sadness the 52 innocent people who were killed in senseless acts of evil – and the enduring grief of their loved ones.
'We recall, too, the hundreds more who carry physical and psychological scars, and pray that their suffering may ease as the years pass.'
'In doing so, we should also remember the countless stories of extraordinary courage and compassion that emerged from the darkness of that day.
'The selfless bravery of our emergency services, transport workers, and fellow citizens who rushed towards danger to help strangers reminds us of the very best of humanity in the face of the very worst.'
The King also stressed the importance of communities coming together in times of adversity.
He said: 'While the horrors will never be forgotten, we may take comfort from the way such events rally communities together in solidarity, solace and determination.
'It is this spirit of unity that has helped London, and our nation, to heal.
'As we remember those we lost, let us, therefore, use this 20th anniversary to reaffirm our commitment to building a society where people of all faiths and backgrounds can live together with mutual respect and understanding, always standing firm against those who would seek to divide us.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
2 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Plan to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals clears Commons
The Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill was passed at third reading by MPs, and will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. Under the legislation, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal. During the Bill's committee stage, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said black, Asian and ethnic minority communities will be 'alarmed' by the proposals. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the legislation has 'nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour'. Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse said: 'My trouble with this legislation is that it puts a question mark over certain citizens. 'When it's used with increasing frequency, it does put a question mark over people's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, is something that ought to be of concern.' Intervening, Mr Jarvis said: 'He's making his points in a very considered way, but he is levelling quite serious charges against the Government. 'Can I say to him, in absolute good faith, that our intentions here have nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour.' Mr Malthouse said: 'I'm not concerned about it necessarily falling into his hands as a power, but we just don't know who is going to be in his place in the future, and we're never quite sure how these powers might develop.' He continued: 'What I'm trying to do with my amendment is to explain to him that this is an area of law where I would urge him to tread carefully, where I would urge him to think about the compromises that he's creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain.' The MP for North West Hampshire had tabled an amendment which would allow a person to retain their citizenship during an appeals process if they face 'a real and substantial threat of serious harm' as a result of the order. It would also have required a judge to suspend the removal of citizenship if the person's ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal was impacted, or the duration of the appeal process was excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority. Ms Ribeiro-Addy spoke in support of the amendment, she said: 'Certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always – whether it is the stated intention or not – disproportionately impacts them. 'And to put this clearly to the minister, I'm talking about people of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, those who have parents who may have been born elsewhere, or grandparents, for that matter, they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. 'Those of us who have entitlement to citizenship from other countries for no other reason than where our parents may have been born, or where our grandparents may have been born, or simply because of our ethnic origin, we know that we are at higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked. 'And when such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens.' The MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I would like to ask why the minister has not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment on this Bill? I know it's an incredibly narrow scope, but these potential implications are vastly potentially impact-limited to specific communities.' At the conclusion of the committee stage, Mr Jarvis said: 'The power to deprive a person of British citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths, it is used sparingly where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently, or where it is conducive to the public good. 'Deprivation on conducive grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK, or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person's behaviour which determines if they should be deprived of British citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith.' 'The impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of this legislation,' he added. The Bill was passed on the nod.
South Wales Guardian
2 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Plan to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals clears Commons
The Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill was passed at third reading by MPs, and will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. Under the legislation, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal. During the Bill's committee stage, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said black, Asian and ethnic minority communities will be 'alarmed' by the proposals. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the legislation has 'nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour'. Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse said: 'My trouble with this legislation is that it puts a question mark over certain citizens. 'When it's used with increasing frequency, it does put a question mark over people's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, is something that ought to be of concern.' Intervening, Mr Jarvis said: 'He's making his points in a very considered way, but he is levelling quite serious charges against the Government. 'Can I say to him, in absolute good faith, that our intentions here have nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour.' Mr Malthouse said: 'I'm not concerned about it necessarily falling into his hands as a power, but we just don't know who is going to be in his place in the future, and we're never quite sure how these powers might develop.' He continued: 'What I'm trying to do with my amendment is to explain to him that this is an area of law where I would urge him to tread carefully, where I would urge him to think about the compromises that he's creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain.' The MP for North West Hampshire had tabled an amendment which would allow a person to retain their citizenship during an appeals process if they face 'a real and substantial threat of serious harm' as a result of the order. It would also have required a judge to suspend the removal of citizenship if the person's ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal was impacted, or the duration of the appeal process was excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority. Ms Ribeiro-Addy spoke in support of the amendment, she said: 'Certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always – whether it is the stated intention or not – disproportionately impacts them. 'And to put this clearly to the minister, I'm talking about people of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, those who have parents who may have been born elsewhere, or grandparents, for that matter, they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. 'Those of us who have entitlement to citizenship from other countries for no other reason than where our parents may have been born, or where our grandparents may have been born, or simply because of our ethnic origin, we know that we are at higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked. 'And when such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens.' The MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I would like to ask why the minister has not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment on this Bill? I know it's an incredibly narrow scope, but these potential implications are vastly potentially impact-limited to specific communities.' At the conclusion of the committee stage, Mr Jarvis said: 'The power to deprive a person of British citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths, it is used sparingly where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently, or where it is conducive to the public good. 'Deprivation on conducive grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK, or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person's behaviour which determines if they should be deprived of British citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith.' 'The impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of this legislation,' he added. The Bill was passed on the nod.
ITV News
2 hours ago
- ITV News
Will Trump's threats be enough to pull Putin to the table for peace talks?
So President Trump is sick of all Vladimir Putin's talk, in fact so much so it's even a topic for him and the First Lady. After a day in the office he tells her he had a nice chat with Vladimir but then when she puts the TV on, she says 'Oh really, he's bombed a nursing home', which upsets the President. How's that for a glimpse of geo-politics Chez Trump? As a result of too many chats followed by too many strikes President Trump, who just a few weeks ago suspended military aid to the Ukrainians, not for the first time, has decided he's going to arm them. Quite how many Patriots is, in true Trump style not entirely clear, but they will get some. In further Trump style, with America First, Nato members will pay for them. If that's not enough to get Russia to the table, and in reality it's probably not, he's proposing further tariffs and other financial penalties in 50 days. The target of extra tariffs would be on countries doing business with Russia, but it's doubtful it will be all those countries, some of which are allies of the US - and also doubtful how firmly they will be enforced if they even come into play at all. On a balmy Saturday in May, in Kyiv, I listened to the British, French and German leaders demand Russia sign up to an unconditional ceasefire with huge financial penalties if said ceasefire didn't materialise by Monday. It was a proposal apparently backed by Donald Trump. A few hours later President Putin offered unconditional talks -but ignored the ceasefire demand and the talks have been pretty pointless. Ukraine is now under aerial bombardment as never before and the number of civilian deaths and injures in June is at a record high. There's nothing to say there won't be a similar move this time. It is going to take more than the threat of more financial sanctions to really shift this war. There is of course, relief in Kyiv that President Trump seems to have mellowed in his position towards Ukraine, however there is no sense of security in that. After he humiliated President Zelenskyy's in the Oval Office, nothing is for certain anymore, and there's no belief that even when he's playing nice, the US leader can be relied on. Within a few hours of the President's threats, the missiles were hitting civilians again. In one of their last calls Putin warned he would escalate over the next 60 days. That's one presidential promise the Ukrainians can be sure of.
