Hundreds of children to be evacuated from Gaza and given NHS treatment
A parent or guardian will accompany each child, as well as siblings if necessary, and the Home Office will carry out biometric and security checks before travel, the Sunday Times reported.
This will happen 'in parallel' with an initiative by Project Pure Hope, a group set up to bring sick and injured Gazan children to the UK privately for treatment.
READ MORE: I am a Palestinian. Keir Starmer's recognition plan is an insult
More than 50,000 children are estimated to have been killed or injured in Gaza since October 2023, according to Unicef.
Keir Starmer said last week that the UK was 'urgently accelerating' efforts to bring children over for treatment.
A UK Government spokesperson said: 'We are taking forward plans to evacuate more children from [[Gaza]] who require urgent medical care, including bringing them to the UK for specialist treatment where that is the best option for their care.
'We are working at pace to do so as quickly as possible, with further details to be set out in due course.'
The UK and Jordan have been working together to air drop aid amid warnings of widespread malnourishment in Gaza.
We previously told how First Minister John Swinney said the Scottish Government is looking to medically evacuate children suffering from injuries caused by Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza.
He added that this 'requires the support of the UK Government' and revealed that he has already written to the Prime Minister urging him to support the evacuations to hospitals in Scotland.
More than 50,000 children have been killed or injured by Israel since Hamas's October 7 attack, according to Unicef.
It comes as the UK seeks to put pressure on Israel to change course with a plan to recognise a Palestinian state in September ahead of the UN General Assembly.
Starmer has said the UK would only refrain from recognising Palestine if Israel allows more aid into [[Gaza]], stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire, and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two months.
British families of hostages say the Government has made clear to them that releases would 'play no part' in the UK's plans to recognise Palestine and that it could see those still held 'rot in Hamas dungeons'.
READ MORE: Patrick Harvie on 10 things that changed his life
Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the UK's demands for Hamas to release all hostages and play no role in the future of Gaza are 'absolute and unconditional'.
He told The Sunday Times: 'The UK position on recognition is part of (a) co-ordinated international effort. It must begin with an immediate ceasefire that frees the hostages and ends the agony of their families, and which lifts the inhumane aid restrictions.'
We previously told how a claim by more than 40 peers in the House of Lords that recognising a Palestinian state would be a breach of international law.
An expert debunked this and described it as a "cynical ploy" to stop Palestinians from accessing basic human rights.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
13 minutes ago
- The Guardian
What's the best thing world leaders could do now? 'Let go' and 'embrace uncertainty'
If there is one thing that has marked the first year of Keir Starmer's premiership, it is a propensity for control – whether it's managing his own party, cracking down on civil liberties and protest, or instilling fear and anxiety in marginalised groups. For a centre-left party, the authoritarian strain Starmer has shown isn't exactly in line with the 'change' from the Tories that was promised. Governments seek to control populations, politicians seek to control their parties: this is nothing new and has been explicitly promoted since Machiavelli's The Prince was published in 1532. When leaders understand holding power as an end in itself, and see the method as controlling those they have power over, they block themselves from being able to bring about real change, because not 'losing control' becomes more important than any change they seek to create. And attempting to tightly control outcomes is ill suited to an increasingly complex and unstable world. At the same time, a different mode of control exists across the institutions that implement government policy. It is rules-based, promoted by steeply hierarchical structures fostering compliance, with rigid frameworks and inflexible mindsets, alongside a culture of overconfidence. These dynamics might seem benign or indeed necessary for a functioning bureaucracy. However, if out of balance, they can stifle the creative thinking and collaboration required to tackle complex challenges. Whether it is running consultations without the intention of deep engagement or listening, or an inability to incorporate the climate crisis into economic frameworks, by seeking to maintain control, institutions fall short of making meaningful change. Or to put it bluntly, key performance indicators and top-down thinking, combined with overzealous control freakery in government, will not have a chance of tackling climate breakdown, the cost of living crisis, the mental health epidemic or the loss of trust in politics. This situation of overlapping crises is what academics like to call a polycrisis, characterised by radical uncertainty and wicked complexity. Coming out of the pandemic, there has been increased discussion among policymakers recognising the need to acknowledge uncertainty. The value of this is clear: a report commissioned by the European Environment Agency and published in 2002 examined more than 100 years of policymaking, highlighting areas where uncertainty was not sufficiently acknowledged or taken into account when key decisions were made, such as during the BSE crisis. The authors concluded that, on many occasions, what was missing was the need for more humility in public policymaking about what was not known, stating: 'Decision-making is faced with the continual prospect of surprise. This is the condition formerly known as ignorance.' When institutions don't acknowledge what they don't know, they are left exposed and unprepared, and leaders obsessed with control and certainty block themselves from taking seriously differing perspectives. These dynamics are not well suited to a world that is being upended, with fascism and ecological collapse on our doorstep. However, the need for certainty and control isn't confined to the halls of power. Across psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, evolutionary biology and strands of spirituality, it is recognised that our brains are wired for certainty. Neuroscience studies show that the brain responds to uncertainty as a fear-based threat, triggering the threat response centre called the amygdala. There is an evolutionary survival reason for this, to detect and react to danger: 'How will I protect myself if I don't know what's coming at me?' Humans' over-alert threat response is also shaped by culture and society. We have a political-media establishment that is happy to pump out ready opinions that are not only factually baseless and untrue, but also provoke our threat response. And in times of economic decline and uncertainty, there is an opportunity for far-right groups to hijack and trigger emotional and psychological reactions towards marginalised groups. When imaginary fears are adopted and promoted by those in power, this isn't a mistake: it is a way to control. The dominant mode of power that continues to operate in society, and certainly in the Labour party today, is 'power over', which is built on control, domination and coercion. Leadership exerts pressure and stress, which can often make our amygdala threat response fire off. People become paranoid and go into overdrive trying to control everything. To an extent, I understand these responses. As an overconfident 27-year-old when I took on a director role, I certainly had an urge to control everything. I had to work hard against that tendency in order to lead in a collaborative way. The phrase 'holding uncertainty' was useful for me, because it meant I didn't always trust my first reaction in situations, or the narratives my brain was telling me. It reminded me to take on board different opinions, rather than simply dismiss them. Of course I made mistakes, but I was also open to examining my own controlling and perfectionistic tendencies. 'Embracing uncertainty' or 'letting go' has been mostly limited to the pages of self-help books, but letting go on an individual level doesn't make sense if you can't pay your rent, or your family is getting deported. However, if we apply it to our institutions, power centres, systems and structures, it can be a direction of travel against authoritarianism, moving us towards co-creation, pluralist thinking that goes beyond siloed categories, and building coalitions against the far right. We are a quarter of the way through this century, and the IPCC climate change report says that global temperature increase could be up to 5.7C by 2100, making much of the world unliveable. At the same time, fascism is on the rise. Renewing our democracies, shifting to a healthier culture, tackling the climate crisis and reorienting the economy will only happen if we shift our culture and institutions away from control. We need to let go. What have we got to lose? Fran Boait is a leadership coach, freelancer and writer
Reuters
43 minutes ago
- Reuters
Britain's AI hopes face harsh reality of high electricity costs
LONDON, Aug 7 - Britain's ambition to rev up its economy and tap the AI revolution faces the harsh reality that the abundant, clean and reliable electricity supply this requires is unlikely to materialise any time soon. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has laid out several major industrial policies aimed at reviving Britain's sluggish economy, including by pouring investment into the artificial intelligence industry, which the government says would increase productivity and create over $50 billion of gains per year. Data centres that power AI are, however, highly energy intensive, often requiring a stand-alone source of energy to operate. Electricity demand in the UK is set to grow from 319 terawatt hours in 2024 to 450 TWh in 2035, according to grid operator NESO, with power demand from data centres expected to triple over that period. But the government's current plans, opens new tab to meet these needs by modernising and expanding the country's ageing power system, particularly through low-carbon energy, could, paradoxically, complicate these efforts by further increasing Britain's already lofty energy costs. UK domestic power prices are among the highest of any developed economy. Wholesale electricity prices rose by 40% in the first half of 2025 from a year earlier to an average of $115 per megawatt hour, largely due to increased use of gas-fired power generation amid cold weather and reduced wind output, according to the International Energy Agency. That compares with average prices of $100 per MWh in Germany, $73 in France and $48 in the United States. The British government says it wants to reduce energy prices by minimizing the grid's reliance on volatile natural gas prices, boosting renewable power generation, battery storage solutions, transmission infrastructure and grid connections with neighbouring countries. But these upfront investments will – at least initially – raise the cost of energy for consumers. Offshore wind is the flagship of Britain's renewable energy strategy. The government aims to boost offshore wind generation capacity to 43-50 gigawatts by the end of the decade, from around 15 GW currently. Yet rising construction and financing costs led the government last month to increase the ceiling for the guaranteed price offered for offshore wind projects, or strike price, in this year's auction by 11% from the previous round. That followed a 66% rise in last year's auction. The actual strike price in the upcoming contract for difference (CfD) auction that starts this month could well be lower than the government ceiling. Danish developer Orsted in May halted the development of the 2.4 GW Hornsea 4 offshore wind project due to rising costs. Nuclear power is another low-carbon option the UK is exploring. The government announced on July 22 that it had secured investments to develop the Sizewell C nuclear plant in eastern England, Britain's second new nuclear plant in as many decades, which is expected to be operational by 2030. Nuclear power has the advantage of providing steady, low-carbon energy. But the current development cost of 38 billion pounds ($51 billion) for Sizewell is nearly double the initial estimate made earlier this decade, bumped up by inflation and higher material costs. Such cost overruns are quite common in nuclear projects. Focusing energy policy primarily on offshore wind and nuclear thus could further increase power bills, making British industry less competitive and voters less supportive of the energy transition. So does the government have any viable alternatives? Andrew Birch, CEO of OpenSolar, argues that Britain should fully liberalise its power market. This would mean removing subsidies such as CfDs and allowing the market to determine which forms of energy can most efficiently meet consumer needs. The idea has its merits, but given the crucial importance of energy to Britain's economy and security, particularly amid the energy transition and AI race, the government is unlikely to be willing to give up control. Another option would be transforming the UK's outdated, highly centralised power system into a digital operation built around many small generators and battery storage farms. That would have the added benefit of increasing the grid's efficiency. However, it would require billions of pounds in upfront costs. Of course, all of the infrastructure and investments could be assessed through general taxation rather than via energy bills, reducing consumers' sticker shock each month. But the only thing voters hate as much as high energy prices is higher taxes, so this option is unlikely to have significant political support. That would leave greater private-public partnerships and government debt-financed investment as possible solutions. The latter would need to be communicated clearly with markets to avoid any sustained backlash. UK investment in renewables, nuclear, batteries and transmission – if properly planned and executed – could ultimately pay off, but given all the challenges, the major benefits likely won't be seen for at least another decade, and this spells trouble for Britain's power-hungry AI ambitions. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI),, opens new tab your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
'I watched nuclear attack docu-drama deemed 'too horrifying for TV' by BBC'
The War Game is one of the most harrowing pieces of television every produced Anyone of a certain age will have less-than-fond memories of the terrifying public information films that would be shown in school and on TV, warning us of the dangers of playing on building sites or messing around with matches. The War Game, a 1966 docu-drama, which the BBC deemed 'too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting' and banned from TV for almost 20 years, takes this to the extreme. Framed as a factual documentary, the film shows the brutal reality of what would happen if the UK was hit by a nuclear attack, narrated by the authoritative tones of newsreader Michael Aspel. The 47-minute film written and directed by Peter Watkins wasn't aired on TV until 1985, although it was shown in cinemas in the 1960s, and won the 1967 best documentary Oscar. While it's often been difficult to track down a way to watch The War Game, it's now available on BBC iPlayer. Comparisons with 1984's infamous TV film Threads, which graphically depicts a nuclear attack on Sheffield, are perhaps inevitable. The War Game isn't quite as graphic as Threads - which at one point makes the viewer watch a child burn alive - but it's no less horrifying. The black and white film begins with a depiction of rising tensions between the East and West, with the British government declaring a state of emergenc, and people are evacuated from larger towns and cities. The film doesn't skirt around the social and racial tensions of the time - with rationing in place, people are shown protesting that they already don't have enough food to feed their own families, and one woman's first question when she's told she'll have to house a group of evacuees asks what ethnicity they are. The actual moment the missiles strike is brief, but shocking, with Michael Aspel grimly describing horrors such as melting eyeballs and burning skin, and a young boy is shown screaming in pain after being blinded by the flash. Aspel's description of the shockwave sent by the detonation as sounding like 'an enormous door slamming in the depths of hell' is genuinely chilling. The scenes following this show what is left of the UK descend into bleak chaos, with police struggling to hold back starving masses desperate for something to eat and every doctor attempting to treat hundreds of patients. It doesn't shy away from the stark decisions faced, with doctors shown shooting patients who are beyond help in the head and police executing agitators by firing squad. It's a far cry from the stiff upper lip Spirit of Dunkirk of just a couple of decades before. The spectre of the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden looms large. Key to the impact of the film is how real it all looks. There's no Hollywood glamour at play - the people look, speak, and dress like real people you'd see on the street, and the nondescript part of Canterbury much of the footage is set in looks like it could just be around the corner. Years later Threads would use a similar trick by setting its action around the working-class communities of 1980s Sheffield. And if you're expecting a sense of hope or light at the end of the tunnel, there's none to be found here. Seeing a traumatised small boy asked what he wants to be when he grows up reply 'don't want to be nothing' is one of the bleakest things I've ever seen on screen. Harrowing though it may be, its impact is undeniable, with a 93 per cent rating on film reviews site Rotten Tomatoes. One reviewer said: "The stark documentary realism of the film makes it effectively scary and unsettling even today, the retina burning images of despairing children in the aftermath of nuclear war will stay at the front of your mind for a long time." Another wrote: "Despite this being made over 40 years ago it is still hard-hitting stuff and I'm not surprised in the slightest the BBC banned it." Another, however, suggested it amounted to "scaremongering propaganda". "Almost seems a bit insulting to a modern audience but there's no arguing that this is excellently done," they said. With international tensions building day by day, The War Game stands as sobering viewing of a reality which isn't as far removed from our own as we might hope. If you've got the stomach for it, The War Game is available now on BBC iPlayer.
