Channel Islands may join 80th VE Day World War Two celebrations
The Channel Islands could be included in 80th anniversary VE Day celebrations a UK minister has said.Culture Minister Stephanie Peacock's comments followed a question from Tory MP Andrew Rosindell.He said he had seen no mention of the liberation of the Channel Islands from German forces in plans to mark the anniversary of the end of World War Two.Peacock told the House of Commons she would be "really pleased to meet him" to discuss "how we can pay a fitting tribute to and commemorate the role that they played".
Rosindell said: "There is no actual commemoration for those people who liberated those cherished British islands in the English Channel. "Will she ensure that the reunion of the Channel Islands with the United Kingdom and the wonderful liberation of those islands is also commemorated as part of VE 80 this year?"Peacock said Rosindell "makes an incredibly important point about the Channel Islands, and I would be really pleased to meet him to discuss that further to see how we can pay a fitting tribute to and commemorate the role that they played".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
7 minutes ago
- BBC News
Guernsey's French ID day-trip scheme likely to be extended
Guernsey's next government is likely to extend a scheme that allows French day trippers to visit the island using a national ID card rather than a scheme was introduced in 2023 in response to declining tourism numbers from the was cast over its future when the UK introduced an Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) system which requires anyone who is not a British or Irish citizen to get the permit, which is linked to a passport, before entering the Guernsey Border Agency (GBA) told the BBC the extension was due to be approved on the condition that Guernsey's membership in the Common Travel Area (CTA) was not at risk. "GBA Officers have been in contact with the UK to discuss the matter from a Bailiwick of Guernsey perspective, and will continue to work with UK counterparts around the introduction of ETAs," it CTA is a free movement agreement between the UK, Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey.A final decision is yet to be made on extending the scheme, which will be down to the next committee - due to be voted in following the general election next GBA said that any changes to immigration laws must be approved by the island's lieutenant-governor. Jersey's government extended the scheme there, with ministers saying UK counterparts were not supportive of it home secretary Chris Philp criticised the scheme after politicians in Jersey voted unanimously to extend the day trip scheme there, despite the upcoming introduction of the ETA travel permit in the Channel said it risked opening a "dangerous backdoor" into the Malcic, chair of the Victor Hugo Centre, said the use of passports was still a "fairly modern thing"."Before the First World War people used to travel freely from France to Guernsey and, in fact, there was as much travel and trade with France than there was with the UK," he said."Yes, in modern times you need a passport and you need passport control, but people coming for the day for a good time in Guernsey are not the people who really need to be taken care of."I think the fact that the UK are concerned about this, [shows] that sometimes Guernsey has to act in its own interests."
The Herald Scotland
11 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
The Scottish Tory who has perfected the art of 'vice-signalling'
I believe Fraser, like myself, is straight. Being straight, I tend to leave it to the LGBT community to decide what's homophobic. Fraser, however, seems to believe that including trans people is a homophobic act. It rather bewildered Scotland's LGBT community. Certainly, when I asked friends who are gay - ranging in age from 25 to 82 - they were mystified by Fraser suddenly becoming a warrior against homophobia. In 2014, when the Scottish Parliament voted for gay marriage, Fraser was one of just 18 MSPs opposed. Last year, whilst running for leadership of the Scottish Tory Party, Fraser said he's still opposed to gay marriage. It's due to his religious beliefs, apparently. Still, none of this stopped him shooting his gob off in a thoroughly attention-seeking fashion which seemed designed to both offend and be unnecessarily cruel. Which is vice-signalling in a nutshell. Though maybe Fraser had different conversations than I with his own gay friends that justified his actions? Anas Sarwar, realising that nothing matters so much as thirsting to be the centre of attention, got in on the vice-signalling act. He accused John Swinney of running a 'disgraceful' campaign. That's the same John Swinney who defended Sarwar when Nigel Farage's Reform unleashed 'racist' attack adverts against him. Now clearly, nobody needs to be thanked for calling out bigotry, but it's pretty difficult to see how Swinney ran a disgraceful campaign whilst simultaneously having Sarwar's back. Perhaps, being raised rich and well-connected insulates Sarwar from silly notions like decency and courtesy? Evidently, Scottish MSPs are mere minnows compared to the King and the Kong of vice-signalling: the politicians of London and Washington. Reform's newest MP Sarah Pochin wasted no time getting straight to vice-signalling by resurrecting the 'ban the burqa' culture war. Kemi Badenoch clearly felt left out of the cruelty derby so quickly told the world that she won't speak to women who wear burqas in her constituency surgery. How thoroughly democratic of her. Badenoch has her work cut out though. One of the nastiest characters in British politics wants her job: Robert Jenrick, who as Tory immigration minister ordered the removal of cartoon murals in a centre for refugee kids in case they found it too welcoming. Gleeful bullying, sneering mockery and spiteful grandstanding are everywhere you look these days. Among the New Right, dead-naming trans people seems to be a modern-day Olympic sport, and laughing at poverty positively required. God help us, one American-Israeli "comedian" even seeks laughs from dead Palestinian babies. Donald Trump (Image: Ap) The entire Trump presidency - which seems rapidly shifting towards outright militarised authoritarianism - has turned vice-signalling into an art form. The White House puts out tweets designed explicitly to hurt, mock and humiliate. One featured a group of handcuffed people being deported to the soundtrack "Na, na, hey, hey, kiss him goodbye" by Bananarama. It takes quite the talent to be both ghoulish and childish simultaneously. I reckon there's a few psychological assumptions we can make about what's happening. First, some people are just nasty b******s and they like wearing the nasty b*****d badge. They're like the kid you went to school with who had no friends but could sometimes be found torturing cats down by the riverbank. Most vice-signallers, though, probably aren't raving psychopaths. They're the more interesting, from a clinical point of view anyway. Why do they act in ways that many of us never would? Well, for a start, more and more people are beginning to act like this. The anonymity and immediacy of social media both protects the goon squad and encourages their behaviour. It's like the old adage: "If everyone is doing it, then why can't I?" Monkey see, monkey do. The more blood-soaked the online world becomes the more people want blood. Sometimes literally. I rarely use Twitter today, but when I do I'm stunned by the levels of actual, physical violence on display. Then there's the fact that a large minority of people are rather pathetic and attracted to bullies and thugs. It's likely a sign of their own psychological and physical weakness. They see someone kicking the daylights out of an innocent person and reckon it's much safer to cheer on the attack than step in and do the right thing. To step in requires courage and risks them becoming the target. On a deeper level though, perhaps humanity is simply subconsciously at the end of its tether? We can all behave appallingly when we're tired and scared. Who amongst us hasn't had a terrible day and then acted like a petty idiot to someone who didn't deserve it, taking our misery out on the innocent? Just look at this sulphurous world. We're living on a planet that's nuked up to the eyeballs with wars of profound brutality raging and the people in charge either don't care or seem out of their minds. The Earth is being destroyed, as we level rain forests and gobble up resources. We're wilfully allowing climate change to ruin the future for our children. We know the next virus could decimate us. We've no clue how to fix poverty, but each day there's more billionaires. Is it any wonder that cruelty is in fashion? Being a b*****d is the new black because as a species we're terrified of the future and hate our failures and what we've become.
Wales Online
12 minutes ago
- Wales Online
Smacking ban would be ‘heavy-handed', warns Tory critic at Westminster
Smacking ban would be 'heavy-handed', warns Tory critic at Westminster Speaking in Parliament, former MP Lord Jackson of Peterborough argued "reasonable chastisement" was harmless Introducing a smacking ban in England would be "disproportionate and heavy-handed", a Conservative peer has warned. Speaking in Parliament, former MP Lord Jackson of Peterborough argued "reasonable chastisement" was harmless and calls to abolish it as a defence for punishing a child risked "criminalising good and caring parents, as well as overloading children's services departments". He made his comments as the House of Lords continued its detailed line-by-line scrutiny of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. One of the changes proposed to the legislation was a move to outlaw the smacking of a child by scrapping the common law defence of reasonable punishment. Former president of the British Medical Association (BMA) and independent crossbencher Baroness Finlay of Llandaff said children had been left vulnerable by the legal "loophole" and urged for it to be closed, as it had been already in Scotland and Wales. She told peers: "There is clear evidence that physical punishment has no positive outcomes for children." Article continues below She added: "Hitting children hurts on the outside and on the inside. It damages emotional development. "Eight in 10 child runaways cite family violence as a cause." Highlighting support for the proposal by a number of leading organisations, including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the NSPCC, Barnardo's and the Children's Commissioner for England, Lady Finlay said: "It is time to protect children from assault and battery." But opposing the amendment, Lord Jackson said: "I believe it is an egregious interference in family life by the state and an intrusion. "It is an attack on family rights and it will encourage a childish disrespect for authority. "It is disproportionate and heavy-handed and it risks criminalising good and caring parents, as well as overloading children's services departments." He added: "The law as it stands is sensible. It outlaws violence, abuse and unreasonable chastisement. "Crown Prosecution Service guidelines are clear that, if the actions of a parent cause anything that is more than transient or trifling, it is unlawful. "The reasonable-chastisement defence simply permits parents to use very mild physical discipline, like a tap on the hand or a smack on the bottom, without being charged with assault... 'Reasonable chastisement' is common and harmless." Lord Jackson went on: "Everyone wants the state to intervene to protect children who are in danger of abuse, but, if that is to be done effectively, the limited resources available need to be focused on identifying and helping those at risk, not investigating innocent, loving parents because the law of assault has become politicised by activists who do not agree with reasonable chastisement. "Making trivial smacks a criminal offence will cause misery for parents and children." But the peer faced criticism for his remarks from Liberal Democrat Baroness Walmsley, who said: "He used 'smacking' quite a lot. I will never use that word myself, because it trivialises what we mean. "We are talking about a hit – about a physical assault on a child. "The reasonable chastisement defence is only ever likely to be used in a court of law, and it has been." She cited the murder of 10-year-old Sara Sharif in 2023, whose father Urfan Sharif claimed in a call to police after fleeing England that he "did legally punish" his daughter but he "beat her up too much". Pressing for the removal of the "reasonable chastisement" defence, Lady Walmsley said: "The presence of those words in the law sends a message that it can be lawful to beat a little child." Former Playschool presenter and Barnardo's vice-president Baroness Benjamin, who sits as a Liberal Democrat peer, said: "Almost 70 countries have banned smacking, leaving no ambiguity in the law. "It is never OK to 'reasonably punish' a child. It is time to join those countries and end physical punishment against children." Responding, education minister Baroness Smith of Malvern pointed out the most serious cases of child abuse would not be covered by the reasonable punishment defence. She said: "We are looking closely at changes in Scotland and Wales and continue to build our evidence base, but we do not want to take this important decision yet." The minister added: "Most parents want what is best for their children and they should be supported. Article continues below "It is right that we protect all children who are at risk of harm, but it is also right that we do not intervene in family life when children are safe, loved and well supported."
