Thousands of petals fall in cathedral as 52 victims of July 7 remembered
Ms Edwards stifled a sob and paused as she read her mother's name.
The moving tribute was paid during a memorial service on Monday that included readings by Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan, as well as a 1,200-strong congregation including bereaved relatives, survivors and emergency workers who were there on the day.
Four bombers targeted three Tube trains and a bus in the worst single atrocity on British soil, killing 52 and injuring hundreds more.
The service was opened with a bidding prayer read by Dean of St Paul's Cathedral the Very Reverend Andrew Tremlett, who said: 'We gather in this Cathedral Church to mark the solemn anniversary of an act of terror inflicted on our city on this day twenty years ago.
'Together with friends from many other regions and nations, we continue to commemorate a moment in time that left deep scars in the soul of our capital.
'We come to honour the memory of those who died, to stand alongside the survivors, to give thanks for those who responded with courage and compassion, and to renew our shared commitment to peace, justice, and reconciliation.
'Here, beneath the dome of this great church, so often a symbol of resilience in the face of adversity, we hold in our hearts the grief of the past and the hope of the future.
'We give thanks for the spirit of this city: its openness, its endurance, and its steadfast refusal to let the hatred prevail.'
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, Sir Sadiq, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper were among those who attended the service.
Four candles representing the site of each attack were carried through the cathedral by representatives of the emergency services and placed in front of the altar.
They were carried by emergency responders Victor West from Transport for London; Helen Skeggs from the Metropolitan Police Service; Guy Tillotson from London Fire Brigade and Tracy Russell from London Ambulance Service.
Readings were given about the history of each of the parts of London that were targeted in the attacks.
Ellie Patsalos, wife of survivor Professor Philip Patsalos – who was around three feet from the bomb that went off in a train between Kings Cross and Russell Square, read the first passage.
This was followed by readings from Tony Silvestro, an emergency responder from British Transport Police who was called to Aldgate; Reverend Julie Nicholson, mother of musician Jennifer Valda Ann Nicholson who was killed at Edgware Road; and George Psaradakis, the driver of the bus that was blown up in Tavistock Square.
A conclusion was then read by Graham Foulkes, father of David Foulkes, who died at Edgware Road.
He said: 'These four pieces of London epitomise what is great about this city: an international cross roads of diversity and ingenuity, tolerance and respect, challenge and opportunity. When four bombs exploded on July 7 2005, lives were destroyed and the flame of hope faltered for what seemed like an eternal moment.
'For many people nothing was the same again and yet everything was the same because the good which is in Londoners and the countless visitors whom they host at any given moment is not erased by hatred or threat but rather is fostered to produce a harvest of hope for each generation.'
Later, prayers were given by those affected by the attacks – Azuma Wundowa whose mother Gladys Wundowa was killed in Tavistock Square; Philip Duckworth who survived the Aldgate bomb; Ken McAulay, Steve Keogh and Tony Moore from the Met Police, and Jo Dover, support expert for victims of terrorism.
A group of faith leaders also made a statement to say 'we stand united in our determination to resist and overcome the evil of terrorism'.
They were the Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally; Islamic Scholar Shaykh Mohammed Mahmoud; Rena Amin from Hindu temple BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir; Rabbi Jason Kleiman from Pinner United Synagogue; Harmeet Singh Gill, General Secretary of Sri Guru Singh Sabha Southall; and the Right Reverend Paul McAleenan, Auxiliary Bishop of Westminster.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Inside the Lords battle on foreign media ownership
After a two-year impasse, the future of the Daily Telegraph could be resolved shortly. A £500m deal has been struck for US firm Redbird Capital to take control of the Telegraph Media Group, with state-backed Abu Dhabi investment vehicle IMI among investors. But a fresh challenge has arisen in the House of Lords. Peers are threatening to block minister's efforts to change the law to give foreign companies a greater stake in British media outfits – up from the existing five per cent to 15 cent. This is a necessary legal change to allow the Telegraph sale to go ahead. A 'fatal motion' will be held in the Lords on Tuesday; if passed, it would kill the government's plans. It is a device seldom wielded by peers, having been last used in 2012. But opponents are growing increasingly confident that the 'fatal motion' could succeed. Two separate fronts have opened up in the Lords. The first is led by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Fox, who tabled the motion. Lib Dem whips are understood to be pulling out all the stops to maximise turnout, including facilitating the attendance of their older peers who do not vote regularly. Their argument is simple: the power of the free press should not be sold to overseas companies susceptible to foreign government influence. The hope is that a sufficient number of Tory and Crossbench peers will vote it down. The second front is led by the cross-party Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China (Ipac) and its supporters like Lord Alton. Their focus is more directly on the Telegraph sale. Sir Iain Duncan Smith has written to Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, arguing that a Foreign State Intervention Notice (FSNI) be issued in this case. A legal opinion by Tom Cross KC details alleged links between Redbird Capital's chairman John Thornton and the Chinese state, including his advisory roles on Beijing's sovereign wealth fund. Sir Iain argues that this is compelling evidence for Nandy to 'adhere to your statutory duty and issue a FSIN without delay.' Both groups are seeking to influence their colleagues across the House. Given the government's lack of a majority, the hope is that a sufficient number of Tory and Crossbench peers will vote it down. Tory whips are expected to vote against the fatal motion, though their colleagues will not be whipped to follow suit. Lord Forsyth, the respected chair of the Association of Conservative Peers, is expected to vote for the motion; others will likely follow his lead. One opponent notes that the Conservatives voted for fatal motions that successfully halted government legislation when they were last in opposition before 2010. A separate 'motion of regret' has been put down by Baroness Stowell, the former Leader of the House. Some supporters of the fatal motion fear it could frustrate their efforts, with wavering peers potentially voting for Stowell's amendment rather than Fox's. The government will argue that a statutory instrument can close the loophole whereby multiple states can each own 15 per cent of any publication. But their critics will counter that this is insufficient and will not stop the Telegraph deal from going ahead.
Powys County Times
3 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Letter: Today's Britain is not what the country voted for
It's now a year since Sir Keir Starmer entered Downing Street with a landslide majority, promising stability and renewal. But what has followed has been one of the most shambolic and out-of-touch governments in living memory. Far from the 'grown-up government' we were promised, we've had a year of confusion, indecision, and economic damage. With the highest tax burden since the 1940s, rising energy bills, broken promises on National Insurance, and record levels of borrowing, this Labour government has left voters disillusioned and our economy stagnating. On immigration, Labour's record is even more alarming. Illegal Channel crossings are at record highs, up 50% on last year, despite empty pledges to 'smash the gangs.' We are now seeing illegal migrants placed in housing ahead of British families, and a refusal to declare a state of emergency despite warnings from security experts. Labour's fixation on mass immigration continues to stretch public services and housing, yet the government presses on, ignoring widespread public concern. At the same time, the Labour government has failed to protect free speech and the basic cultural principles this country was built on. From promoting Orwellian 'non-crime hate incidents' to casually dismissing public outrage as 'far right,' Starmer's Labour has shown itself more interested in appeasing elite institutions than listening to the working majority. Labour's approach to public debate has become increasingly censorious and intolerant, treating disagreement as a threat to be shut down rather than an opinion to be heard. This is not what the country voted for. Labour's first year has already seen its popularity collapse, with just 16% of people satisfied with the government's performance and Starmer now one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in modern history. After 12 months of economic decline, unchecked migration, and cultural censorship, the question must now be asked, can Britain really afford another four years of this? Roman Jones
Times
7 hours ago
- Times
Superinjunctions must never be used to shroud mistakes
British forces in Helmand province SUNDAY TIMES PHOTOGRAPHER RICHARD POHLE I n September 2023 a High Court judge granted the British government its first superinjunction. The order by Mr Justice Knowles prevented not only reporting of a terrible data breach but any reference even to the existence of restrictions. The unprecedented measure, extended several times at the request of Conservative and Labour governments, finally lapsed last week, allowing the public to learn that the details of 19,000 Afghans who had worked with the UK before the Taliban retook power had been released on Facebook, putting them and others at risk of torture or death. The mistake by an official in the UK special forces headquarters led the government to launch a secret refugee scheme that relocated to the UK more than 16,000 people compromised by the leak, at a cost of £850 million. The incompetence of the original act, which involved a spreadsheet containing hidden data being shared via email, should not cloud the argument over whether the superinjunction was reasonable. It would have been worse had the individuals affected suffered reprisals from the Taliban. Ben Wallace, then the Tory defence secretary, was undoubtedly terrified of costing lives when he first requested an injunction in August 2023. But as the injunction became a superinjunction, its very existence became a secret. Its lifespan then stretched into two years. Government officials warned the Commons and Lords Speakers not to allow any parliamentary questions hinting at it. The Labour opposition was not informed; nor was the intelligence and security committee or the defence committee. There came an indeterminate point when the interests of the Afghan breach victims faded and the interests of Whitehall officials grew stronger. Mr Justice Chamberlain, who took over the case and ruled in favour of maintaining the restrictions in November 2023, said the superinjunction was 'likely to give rise to the understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship'. It fell away at midday on Tuesday after a retired deputy chief of defence intelligence, Paul Rimmer, completed a review that concluded the leaked data had not spread as widely as feared and its value to the Taliban, and risk to those named in it, had diminished. Media organisations were allowed to reveal that the resettlement scheme had been hidden even from councils responsible for providing housing at considerable cost to the taxpayer, and that the Ministry of Defence's annual report had been massaged to avoid mentioning that a data incident had been reported to the Information Commissioner's Office. All this is a disgraceful abuse of the original argument over national security and the safety of the Afghans affected. The 2022 breach was a blunder rather than a systemic problem such as the infected blood or Post Office scandal. In those cases elaborate and long-running institutional cover-ups were exposed only thanks to media scrutiny, which eventually forced the government to take responsibility. As Heather Brooke brilliantly argues today, UK officialdom nearly always tends towards obfuscation and non-disclosure. Ministers and civil servants dodge embarrassment wherever they can. We must ensure that the original decision to grant the government a superinjunction is a one-off, not a precedent — and that those who rule us cannot again abuse such a powerful tool.
