King Charles says horrors of 7 July bombings ‘will never be forgotten'
In a message marking two decades since the atrocities, he highlighted the 'spirit of unity' that emerged in London and across the country, which has aided national healing, he said.
On 7 July 2005, four suicide bombers targeted the capital's transport network, killing 52 people and injuring over 770 across three underground trains and a bus.
The monarch called for a renewed commitment to fostering a society of all faiths and backgrounds, standing firm against those who seek to sow division.
He said: 'Today, as we mark 20 years since the tragic events of 7 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.'
Other members of the royal family are to join services and memorials to mark the anniversary.
On behalf of the King, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh will attend the National Service of Commemoration at St Paul's Cathedral from 11.30am on Monday.
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.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
22 minutes ago
- BBC News
Sheffield City Council 'grappling' with £70m budget shortfall
Sheffield City Council says it is "grappling with significant financial challenges" as it forecasts a budget gap of £70m over the next four years.A council report said the shortfall was in part due to continued pressure on high-demand services such as social care and the "situation remains tough".It comes on top of a series of recent financial challenges due to rising costs and reduced funding, which resulted in an overspend of £34.7m for report said: "The current overspends relate to ongoing pressures in key areas including persistent demand and cost pressures in social care, growing needs in special educational needs and home-to-school transport, and an unprecedented surge in homelessness." The report adds: "The council has been able to mitigate these issues in previous financial years using one-off funding and reserves however, these are not long-term solutions for financial sustainability."According to the report education, children and families overspent by £16.6m, including an extra £6m in home to school transport, due to the increased demand, with over 1,000 more children being transported to/from school than homelessness support went £11.7m over budget. The report said: "The government does not fully subsidise all housing benefit payments made by the council, even though it sets the rules that determine the amount the council has to pay."In 2023-24, the council incurred a loss of £4.9m as a result of the legislation relating to temporary homelessness and £3.5m relating to supported accommodation."The council is essentially bridging the gap between the cost of the accommodation and the amount we are able to recover via housing benefits."Councillors will discuss the report at a meeting on Thursday, 10th July. Listen to highlights from South Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North
BBC News
37 minutes ago
- BBC News
Calls for 'written commitment' over Lotus's Norfolk factory
A council leader has called for "a written commitment" over the future of the Lotus car factory and warned the area could not "afford to lose" suggested the company's owners, China-based Geely, were considering shutting the company's site at Hethel in Norfolk, where 1,300 people work.A statement from Lotus said the company had "no plans to close the factory" and following a meeting with Geely, Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said he "was reassured".Conservative county council leader Kay Mason Billig said reassurances were "good news" but she still feared jobs were under threat. She echoed the concerns of South Norfolk's Labour MP Ben Goldsborough, who called for "openness" after talking to Geely representatives last the meeting, the Department for Business and Trade said Reynolds had "set out the government's commitment to working with Lotus and the wider car sector to improve competitiveness and drive growth". Along with South Norfolk District Council and the Norfolk Business Board, Mason Billig signed a letter asking Reynolds "to do what you can to obtain a written commitment from Geely to protect Lotus in the UK"."Lotus is a large employer and it's one of the bedrocks of Norfolk," she told the BBC."Everybody looks at Lotus and thinks 'Norfolk'. We can't afford to lose a factory of that size in this county."The letter also questioned the government's recently announced Modern Industrial Chancellor Rachel Reeves has called it a "10-year plan to deliver the certainty and stability businesses need to invest in the high growth sectors that will drive our growth mission". But the letter warned it was "predominantly focused on city regions, the North and the Midlands".It said whilst Norfolk had strengths in areas including the clean energy, agricultural technology and financial services sectors it was "overlooked", with much of the funding for the east aimed at Cambridge. Nova Fairbank, chief executive of the Norfolk Chambers of Commerce, said: "Cambridge has been so successful that people don't tend to look away from Cambridge."We have many high growth sectors and as a business community we stand ready to support economic growth and jobs in this region," she said its position had not changed and insisted there "are no plans to close the factory" in Hethel.A spokesman for the government said its Industrial Strategy "has introduced ambitious plans to drive growth and investment in every region of the UK, including Norfolk".They added: "The strategy builds on Norfolk and the East of England's strengths and will be developed further by upcoming plans for the Life Sciences, Defence and Financial Services sectors which will support Norwich's thriving and historic insurance industry." Follow Norfolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The middle class have the most to fear from Labour's wealth tax
A wealth tax would be economically damaging, administratively burdensome and ultimately counterproductive. There is a clear need to push back against calls for one in the UK. Although often framed as a response to rising fiscal pressures, such taxes consistently fail to deliver the revenues promised, distort behaviour and penalise saving, investment and growth. Worse, they divert attention from the deeper structural challenges in public spending and the need for long-term reform. Few countries globally have a wealth tax, with the number in the OECD falling from 12 in 1990 to three now. In those three –Norway, Spain and Switzerland – thresholds have risen and rates fallen. The global retreat from wealth taxation reflects a hard-earned recognition that such levies don't work. While much coverage focuses on the fact that the wealthy will leave, the truth is these taxes fall disproportionately on those who are not internationally mobile – retired savers, small business owners, and households with illiquid assets. The most mobile individuals and capital simply relocate. The middle class would be those with most to fear from a wealth tax. The result would be not just lost revenue, but a damaging shift in the composition of the UK economy. Britain would risk becoming a 'domestic economy' – less open to international capital, talent, and enterprise, and more reliant on taxed domestic wealth and consumption. That is a path to stagnation, not renewal. For the UK to raise a wealth tax would send a negative signal about the outlook, disincentivising entrepreneurs and wealth creators, discouraging them from investing or creating jobs here. An efficient tax is one which does not impact behaviour. A wealth tax would do just that. This is not a defence of billionaires but a focus on the economic reality of how the policy would work. It would deter those considering the UK as a base for innovation and enterprise. Research for The Wealth Tax Commission by academics at the London School of Economics, and endorsed by former Cabinet secretary Gus O'Donnell, is often cited in favour of the idea. Interestingly, its analysis contains many reasons to oppose the very tax it is advocating. For a start, it accepts that it would be more effective to make existing taxes on wealth such as capital gains work better, as opposed to a new one. Worryingly, it acknowledges that even at a very low rate of wealth tax, one in six of those impacted could leave. As the report puts it, 'at a tax rate of 1pc, between 7pc and 17pc of the initial tax base would be lost to behavioural response. This is not a trivial amount'. That research also found that for individuals with taxable wealth over £5m, 87pc is tied up in 'business assets.' It also acknowledged that 'another problem category could be start-ups that are potentially profitable but loss-making in the early years'. A wealth tax would clearly act as a deterrent to those with the potential to create jobs, growth, and future tax revenues. It would be both anti-business and anti-growth. The double taxation involved in capital gains tax, inheritance tax and wealth taxes would, in time, tend to limit domestic savings, investment and capital accumulation. The long-term result would be to reduce the UK's productive capacity, undermine financial resilience and discourage long-term planning. These issues are not new. Dennis Healey, Chancellor between 1974 and 1979, acknowledged: 'We had committed ourselves to a wealth tax, but in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle.' Perhaps just as well. Ireland, which did impose a wealth tax in 1975, abolished it in 1978. There are also deep issues of liquidity and fairness associated with wealth taxes. An old argument against is that they would hit people who are asset rich but cash poor. Even its advocates accept that it 'may require acceptance of the need to force some additional borrowing and/or asset sales.' Yet, the economic reality is that imperfect capital markets mean it is often difficult for people to raise the cash value of their fixed assets such as houses or precious items. Borrowing, or deferring tax liabilities, would be cumbersome and could depress asset prices, undermining property markets and, in turn, inheritance tax receipts. The Treasury has always argued in favour of taxes where there is a clearly identified income stream, making them easier to collect and harder to avoid. That is clearly not the case with a wealth tax. The administrative burden would be significant. Unlike income, which is transparent and traceable, wealth is often hard to value and easy to shift. Implementing a wealth tax would require annual valuations of illiquid assets and would create strong incentives for avoidance, reclassification and emigration. Worse still, if applied at a rate high enough to raise material revenue, it would amount to a slow expropriation over time. A recurring wealth tax of 2pc would see the state appropriate the full value of a person's assets over 50 years. Alternatively, if imposed at a lower rate - one that households might realistically be able to pay - the revenue raised would likely be minimal, raising the question of whether the disruption would ever justify the return. A progressive tax system is right but in a globally competitive economy, over-taxing mobile assets risks driving talent abroad and deterring investment. The UK's future prosperity will be secured not by taxing wealth more but by creating the conditions for more people to generate it.
