London:

Passengers and crew of a British Airways flight who were taken hostage in Kuwait in 1990 have launched legal action against the UK government and the airline, a law firm said Monday.

People on BA flight 149 were taken off the Kuala Lumpur-bound plane when it landed in the Gulf state on August 2 that year, hours after Iraq’s then leader Saddam Hussein invaded the country.

Some of the 367 passengers and crew spent more than four months in captivity, including as human shields against Western attacks on the Iraqi dictator’s troops during the first Gulf war.

Ninety-four of them have filed a civil claim at the High Court in London, accusing Britain’s government and BA of “deliberately endangering” civilians, said McCue Jury & Partners.

“All of the claimants suffered severe physical and psychiatric harm during their ordeal, the consequences of which are still felt today,” the law firm added.

The action claims that the UK government and the airline “knew the invasion had started” but allowed the flight to land anyway.

They did so because the flight was used to “insert a covert special ops team into occupied Kuwait”, the firm added.

“We were not treated as citizens but as expendable pawns for commercial and political gain,” said Barry Manners, who was on the flight and is taking part in the claim. 

“A victory over years of cover-up and bare-faced denial will help restore trust in our political and judicial process,” he added.

British government files released in November 2021 revealed that the UK ambassador to Kuwait informed London about reports of an Iraqi incursion before the flight landed but the message was not passed on to BA.

There have also been claims, denied by the government, that London knowingly put passengers at risk by using the flight to deploy undercover operatives and delayed take-off to allow them to board.

The UK government refused to comment on ongoing legal matters.

British Airways has always denied accusations of negligence, conspiracy and a cover-up.

The airline did not respond to a request for comment from AFP but said last year that the records released in 2021 “confirmed British Airways was not warned about the invasion”. 

McCue Jury & Partners had announced in September its intention to file the suit, saying then that the hostages “may claim an estimated average of £170,000 ($213,000) each in damages”. 

In 2003, a French court ordered BA to pay 1.67 million euros to the flight’s French hostages, saying it had “seriously failed in its obligations” to them by landing the plane.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and opposition Labour Party leader Keir Starmer take part in the BBC’s Prime Ministerial Debate, in Nottingham, England, on June 26, 2024.
| Photo Credit: AP

In a final and noisy pre-election debate on Wednesday night, U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and opposition Labour Party Leader, Keir Starmer, argued loudly with each other on the cost of living, taxes and welfare, immigration and gender.

The Prime Minister, in danger of losing his Richmond (Yorkshire) seat, repeatedly warned voters over the 75-minute debate not to “surrender” to Labour on various fronts.

Mr. Sunak’s Conservative Party has been in power for 14 years, and has lagged behind Labour in opinion polls by around 20 points. Following the pandemic, Britons have seen four conservative Prime Ministers, crumbling public services (such as the National Health Service) and a cost of living crisis.

ALSO READ | Snap poll: On the surprise election announcement for the U.K.

The U.K.’s tax burden had hit record levels under the Sunak government. The independent Institute of Fiscal Studies warned earlier in the week that neither party was being upfront about the trade-offs that would have to be made between taxes and public services, which are already in disarray.

Mr. Sunak spoke over his opponent at length during the tax segment, accusing Mr. Starmer of planning a tax on pensions. “It is in their DNA. Mark my words. Your pension, your council tax your home, your car, you name it, they will tax it,” Mr. Sunak said.

On immigration, Mr. Starmer attacked the Prime Minister for the impracticality of the government’s plan to deport migrants with failed asylum claims to Rwanda. Mr Sunak argued that opposition leader did not have a plan and that it would be infeasible to return undocumented migrants to countries like Iran and Afghanistan.

The debate also went into some of Britain’s culture wars. The candidates were asked if they would protect women-only spaces. They both agreed on the equivalence of “sex” and “biological sex” but differed on the legal instruments required to achieve women-only spaces. Mr. Starmer accused the Tories of splitting people on a number of issues , as he cautioned people against transphobia.

Both candidates attempted to sidestep questions on mending Britain’s trading relationship with the European Union (EU). Pressed on the issue, Mr. Starmer said he would get a better deal with the EU including in research and development, as he pushed back against Mr. Sunak’s accusation that a better deal came with the free movement of EU citizens across the U.K. border.

Although Mr. Sunak trails Mr. Starmer in polls, Mr. Starmer also has low popularity.

During Wednesday’s debate, both candidates accused the other of making empty promises.

“Are you two really the best we’ve got to be the next prime minister of our great country?” a senior citizen in the audience, Robert Blackstock, asked.

“I get the frustrations, but think about the choice, allow me to finish the job I’ve started,” Mr. Sunak said as he suggested he would protect pensions from tax, “secure” borders, and have lower taxes that Labour.

“People feel like hope’s been beaten out of them,” Mr. Starmer said, arguing that Britons felt worse off now than they were 14 years ago when the Conservatives came to power.

He talked about his “working class” background and bringing a sense of service to politics.

Following the debate, Mr. Blackstock said he was disappointed with the answers both candidates had provided.

“From my perspective, we want a personality. We want somebody that we can recognise. We want somebody on the world stage, that is going to project our Great Britain. That’s what we want,” he said.

Controversial UK government plans for deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda cleared their final hurdle on Monday, after a marathon tussle between the upper and lower chambers of parliament lasting late into the night. 

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his ruling Conservatives have been seeking to push through legislation that will compel judges to regard the east African nation as a safe third country. 

They also want to give decision-makers on asylum applications the power to disregard sections of international and domestic human rights law to get around a UK Supreme Court ruling that sending migrants on a one-way ticket to Kigali was illegal. 

But the government faced a parliamentary battle to do so, with the upper chamber House of Lords, which scrutinises bills, repeatedly sending the proposed legislation back to the lower House of Commons with amendments. 

Peers, who have criticised the bill as inadequate, notably wanted a requirement that Rwanda could not be treated as safe until an independent monitoring body said so. 

They also wanted an exemption for agents, allies and employees of the UK overseas, including Afghans who fought alongside British armed forces, from being removed. 

MPs in the Commons, where the Tories have a majority, voted down every amendment and asked the Lords to think again in a back-and-forth process known as “parliamentary ping pong”.

The unelected upper chamber, where there is no overall majority for any party, dug in their heels. 

But shortly before midnight (2300 GMT) they eventually conceded to the will of elected MPs and agreed to make no further amendments, ending the deadlock and ensuring the bill will now receive royal assent to pass into law. 

Sunak’s government has been under mounting pressure to cut record numbers of asylum seekers crossing the Channel from northern France in small boats, particularly following a promise of a tougher approach to immigration after the UK left the European Union. 

Challenges 

The Rwanda scheme — criticised by UN human rights experts and groups supporting asylum seekers — has been beset by legal challenges since it was first proposed in 2022. 

That year, the first deportees were pulled off a flight at the last minute after an injunction from the European Court of Human Rights. Two years on, no migrants have been sent. 

The National Audit Office, a public spending watchdog, has estimated it will cost 540 million UK pounds ($665 million) to deport the first 300 migrants — nearly 2 million pounds per person. 

Charities have said the scheme is unworkable and, given the small numbers involved, would do little to cut the backlog of asylum claims. 

Other critics say it sets a dangerous precedent of parliament legislating on an issue already deemed illegal by the courts, and will damage the UK’s international standing and moral authority. 

Rwanda — a tiny nation of 13 million people — lays claim to being one of the most stable countries in Africa. But rights groups accuse veteran President Paul Kagame of ruling in a climate of fear, stifling dissent and free speech. 

Sunak announced earlier on Monday that the government was ready and had plans in place for the first flights to take off in 10 to 12 weeks, promising a wave of deportations “come what may” over the summer months. 

The prime minister is banking on the flagship “stop the boats” policy to act as a deterrent and give his beleaguered Tory party an electoral boost as the country prepares to go to the polls later this year.

The Conservatives have consistently trailed the main opposition Labour party in opinion polls and are on course to be dumped out of power after 14 years. 

Sunak’s plans could still be held up by legal challenges, and UN rights experts have suggested that airlines and aviation regulators could fall foul of internationally protected human rights laws if they take part in deportations. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

London:

Prince Harry lost a court challenge against the UK government on Wednesday over a decision to change the level of his personal security when he visits the country.

The youngest son of King Charles III launched legal action against the government after being told in February 2020 that he would no longer be given the “same degree” of publicly-funded protection when in Britain.

“The ‘bespoke’ process devised for the claimant in the decision of 28 February 2020 was, and is, legally sound,” High Court judge Peter Lane said in his 52-page judgment.

Harry sensationally left Britain in 2020 with his wife Meghan, eventually settling in California in the United States.

The prince told a hearing at London’s High Court in December that security concerns were preventing visits back to the United Kingdom.

“The UK is my home. The UK is central to the heritage of my children,” he told the court in a written statement read out by his lawyers.

“That cannot happen if it’s not possible to keep them safe.

“I cannot put my wife in danger like that and, given my experiences in life, I am reluctant to unnecessarily put myself in harm’s way too,” he added.

Harry’s mother Princess Diana was killed in a high-speed car crash in Paris in 1997 as she tried to escape paparazzi photographers.

Lawyers for the government rejected claims that Harry was “singled out” and treated “less favourably” or that a proper risk analysis was not carried out.

– Non-working royal –

James Eadie, for the interior ministry, told the court that it was decided Harry would not be provided the same level of protection as before because he had left life as a working royal and mostly lived abroad.

In May 2023, Harry lost a bid for a legal review of another government decision refusing him permission to pay for specialist UK police protection himself.

The interior ministry argued then that it was “not appropriate” for wealthy people to “buy” protective security when it had decided that it was not in the public interest for such taxpayer-funded protection.

London’s Metropolitan Police also opposed Harry’s offer on the grounds that it would be wrong to “place officers in harm’s way upon payment of a fee by a private individual”.

It is one of many legal cases launched by Harry.

Earlier this month, he settled a long-running lawsuit against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), whose journalists he accused of being linked to deceptive and unlawful methods, but vowed to continue his legal battles with several other UK media outlets.

Harry is one of seven high-profile people, including Elton John, bringing legal action against the publisher of the Daily Mail over allegations of unlawful information gathering.

He and actor Hugh Grant are also suing News Group Newspapers (NGN), part of Rupert Murdoch’s global media empire and publisher of The Sun and the now-defunct News Of The World tabloids, over similar claims.

However, Harry, last month dropped his libel case against UK newspaper The Mail on Sunday over an article on his legal battles with the UK government.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

London:

Britain is to pump 500 million pounds ($621 million) into Tata Steel to decarbonise its Welsh site, in a deal aimed at securing the future of the country’s steel industry but which puts as many as 3,000 jobs at risk.

The 1.25 billion pound total funding package for Britain’s biggest steel works includes 750 million pounds from Tata to pay for the switch to producing steel from lower-emission electric arc furnaces from coal-powered methods.

Britain’s government said in a statement its grant, described as one of the largest government support packages in history, would help safeguard 5,000 jobs.

Tata Steel currently employs more than 8,000 people, raising the prospect that there will be as many as 3,000 redundancies as the lower-carbon electric furnaces are less labour intensive.

Tata Steel had long warned that without government help it could close its sites and British business and trade minister Kemi Badenoch said on Friday the government was securing jobs for the long-term.

“The UK government is backing our steel sector, and this proposal will secure a sustainable future for Welsh steel and is expected to save thousands of jobs in the long term,” she said in a statement.

The government said Tata Steel UK would now inform and consult with staff and unions on the proposals.

Britain’s steel industry directly employs 39,800 people according to figures released by UK Steel in May, and supports a further 50,000 jobs in the supply chain.

A domestic steel-making industry is crucial to Britain’s security because it is used to build warships and fighter jets, as well as underpinning the manufacturing, auto and transport sectors.

Britain said the new electric furnaces would cut the country’s entire emissions by around 1.5%.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)