
D-Day depictions in film and TV: The best and worst ranked by historians
More Videos
Published
1 year agoon
By
adminD-Day has been re-created in literature, TV, film – and even video games – across the last eight decades.
The largest amphibious invasion in history – when Allied forces landed on the coast in northern France on 6 June 1944 – was an event that changed the course of history. So, it’s no surprise it’s made an impression on the big screen.
We’re revisiting 13 of the best-known screen adaptations – and with the help of three top historians – helping you pick the best of the bunch to mark D-Day’s 80th anniversary.
THE HISTORIANS:
– Paul Woodadge: British D-Day historian, YouTuber, author of two Second World War books including Angels Of Mercy and self-described “D-Day nerd”
– Dr Peter Caddick-Adams: British military historian and author of books including Sand & Steel: A New History Of D-Day
– Joseph Balkoski: American military historian and author of eight Second World War books including Omaha Beach: D-Day

Pic: 20thCentFox/Everett/Shutterstock
FILM: D-Day The Sixth Of June, 1956
WHAT IT IS: Romance starring Robert Taylor, Richard Todd and Dana Wynter
PLOT: A classic love triangle, where a British lieutenant and an American paratrooper fight for the affection of one woman.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW: The D-Day scenes were shot in California using only 80 extras, cleverly using the projection of another take of the same scene in the background to give the impression there were twice as many soldiers on the beach.
TRIVIA: Todd, who participated in the Normandy landings in real life, wore his original beret in the movie. He also wore it in the next film we look at, The Longest Day.
HISTORIAN VIEW – PAUL: “Historically it’s awful. Taylor – who was the dreamboat all the women wanted to be with – is clunky and very theatrical. I don’t think it was very good in the 1950s, and it’s just dreadful now… The film has very few redeeming features. It’s best watched and then immediately forgotten. I give it one out of 10.”
HISTORIAN VIEW – PETER: “It’s a movie we’ve seen a million times before, dressed up as being on D-Day. When it was made in 1956, we still had national service and many of the people who saw it had lived through the war. So, the characters wearing a uniform in the right way, carrying the right weapons, and doing the right things when they were climbing cliffs for example was important. The actual craft, the setting and the costumes carry it through… but the screenplay really cheats, and that’s why it’s largely been forgotten. I give it five out of 10.”
COMBINED SCORE OUT OF 10: 3
D-Day latest: World leaders join veterans in Normandy

Pic: Moviestore/Shutterstock
FILM: The Longest Day, 1962
WHAT IT IS: Action starring John Wayne, Sean Connery, Henry Fonda, Robert Mitchum, Richard Todd and Richard Burton
PLOT: D-Day told from both the Allied and German point of view. The movie had four directors, with German scenes directed by a German director, the British by a British director, American by an American director and French by a French director – and all spoken in their own language too.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW: One of the most expensive films ever made, it was billed as featuring a whopping “48 international stars”. Sean Connery wasn’t a big name when he filmed it, but Doctor No came out between filming and editing, and so they whacked him up the billing for release.
TRIVIA: Despite the starry cast, the guy playing Dwight Eisenhower was actually an Oscar-winning set decorator called Henry Grace who was painting in the studios that day and happened to look a lot like the former president. Not the best actor in the world, his voice was dubbed over to improve the performance.
HISTORIAN VIEW – PAUL: “It still holds up. If you were wanting to try and explain D-Day to someone and you had three hours, it would be a very good way of explaining it. A young audience might find it a bit slow-paced but it’s not overly heroic and is fairly based in reality. I give it eight out of 10.”
HISTORIAN VIEW – JOSEPH: “I think it’s far and away the best D-Day film that people can watch, and I urge them to make it their go-to D-Day film. It captures the aura and the immensity of the day and does it in a relatively accurate way. My father, who served in World War Two, was very moved by the film. If he was a combat veteran and he saw something in that movie that says something right there. I give it 10 out of 10.”
COMBINED SCORE OUT OF 10: 9

Pic: Mgm/Kobal/Shutterstock
FILM: The Americanization Of Emily, 1964
WHAT IT IS: Comedy starring Julie Andrews and James Garner
PLOT: A cynical US Navy commander becomes an accidental war hero and finds love in the process.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW: At a time when war films were all about heroes, this movie puts a coward at its centre, and explored the unexpected consequences of a media-misunderstanding propelling a reluctant man to the status of national hero.
TRIVIA: Actress Sharon Tate appears as an uncredited extra in the film, as a guest at a party. The scene itself was filmed on 22 November 1963, the same day as President John F Kennedy was assassinated.
HISTORIAN VIEW – PAUL: “This is not bad. Made in the 1960s, a lot of the original audience would have been World War Two veterans and Korea veterans. Julie Andrews is just gorgeous in it. I would recommend watching it – but its old-fashioned humour means you won’t find it funny. It’s certainly not a laugh-a-minute. I give it eight out of 10.”
HISTORIAN VIEW – JOSEPH: “It was somewhat risqué for its time… It did kind of capture the chaos and the violence of the moment in a comedic way, if such a thing is possible. I was dragged to that movie as a teenager because my sister was an absolute devoted fan of Julie Andrews. But I did enjoy it. I give it six out of 10.”
COMBINED SCORE OUT OF 10: 7
Read more:
Why German snipers spared the life of Mad Piper on beaches
Eleven things you might not know about D-Day
Advertisement

Pic: Mgm/Kobal/Shutterstock
FILM: 36 Hours, 1964
WHAT IT IS: Thriller starring James Garner, Rod Taylor and Eva Marie Saint
PLOT: An American major is captured by Nazis who try to convince him he’s lost his memory and six years have passed, in a bid to get him to reveal details about the Allied invasion.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW: It’s based on short story, Beware Of The Dog, written by author Roald Dahl in 1944, and first published in Harper’s magazine.
TRIVIA: The movie features a very clever MacGuffin (a term made popular by Alfred Hitchcock describing a device that is essential to plot forward, but which has no significance in itself). Try to spot it if you’re watching it for the first time.
HISTORIAN VIEW – PAUL: “This is one of my favourite films about World War Two. It starts off as a thriller, then becomes an escape movie. It’s a bit Mission Impossible, with one of the most inventive little MacGuffins in a movie ever. I give it 10 out of 10.”
HISTORIAN VIEW – PETER: “This is science fiction meets D-Day. The premise of shifting time is interesting, and I think the theme of extracting secrets from each other was given extra significance by the Cold War. Of course, when the film was being made, your opponent would have been a communist rather than a German. The 36-hour structure is a good idea because it means time is ticking down all the while. It’s an ambitious ask and reminds me of Mission Impossible. I give it five out of 10.”
COMBINED SCORE OUT OF 10: 7.5

Pic: Everett/Shutterstock
FILM: The Dirty Dozen, 1967
WHAT IT IS: Action starring Lee Marvin, Donald Sutherland, Charles Bronson, Telly Savalas and Ernest Borgnine
PLOT: A dozen American convicted murderers are sent to assassinate Nazis in northern France ahead of D-Day.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW: A comic book version of World War Two, the plot of the movie is said to be very loosely based on a real group of paratroopers called the “Filthy 13” who were part of the 101st Airborne Division, and while not convicts, were known to enjoy their share of drinking and fighting.
TRIVIA: A remake of the movie was announced in 2019, with The Fast And The Furious screenwriter David Ayers at the helm. Four years later it’s still in development, with Ayers describing a “nerve-wracking” process of trying to “modernise something and build it out for a modern audience, while at the same time keeping that DNA”. Watch this space.
HISTORIAN VIEW – PAUL: “It’s very macho – your testosterone levels increase just watching it. But it’s a brilliant cast and actually quite complex as a character study, taking an hour and a half to get anywhere near the action. A classic, and a bit of a “blokes’ movie,” it’s the kind of film they don’t make anymore. I give it eight out of 10.”
HISTORIAN VIEW – PETER: “There’s no attempt at great filmmaking here, this is Hollywood simply trying to coin a lot of money out of a lot of bangs. There is an attempt at characterisation, but only on the Allied side, the Germans don’t have names. Along the way there’s a Hollywood budget of an enormous number of explosions to be triggered, hundreds of rounds of ammunition to be fired, and lots of smoke to be thrown around. It’s a macho flick, trying to reinvent the western in Second World War terms. But it’s certainly lasted the course. I give it six out of 10.”
COMBINED SCORE OUT OF 10: 7

Pic: 20th Century Fox/Kobal/Shutterstock
FILM: Patton, 1970
WHAT IT IS: A biography starring George C Scott and Karl Malden, with a screenplay by Francis Ford Coppola (who went on to direct The Godfather)
PLOT: Controversial American General George S Patton’s career is examined through the lens of World War Two (he wasn’t in charge of an actual invading force on the day but led a deception force in a bid to fool the Germans).
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW: The movie’s famous opening scene is Patton giving a motivational speech to troops in front of an enormous US flag. While the lead star George C Scott had a gravelly, authoritative voice, the real-life General Patton had squeaky, nasal tones, and so would revert to using expletives in important speeches to inject authority. The movie had to tone down swearing to avoid an R rating.
TRIVIA: Scott won an Oscar for his performance (the movie also won best picture,) but turned it down as he disliked the concept of acting competitions.
HISTORIAN VIEW – PAUL: “This is a clever movie, written in a way that appeals to two audiences. If you were a serving American military officer, you watched it as a warring biography of one of America’s greatest heroes. If you were a Woodstock-going hippie, you thought it was a scathing biopic of the idiocy of men at war. And both audiences thought it was for them. It says a lot about why people go to war and what leadership does. I give it seven out of 10.”
HISTORIAN VIEW – JOSEPH: “This film is well made with tremendous acting. When you look back, it does have some historical flaws – the movie starting with the death of Patton’s aid, the storyline skipping over Patton’s philandering and a tinge of cynicism over the British contribution to World War Two, which is very typical in American films. But I think overall the movie stands up to scrutiny, I was moved by it. I give it nine out of 10.”
COMBINED SCORE OUT OF 10: 8
Read more on D-Day:
How a framed photo of veteran’s wife saved his life
The 21-year-old’s weather report that changed the course of history

Pic: Moviestore/Shutterstock
FILM: Overlord, 1975
WHAT IT IS: Action starring Brian Stirner and Davyd Harries
PLOT: A young British soldier prepares to join the fray of World War Two.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW: A whopping 27% of the film is made up of Imperial War Museum archive footage, actually shot in World War Two.
TRIVIA: A labour of love for director Stuart Cooper – who appeared as an actor in The Dirty Dozen playing Private Roscoe Lever – the majority of the newly shot scenes which make up the narrative story of the movie were filmed in just 10 days.
HISTORIAN VIEW – PAUL: “This is two films in one – one of which is brilliant and one of which is not. The archive stuff is great, but the narrative was shot on the equivalent of £2.50 and a packet of crisps. The lead actor, Brian Steiner, has the charisma of a wet haddock, and it’s all close shots because they haven’t got enough people to fill out the parade ground for training scenes. When it comes to the culmination of D-Day, you cut from real footage where there are millions of ships and men, to [a scene] filmed in a swimming pool. Two people jump out of a cardboard landing craft. I’m exaggerating, but not much. It’s a worthy effort but ultimately fails. I give it five out of 10.”
HISTORIAN VIEW – PETER: “This is a creature of its time, coming out when anti-militarism was at its height both in the UK and US. It’s rebellious, young filmmaking questioning authority and asking what the value of an individual’s life is. Really, a First World War anti-war movie set in D-Day. All the way through you are given the notion that [the lead character’s] going to die and you’re not disappointed. You can see it coming a mile off. An anthem for doomed youth, Wilfred Owen could have written this screenplay. On the plus side, there aren’t many movies that take you through the training for a major military action, and it’s frantically well-researched in terms of visuals and accuracy. I give it six out of 10.”
COMBINED SCORE OUT OF 10: 5.5

Pic: Lorimar/Kobal/Shutterstock
FILM: The Big Red One, 1980
WHAT IT IS: Action starring Mark Hamill and Lee Marvin
PLOT: A US sergeant and four of his soldiers battle across Europe, towards the end of World War Two.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW: Director Sam Fuller fought on Omaha Beach on D-Day, and the movie is about his experience as a World War Two soldier.
TRIVIA: Beset with development issues since the idea for the movie was first floated in the late 1950s, the film saw its budget cut halfway through production and was heavily cut on release. In 2004 (seven years after Fuller’s death) a new cut was released adding 47 minutes to the running time, bringing it more closely in line with the director’s original vision.
HISTORIAN VIEW – PAUL: “This film is very Marmite. Yes, Lee Marvin was way too old for the role of sergeant. But it’s very clever with its language, and only uses the kind of thing soldiers would say at the time. But to say a bigger thing, I think it’s one of the most worthy attempts to try and show what men who go through combat actually experience. It came out the same year as The Empire Strikes Back, which also starred Mark Hamill, but failed to hit the box office in the same way. It’s a shame. I give it nine out of 10.”
HISTORIAN VIEW – JOSEPH: “I found this movie to be ludicrous. It has a bit of a cult status in America, but for me, the inaccuracies crossed the line of being so grotesque it was annoying. With such a low budget it was ridiculous to attempt to depict D-Day and is an insult to the historical professional. The scripting was just absurd, and completely implausible, as was the hypothesis for the whole plot. I watched it once and have no desire ever to see it again. I give it three out of 10.”
COMBINED SCORE OUT OF 10: 6

Pic: Everett/Shutterstock
FILM: Saving Private Ryan, 1998
WHAT IT IS: Action starring Tom Hanks, Matt Damon, Tom Sizemore and Edward Burns, directed by Steven Spielberg
PLOT: A group of American soldiers go on a mission to locate one of their men – Private Ryan – and bring him home safely.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW: The movie’s opening scene depicts Allied soldiers storming Omaha Beach and took around 1,500 people and a month to film. Capturing the true horror or war, the viewer – like the lead characters – spends 24 minutes experiencing the chaos, the bloodshed and the blind terror of combat.
TRIVIA: Unable to film in Normandy, due to the built-up nature of the area, the D-Day landing was filmed in Ireland, on Ballinesker Beach. Milk of Magnesia was used to create the illusion of soldiers vomiting from boats and dead fish were put in the water and across the shore. Despite fake blood and sand getting stuck on the handheld cameras used to film the action, the shots were still used as Spielberg believed it made the footage look all the more authentic.
HISTORIAN VIEW – PAUL: “I have a love/hate relationship with this movie. It broke the mould of how war films were made. Yes, there are incorrect details – German obstacles being the wrong way around and bunkers of the wrong type- but it grips you. It puts blood and death in your face. The scene where the medic dies, at the test screening, everyone said, ‘Oh God, that scene was so uncomfortable’. So, Spielberg made it longer. It changed World War film moviemaking and had a global impact which is all credit to Spielberg. I give it eight out of 10.”
HISTORIAN VIEW – JOSEPH: “While I didn’t really enjoy it, it’s a very pivotal film in the development of the public’s interest in World War Two. The plot is absurd and presents a remarkably American-centric view of the war. And it made some historical whoppers, triggering outrage among British veterans – particularly Royal Navy veterans – when the film was released after Spielberg said British fighters were not involved in the Omaha Beach landing. He made a big mistake and it was a major flaw in the movie. They blew it on the essential research. I give it six out of 10.”
COMBINED SCORE OUT OF 10: 7

Pic: David James/HBO/20th Century Fox/Dream Works/Kobal/Shutterstock
TV SHOW: Band Of Brothers, 2001
WHAT IT IS: Miniseries starring Damian Lewis, Kirk Acevedo, Scott Grimes, Donnie Wahlberg, Ron Livingstone, David Schwimmer and Dexter Fletcher, with Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks as executive producers
PLOT: The show follows Easy Company of the US Army 101st Airborne Division and their missions in Europe across World War Two.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW: In a bid to be as historically accurate as possible, most actors spoke with real veterans ahead of filming, and some veterans came to the set. Many of the actors who starred in the show have gone on to play a part in memorial events in the years following, and even have an active WhatsApp group to stay in touch with one another – such was the impact the show had on their lives.
TRIVIA: At the time of filming, this was the most expensive miniseries ever made, costing around $125m (£98m) for 10 episodes. An additional $15m (£12m) was spent on supporting events, including special screenings for Easy Company veterans, with one held on Utah Beach in Normandy.
HISTORIAN VIEW – PAUL: “This is the best World War Two production ever made and has never been surpassed. Lightning struck when they made this. The Why We Fight episode about the Holocaust is taught in Holocaust studies all around the world and has brought the Holocaust to a new generation. It explained duty and sacrifice. Every actor nails it, and the cinematography and music is spot-on. It’s phenomenal, timeless and perfect. I give it a hard ten if not an 11.”
HISTORIAN VIEW – JOSEPH: “This is far and away the best Word War Two series ever made. It exceeds the portrayal of D-Day in The Longest Day in terms of accuracy and tension and was based on a well-written history book, whereas Saving Private Ryan was a made-up story. It really captured actual events, and was devoid of that American-centric stuff, even though it was about an American unit. It was very fair to other nations that participated. I can’t think of a negative. I give it 10 out of 10.”
COMBINED SCORE OUT OF 10: 10

Pic: © 2024 Sony Pictures Television Inc. All Rights Reserved
TV: Ike: Countdown To D-Day, 2004
WHAT IT IS: TV movie starring Tom Selleck
PLOT: A portrait of General Dwight Eisenhower preparing the Allied troops for D-Day.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW: Many people rank this among Selleck’s best screen performances, but the fact it was a made-for-TV movie means it has largely gone under the radar. Fans of Selleck may well feel cheated this movie didn’t get better recognition.
TRIVIA: A bit of a continuity nit-picking here – We see a snatch of Laurence Olivier’s movie Henry V being shown in the film, which was set in the spring of 1944. But the Shakespearean movie was not released until the autumn of 1944.
HISTORIAN VIEW – PAUL: “This is pretty damn good – once you’ve got over the fact that Tom Selleck isn’t playing Magnum, or Monica’s boyfriend from Friends. Selleck humanised Eisenhower and is surprisingly good. I also appreciate that it didn’t exploit the fact that Eisenhower may or may not have had an affair with his British driver, Kay Summersby. It had good historical advisers behind it and was authentic. It didn’t get the plaudits it deserved. I give it eight out of 10.”
HISTORIAN VIEW – JOSEPH: “Selleck captured Eisenhower very well. It’s fair to say the film features a lot of men sitting around in rooms talking, but it was very well done. It captures how Eisenhower had to deal with very difficult personalities like Montgomery and to some extent Churchill and how [Eisenhower] was such an agreeable person that he took all these diverse people and brought them together for a unified purpose. I enjoyed the film. I give it eight out of 10.”
COMBINED SCORE OUT OF 10: 8

Pic: Moviestore/Shutterstock
FILM: Churchill, 2017
WHAT IT IS: Historical war drama starring Brian Cox and Miranda Richardson
PLOT: We follow former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in the days leading up to D-Day.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW: The film received mixed reviews on release but was largely derided for playing it fast and loose with the facts. Noted Churchill biographer Andrew Roberts was particularly scathing, saying it rendered the former British PM practically unrecognisable.
TRIVIA: Gary Oldman was originally offered the part of Churchill but turned it down. He’d go on to win an Oscar for his portrayal of Churchill in Darkest Hour just a year later.
HISTORIAN VIEW – PAUL: “When historians come out in their truckloads to lambast a film you know it’s done badly. While it’s true that Churchill had a phobia of amphibious landings, this presents him as a pacifist or hippie, which he was not. It’s a dreadful film – don’t inflict it on yourself. I give it one out of 10.”
HISTORIAN VIEW – JOSEPH: “The portrayal of Churchill vis-a-vis the D-Day operation was highly inaccurate. Churchill was portrayed in the film as being violently opposed to the operation and it was a vast exaggeration of his actual position. I don’t remember much about the movie because I was so appalled by it. I give it three out of 10.”
COMBINED SCORE OUT OF 10: 2

Pic: Pathe Films/Everett/Shutterstock
FILM: The Great Escaper, 2023
WHAT IT IS: Biographical drama starring Michael Caine and Glenda Jackson
PLOT: An 89-year-old British World War Two Navy veteran breaks out of his nursing home to go to the 70th anniversary D-Day commemorations in France. It’s based on the true story of D-Day veteran Bernard Jordan.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW: This is swansong for both its lead stars. Sir Michael Caine, who is now 91, has said it’s his final film, while Glenda Jackson, CBE, died just a few weeks after watching a screening of the finished film in the summer of 2023, aged 87.
TRIVIA: Caine and Jackson had starred opposite each other in the drama The Romantic Englishwoman 48 years earlier, again playing husband and wife.
HISTORIAN VIEW – PAUL: “This film is superb. Due to COVID restrictions, they couldn’t film in Normandy, so it’s shot entirely in UK, recreating the Arromanches in East Sussex at Camber Sands and Hastings. It deals with reconciliation and dealing with trauma that you’ve been bottling away for a long time. Michael Caine – who was an Army veteran in Korea in real life – is so tied up with the genre of war films, that him coming back as an elderly actor, almost revisiting the characters he played as a young man, works well. It’s a beautifully charming film and I give it nine out of 10.”
HISTORIAN VIEW – PETER: “This film is absolutely gorgeous. You’ll need a bucket and an industrial-sized pack of handkerchiefs to help you get through it. It’s the experience of every old soldier going back to their battlefield and about the fading of warriors and how they fade. Everybody has a relative or grandparent who would have been the Jackson or Caine character, who came through that period, and sat us on their knee and said, ‘Let me tell you about the Blitz, or let me tell you about rationing, or let me tell you about those Americans who came over with their chewing gum and their jiving’. It’s beautifully acted and comes across as deep and genuine. I give it 10 out of 10.”
COMBINED SCORE OUT OF 10: 9.5
You may like
UK
Parents tell ‘untold stories’ of how their ‘hero’ daughters survived Southport attack
Published
6 hours agoon
July 9, 2025By
admin
The parents of survivors of the Southport attack have revealed the “untold stories” of how their “hero” children escaped.
Axel Rudakubana, 18, murdered Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, Bebe King, six, and Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, in what the chairman of the public inquiry Sir Adrian Fulford called “one of the most egregious crimes in our country’s history”.
Eight children were injured along with two adults at a Taylor Swift-themed class in the Merseyside seaside town on 29 July last year, while 15 others escaped without physical injuries.
The surviving victims and their families have been granted anonymity during the inquiry, with one girl referred to as C3. Her father was the first to give evidence at Liverpool Town Hall on Wednesday.

Alice da Silva Aguiar, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Bebe King were murdered in the attack
Reading a statement on behalf of him and his wife, he told how their daughter was the first girl to escape the scene by running from the Hart Space building and hiding behind a parked car before jumping through an open car door.
“Our nine-year-old daughter was stabbed three times in the back by a coward she didn’t even see,” he said.
“Although she didn’t know what was happening – she knew she had to run. She ran out of the studio door, down the stairs, and out of the building.”
Read more: Southport inquiry as it happened
He said she can be seen “looking scared, confused and pained” in CCTV footage of the incident, adding: “It was troubling for us to see what she had to go through, before either of her parents had arrived at the scene.”
“We are so thankful and proud that despite being critically injured, she was able to make the decisions she did in that terrible moment,” he said.
The girl’s father said his daughter “continues to astound” them with the way she dealt with the attack and her recovery, saying: “It has been inspiring for us to witness.”

Inquiry chair Sir Adrian Fulford at Liverpool Town Hall. Pic: PA
He said she has difficulty sleeping, experiences flashbacks, looks over her shoulder scanning for potential danger when she leaves the house, has a fear of loud noises and has to turn off some songs when they come on the radio.
“Our daughter knows that she is loved,” he said.
“It is through this support and love that she will continue to thrive. We couldn’t be prouder of her. She is our hero.”
Stabbed 33 times
The parents of a girl referred to as C1 told how their “beautiful, articulate, fun-loving little girl” was stabbed 33 times.
After being attacked she escaped the building, but Rudakubana was seen dragging her back inside in CCTV footage played during his sentencing hearing, which drew gasps in court, before she was stabbed 20 more times.
“That is how she became known in this nightmare. The girl that was dragged back in,” her mother said.

Police at the scene. Pic: PA

She thanked the teachers who escaped to call police and flag down help but said: “The most painful of truths for us though, and what has been most devastating to come to terms with, is that there were no adults to help during both of her attacks.
“She was only supported by other children. The courage and strength she found leaves me crushed, but in complete awe.”
She added: “It is these untold stories of remarkable strength and bravery that are missing when we have heard other accounts of this day.”
The mother said the “hours and days that followed the attack were a living hell” and her daughter’s memories – including a concert of her “idol” Taylor Swift – have “been forfeited to make space for the trauma that she carries”.
“We tell her she was brave. How proud we are that she was able to help other girls. How her strength makes us feel strong. How important what she did that day was. She is her own hero. She may be a survivor of this attack, but she is still trying to survive this, every single day,” she said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:06
‘We need to understand what went wrong’
Attack ‘changed everything’
The mother of a girl referred to as C8 said she was “like any other seven-year-old little girl”, “with an incredible energy” and “full of life”.
But in a statement read out by a legal representative, she said the attack last year “changed everything” when she got a “panicked phone call” from a friend’s mother, who couldn’t find the girls.
“That moment, the sound of fear in her voice and the panic I felt will never leave me,” she said.
“I rushed to the scene and what I saw is something no parent should ever see. My daughter had sustained serious physical injuries including a stab wound to her arm and a cut to her face and chin.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:02
‘We don’t want Elsie forgotten’
Read more from Sky News:
Infected blood victims ‘waiting to die in limbo’
The fly-tippers turning trash into cash
She said her daughter “remembers the attack vividly” and later told her “she thought it had to be fake, because she couldn’t believe something that terrible could really be happening”.
“Where she was once eager to go off with her friends, she now needs my support if it is somewhere public or unknown,” she said.
“Simple days out now need a level of safety planning that we would never have considered before.”
‘Constant flashbacks’
The mother of a girl referred to as Q, who escaped without being physically injured, told how she arrived to collect her daughter to find “children running from the building, screaming and fearing for their lives”.
In a statement read to the inquiry by a legal representative on her behalf, she said it was “the most horrific experience of my life”.
“What I saw on that day will stick with me forever, I constantly have flashbacks and relive what happened,” she said.
She said her daughter has become “very withdrawn” since the attack and has asked her parents, “How will I ever be normal again?”
Rudakubana was jailed for a minimum of 52 years in January and is being investigated over an alleged attack on a prison officer at Belmarsh prison in May.
The public inquiry, announced by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper in January, is looking into whether the attack could or should have been prevented, given what was known about the killer.
Rudakubana, who was born in Cardiff, had contact with police, the courts, the youth justice system, social services and mental health services, and was referred to the government’s anti-extremism Prevent scheme three times before the murders.
A rapid review into his contact with Prevent found his case should have been kept open and that he should have been referred to Channel, another anti-terror scheme.
C1’s mother said: “She deserves the truth, she deserves accountability. She deserves an apology. Our girls deserve an apology.
“Backed up by the promise that changes will be made and this will not be allowed to happen again.”
UK
Infected blood victims are ‘waiting to die in limbo’ – with hundreds still waiting for compensation
Published
9 hours agoon
July 9, 2025By
admin
Victims of the infected blood scandal say they are “waiting to die in limbo”, with just hundreds having received compensation to date.
For decades, more than 30,000 NHS patients were knowingly given infected blood products, and more than 3,000 people died as a result. Survivors are left living with long-term health complications, including HIV and hepatitis.
An inquiry into the scandal, which published its final report in May 2024, accused the NHS of a “pervasive cover-up”. Recompense payments for the victims and survivors were ordered, with the government setting aside £11.8bn to do this.
Earlier this year, the inquiry was reopened to examine the “timeliness and adequacy” of the compensation, and its report – published today – has accused the scheme of “perpetuating” harm.
Just 2,043 people have been asked to start a claim, 616 have been made offers, and 430 of those have been paid.
“For decades, people who suffered because of infected blood have not been listened to. Once again, decisions have been made behind closed doors, leading to obvious injustices,” says Sir Brian Langstaff, chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry.
“It is not too late to get this right. We are calling for compensation to be faster, and more than that, fairer.”
In his latest 210-page report, Sir Brian says yet more people have been harmed by the way they have been treated by the scheme.
It highlights how the compensation scheme was drafted without any direct involvement from the people most affected – the expert group that advised the government on how financial support should be delivered was not allowed to take evidence or hear from any victim of the infected blood scandal.
“Obvious injustices” within the scheme include the exclusion of anyone infected with HIV prior to 1982 and the unrealistic requirements for proving psychological harm.
How did the infected blood scandal happen?
Between 1970 and the early 1990s, more than 30,000 NHS patients were given blood transfusions, or treatments made using blood products, which were contaminated with hepatitis C or HIV.
The infected blood was used because the NHS was struggling to meet the domestic demand for blood products, so sourced around 50% of them from abroad, including the US.
But much of the blood had been taken from prisoners, drug addicts and other high-risk groups who were paid to give blood.
Blood donations in the UK were not routinely screened for hepatitis C until 1991, 18 months after the virus was first identified.
As a result, more than 3,000 people have died, and survivors have experienced lifelong health implications.
In 2017, the government announced a statutory inquiry into the scandal to examine the impact on families, how authorities responded, and the care and support provided to those affected.
The Infected Blood Inquiry published its findings last year and a multi-billion-pound compensation scheme was announced in its wake.
This included payments for a group of people with the blood clotting disorder haemophilia, who were subjected to “unethical research” while at school and included in secret trials to test blood products.
HIV infections before 1982
The current scheme means any person infected with HIV before 1 January 1982 will not be compensated – something the latest report calls “illogical and unjust”.
The rule “completely misunderstands (or ignores) the central fact that blood products used [before this date] were already known to carry a risk of a dangerous virus – Hepatitis”, the report says.
The rule appears to have been made based on legal advice to the government.
One mother says her daughter was invited to claim compensation, only to be told she was likely “ineligible” because she had been infected prior to 1982.
“To reach this stage of the proceedings to be faced with the unbearable possibility of her claim being declined is yet another nightmare to be somehow endured… This unbearable and intolerable situation is cruel and unjust,” she says in the report.
Read more:
Ten victims of infected blood scandal to receive total of around £13m
Infected blood victims ‘livid’ with ‘paltry’ compensation offer
Trust between citizens and state destroyed in infected blood scandal
One person who is not named in the report said: “It feels as if we are waiting to die in limbo, unable to make any progress in our lives and fearing that as our health declines, we may not ever get the compensation we deserve.”
Analysis by Sky correspondent Laura Bundock: Victims’ painful battle continues – and in some cases time is running out
This is another deeply damning report into the infected blood scandal.
We now know the damage and suffering caused by the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS is far from over.
So many were promised long-overdue compensation. But those infected and affected by the scandal are still being harmed by delays, injustices, and a lack of transparency.
Over a year since his final inquiry report was published the chair, Sir Brian Langstaff, does not hold back in his criticism of the compensation scheme.
He finds the system sluggish, slow and difficult to navigate.
What was set up to help the infected blood community, failed to properly involve victims of the scandal. Opportunities were missed opportunities to consult, and decisions were made behind closed doors.
The end result is an unfair, unfit system leaving people undercompensated. What’s worse, very few have received any money. And in some cases, time is running out.
This additional report makes yet more recommendations. Sir Brian is clear that despite a bad start, it’s not too late to get things right. What he says is an important moment of vindication for the victims, who’d felt their voices were being ignored.
They’ve campaigned and fought for this inquiry for decades. Most assumed the battle was over once Sir Brian’s report was published last year. But despite promises and pledges from politicians, their anger and upset hasn’t gone away.
The government says it’s taking steps to speed up the process. For victims, trust in the authorities remains low.
It will take more than warm words to restore faith, as they continue through the painful struggle for justice.
Unrealistic expectations
The report also highlights the unrealistic evidence requirements for someone proving psychological harm.
The current regulations require a consultant psychiatrist to have diagnosed and treated someone, either as in-patient, or in hospital for six months.
But the report says, at the time the scandal was unfolding, “consultant psychiatric services were not the norm across every part of the country”.
“It would be wrong to set a requirement for compensation that such services be accessed when it was not a practical proposition that they could be.”
Those infected were also unlikely to have told even close friends and family about their diagnosis due to the stigma and ostracism.
Therefore, the expectation of having received medical care “would have involved revealing to an unknown clinician what that person dared not reveal, especially if there was a chance that it might leak out”.
Other exclusions
The report also highlighted other exclusions within the compensation scheme.
It says the “impacts of infection with Hepatitis is not being fully recognised in the scheme as it stands”. The scheme also fails to recognise the devastating impacts of interferon, used to treat Hep C. The vast majority of people who received interferon suffered severely, both psychologically and physically.
The compensation regulations also withdraw support for a bereaved partner if the infected person dies after 31 March this year. The argument being that they are eligible for compensation in their own right as an “affected” person.
But removing these payments immediately after death means infected persons “see themselves as worthless and [ignites] fears of leaving partners destitute”.
One man reports being denied compensation as victims of medical experimentation because – despite having evidence it took place – the hospital where he was infected was not named in the regulations.
Read more:
Infected and experimented on
The report issued a number of recommendations to speed up the process.
It says people should be able to apply for compensation, rather than wait to be asked.
The compensation authority should also progress applications from different groups at the same time, giving priority to those who are most ill and older, or who have never received any form of financial support.
It also says anyone who has evidence of being the victim of medical experiments should be compensated for it, regardless of where they were treated.
The report calls for more transparency and openness, as well as involvement from those infected and affected.
Support groups react to latest report
Kate Burt, Chief Executive of the Haemophilia Society, said the government’s “failure to listen to those at the heart of the contaminated blood scandal has shamefully been exposed by the Infected Blood Inquiry yet again”.
“Now government must take urgent action to put this right by valuing those impacted by this scandal through a fair and fast compensation settlement,” she says. “Only then can the infected blood community move on from the past and finally focus on what remains of their future.”
A lawyer advising some 1,500 victims says some of the recommendations “can and should be implemented immediately”.
Des Collins, senior partner at Collins Solicitors, says: “We also urgently need transparency of the timetable for the affected and an acceleration of the payment schedule to them.”
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Please refresh the page for the latest version.
You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.
UK
Why do so many from around the world try to cross the English Channel?
Published
16 hours agoon
July 9, 2025By
admin
While the politicians talk, so many people come from around the world to try to get across the Channel on small boats. But why?
Why make such a perilous crossing to try to get to a country that seems to be getting increasingly hostile to asylum seekers?
As the British and French leaders meet, with small boats at the forefront of their agenda, we came to northern France to get some answers.
It is not a new question, but it is peppered with fresh relevance.
Over the course of a morning spent around a migrant camp in Dunkirk, we meet migrants from Gaza, Iraq, Eritrea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka and beyond.
Some are fearful, waving us away; some are happy to talk. Very few are comfortable to be filmed.
All but one man – who says he’s come to the wrong place and actually wants to claim asylum in Paris – are intent on reaching Britain.
They see the calm seas, feel the light winds – perfect conditions for small boat crossings.
John has come here from South Sudan. He tells me he’s now 18 years old. He left his war-torn home nation just before his 16th birthday. He feels that reaching Britain is his destiny.
“England is my dream country,” he says. “It has been my dream since I was at school. It’s the country that colonised us and when I get there, I will feel like I am home.
“In England, they can give me an opportunity to succeed or to do whatever I need to do in my life. I feel like I am an English child, who was born in Africa.”

‘England is my dream country,’ John tells Adam Parsons
He says he would like to make a career in England, either as a journalist or in human resources, and, like many others we meet, is at pains to insist he will work hard.
The boat crossing is waved away as little more than an inconvenience – a trifle compared with the previous hardships of his journey towards Britain.
We meet a group of men who have all travelled from Gaza, intent on starting new lives in Britain and then bringing their families over to join them.
One man, who left Gaza two years ago, tells me that his son has since been shot in the leg “but there is no hospital for him to go to”.
Next to him, a man called Abdullah says he entered Europe through Greece and stayed there for months on end, but was told the Greek authorities would never allow him to bring over his family.
Britain, he thinks, will be more accommodating. “Gaza is being destroyed – we need help,” he says.

Abdullah says ‘Gaza is being destroyed – we need help’
A man from Eritrea tells us he is escaping a failing country and has friends in Britain – he plans to become a bicycle courier in either London or Manchester.
He can’t stay in France, he says, because he doesn’t speak French. The English language is presented as a huge draw for many of the people we talk to, just as it had been during similar conversations over the course of many years.
I ask many of these people why they don’t want to stay in France, or another safe European country.
Some repeat that they cannot speak the language and feel ostracised. Another says that he tried, and failed, to get a residency permit in both France and Belgium.
But this is also, clearly, a flawed survey. Last year, five times as many people sought asylum in France as in Britain.
And French critics have long insisted that Britain, a country without a European-style ID card system, makes itself attractive to migrants who can “disappear”.
Read more:
Channel crossings rise 50% in first six months of 2025
French police forced to watch on as migrants attempt crossing
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:48
Migrant Channel crossings hit new record
A young man from Iraq, with absolutely perfect English, comes for a chat. He oozes confidence and a certain amount of mischief.
It has taken him only seven days to get from Iraq to Dunkirk; when I ask how he has made the trip so quickly, he shrugs. “Money talks”.
He looks around him. “Let me tell you – all of these people you see around you will be getting to Britain and the first job they get will be in the black market, so they won’t be paying any tax.
“Back in the day in Britain, they used to welcome immigrants very well, but these days I don’t think they want to, because there’s too many of them coming by boat. Every day it’s about seven or 800 people. That’s too many people.”
“But,” I ask, “if those people are a problem – then what makes you different? Aren’t you a problem too?”
He shakes his head emphatically. “I know that I’m a very good guy. And I won’t be a problem. I’ll only stay in Britain for a few years and then I’ll leave again.”

A man from Sri Lanka says he “will feel safe” when he gets to Britain; a tall, smiling man from Ethiopia echoes the sentiment: “We are not safe in our home country so we have come all this way,” he says. “We want to work, to be part of Britain.”
Emmanuel is another from South Sudan – thoughtful and eloquent. He left his country five years ago – “at the start of COVID” – and has not seen his children in all that time. His aim is to start a new life in Britain, and then to bring his family to join him.
He is a trained electrical engineer, but says he could also work as a lorry driver. He is adamant that Britain has a responsibility to the people of its former colony.

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
“The British came to my country – colonising, killing, raping,” he said. “And we didn’t complain. We let it happen.
“I am not the problem. I won’t fight anyone; I want to work. And if I break the laws – if any immigrant breaks the laws – then fine, deport them.
“I know it won’t be easy – some people won’t like me, some people will. But England is my dream.”
Trending
-
Sports3 years ago
‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year ago
Story injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years ago
Game 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years ago
MLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years ago
Japan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years ago
Button battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years ago
Game-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike