A Thai-flagged cargo ship caught fire in the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz after being struck by unidentified projectiles, prompting an emergency rescue operation involving regional naval forces.

According to the Royal Thai Navy, the vessel was carrying 23 Thai crew members when it came under attack while sailing through the narrow shipping route that links the Arabian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman.

The navy said it received the first report of the incident at around 11:00, although the time zone was not specified. The ship had departed earlier from Khalifa Port in the United Arab Emirates.

Rescue efforts were quickly launched, with the Royal Navy of Oman successfully rescuing 20 crew members. Authorities said efforts were continuing to locate and rescue the remaining three sailors.

The Thai navy confirmed that the cause of the attack remains under investigation and did not provide details about who might be responsible.

Meanwhile, the UK Maritime Trade Operations reported a sharp rise in security incidents affecting vessels in the region since the start of the latest conflict in the Middle East.

According to the organisation, 13 ships have been attacked across the region so far. It has also recorded four additional cases of suspicious activity, bringing the total number of maritime security incidents to 17 involving vessels operating in and around the Arabian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman.

The update follows reports that three commercial vessels were struck by “unknown projectiles” in separate incidents earlier in the day. In one case, a ship north of Oman was hit, forcing its crew to abandon the vessel for safety.

The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most critical shipping corridors, with a significant portion of global oil supplies passing through the narrow waterway each day. Rising tensions and attacks on vessels have heightened concerns about maritime security and the potential impact on global energy supplies.

A United Nations investigation has concluded that Russia’s deportation of Ukrainian children from occupied territories could amount to crimes against humanity and war crimes.

According to the findings by the United Nations Commission of Inquiry, at least 1,205 cases have been documented involving children taken from Ukrainian territories by Russia since 2022.

The report states that about 80% of the identified children have not yet been returned, with many parents and guardians still unaware of their children’s whereabouts.

Investigators say the actions amount to enforced disappearance and unjustifiable delays in repatriation — violations that qualify as crimes against humanity and war crimes under international law.

Most of the children referenced in the report were living in the self-declared Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic, regions of Ukraine that Moscow claims to control but which are internationally recognised as Ukrainian territory.

The report says that shortly before launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Moscow moved many of the children into the Russian Federation, claiming they were being evacuated to protect them from a potential Ukrainian attack.

Once inside Russia, the children were reportedly placed with foster families or institutions and in many cases granted Russian citizenship.

Russian authorities have consistently denied accusations of forcibly removing children from Ukraine. President Vladimir Putin previously dismissed allegations of abduction, saying the issue had been exaggerated and insisting the children had been “rescued” from a war zone.

At the time, Putin also said there would be “no problem” returning children to their homeland if requested.

However, the Ukrainian government has disputed those claims, saying families have faced major obstacles trying to bring their children back. The UN report similarly states that many children have encountered significant difficulties returning to Ukraine.

Investigators say the forced separation from their homeland, combined with what the report describes as a “coercive environment” in Russia, has caused deep psychological distress among many of the affected children.

Those who have managed to return to Ukraine have reportedly suffered from trauma, anxiety and fear of abandonment, sometimes linked to harsh treatment while in Russian care.

One child cited in the report said staff at a Russian orphanage told him that Ukraine “does not exist anymore” and that his parents had likely died.

Another testimony quoted a mother still searching for her missing daughter, saying she feared how the girl might be coping in Russia.

“I am still looking for my daughter, and I am terribly afraid of what she might think of me and how she survives,” the woman said.

In 2023, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Putin, accusing him and Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights Maria Lvova-Belova of unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children.

Lvova-Belova previously described taking in a 15-year-old boy from the occupied Ukrainian city of Mariupol and attempting to “re-educate” him, despite acknowledging he did not want to move to Russia.

Ukrainian officials say they have managed to recover around 2,000 children so far.

Reports have also suggested involvement from Melania Trump, the former US First Lady, who has reportedly helped facilitate efforts to reunite some children with their families. She previously said she maintained an “open channel of communication” with Putin after writing to him about the children affected by the war.

Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom have rejected a proposal to impose an Australia-style ban on social media for children under 16, instead backing plans that would give ministers broader and more flexible powers to regulate young people’s access online.

The proposed ban targeted platforms such as TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat. Australia introduced a similar nationwide ban for under-16s late last year, becoming the first country to adopt such a restriction. In January, peers in the House of Lords also expressed support for similar action in the UK.

Supporters of a ban included actor Hugh Grant. However, critics such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) warned that an outright prohibition could push young people toward less regulated and potentially more dangerous parts of the internet.

The Conservative Party (UK) argued that the situation amounted to an “emergency” and called for legislation to protect children online. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats (UK) said the government’s refusal to commit to a ban was “simply not good enough”.

Opposition also came from the father of Molly Russell, the teenager who died at the age of 14 after viewing harmful online content. He argued that authorities should prioritise stricter enforcement of existing online safety laws rather than introducing a blanket ban.

The proposal for a social media ban had been introduced as an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

However, during a debate in the House of Commons on Monday, Education Minister Olivia Bailey urged MPs to reject the measure and support a more adaptable regulatory approach.

“Many parents and campaign groups have called for an outright ban on social media for under-16s,” Bailey said.

“Others, including children’s charities, have warned that a blanket ban could drive children towards less regulated corners of the internet or leave teenagers unprepared when they do come online.”

She noted that the government has launched a consultation to gather public views on how best to ensure children develop a “safer, healthier and more enriching relationship with the online world.”

The consultation will explore options such as introducing a minimum age requirement for social media platforms and disabling potentially addictive features like autoplay.

Under the government’s alternative plan, Liz Kendall, the UK’s Science Secretary, would be granted powers to restrict or ban access to social media and chatbots for children of certain ages. The powers could also be used to limit harmful or addictive features on platforms.

In addition, Kendall could be authorised to restrict children’s use of virtual private networks (VPNs) and review the country’s digital consent age.

Shadow Education Secretary Laura Trott from the Conservative Party pressed the government to impose stricter measures, including a clear age limit for social media use and a ban on mobile phones in schools.

She said research suggests “40% of children are shown explicit content during the school day”, adding: “That’s happening right now. This is an emergency. No more guidance, no more consultations. Legislate, do something about it.”

In the final vote, MPs rejected the House of Lords proposal for a blanket ban by 307 votes to 173, while backing Bailey’s plan, which leaves open the possibility of targeted restrictions in the future.

More than 100 MPs from the governing Labour Party (UK) abstained during the vote, including Sadik Al-Hassan, MP for North Somerset.

Speaking during the debate, Al-Hassan compared the potential harms of social media to dangerous medicines.

“Parents like me are locked in a daily battle that they simply cannot win alone, fighting platforms that have been specifically designed to keep children hooked,” he said.

“As a pharmacist, I know if a drug were causing such measurable harm for 78%, it would be withdrawn, reformulated or placed behind a counter with strict controls on who could access it.”