WILL JONES
16,000 Afghans have been settled in the UK since the ‘kill list’ leaked. But only about 1,000 Afghans served with British forces. Where are they all coming from, asks former veterans’ minister Johnny Mercer in the Telegraph. Here’s an excerpt.
Now the public can see for the first time the true scale of the ineptitude of the British state, through two successive governments, concerning Afghanistan.
Even after the loss of 457 British personnel, and the billions of pounds it cost to prosecute, the war in Afghanistan reveals yet another cataclysmic skeleton in the cupboard when it comes to how we have treated our Afghan allies.
It is mind-boggling that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) could email a spreadsheet of all those with ties to the British state to an Afghan national, over the internet, to post on Facebook for the Taliban to see. But not for me.
Whilst there will no doubt be a rush to blame the individual who sent it (I know who he is), it would be entirely unfair and wrong to do so. Because I can honestly say this whole farcical process has been the most hapless display of incompetence by successive ministers and officials that I saw in my time in government, of which this poor individual was just the end of the line.
I was subject to the injunction. I created and ran an Afghan task force to rehome eligible Afghans under Rishi Sunak, the then prime minister.
The Home Office, the MoD, the Department for Levelling Up and the Foreign Office just could not seem to work together; the Prime Minister asked me to try and unblock it from my neutral position in the Cabinet Office.
I had also made no secret of my desire to relocate Afghan special forces personnel from that country to this in the wake of August 2021. I stand by that wholeheartedly. These brave souls fought alongside us cheek by jowl – they carried the stretchers of dead UK soldiers, they fought hard and battled bravely.
But there were only ever about 1,000-1,200 badged members of CF 333 and CF444. I couldn’t understand where all these Afghans were coming from.
I had no idea why the injunction existed in the first place; the list had appeared on Facebook and everyone, including the media, seemed to know about it. Officials seemed to get a bit of a kick out of something being ‘Top Secret’.
I thought it was weird, and it wasn’t a secret. It was a direct result of the chaos that engulfed the MoD at the end of the Afghanistan war.
Those on the ground during Op Pitting saw awful things, were incredibly brave and saved thousands of lives. I also saw how hard Ben Wallace worked to do the right thing.
But since then, it has been terrible. The MoD has tried at every turn to cut off those from Afghan special forces units from coming to the UK for reasons I cannot fathom.
They also lied to themselves about doing it. The UK’s director of Special Forces told me personally that he was offended and angry by my suggestion that his organisation was blocking the Triples.
In the passage of this injunction being lifted it has emerged one individual UKSF Officer rejected 1,585 applications by himself.
Worth reading in full.
See Related Article Below
Afghans in data leak have no right to claim asylum, says Healey
Defence Secretary says it was ‘never the plan to bring everyone’ on dataset into the UK
Afghans whose identities were revealed in a military data leak had no automatic right to asylum, the Defence Secretary has said.
The personal details of some 18,000 Afghans who applied to be relocated to the UK were leaked but only a total of 6,900, including their relatives, have been accepted for refuge in Britain under a secret asylum scheme.
John Healey said most of the people on the list were not eligible for the scheme, even though their names had been leaked as they had not worked alongside or served with UK forces.
He told Sky News: “Most of those names on the list were people who didn’t work alongside our forces, didn’t serve with our forces, aren’t eligible for the special scheme that Britain put in place quite rightly to recognise that duty we owe those brave Afghans who supported our forces.
“Now they’re not eligible for that. Their name is on the dataset, and there was never the plan, never the plan, to bring everyone in on that dataset into this country, and nor should we.”
Asked if the risk posed by the leak could give them a right to claim asylum, he said: “It doesn’t give them a right to claim access to Britain. It doesn’t give them the right to claim asylum. It doesn’t make them eligible for the special scheme that Britain put in place for those who’d worked alongside or served with our forces.”
His comments came as a former military caseworker claimed the secret Afghan relocation scheme could “cause quite a headache for the security services” because those brought to the UK under it may not have been fully vetted.
Robert Clark, a former soldier and reservist who worked on the public Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) relocation scheme, said he had been told by people within the Ministry of Defence (MoD) that there had not been full vetting of applicants who had been secretly brought to the UK.
He said there would be national security questions for the intelligence services and police if there had not been the necessary checks to establish whether individuals had been radicalised or had terrorist connections.
According to the Government, some 6,900 Afghans and their families were identified as eligible for the secret scheme after their details were leaked, putting them at risk of being killed by the Taliban. Around half have so far come to the UK, according to officials.
However, the vetting claims have been disputed by ministers and Government officials. They said Afghans who came under the secret relocation scheme were subject to the same security checks as those who came through either of the two other public schemes run by the MoD and Home Office.
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, told Times Radio: “Anyone who has come into this country under any of the Government schemes that was under the previous government, and now from Afghanistan, is checked carefully for security, checked carefully for any of those sort of criminal records that would preclude and prevent them coming to this country.”
He challenged Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, to provide evidence to support his claims that “convicted sex offenders” were among those airlifted to the UK after the data leak.
The Telegraph: continue reading
*****
Afghan relocation cover – up
A disgusting attempt to hood wink the public
LAURA PERRINS
Yesterday’s news on the Afghan relocation cover – up is not an ordinary story. I am used to governments lying to my face and daring me to question them. What I never thought they would do is seek an superinjunction to stop a story ever getting into the public domain so they wouldn’t even bother lying to us.
The last Conservative and the current Labour government’s attempt to co – opt the courts into their disgusting scheme to shut down information of a £7 billion pound mistake that will see 24,000 Afghans relocated to the UK is a new low for the British state.
How do you cover up a £7 billion mistake? You get a superinjunction is what you do. Yesterday it was revealed that a list of Afghans who had helped the British army was ‘leaked’ by a soldier resulting in a relocation scheme that will cost up to £7 billion. The conservative government sought a superinjunction to keep the whole thing secret, fearing some taxpayers might become a little angry if this level of incompetence was revealed.
So let’s be clear. This disaster is not the fault of the activist judges or the human rights lawyers, this is on the Conservatives and then Labour. If you thought voting Tory instead of Labour would solve your problems this should disabuse you of this notion.
Some basics first, as it’s easy to get lost in this one.
· The British military is responsible for a data leak that put up to 100,000 Afghans at risk of death — and successive governments have spent years fighting to keep it secret using an unprecedented superinjunction.
· Some 24,000 Afghans affected by the breach have either been brought to the UK already or will be in future as part of the biggest covert evacuation operation in peacetime.
· Up to £7 billions of taxpayers’ money was once earmarked to handle the fallout.
The ‘leak’ happened like this: In February 2022 a soldier inadvertently sent a list of tens of thousands of names to Afghans as he tried to help verify applications for sanctuary in Britain. The database of 33,000 records was then passed on and one of the individuals who received it threatened to publish the dataset on Facebook, which it was feared would have given the Taliban what amounted to a “kill list.” A highly secretive mission, codenamed Operation Rubific, was launched to shut down the leak and stop the details of the breach becoming public.
This kicked off a sorry tale of offering refuge to tens of thousands of Afghans to the cost of £7 billion and then getting the courts to cover it up on behalf of the government, essentially blackmailing them by saying if the superinjunction was not imposed ‘lives would be lost.’
In September 2023, a superinjunction — the first to be deployed by the government and the longest ever — which prevented anyone revealing even the existence of such an order, was put in place. It was lifted yesterday.
“If the Taliban did gain access, the MoD said as many as 100,000 Afghans would be at “risk of death, torture, intimidation or harassment”. The figure took into account the individuals who had applied for sanctuary in the UK plus their family members, some of whom were named in the dataset. It was the stuff of “nightmares”, government lawyers said in court as they argued to maintain the superinjunction.”
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals. That final number seems to have been walked back, and seen as disproportionate.
A total of 18,500 Afghans, less than one fifth of those caught up in the breach, have already been flown to the UK and put up in hotels or military bases.
Some 5,400 more Afghans who have already received invitation letters will be flown to the UK in the coming weeks, bringing the total number of Afghans affected by the breach being brought to the UK to 23,900. The rest of the affected Afghans will be left behind.
So the UK is now plus 23,900 Afghans and less £7 billion. It could be less than £7 billion it is not clear if that will be the final cost.
It was the Daily Mail and the Times that fought successfully to have this superinjunction lifted.
Some quotes from the proceedings reveal a lot about what the then Labour government thought of voters in November 2024. The lawyer for the government Cathryn McGahey KC when asked (I am paraphrasing) how the government is going to account for up to £7 billion of public money, says cover will be provided.
It is Mr Justice Chamberlain who remarks “the statement to Parliament will ‘provide cover’. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide ‘cover’. It is a very, very striking thing.” In other words, a witness statement was provided to the courts explaining that some sort of statement will be made to Parliament providing cover for the £7 billion black hole. That sounds like misleading Parliament to me.
It is my old friend Jude Bunting KC challenging the superinjunction (you remember him from Kneecap) who actually puts it best. “One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country…That ‘agreed narrative’ is misleading the public by omission.”
He also says, “The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.”
And, “it is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.”
I don’t think I can improve on that one. He’s called it as it is, has Mr Bunting KC. The government lawyer just kept waving around the prospect of dead bodies. ‘Secrecy has to be maintained to protect life’ she said.
I am not denying the real threat to life in this case but I always find this sort of emotional blackmail cheap and unconvincing. If you dig deep enough there is always a dead body somewhere The Taliban have a kill list. Surprise me – that’s what the Taliban do. They have been killing women for years and that will only get worse now that they have deprived women of basic care in childbirth. How many women will die as a result of that decision but you won’t see them flown to Britain.
They did a great job there in Afghanistan there did Tony Blair. Top notch stuff.
There is little I can add to this scandal. You can clean out the adjective cupboard on my behalf. Just know that the Conservative government followed by the Labour government wanted to keep you in the dark over a £7 billion scheme to locate up to 40,000 Afghans now walked back to just under 24,000. I mean it is not the Afghans fault but that’s a lot of peeps who once lived under the Taliban coming to a town called something – shire near you.
And as the human rights lawyer himself said – the superinjunction was sought to provide cover for an omni – shambles of a mistake and critically, put in a narrative and to shut down debate over immigration and public expenditure. It’s outrageous. I’ll allow myself one adjective.
The Times editorial referred to a superinjunction sought by the government as a tool of authoritarianism. They are correct. It concluded, “in terms of free speech the superinjunction is a weapon of mass destruction. No government should be allowed to employ one again.” Exactly.
Oh, I just remembered former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was knighted. Of course he was.
This article (Afghan relocation cover – up) was created and published by Laura Perrins and is republished here under “Fair Use”
Featured image: The Telegraph
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply