Thousands of Afghans won't receive compensation for data breach
The spokesperson added that an independent review, known as the Rimmer review, commissioned by the Defence Secretary John Healey found: "It is highly unlikely that merely being on the spreadsheet would be grounds for an individual to be targeted."This week, Healey announced the lifting of a super-injunction that made it illegal to both publicise the leak and refer to the existence of the court order.That came after the completion of the Rimmer review, which concluded: "There is little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution against former officials."The largest lawsuit is being prepared by Barings Law, a firm that has more than 1,000 Afghan clients, according to The Times.It is unclear how many of those clients are currently in Afghanistan. The leak occurred when an unnamed official emailed the spreadsheet outside of the government team processing Afghan relocation applications and it made its way into the public domain.Knowledge of the leak only emerged in August 2023, when the names of nine people who had applied to move to the UK appeared on Facebook.The Taliban leadership continues to face international isolation due to its human rights abuses, especially those targeting women. Russia is the only country that recognises the current Afghan government, and the British embassy to Kabul has remained close since the Taliban takeover in 2021.
An Afghan man who had been turned down for relocation was responsible for sharing the names on Facebook, and was offered an expedited review of his application in return for taking it down, the BBC reported last week.More than 100 British officials, including members of the special forces and MI6, were compromised in the same data breach. Since the withdrawal of international troops from Afghanistan, more than 36,000 Afghans have moved to the UK. Of those, more than 16,000 individuals were deemed to have been at risk from the leak, the MoD confirmed to the BBC.The government has so far spent £400m on the scheme to relocate Afghans.But the total cost of relocating all Afghans is expected to rise to around £5.5-£6bn, according to the government.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Keir Starmer must fight for UK drug firms
The life sciences industry is among the brightest jewels in the British economy, generating £100billion a year and employing more than 300,000 people. At its heart is the development and manufacture of pharmaceuticals, notably by AstraZeneca, which spends vast sums on research and is worth £167billion. So, if this hugely successful company were to relocate to the US, it would be a disaster both for the London Stock Exchange and the wider economy. Worryingly, this is not out of the question. AstraZeneca already sells 40 per cent of its drugs to America and, following President Donald Trump 's tariff threat, is ramping up research and production there. While there are no immediate plans to desert the UK, chief executive Pascal Soriot is said to be 'flirting' with the idea. Mr Trump's latest demand that foreign drug companies cut prices to US customers or face penalties may be an added incentive. The Left has always been highly critical of 'Big Pharma', accusing it of profiteering on the backs of NHS patients. Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour planned to create a state-owned drug manufacturer with the power to override the patents which enable firms to make profits from their research. Only last year, Sir Keir Starmer refused to help fund a new vaccine plant in Liverpool – while pouring public money into our ailing steel industry. This Government must understand that failing to nurture AstraZeneca, GSK and others would be a catastrophic mistake. And Sir Keir should realise that while they say they want to remain in the UK, they may yet change their mind. Car lenders off hook Banks and credit providers will have heaved a huge sigh of relief yesterday after the Supreme Court ruled they will not have to pay compensation to millions of motorists who bought cars on finance without being told the dealers were receiving commission on the loan. The Treasury was also delighted with the result. Had it gone the other way, damages could have been comparable to the PPI scandal, which destabilised the financial industry for more than a decade. The court decided that dealers did not have a duty to act solely for buyers and that commissions were not a form of bribery in the legal sense, as had been alleged. However, it was not a total exoneration. Court President Lord Reed also ruled that excessive commission payments were unfair and ordered one buyer who had been charged 25 per cent of the value of the car to be repaid with interest. This opens the way to further claims. Many brokers and dealers were paid behind-the-scenes commission by lenders to sign buyers up to car finance deals, a practice deemed 'unlawful' by the Court of Appeal in October last year - a decision that was successfully appealed by lenders at the Supreme Court The dealers and lenders have escaped their worst fears, but they do not come out well. They have certainly been guilty of sharp practices even if not illegal ones. The Competition and Markets Authority must now force them to clean up their act. OAPs feel the cold In September, Rachel Reeves promised she would 'put more money in pensioners' pockets'. What she didn't say is that she would take even more out. Research shows pensioner households are an average of £800 worse off after a year of Labour thanks to higher bills – mainly owing to the Chancellor's £40billion Budget tax raid. With more taxes coming down the track to fill Labour's ever-widening financial black hole, the cost of living is set to soar further. For all Ms Reeves' promises, the elderly are in for a bitter winter.
The Sun
4 hours ago
- The Sun
Labour's border chaos is fuelling public fury and fear as dangerous foreign offenders vanish into thin air
Labour's not smashing it IT is little more than a year since Labour came to power promising to smash the people-smuggling gangs. Instead they have smashed the economy — with inflation up, unemployment up and business confidence at a record low. The only significant growth is in the number of illegal migrants coming here in small boats. Already over 25,000 have arrived this year — a 50 per cent rise on the 2024 figure by this stage, which was shocking enough. That number is dwarfed by the UK's astonishing 700,000 population increase in just a year — almost entirely due to legal immigration — which itself is utterly unsustainable. The arrival of thousands of mostly undocumented illegal migrants is symptomatic of just how badly Britain has lost control of its borders. It's not just the millions of pounds it costs taxpayers every day to shower the migrants with handouts and put them up in hotels, nor the fact that so many of them find black market jobs. Most of the arrivals are young men of fighting age — yet the authorities seem to have little idea who they are, even if they end up in court. National emergency We discovered earlier this week that the number of foreign sex offenders and violent criminals in prison in England and Wales is at a record high, and that 40 per cent of people charged with sex attacks in the capital were foreign nationals. Now we learn foreign criminals are simply walking free mid-trial and disappearing under false names because of a dangerous 'disconnect' between prosecutors and immigration enforcement. It is little wonder that people — not least mothers — worry about migrant hotels on their doorsteps, or that protests are growing, or that polls show immigration is the number one issue concerning voters. So what is the Government doing about this national emergency? Reform UK's rising star Laila Cunningham It seems to have no plan, beyond a sketchy one-in-one-out deal with France and setting up a spy unit to track anyone on social media discussing anti-migrant sentiment or two-tier justice. While Britain continues to house soaring numbers of uninvited guests in four-star hotels, America has seen a massive drop in illegal border crossings because tough detention centres and deportations await those who do. President Donald Trump has shown the problem CAN be tackled, if only the political will exists. The Government, which ditched the Rwanda scheme — the only viable deterrent — as its first act in power, has shown precious little will so far. It's about time Sir Keir Starmer realised the urgency of the situation... and started taking tough action of his own. 1
Times
4 hours ago
- Times
Whitehall will not be improved by recruiting based on social class
The usually wise-headed Pat McFadden would be advised to rethink his proposals TAYFUN SALCI/ALAMY G eorge Orwell declared eight decades ago that 'England is the most class-ridden country under the sun'. It is a reputation that the nation has tried, with some success, to shed — especially when it comes to its institutions. In modern times the civil service has been seen as the embodiment of British fairness: an institution to which one is admitted, and rises up through, on merit. It may be biased towards the well-educated, but fairness has long been at the core of its recruitment model. Yet the Starmer government has proposed to do away with that classless model. Pat McFadden, the usually wise-headed Cabinet Office minister, hopes to diversify the social makeup of the civil service by restricting internships to those from working-class backgrounds. Under his proposals, a form of elitism in reverse, Whitehall's main internship scheme will be open only to those from 'lower socio-economic backgrounds', defined by what the applicant's parents' jobs were when he or she was aged 14. These internships are important as the gateway to coveted places on the civil service 'fast stream' graduate programme. In this day and age, parental occupation is a bizarre criterion. Having tied itself in knots over its definition of 'working people' Labour is now threatening to do the same with 'working class'. • Civil service internships will be only for working class Mr McFadden's proposals are a disheartening departure from the guiding principle of the Northcote–Trevelyan reforms of 1854, which created the modern Whitehall. The aim was simple: to ensure that 'the best and energetic rise to the top' while 'the dull and inefficient remain at the bottom'. In place of the old boy network came exams, training and transparent selection. Mr McFadden's regressive proposal is unlikely to succeed. It is based on the assumption that working-class candidates will fail unless the system is rigged in their favour. The fact that some 56 per cent of Britons self-define as 'working class' points to the emptiness of the exercise. At what point does someone stop being working class? Is it, say, when a postman becomes a manager? Would a child of a teacher, a respected but hardly elite profession, be excluded? The scheme also assumes that class is a permanent condition, and family background a fixed identity. Countless youngsters who do not neatly qualify as either 'privileged' or 'deprived' will be written off. Mr McFadden's wizard wheeze risks interviews for internships becoming re-enactments of Monty Python's Four Yorkshiremen sketch, a race to the social bottom in which candidates will seek to outdo each other with tales of hardship. Just as Sir Keir Starmer is at pains to remind us he is the son of a toolmaker, so too will interns be at pains to burnish their proletarian credentials. Hailing from the proverbial cardboard box or septic tank offers little indication of administrative ability. The real problem is that talent is spread equally but opportunity is not. For many bright young people, housing and childcare are unaffordable, limiting their horizons. Mr McFadden would do better to tackle these structural issues. It should be perfectly possible to create a recruitment system that is rigorous yet fair. In law and finance firms have experimented successfully with name-blind or school-blind recruitment. These systems test the individual, not the bloodline. Once class is established as a selection criterion and merit becomes secondary, trust in public institutions will inevitably erode.
