Taliban fighters 'have been brought to the UK on secret airlift flights' after Afghanistan data breach cover-up revealed by the Mail
This newspaper revealed earlier this month a British military official catastrophically wrongly shared a database of 100,000 Afghans who had applied for sanctuary in the UK.
The scheme was set up for those who worked with British forces to flee the murderous Taliban - so the disastrous leak amounted to giving a 'kill list' to the vengeful jihadist warlords.
The breach was discovered by the Mail in August 2023 - and so far, 18,500 of the Afghans it imperilled have been flown to Britain or are on their way in taxpayer-funded jets, under a covert airlift, codenamed Operation Rubific.
A total of 23,900 are earmarked for arrival. They are living in MOD homes or hotels until permanent homes are found.
Tens of thousands of others will be left behind in Afghanistan and will have to fend for themselves against vengeful Taliban warlords.
But now, former Taliban fighters themselves have reportedly been brought to this country under the airlift scheme, The Telegraph reports.
Sex offenders, corrupt officials and individuals put in prison under Afghanistan's US-led coalition are also among those accepted for resettlement in the UK.
It is because they were on the leaked list of names of Afghans who had applied to come to the UK.
Several individuals on list had also previously had their applications rejected for violent or sexual assaults.
A 23-month High Court super-injunction, only lifted this month, previously prevented the media reporting on the leak and the airlift operation, keeping the public in the dark.
Secret hearings in the High Court have also heard how Parliament has been deliberately kept oblivious – or even 'misled', as a judge was told.
Senior sources have now said people with Taliban connections managed to infiltrate the evacuation scheme and get fighters from the militant group to the UK.
They did so in some cases by naming the Islamic fundamentalists as relatives or dependents who would need to accompany them to this country.
One Afghan official revealed: 'We had civilians in our office who had clear ties with the Taliban.'
Another explained it was 'corrupt' Afghan officials who were getting people with Taliban connections to Britain, on the scheme intended for actual UK allies.
It was facilitated by UK officials tending to rely on these corrupt Afghan representatives for advice, they added: 'It's depressing.'
Another said: 'They are not good for Britain. They were fighting against British forces and killed lots of Brits but now are being fed by Brits in London.
'They have British blood on their hands.'
The Ministry of Defence has previously revealed some Afghans who entered the UK on the scheme brought more than 20 relatives with them.
Four such Taliban sympathisers who are said to have entered the UK under the airlift scheme have reportedly been named so far.
One, who came to this country before Kabul fell in 2021, is understood to have arranged for other Taliban-connected relatives to accompany him.
The MoD confirmed he is living in Britain - but did not confirm or deny whether his Taliban sympathiser family followed him.
It also confirmed another man - who was jailed for four years for selling Coalition weapons to the Taliban before his release when Kabul fell - is living in the UK too.
A third person, an alleged sexual offender, is understood not to have moved here yet - but his case is being worked through, according to defence sources.
The final individual is a British passport holder who allegedly vouched for Taliban sympathisers getting airlifted to the UK.
An MoD spokesperson did not comment directly on the claim this fourth person brought Taliban-connected people to the UK.
They simply said vetting procedures include biographic and document checks, not just recommendations.
It has previously been reported former soldier and reservist Robert Clark, who worked on the scheme, had been told by MoD officials full vetting had not been completed.
The Ministry of Defence has been contacted for comment.
It comes after the horrifying discovery Taliban warlords are on a vengeful killing spree against hundreds of Afghans after the British Government lost the top secret database.
One man was shot by a gunman who stepped from an alley earlier this month and fired four bullets at close range into his chest – one of three assassinations in the past seven days.
Panic has been spreading since Afghans were officially informed their personal details had been lost in the UK's worst ever data blunder, putting 100,000 'at risk of death'.
Thousands received 'notifications' from His Majesty's Government saying sorry, and adding: 'We understand this news may be concerning.'
It is not known if the Taliban actually has the database, which includes names of Afghans who helped the UK, as well as members of the British intelligence community, it is understood.
But one Afghan soldier, who fled to Britain for fear of retribution, believes his brother was gunned down in the street this week because the militant group was aware of his affiliation to the UK.
He said: 'If or when the Taliban have this list, then killings will increase – and it will be Britain's fault. There will be many more executions like the one on Monday.'
The Mail has seen a dossier of more than 300 murders that include those who worked with the UK and some who had applied for the UK scheme, the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP).
The murdered include Colonel Shafiq Ahmad Khan, a senior Afghan intelligence officer who had worked alongside British forces.
The 61-year-old grandfather was lured into a trap and shot twice in the heart on his doorstep in May 2022.
Others include commando Ahjmadzai, who applied for sanctuary in the UK, and soldier Qassim, both killed in April 2023.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
14 minutes ago
- BBC News
Peterborough woman who attacked neighbour with a spade is jailed
A 44-year-old woman has been jailed for 10 months after she attacked her neighbour with a spade, hitting him on the Lloyd of George Street, Peterborough, set about her victim outside his home in the Woodston area of the city on 14 May, following a dispute that had been going on for three man, who was in his 20s, was left with a cut to his head that needed hospital was sentenced by a judge at Peterborough Crown Court after admitting causing grievous bodily harm without intent. 'Move on' Cambridgeshire Police said the neighbours had been in dispute about "various issues".Det Con Lloyd Davis said: "Catherine Lloyd's behaviour in this case was completely unacceptable."Irrespective of any ongoing dispute, violence like this is not the answer."I'm pleased the victim can now move on." Follow Peterborough news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Royal Navy needs to develop a completely new idea of what a warship is
For many decades, the Royal Navy's thinking and therefore its shipbuilding has remained unchanged. We have had capital ships: aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers and amphibious platforms. We've also had frigates and destroyers (the backbone) to hunt submarines and provide area air defence – but more often than not to look like a warship and do warship type influence operations. Then there were an array of smaller ships for charting and patrolling the oceans and hunting both mines and maritime crooks such as fish thieves. Finally there are two types of nuclear powered submarines: attack boats and the strategic deterrent. But when you look at what we want from our navy now and the resources that are available to do it, no matter how much of a traditionalist you are, it is impossible to see how this model is sustainable. For navies to function across the huge range of tasks they need to undertake they need both balance and mass. The current Royal Navy has good balance from diplomacy to fighting but is woefully short on mass. You don't need to be a maritime historian to know how that ends when the shooting starts. I will leave the Royal Fleet Auxiliary out of it for this article as I've written about them recently. Focusing on surface vessels, there are three broad types of ships that we now need to consider adding to the traditional mix outlined above. Actually, we don't need to consider it, we need to do it. These are ships taken up from trade, medium sized low- or un-crewed vessels and autonomous small craft and weapons. Ships taken up from trade include vessels like HMS Stirling Castle (mine warfare), RFA Proteus and HMS Scott (surveillance) and HMS Protector (ice patrol). These are ships built to a commercial specification that the Navy then leases or buys for use on operations. They are not fighting ships; their lack of self-defence systems, watertight integrity and machinery plants do not permit it, but that doesn't mean they don't have tremendous utility. It's a truism of navies that they spend more of their time setting the conditions to avoid fighting than actually fighting – this is where these ships sit. And given how hard it is to fund and sustain the high end stuff, we need to get better at buying and running them. Autonomous vessels can be split into two: those that are large enough to operate on their own and those that need support from a mother ship. I'm going to focus on the former although one only needs a cursory knowledge of this subject to know that for both, the rate at which we are progressing in this field, and the rate at which we need to, are wildly different. As is so often the case, enter the US and their recently announced Modular Attack Surface Craft (MASC) programme. This is a fascinating programme that is set to move from concept to prototype to delivery in less than two years, the kind of pace that would make traditional ship manufacturers weep. It is still some way short of Ukraine's ability to build new systems but it's fast for a peacetime programme. The three models have been outlined with how many containers they can carry seemingly determining their size. The largest will take 'four or more' ISO containers, the middle one takes two of the same and the smallest, one half-size container. Endurance for the larger one is around the 60 day mark 'without crew intervention'. Here I have a query because in a ship roughly 60m long and with a 3m draft, unless you're going everywhere at two knots, then this is a stretch but I'll leave it for now. The larger two also have optional crewing options. In the real world they'll probably have people aboard a lot of the time, as security guards if nothing else, but the people will tend to get off once the risk level goes up. What these low- or un-crewed MASC ships will be used for is less clear at this stage, but from the work the US is doing on containerised weapons systems, and the way one of the models has its drive train configured, it looks as though they will be focussed on anti-air capabilities (traditionally conducted by destroyers) and anti-submarine (frigate). On this subject, I do find myself disagreeing with doctrine purists who always want to see ships being built in response to a carefully crafted master strategy. In reality, the things you are going to want your ships to do haven't changed at either the soft or hard power end of the continuum for a long time. Diplomacy, disaster relief, freedom of navigation, littoral operations, strike, anti-submarine and air operations remain constant no matter how potential adversaries develop methods to try to deny them. This is the eternal cat and mouse of weapons development with the only certainty being that if you wait too long for the perfect kit, or because your system is slow, or because you don't have any cash, you will fall behind. In other words, just build them, the rest will follow. From a UK perspective there are at least four uses for ships like this that are blindingly obvious. There will be others. Missile defence is one and would work equally well in far blue water or around the UK. It would be far better to have a dozen of these ships with containerised SM-6 interceptors (this has been trialled by the US) than hugely expensive systems ashore that can only do one job – or just one or two exquisite destroyers with large crews in 15 or 20 years' time. The containerised data links and ability to transmit a radar picture to these vessels exist now. If we insist on full-fat destroyers with 100+ missile tubes they will cost billions apiece and we will never have enough. We should instead conceive our destroyers as flotilla leaders for MASC-type vessels with containerised weapons to bulk up our firepower. Likewise with anti-submarine warfare (ASW) in the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and beyond, low- or un-crewed ships with containerised kit could be vital. Anyone who has spent a life at sea gets nervous when tech companies start talking about deploying small short-range systems from mother ships for ASW because it is so often conducted in conditions where just walking around the ship is a challenge, much less deploying and recovering smaller craft. These larger MASC vessels avoid that problem. Another solution would be to deploy one-shot small systems: we already do this with sonobuoys. If it's cheap and numerous enough, this will work. A flotilla of medium autonomous ships with an exquisite Type 26 frigate somewhere in the vicinity running the show starts sounding a lot like balance and mass. A single Type 26, no matter how lovely, does not. And there are companies like Ocean Infinity who have already built medium sized autonomous ships. Defence should allocate resources to allow the Royal Navy to buy them now. Caveats do come to mind on unmanned ships: enemies will probably be much more willing to attack or sink them than manned ones, or even board and seize them. Certainly the bigger types need to be optionally crewed. It will probably often be worthwhile to have a highly skilled maintenance troubleshooter or two aboard, or an experienced bridge watchstander for crowded waters. But they won't always be needed, and there will certainly be no need for the large numbers of semi-skilled maintainers, sensor and weapon operators, cooks, administrators etc that make up most of today's warship crews. There is also of course the risk that unmanned ships might be hacked – though this is also becoming a risk with manned systems. Very little of this discussion is new: the Strategic Defence Review refers to much of it and Naval plans talk about uncrewed sloops (the Type 92) but that's the point – they're being discussed. We need to take a leaf out of the US playbook and just buy it. The Royal Navy has some excellent kit and people but is so short on both that its deterrent effect has been eroded. This is a quick and relatively cheap way out of this hole. Let's see if the US, whose macro fleet issues are similar – albeit much scaled up – can do any better.
BBC News
14 minutes ago
- BBC News
Norfolk and Suffolk Police merger not on cards says commissioner
A police and crime and commissioner said she doubted two forces would be merged - as she announced her job was coming to an Sarah Taylor – who won the election to become Norfolk's commissioner last year – said the role's responsibilities would be transferred to a new mayor's office in the planned mayor responsible for Norfolk and Suffolk, there has been speculation that the county's two police forces could be Taylor said her understanding was that a merger was "not on the cards at all". Last month, Conservative MP Nick Timothy said he believed a merger would take place and it would be a "disaster". Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are elected officials responsible for setting the priorities of a constabulary, appointing a chief constable and holding them to an election is set to take place in May 2026 to choose the first mayor to run a new combined authority for the the government confirmed it wanted the PCC roles to be absorbed into the work of mayors, the West Suffolk MP Timothy said he thought that would lead to one force covering two counties."It would take decision-making and accountability even further away from where people live.""We need the police really focused on local crimes, on burglaries, on street crime, and that means we need local accountability." Whilst the two forces are separate they do currently work together on some operations such as roads policing and armed said she had asked the Home Office if a merger was a said: "My understanding is that is not on the cards at all, and certainly if it is, they're not talking with us about that transition period.""As to whether that should happen I'm fairly agnostic about it. "I know that would give us a similar level of population of somewhere like North Yorkshire, or Devon and Cornwall – and certainly they seem to work well in that setup. "I don't see a particular reason why that would be detrimental to the service within Norfolk."PCCs serve four year terms in office, but with major changes being made to local government, Taylor said her's would end on 1 April 2027 – less than three years after she was elected."This will mean that I'm not only Labour's first Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk, but I will also be Norfolk's shortest serving Police and Crime Commissioner."She added that her "primary focus" was to make sure services were not affected whilst work took place transferring the role's responsibility to a mayor."I think it's fair to say the nuts and bolts of this will need to be worked through," she Home Office has been asked for comment. Follow Norfolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
