TV star's desperate plea to rescue writers from murder by Taliban
Foreign Secretary David Lammy has been urged to meet with campaigners - including the producer of Have I Got News For You - hoping to rescue Afghan writers and comedians at risk of being murdered by the Taliban.
Jimmy Mulville, the executive producer of the long-running satirical panel told the Sunday Mirror around 104 "high risk" artists, writers and comedians are in hiding with their families, fearing imprisonment or murder for speaking out against the Taliban.
"They recently found a comedian in hiding, who had made jokes about the Taliban before they returned to power," Mr Mulville said.
"They found him, made him tell the joke and killed him." He said he'd also been told an actor who had discovered the Taliban had found out where she lived, "threw herself out of a window."
Mr Mulville, along with film director Mohsen Makhmalbaf, are calling on the government to help around 294 creative professionals and their families to escape Afghanistan via Pakistan.
After meeting with a number of politicians and giving evidence to a Parliamentary select committee last year, they feel the next step is to discuss the matter with Mr Lammy.
Mr Mulville said: "I think it's a real opportunity for David Lammy, who is showing himself as quite a player on the international stage, to do the right thing and get these people out of Afghanistan as soon as possible."
He went on: "This is 294 people who would be completely assimilated. They aren't going to take anyone's job, they have a job.
'As creative people, they just need not to be killed. It needs someone like Keir Starmer to step in and say it's not about immigration, it's a rescue.
'As we're speaking, there could be people being hunted down by the Taliban."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Tech Secretary Peter Kyle won't apologise for what he said about Nigel Farage - 'it's true'
The Tech Secretary refused to apologise for saying Farage's opposition to new online safety rules puts him on the side of predators - suggesting Reform UK are "wilfully misleading" the public about what the new rules do Tech Secretary Peter Kyle has doubled-down on his attack on Nigel Farage, saying the Reform UK leader's opposition to a new online safety crackdown puts him 'on the side of predators.' Writing for the Sunday Mirror, Mr Kyle said he'd never apologise for the remark, made earlier this week, 'Because it's true.' And he revealed how the new law was already being used to prosecute online offenders. New online safety protections for children came into force on July 25. Since that date, so-called "risky" sites and apps have been expected to use age checks to identify which users are children and subsequently prevent them from accessing pornography, as well as other harmful content including self-harm, suicide, eating disorders and extreme violence. Farage's Reform UK party has vowed to scrap Online Safety Act if it ever gains power, claiming it was a threat to free speech. And Farage has said Kyle's comments about him were 'absolutely appalling'. Mr Kyle highlighted two cases where the new law had been used to prosecute and jail online offenders. Last year, Nicholas Hawkes, 39, sent explicit photos of himself to a 15-year-old girl. He was convicted under the new offence of cyber-flashing and sentenced to 66 weeks in prison. And Tyler Webb, 22, was the first to be charged with encouraging serious self-harm under the new act - and was sentenced to nine years and four months. Webb used the messaging app Telegram to repeatedly tell a vulnerable 22-year-old woman to cut herself, then to kill herself by hanging during a video call so she could watch. 'Let me be clear about what the Act does not do,' Mr Kyle wrote. 'It does not stop adults from posting or seeing anything online as long as it's legal and anyone who suggests that does not understand it or is willfully misleading.' He added: 'For years we fought for a safer internet for our children. I refuse to let anyone who is trying to use this issue for their own ends take that away.' 'I won't apologise, because it's true' Earlier this week Nigel Farage asked me to apologise for saying he was on the side of predators when he called for the Online Safety Act to be scrapped. But I won't do that. Because it's true. Under this law a 39 year old man was prosecuted for the new offence of cyber flashing because he sent a photo of his erect penis to a 15-year-old girl. These new categories of crimes are sadly necessary to combat crime in the modern world. But beyond these crimes the law takes steps to make the internet a safer place for children. If you're a parent, ask yourself this - do I want my child to see graphic violence and sexual content? Do I want kids as young as five to see porn on social media? Do I want strangers to be able to message my children - or anyone else's? And do I want them to be able to see my child's location when they're online? This is what the act does - it stops children from seeing things that they should not see - and that we would not want them to in the offline world - porn, extreme violence, suicide and self harm content, images and words that encourage and glorify eating disorders. But as well as blocking disturbing and upsetting images and messages from children's feeds, it also cracks down on child sex abuse images and videos. For the first time social media platforms have to detect and remove that horrific material which has shamefully lurked on the internet barely hidden from those sick enough to seek it out. It also means practical steps to protect children from strangers who want to do them harm. It stipulates that children's profiles and locations should be hidden to keep them safe by default. Because no adult should be able to message a child they do not know. And let me be clear about what the Act does not do - It does not stop adults from posting or seeing anything online as long as it's legal and anyone who suggests that does not understand it or is wilfully misleading. In my first week as Secretary of State I met with a group of bereaved families who have known the absolute worst of the internet. Some of those children were encouraged to kill themselves, others were egged on to do dangerous and ultimately fatal challenges and others still do not know exactly what role their child's online role played in their deaths. I have been clear that not only did we collectively fail their children but that I would do what I could to stop such awful deaths in the future. For years we fought for a safer internet for our children. I refuse to let anyone who is trying to use this issue for their own ends take that away. This government has a Plan for Change to keep children safe both online and offline so that they can live happy and fulfilled lives.
Spectator
8 hours ago
- Spectator
Is David Williams the MoD's fall guy?
Yesterday the Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed that its permanent secretary, David Williams, will be stepping down in a matter of weeks. He has served for just over four years, almost exactly the average tenure of his predecessors since the department was created in 1964, but it is difficult to regard the timing as a coincidence. It is still not yet three weeks since the catastrophic loss of data on Afghan nationals and others, and the MoD's use of a super-injunction, were disclosed to parliament by defence secretary John Healey. Williams is not explicitly being sacked: permanent secretaries very rarely are. The Ministry of Defence is being very careful and measured in its language to refer to his impending departure: according to the BBC, Healey had a 'conversation' with Williams before the Afghan data loss story became public knowledge, and 'made clear that this was the right time to make a change'. There is a plausible argument that we should not draw a line directly from the data loss to Williams's departure. The MoD has also briefed that this is 'an appropriate time for a transition' of leadership; under Healey's Defence Reform programme, the senior levels of the Ministry of Defence have been rearranged and streamlined into a 'leadership quad' which will supervise all aspects of defence policy and the armed forces. This is the biggest reorganisation of the MoD for half a century, and it need not be any reflection on Williams that he chooses to step down before implementing the reforms in full, or that the defence secretary would prefer a fresh approach and a new top civil servant. Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton will be taking over as Chief of the Defence Staff next month, while the recruitment for a permanent national armaments director is taking longer than expected. While Madelaine McTernan, Chief of Defence Nuclear, has been in post since 2022, replacing Williams at this stage could make sense. Equally, Williams's departure could be seen as part of a wave of changes at permanent secretary level which often happen in the first year or so of a new government. Simon Case (Cabinet Secretary), Sir Matthew Rycroft (Home Office), Dame Tamara Finkelstein (Defra), Sir Philip Barton (FCDO), Dame Bernadette Kelly (Transport), Sarah Munby (DSIT) and Sir Jim Harra (HMRC) have all left the civil service within the past 12 months. And yet… while the MoD is making no explicit connection between Williams's departure and the data loss, it is hard to escape the feeling that we are being invited to join the dots, and that the permanent secretary is an expiatory offering to the political gods. The whole scandal did, after all, take place on his watch, and he was in charge of the overall management and leadership of the Ministry of Defence, as well as formally being principal accounting officer responsible to parliament. The MoD should under no circumstances be allowed to wipe the slate clean with Williams's departure. There is still a great deal we do not know about the Afghan data loss scandal, though the Intelligence and Security Committee, the House of Commons Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee will all be inquiring into the issue. But Williams – whatever his individual culpability – cannot be the fall guy. Even based on what we currently know, the MoD has a shameful inability to prevent the loss of secret data, and data breaches have increased threefold over the past five years. There is also a systemic lack of accountability, particularly in relation to a number of disastrous equipment procurement projects. The readiness with which the department accepted the comfort blanket of a super-injunction for nearly two years speaks to a deeply ingrained culture of secrecy and dislike of scrutiny. The Ministry of Defence is secretive, inefficient, unaccountable and almost pathologically unable to learn from its mistakes. That has been common currency in defence circles for decades, but the Afghan data loss cut through to the consciousness of the wider public. There is now a major issue of public trust, already a rare, valuable but rapidly disappearing commodity. If ministers try to usher Williams off stage, bring in a new permanent secretary and assume that previous disasters can then be written off, they must have their feet held to the fire. This is not a failing individual. This is an ingrained, systemic, cultural malaise. And it has to be fixed.
The National
a day ago
- The National
Top MoD civil servant quits after major Afghan data breach
An MoD spokesperson said on Friday: 'Permanent Secretary David Williams will step down this autumn and the recruitment process for his successor is under way. 'Since 2021, David has led the department through a period of significant activity, and we thank him for his contribution.' Williams was appointed as MoD Permanent Secretary in April 2021. It comes after the department faced questions over a data breach in which a defence official released details of almost 19,000 people seeking to flee Afghanistan after the return of the Taliban. READ MORE: Father of boy, 8, sexually assaulted in tent in Loch Ness saw suspect 'walk away' Along with the Afghan nationals, the details of more than 100 British officials were compromised, including special forces and MI6 personnel. An injunction blocked reporting of the matter until it was lifted earlier this summer. Defence sources have said that details of MI6 spies, SAS and special forces personnel were included in the spreadsheet, after they had endorsed Afghans who had applied to be brought to the UK. The Ministry of Defence became aware of the blunder only when excerpts from the dataset were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023, and a superinjunction was granted at the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban from finding out about the leak. The leak also led to the creation of the secret Afghanistan Response Route, which is understood to have cost about £400 million so far, with a projected final cost of about £850m. A total of about 6900 people are expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme. The official responsible for the email error was moved to a new role but not sacked. The superinjunction was in place for almost two years, covering Labour and Conservative governments. Labour MP and chairman of the defence select committee, Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, said: 'Defence permanent secretary David Williams' many years of dedicated public service deserve respect. 'It's not yet clear whether his decision to step down is linked to the recently revealed Afghan data breach. READ MORE: Archaeologists battle to save 1000-year-old island broch from falling into sea 'However, what is clear is that this grave failure of data protection demands proper scrutiny, which the defence committee certainly intends to provide. 'While our committee has agreed to inquire into this shocking situation, we have yet to determine the full scope for that, including who will be called to give evidence. 'The fact that this breach has put at risk our courageous British service personnel and the Afghans who bravely supported them, makes the situation even more shocking. 'I am sure the committee will want to investigate and understand how this could have been allowed to happen.'
