One Special Forces officer blocked 1,585 Afghans from settling in UK
A UK Special Forces officer personally rejected 1,585 resettlement applications from Afghans with credible links to British commandos, newly released documents say.The files, disclosed by the Ministry of Defence in court on Thursday, show the unnamed UKSF officer rejected every application referred to him in the summer of 2023, in what was described as a "sprint".The MoD told the court that the officer may have been connected to the ongoing inquiry into alleged war crimes committed by the SAS.The admission comes after the BBC revealed last week that the UKSF officer – who previously served in Afghanistan rejected the applications from Afghans who may have witnessed the alleged war crimes.
Afghan commandos, known as the Triples, supported the SAS and SBS for years in Afghanistan and were in danger of reprisal after the Taliban seized back the country in 2021.But thousands of UK resettlement applications containing credible links to the Triples were rejected.The rejections came at a time when a public inquiry in the UK had begun investigating allegations that British special forces had committed war crimes on operations in Afghanistan where the Triples were present.If the Afghan commandos were in the UK, they could be called as witnesses - but the inquiry has no power to compel testimony from foreign nationals who are overseas.MoD officials raised concerns as early as October 2022 about the role of the UKSF in rejecting applications with links to the Triples units, the new documents show.In a witness statement submitted to court, Natalie Moore, the head of the UK's Afghan resettlement team, wrote that she became concerned the UKSF was applying a practice of "automatic rejections" with regard to Triples, giving rise to the "appearance of an unpublished mass rejection policy".In January 2024, following the BBC's revelation of the existence of a UKSF veto over applications, then-Veterans Minister Johnny Mercer warned senior cabinet ministers in writing of a "significant conflict of interest that should be obvious to all".The veto gave the UKSF "decision-making power over... potential witnesses to the inquiry", Mercer said, calling the arrangement "deeply inappropriate".In the same letter, Mercer said that he had seen evidence that five former Triples had been killed by the Taliban after their resettlement applications were rejected. And in a meeting with Ms Moore, he highlighted a case in which an applicant was rejected having "previously confronted UKSF leadership about EJKs [extrajudicial killings] in Afghanistan".Despite concerns first being raised internally in October 2022 - and again between October 2023 and January 2024 - in March 2024 the MoD denied to both the BBC and Parliament that UKSF had had a veto over the former commandos' applications.
The Triples - so-called because their designations were CF 333 and ATF 444 - were set up, trained, and paid by the UKSF. When Afghanistan fell to the Taliban, they were judged to be in grave danger of reprisal and were entitled to apply for resettlement to the UK.But more than 2,000 applications judged by resettlement caseworkers to have credible evidence were subsequently rejected by the UKSF.The MoD later announced a review of more than 2,000 rejected applications after finding that the decisions were "not robust". Earlier this week, Armed Forces Minster Luke Pollard announced a new phase of the review to take into account up to 2,500 further cases which may have been improperly rejected.Some of the former Triples who were denied visas have since been tortured and killed by the Taliban, according to testimony from former colleagues, family members and lawyers.The documents disclosed in court on Thursday, as part of a judicial review case brought by a former member of the Triples, reveal that the government launched two investigations that examined the actions of the UKSF and the allegations of a conflict of interest at the heart of the Triples rejections.A summary of one of those investigations, known as Operation X, said it "did not obtain any evidence of hidden motives on the part of the UKSF liaison officer" and found "no evidence of automatic/instant/mass rejections" of the Triples by the UKSF - but provided no evidence to back up those conclusions.It instead concluded that the more than 2,000 rejections of Triples were down to "slack and unprofessional verification processes" by the UKSF liaison officer and "lax procedures followed by the officer in not following up on all lines of enquiry before issuing rejections". More than 600 of those rejections have since been overturned.BBC Panorama reported recently that the rejection of the Triples applications had been overseen by Gen Jenkins, who was head of the UKSF at the time and was promoted last week to be the head of the Royal Navy.In the court documents, the MoD said that Gen Jenkins had no involvement with the applications and that he had not appointed the UKSF officer who rejected them.Tom de la Mare KC, representing the former Triple who brought the case, accused the MoD of breaching its duty of candour in the case by failing to disclose evidence of a blanket practice of rejection of the Triples applications.He further accused the MoD of providing misleading responses to requests for information. Cathryn McGahey KC, representing the MoD, told the court she did "not seek to excuse or underplay in any way the provision of inaccurate answers", and she apologised for the fact that the MoD had previously told the court that no veto existed.The case is examining whether the review of the rejected Triples applications was conducted in a lawful manner. Ms McGahey told the court that "there might have been a better way of doing it, but that doesn't make it unlawful".Daniel Carey, partner at DPG, the law firm acting on behalf of the former Triples, said: "My client spent years asking the MoD to rectify the blanket refusals of Triples personnel and has seen many killed and harmed by the Taliban in that time."He is pleased that the MoD have agreed to inform everyone of the decisions in their cases and to tell the persons affected whether their cases are under review or not, but it should not have required litigation to achieve basic fairness."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
23 minutes ago
- The Sun
Family of murdered Lyons kingpin Ross Monaghan say notorious rivals DIDN'T order executions
THE grief-stricken family of murdered Lyons gang kingpin Ross Monaghan last night sensationally said their Daniel clan enemies are not to blame. We can reveal the bitter Glasgow rivals have put their own conflict on hold amid suspicions a foreign crew ordered the Costa del Sol pub hit on hoods Monaghan, 43, and Eddie Lyons Jnr, 46. 3 3 3 The relative said: 'The one thing people need to know is the Daniels are not behind this. "There are other theories about who is behind it, but the one thing we know for sure is it's got nothing to do with the Daniels or Mark Richardson.' The relative also insisted that despite leading lives of crime, both victims were much-loved family men. Tragically, Eddie Lyons Jnr's death came just weeks after his teenage daughter passed away from illness. The relative added: 'Ross obviously did what he did and the family accept that, but people have been saying some very horrible things. 'They have to remember Ross was a father and a son. Eddie had only just buried his daughter and so you can imagine this has hit everyone extremely hard — none more so than his brother Steven Lyons who is extremely upset.' The Lyons and Daniels have been at war for decades, with both sides involved in sickening violence. We told yesterday how the under-siege Daniels are said to have set aside £500,000 to deal with potential revenge attacks amid fears they would be wrongly blamed for the killings. A source said: 'Neither side can take the moral high ground but for once there is genuine shock at what's happened in Spain on both sides. 'The last thing the Lyons and the Daniels need is more bloodshed, so it's easy to see why they want to make it clear that these murders are the work of another crime gang operating outside Scotland.' Spanish cops are continuing to hunt the gunman who struck in Fuengirola on Saturday. Police Scotland has also ruled out claims the assassinations were plotted by warring mobsters here.
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Free school meals for half a million of England's poorest children
An extra half a million children will benefit from a free meal every school day after the government announced a major expansion of the policy, which they said would lift 100,000 pupils out of poverty and put an extra £500 in parents' pockets. From the start of the 2026 school year, every child whose household is on universal credit will be entitled to free school meals, the government announced on Thursday. Since 2018, children have only been eligible for free school meals if their household income is less than £7,400 per year, meaning hundreds of thousands of children living in poverty have been unable to access them. As of January last year, nearly 2.1 million children in England were eligible for free school meals. The Department for Education claimed that the expansion will lift 100,000 children across England out of poverty. It comes two years after The Independent 's Feed the Future campaign, in which we called for free school meals to be extended to all schoolchildren in England – both primary and secondary – who lived in households on universal credit but missed out on free school meals. The latest move will be seen as a major concession to Labour MPs who are concerned about the direction of the government, with rebellion brewing over the party's upcoming welfare cuts and calls for Sir Keir Starmer to scrap the two-child benefit cap. The chancellor Rachel Reeves also announced on Wednesday that more people will get fuel payments 'this winter' as she pledged to raise the level of the means test. Announcing the expansion of free school meals, education secretary Bridget Phillipson said 'background shouldn't mean destiny', adding: 'Today's historic step will help us to deliver excellence everywhere, for every child and give more young people the chance to get on in life.' She continued: 'It is the moral mission of this government to tackle the stain of child poverty, and today this government takes a giant step towards ending it with targeted support that puts money back in parents' pockets.' The move was welcomed by campaigners and unions, with the Child Poverty Action Group saying it will be a 'game-changer for children and families'. Kate Anstey, head of education policy the campaign group, said: 'At last more kids will get the food they need to learn and thrive and millions of parents struggling to make ends meet will get a bit of breathing space. 'We hope this is a sign of what's to come in autumn's child poverty strategy, with the government taking more action to meet its manifesto commitment to reduce child poverty in the UK." Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union, said the expansion of free school meals eligibility was a 'necessary and overdue first step' that would help address child hunger in schools. He said the current threshold, which had been unchanged since 2018, meant 'hundreds of thousands of children in poverty were missing out on the nutrition they need to thrive'. Mr Kebede added: 'As teachers, our members know the positive impact of children eating and learning together – how it breaks down stigma and inequality, and ensures greater community cohesion. Ensuring that a free school meal is available to all children is the next urgent step that must be taken.' Meanwhile, Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, welcomed the move to expand free school meals to all families on universal credit, saying 'no child should ever have to go hungry due to their parents' financial circumstances'. But he also called for auto-enrolment and wider support to tackle the broader impact of poverty on children's education. Children's commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza echoed his call, urging the government to make sure every eligible child is 'automatically enrolled for free school meals, rather than putting the onus on parents to sign up'. 'When children talk to me about their family lives, I am struck by how acutely aware they are of their parents' worries and of the impact these have on their daily lives - and their education', she said. 'That's why we need solutions that reflect children's experiences, reduce the shame too many have told me they feel about their circumstances, and break the link between their backgrounds and their opportunities, by giving them communities that are safe, supportive and aspirational.' Last week, The Independent revealed that demand for help from baby banks from parents struggling to feed their children has surged by more than one-third in a year, amid record -high levels of child poverty. New data showed that more than 3.5 million essential items were handed out in 2024, including nappies, clothes and cots – an increase of 143 per cent on the previous year. The announcement came just hours after Sir Keir sidestepped questions over the two-child benefit cap, amid growing calls for him to lift the limit. Critics of the policy say removing it would be the most effective way of tackling child poverty amid warnings that as many as 100 children are pulled into poverty every day by the limit. However, it is thought the cap will not be lifted until the government publishes its child poverty strategy, which has now been delayed until the autumn. Grilled on the policy at Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir said he is 'absolutely determined' to 'drive down' child poverty but declined to give further details ahead of the publication of the government's strategy.
Sky News
38 minutes ago
- Sky News
The big problem facing UK as deadline to finalise US trade deal looms
When push comes to shove, the question of whether British industry faces crippling tariffs on exports to the US or enjoys a unique opportunity to grow may come back to three seemingly random words: "melted and poured". To see why, let's begin by recapping where we are at present in the soap opera of US trade policy. Donald Trump has just doubled the extra tariffs charged on imports of steel and aluminium into the US from 25% to 50%. In essence, this would turn a painfully high tariff into something closer to an insurmountable economic wall (remember during the Cold War, the Iron Curtain equated to an effective tariff rate of just under 50%). Anyway, the good news for UK steel producers is that they have been spared the 50% rate and will, for the time being, only have to pay the 25% rate. But there is a sting in the tail: that stay of execution will only last until 9 July - on the basis of President Trump's most recent pronouncements. 1:00 For anyone following these events from the corner of their eyes, this might all sound a little odd. After all, didn't Sir Keir Starmer announce only a few weeks ago that British steel and aluminium makers would be able to enjoy not 25% but 0% tariffs with America, thanks to his bold new trade agreement with the US? Well, yes. But the prime minister wasn't being entirely clear about what that meant in practice. Because the reality is that every trade agreement works more or less as follows: politicians negotiate a "heads of terms" agreement - a vague set of principles and red lines. There then follows a period of horse-trading and negotiation to nail down the actual details and turn it into a black and white piece of law. In this case, when the PM and president made their big announcement 28 days ago, they had only agreed on the "heads of terms". The small print was yet to be completed. Right now, we are still in the horse-trading phase. Negotiators from the UK and the US are meeting routinely to try and nail down the small print. And that process is taking longer than many had expected. To see why, it's worth drilling a little bit into the details. The trade deal committed to allowing some cars to pass into the US at a 10% rate and to protecting some pharmaceutical trade, as well as allowing some steel and aluminium into the US at a zero tariff rate. When it comes to cars, there are some nuances about which kind of cars the deal covers. Something similar goes for pharmaceuticals. Things get even knottier when you drill into the detail on steel. 2:13 You see, one of the things the White House is nervous about is the prospect that Britain might become a kind of assembly point for steel from other countries around the world - that you could just ship some steel to Britain, get it pressed or rolled or worked over and then sent across to the US with those 0% tariffs. So the US negotiators are insisting that only steel that is "melted and poured" in the UK (in other words, smelted in a furnace) is covered by the trade deal. That's fine for some producers but not for others. One of Britain's biggest steel exporters is Tata Steel, which makes a lot of steel that gets turned into tin cans you find on American supermarket shelves (not to mention piping used by the oil trade). Up until recently, that steel was indeed "melted and poured" from the blast furnaces at Port Talbot. But Tata shut down those blast furnaces last year, intending to replace them with cleaner electric arc furnaces. And in the intervening period, it's importing raw steel instead from the Netherlands and India and then running it through its mills. Or consider the situation at British Steel. There in Scunthorpe they are melting and pouring the steel from iron made in their blast furnaces - but now ponder this. While the company has been semi-nationalised by the government, it is still technically a Chinese business, owned by Jingye. In other words, its steel might technically count as benefiting China - which is something the White House is even more sensitive about. 👉 Tap here to follow Politics at Jack and Anne's wherever you get your podcasts 👈 You see how this is all suddenly becoming a bit more complicated than it might at first have looked? This helps to explain why the negotiations are taking longer than expected. But this brings us to the big problem. The White House has indicated that Britain will only be spared that 50% tariff rate provided the trade deal is finalised by 9 July. That gives the negotiators another month and a bit. That might sound like a lot, but now consider that that would be one of the fastest announcement-to-completion rates ever achieved in any trade negotiations in modern history. There's no guarantee Britain will actually get this deal done in time for that deadline - though insiders tell me they think they could be able to finalise it in a piecemeal fashion: the cars one week, steel another, pharmaceuticals another. Either way, the heat is on. Just when you thought Britain was in the safe zone, it stands on the edge of jeopardy all over again.
