logo
‘My husband was on the Taliban's kill list. Thank you Britain for saving us'

‘My husband was on the Taliban's kill list. Thank you Britain for saving us'

Telegraph16-07-2025
Four months ago, the Mohammadi* family were at home in Afghanistan when they received an email that was as chilling as it was businesslike.
The father of three young children opened his laptop and clicked on the message, which declared it was from the Home Office of the British Government.
The email said he was on a list of those whom the UK had chosen to bring to Britain amid fears for their safety following a data leak.
For four years, the family had kept secret the fact that the father had worked with the British Army shortly after it began its protracted battle with the Taliban in 2014.
As a trained English teacher, the father's skills made him invaluable to British officers eager to gain local intelligence about the whereabouts of enemy commanders.
Like so many Afghan interpreters employed by the Army, he saw the arrival of the foreign forces as an opportunity to drag Afghanistan out of the grips of the oppressive regime imposed by the extreme religious intolerance of the Taliban.
The parents, in their late 20s, believed they could work with the UK soldiers to contribute to forging a better Afghanistan – as well as earning a regular income – and, importantly, were assured their safety would be guaranteed.
But, when the last remaining British troops ignominiously flew out from the Afghan capital in August 2021, the Mohammadis had no choice but to live in fear and harbour their secret.
On Wednesday, those fears were quite literally thousands of miles away.
Speaking as she returned with her three children to a Home Office hotel in Bracknell, Berkshire, the interpreter's wife placed the palm of her hand on her heart and said: 'We arrived in the UK a month ago. We were flown from Kabul to Pakistan and then on to London.'
She spoke in broken English (momentarily laughing as she explained that it was her husband, who was in his hotel room, who was fluent).
'We are grateful [to be here],' she said, placing a hand on her son's head.
She continued: 'The Taliban is very dangerous, very dangerous – we were scared for our safety.'
The interpreter's wife, who did not want to be fully identified, in part because she had been told not to talk to journalists by hotel security guards, said she felt safe in England.
She was blissfully unaware that her family's arrival, along with thousands of others, was at the centre of a political storm.
'We are grateful, thank you, thank you,' she said as she made her way back into the hotel and a security guard looked on.
According to court documents, Afghans have been sent to Bracknell in Berkshire, Preston in Lancashire, Aberdeen in Scotland, and Cardiff in Wales.
Others were sent to West Sussex and Yorkshire, while plans were afoot for hotels to be opened up to them in the North East, East Anglia and the East Midlands.
In Larkhill, Wiltshire, a cheerful Afghan mother said: 'Thank you, thank you, thank you.'
If there's one word that sums up the attitude of Afghan families relocated to the UK under the scheme designed to protect those who served the British Army, it is gratitude.
But there is another word that encapsulates the impact of those new arrivals on the families of British Army personnel already living at Larkhill Army base in Wiltshire: resentment.
Or as one mother, also taking her children to school, put it: 'When they arrived they got help with everything. Accommodation, doctors, learning English, free transport. But we don't get that for free. We have to pay for everything. It's just unfair.'
Hard-pressed British Army families feel their burden has grown heavier since the arrival of the Afghan interpreters and their families under the Government's resettlement scheme.
Some say they were moved out of existing Army accomodation to house them. Others report longer waiting times at the Larkhill Health Centre because of the influx of new patients.
Some of the friction is undoubtedly cultural. Or as one young Welsh mother, married to a British Army squaddie put it: 'The Afghan men and boys stare at us because we're different to their women.
'We're not covered up, maybe we don't wear as much, especially in summer, but so what? We're always told to respect each other's differences, but they don't seem to respect us.
'I've even had the teenage boys on the pavement block my path. Why do they do that? It might only be a minority of the Afghans behaving this way but it's not nice.'
Her friend, who is married to a Fijian soldier, was keen to emphasise it was not a question of race but of what appeared to be two-tier treatment.
Two-tier treatment?
She said: 'I'm married to a black man. He's served his country and put his life on the line, yet he's struggling to get British citizenship. Just stuck in the system.
'Why is that? It's the same with the other Commonwealth lads. They've served this country, but they don't seem to get any extra help or benefits, not like the Afghans.
'When they first arrived they all got welfare visits to make sure they were OK and did they need anything. We didn't get any of that. Why?'
For Briony Slatter, a 26-year-old Army wife, the presence of Afghans and their families is just another unwelcome strain on an already difficult daily life.
'I've got huge concerns about the influx,' she said as cradled her young daughter in her arms outside Larkhill Camp's bustling convenience store.
'The way the Government moved them here is not integration. It's putting us against each other.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Lorry driver, 37, who was set to pocket €25,000 for smuggling a woman and six-year-old child into the UK is jailed
Lorry driver, 37, who was set to pocket €25,000 for smuggling a woman and six-year-old child into the UK is jailed

Daily Mail​

time16 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Lorry driver, 37, who was set to pocket €25,000 for smuggling a woman and six-year-old child into the UK is jailed

A 37-year-old lorry driver, who was set to pocket €25,000 for smuggling a six-year-old girl into the UK, has been jailed. Polish national Dawid Flis, 37, was arrested by the National Crime Agency after arriving into the Port of Killingholme in North Lincolnshire in his HGV on March 23. He had travelled from the Hook of Holland, a village in the Netherlands, with an Albanian woman and a child hidden in the bunk area of the driver's cab. After the lorry was searched by Border Force, the two were found, with the woman later telling investigators she had agreed to pay Flis €25,000 to be brought to the UK. She revealed they had arranged to meet at the roadside in Holland, where he had let them both into the cab. The woman had already paid €12,500 to date On June 20, Flis pleaded guilty to facilitating illegal immigration at Grimsby Crown Court. Today, he was sentenced at the same court to four years in prison, and will be deported after his time behind bars. NCA Branch Commander Sara Moore said: 'Dawid Flis abused his position as a lorry driver to attempt to smuggle a woman and child into the UK. 'Tackling organised immigration crime is a priority for the NCA and we will continue in our pursuit of individuals who are involved in this criminality at every step of the chain.' One man arrested as part of the same incident has been extradited to Italy, while a second remains on bail.

‘This is not action': MPs respond to David Lammy's condemnation of Israel
‘This is not action': MPs respond to David Lammy's condemnation of Israel

The Guardian

time16 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

‘This is not action': MPs respond to David Lammy's condemnation of Israel

When David Lammy stood at the dispatch box to deliver a statement condemning Israel's killing of starving civilians in Gaza on Monday, he was met with anger from MPs. 'We want action, and this is not action,' thundered one Labour MP. 'Is this it?' another questioned. 'At what point does our basic humanity require us to take stronger action? Many of us think the red line was passed a long time ago,' a third said. The fury across the Commons was evident. 'Are words enough?' asked one veteran Tory. A second accused Lammy of 'complicity by inaction' and warned it could land him at The Hague. A Lib Dem highlighted that repeated UK expressions of regret had not prevented further carnage. A clearly despairing Lammy attempted to reassure the politicians the government was playing its part. 'Me raising my voice will not bring this war to an end. I lament that and I regret that. But am I sure that the UK government are doing everything in our power? Yes, I am.' But as international condemnation of Israel over the horrors it is inflicting on starving Palestinian civilians grows, Keir Starmer's government is struggling to convince the British public that it is doing enough. The outrage in the Commons is reflected across the country more widely, with the public increasingly regarding Israel's response since the October 7 attacks as disproportionate, as the atrocities continued. The government have been on the defensive, pointing out that it has restored funding to the UN agency UNWRA, provided millions in humanitarian assistance, sanctioned far-right Israeli ministers and those who committed settler violence, and broken off trade negotiations with Israel. But it has struggled to explain its export licensing regime. Ministers insist they have stopped the sale of arms, despite there still being more than 300 licences in operation. These include, they say, body armour sent to protect NGO workers, chemicals for Israeli universities and components for goods which are then transported to Nato allies. In particular, there is anger at the UK decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, which ministers argue is unavoidable because they are part of a global programme over which the UK does not have unilateral control. It exposes serious weaknesses in the regime and some believe the government should go further – with a fuller export embargo and an end to all military co-operation with Israel. Lammy has only recently sought to explain that RAF flights that overfly Gaza do not share information to help Israel conduct the war. 'We are not doing that. I would never do that,' he said this week. Starmer is also under pressure to immediately recognise a Palestinian state, both from his own back benches, within his cabinet and from the wider diplomatic community. Ministers say the UK will 'play its part' in working towards formal recognition, with a UN conference led by the French and Saudis later this month a key moment. Privately, they warn the move would only be symbolic unless there is a ceasefire first. But for many, who think the UK should be matching France's more hardline stance, that is not a good enough reason not to. 'If not now, then when?' one cabinet minister said. The government has stated it could issue more sanctions – with calls to do so against senior Israeli military officers, government ministers and even Benjamin Netanyahu himself. But that has not happened yet. Nor have suggestions it might expel the Israeli ambassador been heeded. 'That's unserious,' said one insider. The UK has also backed away from declaring that Israel has broken international law, insisting that while the government believes it is 'at risk' of doing so, it is up to the international courts to reach that judgment. Aides cite the same reason for avoiding the term 'genocide' to describe the horrors unfolding in Gaza. Back in the Commons on Monday, the criticism kept coming. 'The will of the House is clear on this matter: it wants action, not words. Why are you not hearing that?' a Labour MP asked. 'How could I not?' the foreign secretary responded. But while Lammy may have got the message, he appears to remain restricted by both the caution of the UK prime minister, and the realpolitik that there is only one foreign power that could single-handedly force an end to the conflict: the US. 'I wish we could, but the truth is … we are unable to do that just as the United Kingdom,' he told MPs. 'We have to work in partnership with our allies.' But for many, that will not be enough.

Cleared City traders hit out at rate-rigging prosecutions and treatment
Cleared City traders hit out at rate-rigging prosecutions and treatment

Sky News

time16 minutes ago

  • Sky News

Cleared City traders hit out at rate-rigging prosecutions and treatment

The city traders wrongfully convicted in the aftermath of the financial crisis have spoken out about their decade- long battle for justice, claiming they were scapegoats. Tom Hayes was the first of nine traders to prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office. In 2012, he was accused of rigging Libor - an interest rate on loans and financial contracts that was used throughout the financial system. The rate was determined daily based on submissions from several large banks. Mr Hayes was originally sentenced to 14 years in jail, one of the toughest sentences ever handed out for white collar crime. He served more than five years in prison, including the high security prison Belmarsh. Speaking to Sky News today after the Supreme Court overturned the conviction, Mr Hayes said: "I came out (of prison) to a son who was nine years old who I left when he was three. My marriage broke down whilst I was in prison. My mental health broke down while I was in prison." 1:05 Mr Hayes said he was made responsible for damage caused by the financial crisis. " There was this zeitgeist that existed where they wanted to send bankers to prison... We were unlucky". he said. He was joined by Carlo Palombo, who was convicted in 2019 for rigging Euribor, the Euro Libor rate. Mr Palombo said he spent most of his days in a small cell that he shared with another inmate at Wandsworth Prison. "There's violence everywhere. (We were) being treated like wild beasts by prison guards", he said. He said he was the victim of a "purge" by banks and regulators as they sought to absolve themselves of the consequences of the crash. "The stuff of which I was accused and convicted was something that was done completely openly by absolutely every single person… it was just a normal business practice of the bank", he said. Supreme Court judges said the two men did not receive fair trials because the juries were misdirected in the original cases. Essentially, they had been told their behaviour was dishonest without reaching that conclusion themselves. Both men are now trying to move on with their lives. Mr Hayes said he wanted to move to the sea and rebuild his family.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store