
The failure to stand by Afghans who fought with the British has been unforgivable
No one has been held to account for the leak of thousands of names of Afghans whose lives have been put in danger. We are not talking here about the British serviceman who pressed 'send' on the email to which a spreadsheet was attached containing hidden data, so much as about the senior officials responsible for ensuring secure communication of sensitive information.
Holly Bancroft, our journalist who has won awards for her coverage of the Afghan special forces left behind by Britain, has reported on many other cases in which the Ministry of Defence has failed to keep data safe, including being fined by the information commissioner for mishandling of emails linked to the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap).
Nor has anyone been disciplined for the failure to use the time bought by the superinjunction after the leak was discovered to bring all those affected to safety. The Independent has spoken to two Afghans who served alongside British forces who are still in Afghanistan, waiting for decisions on their applications for the right to come to the UK. Their situation has now become perilous, despite the Ministry of Defence having had two years to put it right.
Indeed, instead of trying to identify the remaining Afghans put at risk by the leak and to make sure that they were quickly protected, the MoD was seeking to have the injunction extended, possibly indefinitely. As we have commented before, the instinct not just of the bureaucracy but of its former political leaders seems to have been to cover up the problem rather than deal with it.
This is part of a wider failure, on which The Independent has reported with a consistent sense of urgency, to deal efficiently with the relatively small numbers of people left in a vulnerable position by the allies' withdrawal four years ago. In some cases, officials have denied that members of the Afghan special forces were paid by the British, only for the evidence to be discovered later.
In another case, one official was found to have refused 1,500 applications for assistance without checking them individually.
We have campaigned for years against foot-dragging by the MoD, the Foreign Office and the Home Office, which has left brave Afghans who risked their lives to assist our forces in their country in limbo.
Some of them were left in a state of uncertainty in the UK, such as the pilot who came to Britain in a small boat – because there was no other way – only to be threatened with deportation to Rwanda. Thanks to our campaign, he was finally given permission to stay.
But there are hundreds more, some still in Afghanistan, others in Pakistan or Iran, still waiting for the British state to acknowledge its responsibility to them.
This cannot go on. It is high time that the prime minister and John Healey, the defence secretary, got a grip on this issue – and that must include identifying and punishing those responsible for this shameful episode.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Spectator
23 minutes ago
- Spectator
Gagging the military is a mistake
Some weeks ago at an army conference I listened to senior officers discussing the lethal, agile, 'integrated' British military of the future as set out in the government's recent Strategic Defence Review. Unfortunately I can't tell you what they said. The Chief of the General Staff Sir Roly Walker answered questions on what the SDR meant for the army. I can't tell you what he said either. Officers attending the conference were apparently told that, if they found themselves in accidental conversation with a journalist, they were to extricate themselves immediately. At a time of increased focus on national defence, it was a poor day for transparency. This was not a one off. A new Downing Street diktat bans senior officers (and also civil servants, diplomats and other public officials) from speaking at events that include question and answer sessions, or where the media is expected to be in attendance. Only ministers can now represent the government position. Officials have even been told not to speak to journalists on background. This unprecedented gag weakens public understanding of defence, is self-defeating, and displays an astonishing lack of trust. Relations between soldiers and governments have never been easy. Senior officers have often plunged into the political fray to gain institutional or budgetary advantage. Churchill's generals bemoaned his interference in military affairs; he in turn criticised their politicking and lack of strategic acumen. More recently, the concentration of financial and political power within the Ministry of Defence at the expense of the individual military services has curtailed open professional policy discussion. Post-Cold War spats over defence cuts, and the course of conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya also left a legacy of distrust. David Cameron famously told his generals in 2011 to do the fighting while he did the talking. Although governments have always sought to control 'the narrative', recently a persistent pattern has emerged of the government trying to prevent those working in defence in the public sector from communicating with the outside world via experts, think tanks and the media. In January 2024, General Walker's predecessor was slapped down for his misinterpreted comments about Britain needing a 'whole of nation' approach to defence (a wise view now embedded in the SDR). In April this year, the Chief of Defence Staff Tony Radakin addressed the National Defence University in Beijing. The MoD did not tell the public about the visit or what he said; we all first heard about it via the Chinese Ministry of Defence. Keir Starmer has promised 'transparency in everything we do', but defence reporters tell me that No. 10 is obsessed with a narrow defence message about jobs and domestic growth, not the risk of war with Russia or why investment is required. Backdrops, buzzwords and bland platitudes are prioritised over informed content. Media visits to defence establishments have been reduced and briefings curtailed; Labour ministers have decreed that every MoD press release should have a political message. The situation is not helped by a reactive, defensive MoD press operation focused on the news of the day rather than wider themes. Spin often gets in the way of substance. This is all unwise. Firstly, the clamp down reduces public understanding. Hard pressed ministers do not have the time nor professional knowledge to be able to explain the breadth and complexity of activity across defence. Some are better communicators than others. Those checking speeches in No. 10 lack experience, often erring on the side of caution, further reducing clarity. This means the official view can be poorly reflected, or reflected in strange ways by blocking mid-ranking subject matter experts from engaging directly. Secondly, the gag actively works against the government's own agenda. Defence is now the stated top priority of this government. The SDR recommended 'reconnecting defence with society'. This will be difficult. With the UK military so small, the public see less and less of it. Fewer have a direct family connection with it. Only half of the population believe spending on defence should increase. Less believe that increasing defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP, as promised the recent Nato summit, should come at the expense of health, welfare or benefits. Changing these perspectives requires more, not less, public discourse to build understanding and confidence. Thirdly, although politicians – rightly – should be the primary voice for a 'national conversation led by the government' on defence, senior officers and officials can assist them by explaining, supporting, clarifying and emphasising policy. Political sensibility is a prerequisite for the highest ranks of the military and civil service; the government should use those officials to strengthen defence ties with society. They should not marginalise them. Abroad, diplomats should be free to explain UK policy to our allies, not be prevented from doing so. Lastly, openness is a key principle for public life. No. 10's pettifogging tendency for ever greater centralisation and its evident distrust for its own officials goes against the empowered, unshackled and 'emboldened civil service' that Starmer says he wants. Control freakery diminishes the public realm. The first anniversary of Labour's election has found Starmer at the lowest point of his premiership. A shake up is due. But not everything is political; a 'whole of society' approach on defence means just that. It's time that Walker and his colleagues are uncorked.


Spectator
23 minutes ago
- Spectator
Questions remain about Farage's crime crackdown
As Keir Starmer prepared to meet Donald Trump at his Scottish golf course this afternoon, Nigel Farage kept himself busy with another 'Lawless Britain' press conference in London. ('I had dinner with Donald Trump Junior the other week,' he said to reporters asking if he had been able to secure an audience with the US President.) Social media dominated. Reform's new police and crime adviser, retired detective Colin Sutton, told attendees: 'We need to refocus what police are doing onto homes and streets – not posts and tweets.' The latest addition to the Reform outfit will stand as a candidate in the next general election and in the meantime use his experience to help shape the party's crime policy. Sutton made his name after leading high-profile investigations into serial killers and rapists – with the ITV series 'Manhunt' retelling his time in the force. Another 'celebrity' hire by the party, Sutton now wants to go into politics. 'I [am] known as a detective,' he told reporters. 'I'd rather be known as a leader.' What does he want to change? Sutton says that while Reform's current ambition to increase police numbers by 30,000 is admirable, he also wants to open at least 300 'front counter police buildings'. Police need to 're-engage', and become 'more visible'. He wants to speak to those involved in public order policing, to learn more about how different protest groups behave. A former Conservative member, Sutton was scathing of how the police force has operated in recent years: 'It has been captured by a liberal ideology, and people are too scared of bucking against that ideology… Two-tier policing, two-tier criminal justice system is one phrase that's been bandied about a lot. I don't think it's an unfair thing to say.' As reported by the Daily Mail, Sutton is supportive of scrapping some hate crime laws – suggesting that online abuse could be 'treated like a watered-down version of defamation'. He added: 'Then you can sue in the civil court. Don't give them legal aid and see how many feelings are hurt then.' The unveiling of Sutton as the latest addition to the expanding Reform team comes as the Online Safety Act comes into force, with social media platforms now having a legal duty to protect children online. Zia Yusuf, former party chair and now head of its Doge unit, didn't hold back when he attacked the new law – and promised to repeal it if Reform gets into government. 'We think this is the greatest assault on freedom of speech in our lifetimes,' he fumed. 'Any student of history will know that the way countries slip into this sort of authoritarian regime is through legislation that cloaks tyranny inside the warm fuzzies of safety and security and hope nobody reads the small print.' Republican pundit Ann Coulter enjoyed a front-row seat to the event, with a Reform official advising she was attending as a 'friend of the party'. More Americans will arrive on British shores shortly, with Vice President JD Vance due to visit in early August. 'It will be very interesting to see what his take on this legislation is,' Farage said. The law is on The Donald's radar too, with the President in Scotland replying to a journalist: 'Well, free speech is very important and I don't know if you're referring to any place in particular,' before turning, as Freddy Gray writes, rather impishly to Starmer. The issue wasn't pressed but the act, while broadly popular with the British public, will stir up discontent across the water – especially with free speech-loving Twitter CEO Elon Musk who, despite their differences, Farage described as a 'hero'. Turning to Gaza, Farage insisted a Palestinian state should not be recognised but sent a warning to the Israeli prime minister: 'I think you've got to say to Netanyahu, stop losing friends the way you are.' There remain a number of unanswered questions regarding the details of Farage's crime crackdown. Journalists have pointed out that, according to the Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW), violent crime has plummeted since 2010. This survey is seen by the Office for National Statistics as the more accurate metric of long-term crime trends, yet Farage insisted at the start of today's press conference that crime rates are increasing and 'as far as we're concerned, [the CSEW] is pretty much discredited as a means of measuring crime'. It is unclear exactly how Reform plans to pay its new promises, though Farage was keen to nod towards 'big cuts to public spending', portraying himself more as a Javier Milei devotee. And on the Online Safety Act, while both Yusuf and Farage agreed that Reform wanted to protect children, they do not currently have an alternative answer to the legislation. Yusuf talked earlier about how Reform read the small print – but the party could do with providing more too.


The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump brands Khan a ‘nasty person' as Starmer jumps to Mayor's defence
Donald Trump has described Sir Sadiq Khan as a 'nasty person' who has done 'a terrible job', as Sir Keir Starmer jumped to his defence. The US President said he was 'not a fan' of London's Labour Mayor, when asked if he will visit the UK's capital city. Speaking to reporters at his Turnberry golf resort in South Ayrshire, Mr Trump said: 'I'm not a fan of your mayor. 'I think he's done a terrible job, the Mayor of London … a nasty person.' The Prime Minister intervened to say: 'He's a friend of mine, actually.' Mr Trump went on to add: 'I think he's done a terrible job. But I would certainly visit London.' In response to comments made by Mr Trump during a press conference on Monday, a spokesperson for the Mayor said: 'Sadiq is delighted that President Trump wants to come to the greatest city in the world. 'He'd see how our diversity makes us stronger not weaker; richer, not poorer. 'Perhaps these are the reasons why a record number of Americans have applied for British citizenship under his presidency.' This is not the first time the president has hit out at Sir Sadiq after he previously branded him a 'stone cold loser' and challenged him to an IQ test. Sir Sadiq has also previously described Mr Trump as 'a poster boy for racists'.