Latest news with #Cabinetministers
Telegraph
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Reform is the only party that will expose establishment lies on immigration
It turns out only a superinjunction and the collusion of those cloaked in parliamentary privilege stood in the way of the Tories returning zero seats to the Commons last year. Just when the British people thought they knew of all the crimes of the Britain-hating incompetents that ran our country for fourteen years, the doors have been blown off the biggest political cover-up of our lifetimes. In 2023, the Tory government secretly offered asylum to 24,000 Afghans, at a cost to the British tax-payer of up to £7 billion. They took out a superinjunction to prevent the British public knowing on the grounds of security months before a general election. Those granted asylum include men who had their original asylum applications rejected because of sex offences. No comprehensive vetting of people on the leaked list was done – a deeply concerning fact, given that according to the Ministry of Justice Afghans are the most likely nationality to commit sex offences in the UK, at a rate 22 times higher than British people. The British people have been lied to and betrayed by the very politicians who swore to protect our nation. Every single Cabinet minister who knew about this had the power to expose it in Parliament. The fact that they did not should make them hang their heads in shame. Robert Jenrick, a man who shapeshifts more than a chameleon in a kaleidoscope, was left embarrassingly exposed. When the news broke, he responded by going to ground for thirty hours. It took that long for him to cobble a pitiful story together, and all he did was to further insult the intelligence of the British people. Some pointed out if he really cared about the British people he would have exposed the scheme using his Parliamentary privilege. He claims 'parliamentary privilege is not unlimited' and he was 'bound by the Official Secrets Act.' This is misleading. Parliamentary privilege is absolute – enshrined in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which protects freedom of speech in Parliament from being impeached or questioned in any court. The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege couldn't be clearer: no action can limit MPs from disclosing information in proceedings, even under the Official Secrets Act. They explicitly state that members must be free to reveal information in the public interest. Jenrick had full immunity; he could have stood up in the House of Commons and blown the whistle on this treachery. But he didn't. Why? Because he's a career politician, more interested in climbing the greasy pole than protecting the British people. And he's not alone. Suella Braverman as Home Secretary, Ben Wallace at Defence, Rishi Sunak as Prime Minister – they all knew. They were among the very few privy to this explosive secret, and could have told the British people the truth: that our government had launched a scheme smuggling thousands of unvetted Afghans into our country at great expense. Had the British public known about this scandal, the Tories, already reeling from years of betrayal on immigration, would have been obliterated, with voters understandably horrified that the politicians they trusted were importing tens of thousands of people while preaching about 'stopping the boats'. Reform UK would have surged even further, as the only party willing to call out the establishment's lies. Instead, the superinjunction bought them time, allowing them to limp into opposition. This scandal isn't just about Afghans, some of whom bravely aided our troops and deserve our gratitude, but rather about a government that treats the British people with contempt. The data breach was avoidable; the cover-up was unforgivable. We've seen this pattern of displaced responsibility before, from Partygate to the rape gangs to the the PPE scandals. The Conservative party is now in an impossible position. They're so internally incoherent that, unlike Reform, they still cannot commit to the British people any sort of cap on immigration. Nigel Farage and Reform are the antidote: unapologetic truth-tellers who put British people first. Britain deserves leaders with courage, not cowards in suits. The Tories richly deserve their extinction event.
Daily Mail
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Ministers fear there could be riots as British towns with hundreds of Afghan arrivals finally learn WHY
Ministers have warned there could be riots after the lifting of a superinjunction which kept quiet a mass immigration scheme. The Ministry of Defence has alerted all Government departments of possible public disorder following the revelations that thousands of Afghans have been quietly slipped into Britain. It comes as those in towns across the country with large numbers of migrant arrivals from Afghanistan finally learn the true reason they came here. A blunder by the British military put 100,000 Afghans 'at risk of death' from the Taliban – but the scandal was covered up while ministers began rescuing them and bringing them to Britain. So far some 18,500 have quietly been brought here with many housed in military accommodation and hotels. A Whitehall briefing note from July 4, seen by the Daily Mail, states: 'MOD [Ministry of Defence] will need to work with colleagues across mitigate any risk of public disorder following the discharge of the injunction (noting that Home Office advice is that such a risk is higher during the summer period).' It can also today be revealed that last summer's riots following the Southport massacre were mainly in areas with the highest numbers of Afghan arrivals – and that ministers were privately warned about this. The public and MPs have not been told about a potential link between the government's secret immigration scheme and the far-right disorder that swept the nation. However the Mail can reveal that Cabinet ministers were briefed on it behind closed doors, on October 7 last year. In their briefing paper, seen by the Mail, officials warned: 'The recent far-right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades. 'We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.' However MPs were not given the full picture because of the superinjunction stifling Parliament. This is despite the fact there were numerous official inquiries under way at the time into what caused the violent unrest, in which police arrested 1,500 in towns and cities across the UK. A recent inquiry by the Commons' Home Affairs Select Committee concluded one of the key factors behind the rioting was that 'by failing to disclose information to the public, false claims filled the gap and flourished online, further undermining confidence in the police and public authorities'. At their meeting, ministers were urged to consider 'the importance of community cohesion'. The briefing paper noted: 'Given the scale of arrivals proposed, communities will need to see that arrivals are being managed in a fair and supported way.' The existence of the secret resettlement scheme will come as a shock – but not a surprise – in towns where Afghan arrivals have been hosted without locals being given the full facts. So many Afghans have been arriving that 20 per cent of all MOD property was given over to housing them, at one stage earlier this year. Yet even that was not enough, with many now being placed in taxpayer-funded hotels, despite the Government trying to reduce hotel use for migrants which overall costs taxpayers some £8million a day. In several towns there has been unease as baffled locals have not been given the true reasons for the influx and even their councillors and MPs have deliberately been kept in the dark. The Government said it was paying for 1,400 beds in hotels in Berkshire and West Sussex, with more hotels lined up in Preston, Aberdeen and Cardiff. In Bracknell, Berkshire, John Edwards, an independent town councillor, said: 'Bracknell has welcomed 300 Afghans and if these people served our Armed Forces then we want to treat them with dignity and respect and it's right we help them. But it's quite difficult when it's not being implemented fairly. They have been given a four-star hotel with their bills and their food covered and they get stuff like 'wraparound support'. Bracknell residents deserve the same level of support if this money is available.' Councillor Edwards said: 'I've been speaking to veterans who also served in Afghanistan, and one of them is in a one-bed flat with his wife and two kids - daughters aged three and five who both have been hospitalised because the mould in the flat is so bad – and they are not getting any help. 'He said something key to me, he said, 'you know, I was in Afghanistan and I know what these guys did for us, I know they are in danger from the Taliban, I want to help. But where's my help?'. 'And you know, they need to explain all this to people, not brush over any inconvenient truths, because that is what fosters resentment.' In May, Bracknell Forest Council issued a public plea to residents to ignore 'misinformation circulating'. Earlier this month, it issued an update admitting that if Afghans ended up homeless, it would have a duty to house them, but it added: 'Will [Afghan] people on the [scheme] get housing priority over veterans? No, the council's housing policy very clearly gives veterans high priority for housing. The people on the [scheme] are in transitional accommodation, commissioned and paid for by the MOD/central government.' No one in Bracknell nor anywhere else was told of the data breach and the real reason why the British government was bringing so many Afghans to the UK. Trouble also flared last year at service accommodation in Larkhill, Wiltshire, where Army chiefs were forced to shut down criticisms among families who raised issues with the relocation of Afghan refugees onto military estates. Soldiers' wives living in service accommodation had complained after Afghans were reportedly seen taking pictures of their children. They said they felt unsafe and argued the Afghans' behaviour, although likely to be innocent in motive, raised safeguarding issues. The Ministry of Defence came down hard, threatening troops and civilian staff with disciplinary action should they complain publicly again. The superinjunction has prevented the public and MPs being able to debate the merits of the scheme or understand the reasons why so many Afghans have been brought here. In private, Whitehall officials have been warning ministers for more than a year of 'significant integration considerations' of bringing such large numbers to Britain including the impact on 'local services such as education and healthcare', a briefing paper shows.
