Latest news with #LewisGoodall
Yahoo
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Controlling the narrative' always fails
It is a cliche that a cover-up is usually worse than the cock-up it is attempting to conceal. In the case of the Afghan superinjunction, the story of which was finally revealed last week, the cock-up – a data breach that potentially handed to the Taliban names and details of thousands of locals who had worked with British forces, as well as of British spies and members of the special forces – was about as disastrous as it could get. Yet so egregious was the cover-up that the cliche still rings true. In February 2022 – six months after Britain had chaotically pulled out of Afghanistan – a soldier at UK special forces headquarters in London, verifying applications from Afghans who had worked with British forces for resettlement in this country, accidentally and calamitously emailed to various contacts the names and details of nearly 19,000 Afghans seeking refuge. It took 18 months for the authorities to realise there was an issue, until alerted by a refugee support worker who had spotted a Facebook post with details from the database. At the same time, the journalist Lewis Goodall heard about the data breach from a source. When he contacted the Ministry of Defence, Goodall was immediately summoned to a secret court hearing that imposed a superinjunction on him – not only could he not report the breach, he could not even report that he had been injuncted. As other journalists became aware of the story, they too were silenced by the superinjunction. A cloak of invisibility covered both the data breach and the government's response, and remained there until last week. The justification for such unprecedented censorship was the need to prevent the Taliban from obtaining the database while the government attempted to aid those who might have been compromised. Yet the authorities also kept in the dark most of the potential victims of the breach. Ostensibly done for their own security, in reality it made it impossible for them to take protective measures. In any case, as Mr Justice Chamberlain observed in a court hearing, the evidence suggested 'the Taliban already know of the existence of the dataset'. Originally imposed for four months, the superinjunction became continually extended. It was, in Goodall's words, 'no longer about getting people out but keeping the story in'. The news blackout may have begun as a way of protecting potential victims of the data breach, but it soon became a means of protecting the authorities from embarrassment and politicians from scrutiny. Superinjunctions are deeply corrosive of democracy. The ordinary mechanisms of accountability are rendered inoperative: the government is insulated from media surveillance, from scrutiny by MPs and parliamentary committees and from the pressures of public debate. Protected from public view was also the leak itself, and the failure of state machinery to carry out the most basic of functions, such as protecting sensitive data or holding individuals and institutions accountable for such failure. The news blackout became a means of protecting politicians from scrutiny All this occurred at a time when people were already feeling that their voices were unheard, that they were poorly served by the democratic process, and when immigration had become symbolic of a system that no longer worked. It is little wonder, then, that the consequence of the two-year omertà, followed by the sudden efflorescence of information, has been to provide a platform for commentators whose outrage is reserved primarily not for the betrayal of Afghans, or even the suppression of free speech and civil liberties, but, in the words of Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson, the 'existential threat posed by superinjunction imposed to deceive the British people about the mass importation of Afghans to our country'. For Pearson, any relocation scheme 'guaranteed more women would be raped' in Britain. 'I don't care if they're at risk from the Taliban,' she tweeted, 'Our people are at risk from them!' For the academic and Reform UK supporter Matthew Goodwin, it was 'crystal clear … that the reason the state took winter fuel payments from British pensioners, raided British family farms, and piled taxes on British businesses was so it could spend billions secretly importing dangerous Afghans into the country'. Such arguments reveal the degree to which some view immigration as a zero-sum game, leading them deliberately to set one group against another, and to insist that the interests of British people require us to deny safety and dignity to Afghans. Dismissing Afghans as criminals and rapists shows, too, how such bigoted claims have woven themselves into the national conversation. As often in such debates, the loudest voices do not necessarily represent what most people think. According to YouGov, the pollster, 63% believe that Britain has a 'moral obligation' to relocate Afghans who worked with British forces if they face reprisals from the Taliban. Nevertheless, as protests outside an Epping hotel housing migrants, after an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a young girl once again exposed, anger and frustration can easily spill over into hatred and violence. After Labour's election triumph last year, the new defence secretary, John Healey, wrote a memo to cabinet colleagues on the need to 'maintain control of the narrative' about Afghan relocations, particularly in the wake of that summer's anti-migrant riots. What politicians fail to recognise, though, is that the very desire to control the narrative by curtailing public information not only undermines democracy but leads inevitably to the narrative spinning out of control. Photograph by Lab Mo/London News Pictures
The National
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
BBC blasted for burying Afghan cover-up under MasterChef stories
The corporation came under fire on Tuesday evening when it led its online news homepage on the news that cooking show host John Torode had been sacked – hours after it emerged that successive governments had kept secret an asylum plan for Afghans after an enormous data breach was feared to have put thousands of lives at risk. Former Newsnight journalist Lewis Goodall, now host of The News Agents podcast, tweeted: 'I am loath to criticise my former BBC colleagues and I'm aware they weren't in on the story. 'But the idea of a TV presenter losing his job being the top story on the website as opposed to Parliament being kept in the dark for two years about the Afghan data leak is risible.' On the News at 10, the first 13 minutes of the programme was devoted to an exclusive interview with US president Donald Trump and developments in the war in Ukraine before turning to the Torode (above) story and the BBC's annual report. The programme then turned to Chancellor Rachel Reeves's Mansion House speech – which unveiled a package of reforms to deregulate the financial markets – before turning to the Afghanistan cover-up. A super-injunction – the first ever obtained by the UK Government – was lifted on Wednesday permitting reporting on the story. READ MORE: BBC Gaza documentary review could give bosses 'cover' on Palestine, expert says It was revealed that a Ministry of Defence (MoD) officer had leaked the data of thousands of Afghans who had collaborated with the UK military during the war – which went unnoticed until 18 months later. The MoD only became aware of the breach after it was mentioned in a Facebook group in August 2023. Rishi Sunak's government responded by creating a new asylum route for Afghans – on which the media was unable to report because of a gagging order. Ministers feared those who had their personal details exposed would be at risk of persecution from the Taliban. A super-injunction prevents reporting on certain topics but also prevents reporting on the fact that there even is an injunction. The cost to the taxpayer for the blunder is expected to be at least £800 million – though more might have to be paid out if the Government is successfully sued for compensation by those affected. There is an interim injunction in place which prevents reporting on further details yet to be revealed. The story splashed the front pages of eight national newspapers. The BBC was approached for comment.
Times
02-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Times
The Crime Agents — how many more podcast spin-offs can we take?
The News Agents — the popular news show for grumpy centrists hosted by Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel and Lewis Goodall — has proved less adept at spawning spin-offs than its rivals at Gary Lineker's Goalhanger studios. Lineker's stable of The Rest Is … podcasts is packed with thoroughbreds. The Rest Is History, The Rest Is Politics, The Rest Is Entertainment and The Rest Is Football are among the UK's most listened to shows. Even though, of those titles, only The Rest Is History makes any sense as a colloquial phrase. 'And well, the rest is politics!' 'Well you know what they say, the rest is entertainment!' Nobody actually says those things. Arguably, 'The X Agents' format, produced by Global Media, makes equally little sense, but for some irrational reason it grates on me less. I even quite liked the last News Agents spin-off, The Sports Agents, but it hasn't achieved the chart dominance you suspect its Goalhanger equivalent (The Rest Is Sport?) would have. The latest News Agents show, The Crime Agents (which does work as a title, somehow), is a good, sellable idea on paper — crime and news are hot podcasting topics — but on the basis of this first episode I doubt it will stand up in court for listeners. Our hosts are LBC's crime correspondent Andy Hughes and the former head of UK counterterrorism policing Neil Basu. Both men obviously know their stuff, but they struggle to achieve the easy conversational style that is the main requirement of a successful podcast. We begin with Hughes announcing with some awkward formality that he has 'collated' some crime data and that 'we can reveal on this podcast that up to 540 convicted terrorists have been released and are on our streets'. It's a nice (although obviously terrifying) idea and a good way of generating publicity for the new show, but as Hughes reads out his statistics it's more like listening to a press briefing than a podcast. 'What comes to your mind when you hear those figures?' Hughes rather stagily demands of Basu. He's hardly going to say, 'Well I think it's bloody marvellous news, Andy. The more terrorists the merrier.' A more conversational, 'Shocking isn't it?' might have nudged the show on a little more convincingly. Both men are a little wordy. Hughes, perhaps, is used to filling airtime on live radio. Basu, I suspect, has spent too long on the other side of the microphone. He comes over as formal and cautious, littering his speeches with apologies to the families of victims and statements of regret over terrorist incidents as if a wrong step will prompt furious listeners to start emailing complaints. Indeed, the effect is often remarkably like listening to a senior police officer being interviewed on Today. Podcasts only work if the hosts assume enough good faith on the part of their listeners to be able to relax. There are some interesting insights. Apparently, half of the terrorists who have been so unnervingly unleashed on our streets have refused deradicalisation programmes and Hughes speculates that prisoners may be 'showing off by not taking part in these programmes'. It's slightly alarming to learn that deradicalisation is an optional module, like doing an A-level in general studies or further maths. But Basu says that terrorists have to want to be deradicalised for these programmes to work. 'Terrorism for me is like addiction,' he says. 'You do not cure yourself from alcohol or drug addiction unless you want to be cured from it.' Does being set in your views (however mad and violent they are) make you an addict? Sounds odd to me. But I suppose he would know. He is the former head of counterterrorism policing after all. • The best podcasts and radio shows of the week to listen to next It's early days. Perhaps this show will find its groove. Many successful podcasts have started more awkwardly than this one. But every clumsy new show I listen to puts me slightly more in awe of the ruthless effectiveness of Lineker's hit factory. The Rest Is Crime anyone?★★☆☆☆ Follow @timesculture to read the latest reviews
The Independent
16-03-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Putin ally in heated clash with radio host as he claims Ukrainians ‘thankful' for Russian invasion
Vladimir Putin 's former advisor has suggested that Ukrainians should be "thankful" for Russia invading their country, prompting a heated clash with a UK radio host. On Sunday, 16 February, Lewis Goodall spoke to Sergei Markov, former advisor to the Russian president and representative to the Council of Europe. When discussing the possibility of peace, Mr Markov claimed Ukrainians should be "thankful" as Russia's bombs will liberate them from a "Neo-Nazi" regime, in what escalated into a heated clash between the Putin ally and the LBC host.
