The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
It is mind boggling. No wonder they feared riots
And, worse, Labour was keen to continue with this, and get the lie out there - the "agreed narrative" - and continue lying to the people. The only thing that stopped Labour was the determination of The Times and this brave judge who said NO
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
Also, it's weirdly accurate, because it's example of a Dissenting Disruptor is basically my life, exactly:
"Alex comes home from another long day driving deliveries around Middlesbrough and opens a bottle of cider in his small back garden as the sun sets behind the terraced houses.
At 48, he is tired of greeting customers that do not speak English when they answer the door - it happens more and more these days, and he cannot help thinking his dad never had to deal with this when he worked in the now shrunken steel industry. Alex misses the idea of Britain actually making things instead of just shuffling Amazon packages around, wondering how a country that once built ships and cars ended up employing people like him to deliver other countries' products to people who've just arrived."
Uncanny, just substitute cider for Chateau de Chassilier and it would be you.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
Governments have surely fallen over less?
Who's going to make them? Labour backbenchers with muslim constituents?
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
What was the total size of the UK force in Afghanistan and how many people have we brought back?
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
snip
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
I can see the argument for keeping it secret fro a short period to protect people's lives. However, the Taliban already had the file, so I doubt the secrecy actually made any difference to their safety.
Very interesting, not least in the fact that the only group the Tories lead with now is established Liberals, where they are 1% ahead of Labour and 15% of the LDs and 25% ahead of Reform.
Reform meanwhile are on a massive 58% with dissenting disruptors and Reform lead the Tories by 16% with rooted patriots and by 2% with traditional Conservatives. Reform lead Labour by 8% with sceptical scrollers too.
Labour lead the LDs meanwhile by 14% with the incrementalist Left and Labour lead the Greens by 3% with Progressive activists
I'm a dissenting disruptor. Which is weird because I'm more left-wing than Labour 😀, at least these days. Although let's be fair, Heseltine was more left-wing than 2025 Labour... ☹️
Also, it's weirdly accurate, because it's example of a Dissenting Disruptor is basically my life, exactly:
"Alex comes home from another long day driving deliveries around Middlesbrough and opens a bottle of cider in his small back garden as the sun sets behind the terraced houses.
At 48, he is tired of greeting customers that do not speak English when they answer the door - it happens more and more these days, and he cannot help thinking his dad never had to deal with this when he worked in the now shrunken steel industry. Alex misses the idea of Britain actually making things instead of just shuffling Amazon packages around, wondering how a country that once built ships and cars ended up employing people like him to deliver other countries' products to people who've just arrived."
Uncanny, just substitute cider for Chateau de Chassilier and it would be you.
How does it know that, in reality, I don't live in an agreeable converted Georgian flat by Regent's Park but ACTUALLY in a little terrace in Middlesborough???
Also, it's weirdly accurate, because it's example of a Dissenting Disruptor is basically my life, exactly:
"Alex comes home from another long day driving deliveries around Middlesbrough and opens a bottle of cider in his small back garden as the sun sets behind the terraced houses.
At 48, he is tired of greeting customers that do not speak English when they answer the door - it happens more and more these days, and he cannot help thinking his dad never had to deal with this when he worked in the now shrunken steel industry. Alex misses the idea of Britain actually making things instead of just shuffling Amazon packages around, wondering how a country that once built ships and cars ended up employing people like him to deliver other countries' products to people who've just arrived."
I tried to rein it in, but Dissenting Disruptor it is. Fair enough I suppose
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
Governments have surely fallen over less?
But, as usual, both the major parties (and very probably the Lib Dems too) have played along and really not given a damn about lying to us and spending our money. I am really revolted by the likes of Reform but the mainstream parties really don't help themselves.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
Governments have surely fallen over less?
Who's going to make them? Labour backbenchers with muslim constituents?
Well, yes, indeed. And of course the Tories, as part of the uniparty, are right in it, as well
It is yet another reason to vote Reform. The fact Labour were intent on continuing and indeed extending the lies and deceptions is a real Whoah moment
They haven't come cleam because they want to. It's because they've been forced to do so by a judge
Also, it's weirdly accurate, because it's example of a Dissenting Disruptor is basically my life, exactly:
"Alex comes home from another long day driving deliveries around Middlesbrough and opens a bottle of cider in his small back garden as the sun sets behind the terraced houses.
At 48, he is tired of greeting customers that do not speak English when they answer the door - it happens more and more these days, and he cannot help thinking his dad never had to deal with this when he worked in the now shrunken steel industry. Alex misses the idea of Britain actually making things instead of just shuffling Amazon packages around, wondering how a country that once built ships and cars ended up employing people like him to deliver other countries' products to people who've just arrived."
Uncanny, just substitute cider for Chateau de Chassilier and it would be you.
How does it know that, in reality, I don't live in an agreeable converted Georgian flat by Regent's Park but ACTUALLY in a little terrace in Middlesborough???
I feel watched
And how does it know that rather than spending your time artisanally knapping a British-crafted phallus, you spend your time delivering shuffling about Made In China dildos?
The early 00s Muslim world interventions must rank as Britain’s worst foreign policy choice in generations.
Our involvement probably also helped tip the balance of the debate in the US towards a nation building approach. We should have just let them get on with it.
I suspect there a strong possibility that this Afghan list was intentionally sent to 'force' the government into allowing more Afghans to migrate here.
Surely with AI it's a relative piece of piss to re-edit the Masterchef series and replace Torode and Wallace with two el generic characters who look and sound different enough to get away with it. Or something?
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
Governments have surely fallen over less?
But, as usual, both the major parties (and very probably the Lib Dems too) have played along and really not given a damn about lying to us and spending our money. I am really revolted by the likes of Reform but the mainstream parties really don't help themselves.
The Cameron and Clegg and Osborne Tory and LD government was fiscally conservative and cut the percentage of gdp spent on public spending and the first Blair New Labour term spent less as a percentage of gdp ironically than any government since, Tory as well as Labour
On one hand, sure, makes sense given the outcry, on the other hand, surely not going to be all that difficult to find people coming out saying "X happened to me/my family and the perpetrators got a worse sentence for the tree".
Also, it's weirdly accurate, because it's example of a Dissenting Disruptor is basically my life, exactly:
"Alex comes home from another long day driving deliveries around Middlesbrough and opens a bottle of cider in his small back garden as the sun sets behind the terraced houses.
At 48, he is tired of greeting customers that do not speak English when they answer the door - it happens more and more these days, and he cannot help thinking his dad never had to deal with this when he worked in the now shrunken steel industry. Alex misses the idea of Britain actually making things instead of just shuffling Amazon packages around, wondering how a country that once built ships and cars ended up employing people like him to deliver other countries' products to people who've just arrived."
Uncanny, just substitute cider for Chateau de Chassilier and it would be you.
How does it know that, in reality, I don't live in an agreeable converted Georgian flat by Regent's Park but ACTUALLY in a little terrace in Middlesborough???
I feel watched
I am so little of a dissenting disruptor (despite MOC asserting that I am) that I think a test of Britishness is being able to spell Middlesbrough.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
Governments have surely fallen over less?
But, as usual, both the major parties (and very probably the Lib Dems too) have played along and really not given a damn about lying to us and spending our money. I am really revolted by the likes of Reform but the mainstream parties really don't help themselves.
I rather think we are seeing the slow ebbing of democracy. It is fairly clear that the self-selecting elite really don't like The Mob. They consider their policies to be above the petty interference of elections.
"Liberty must be rationed among the few with the talent to use it. There's no such thing as equality. Most men are born with the gutter and are at home there. As for fraternity, {we are} nobody's brother. We stand alone at the head of the table... and if ever our rights are challenged, this is our answer."
I suspect there a strong possibility that this Afghan list was intentionally sent to 'force' the government into allowing more Afghans to migrate here.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
How many applied to move to the UK and how many are currently fighting the Taliban ?
Working for a few months/weeks/days for the British government in Afghanistan so as to get a right to move to Britain was an incredible bargain for them.
On one hand, sure, makes sense given the outcry, on the other hand, surely not going to be all that difficult to find people coming out saying "X happened to me/my family and the perpetrators got a worse sentence for the tree".
Yes. They were stupid idiots and nobody should get off for destroying things which are important to many people, but on the other hand I would have thought planting a few hundred thousand trees would be a better punishment.
I suspect there a strong possibility that this Afghan list was intentionally sent to 'force' the government into allowing more Afghans to migrate here.
On one hand, sure, makes sense given the outcry, on the other hand, surely not going to be all that difficult to find people coming out saying "X happened to me/my family and the perpetrators got a worse sentence for the tree".
Four years+ is understandable given the fuss but too long. Two years or so would have been enough.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
Governments have surely fallen over less?
But, as usual, both the major parties (and very probably the Lib Dems too) have played along and really not given a damn about lying to us and spending our money. I am really revolted by the likes of Reform but the mainstream parties really don't help themselves.
Black swans aside, I am now pretty sure Reform will win, in some form, at the next election. The disgust at the system is too visceral, too deep seated. It can't be fixed with a small amount of growth and a mild improvement in the NHS (and even that looks ambitious)
Seems that 10% of the UK's working age population are on UC with *no requirement* to find work. Then there is a further 10%+ that has some conditionality. Note that the numbers have been climbing due to people being switched from legacy benefits to UC so the numbers will grow again. And yet we have one of the highest levels of engagement in Europe.
Seems Northern Europe has more of a work ethic than Southern Europe.
What explains Osbourne's so-called Jobs Miracle, where the employment rate rose to multidecade highs? It wasn't replicated in other similar countries. Can we do it again?
I think that the central point was always, always make work pay. Those that work should have more money than those that don't. We look after those who are incapable of looking after themselves but we should never lose sight of the fact that we need to look after those that do the work too. Our current benefit system does not emphasise that enough.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
Governments have surely fallen over less?
But, as usual, both the major parties (and very probably the Lib Dems too) have played along and really not given a damn about lying to us and spending our money. I am really revolted by the likes of Reform but the mainstream parties really don't help themselves.
I rather think we are seeing the slow ebbing of democracy. It is fairly clear that the self-selecting elite really don't like The Mob. They consider their policies to be above the petty interference of elections.
"Liberty must be rationed among the few with the talent to use it. There's no such thing as equality. Most men are born with the gutter and are at home there. As for fraternity, {we are} nobody's brother. We stand alone at the head of the table... and if ever our rights are challenged, this is our answer." The sentiment fits so very well, doesn't it?
You don't need to repeal all the Reform Acts even and go back to a franchise of the top 5% of property owners only as pre 1832.
PR would likely lead to a Labour and LD and Green government or at most a Reform government diluted by the Tories whereas under FPTP most polls give Farage and Reform an outright majority now or with just DUP and TUV support required
Dissenting Disruptors You question established authority and institutions, favoring*(sic) significant systemic change and individual freedom.
That was mine. Pretty rubbish survey I thought, spelling errors or no spelling errors. A Likert scale should have five levels of response with 'neither agree nor disagree' available.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
They collaborated with the most powerful military in the world. You don't have to paint it as some noble sacrifice they made for us.
I gave up after a couple of questions due to it offering no nuance. I'm not sure which tribe that puts me in other than the 'Have you not heard of LLM's yet?' tribe.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
Governments have surely fallen over less?
But, as usual, both the major parties (and very probably the Lib Dems too) have played along and really not given a damn about lying to us and spending our money. I am really revolted by the likes of Reform but the mainstream parties really don't help themselves.
I rather think we are seeing the slow ebbing of democracy. It is fairly clear that the self-selecting elite really don't like The Mob. They consider their policies to be above the petty interference of elections.
"Liberty must be rationed among the few with the talent to use it. There's no such thing as equality. Most men are born with the gutter and are at home there. As for fraternity, {we are} nobody's brother. We stand alone at the head of the table... and if ever our rights are challenged, this is our answer." The sentiment fits so very well, doesn't it?
You don't need to repeal all the Reform Acts even and go back to a franchise of the top 5% of property owners only as pre 1832.
PR would likely lead to a Labour and LD and Green government or at most a Reform government diluted by the Tories whereas under FPTP most polls give Farage and Reform an outright majority now or with just DUP and TUV support required
I am wondering at what point the dam will break and people will start advocating an end to universal suffrage.
I think, in their hearts, there are already quite a few, who want a franchise test to exclude The Head Count.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
From a practical point of view Reform and Kemkaran are correct, we do need social care visas to ensure we have enough careworkers to look after her elderly with dementia etc.
However the risk for Reform is most of their core vote wants no more immigrants full stop and Lowe is targeting them, even if it might help them reach swing voters who are more pragmatic
Dissenting Disruptors You question established authority and institutions, favoring*(sic) significant systemic change and individual freedom.
That was mine. Pretty rubbish survey I thought, spelling errors or no spelling errors. A Likert scale should have five levels of response with 'neither agree nor disagree' available.
Yes; it was one of those forced choice set of questions where how to answered usually depended on which interpretation you took of the question, and you were not allowed to be middling or to pass.
On the other immigration story of today there are more than 700k EU citizens on universal credit.
I remember reading that they were all here to work and that the OBR assumes that all immigrants are net contributors to the UK economy.
Aren't most UC beneficiaries in work, albeit on low wages at least initially?
Yes, though you can get it for self employment - and for the first twelve months there can be no minimum income expected - the so-called startup period. You can run a lossmaking business with no income and get UC. After that the UC is based on what a minimum wage employee might earn, or what you earn, whichever is higher.
Whether a Romainian standing on the street selling the Big Issue qualifies as a self employed business owner, I don't know.
I suspect there a strong possibility that this Afghan list was intentionally sent to 'force' the government into allowing more Afghans to migrate here.
Yes, exactly
Incompetence is far more likely.
How about corruption.
A lot easier and cheaper to bung someone a few thousand to leak a list than it is to use the people smugglers.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
So why lie about it?
If they're already in the UK safely why not say "we are granting asylum to people who deserve it" openly and honestly?
As we have with people from Hong Kong, and Ukraine and elsewhere.
The most disturbing part of this story isn't that people were granted asylum, its that the government sought to lie about it and make telling the truth an offence.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
Hmmmm, yes. I had assumed it was just a list of collaborators (for want of a better word), rather than people who had expressed an interest in going to the UK.
Just dwell on these two paragraphs from the Telegraph:
"During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
"The judge warned: “Open justice is a cardinal constitutional principle, from which derogations can be justified only in exceptional circumstances,” and as the case wore on over the course of dozens of hearings it became clear he felt that definition was not being met"
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
Governments have surely fallen over less?
But, as usual, both the major parties (and very probably the Lib Dems too) have played along and really not given a damn about lying to us and spending our money. I am really revolted by the likes of Reform but the mainstream parties really don't help themselves.
I rather think we are seeing the slow ebbing of democracy. It is fairly clear that the self-selecting elite really don't like The Mob. They consider their policies to be above the petty interference of elections.
And there might well be some kind of modern-day revolution.
Trouble is, most successful revolts against Authoritarian regimes conclude with the imposition of a different Authoritarian regime...
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
So why lie about it?
If they're already in the UK safely why not say "we are granting asylum to people who deserve it" openly and honestly?
As we have with people from Hong Kong, and Ukraine and elsewhere.
The most disturbing part of this story isn't that people were granted asylum, its that the government sought to lie about it and make telling the truth an offence.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
They collaborated with the most powerful military in the world. You don't have to paint it as some noble sacrifice they made for us.
The old Arab saying (,via an Iraqi born friend) is proven on here tonight.
"Its better to be an enemy of the British than a friend, as they buy their enemies and sell their friends"
These families are legitimate refugees from one of the most despotic regimes on earth by any reasonable assessment. They broke no rules to get here and have a legitimate link to our country. If we are going to refuse them, who would qualify?
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
They collaborated with the most powerful military in the world. You don't have to paint it as some noble sacrifice they made for us.
In fact it was the opposite way around.
It was British lives and money which were being sacrificed so as to give the Afghans an opportunity to build a tolerant society.
And when it came down to it the Afghans didn't want it.
I gave up after a couple of questions due to it offering no nuance. I'm not sure which tribe that puts me in other than the 'Have you not heard of LLM's yet?' tribe.
Yes. The results are qualitative about the individual but qualitative results depend on interpreting nuanced answers. Despite appearances and dressing up they are giving a qualitative result on a quantitative or numerical basis.
It's an academy, apparently, so hardly 'the state', on any level. If it is as presented, then it's a celebration of academies' freedom to be complete Collymores.
One of those stories where I can't help feeling there's more to it, which may one day come out. Although I note the school has apparently apologised, from the story.
Schools have all kinds of interesting non-uniform day rules. My kids' school bans (pro team) football kits - wearing your local youth team kit is fine, as are kits from other sports. But they do make that clear.
, it is at least good to see that the school have thoroughly apologised, having humiliated one of their students by yanking her out of class and making her sit in reception, isolated.
Whether they have gone far enough to make the apology publicly, in front of the school assembly and everyone before whom they humiliated her, and to explain how they have corrected whatever the issue was with their values, principles and practices, remains to be seen.
If they want the value of their declared inclusive culture, they need to do that and demonstrate that they have learnt from it, otherwise it is an easy gift for the "patriotic" lobby.
As reported, it's absolutely outrageous and defies belief. That second point makes me think there must be more to it.* Otherwise we really are in a world gone mad.
*The school might, for example, after some previous trouble between two groups, banned overt national symbols such as flags. As I noted before, my kids' school bans pro football kits due, I think, to some incidents between people sporting kits of rival teams. They make that very clear each non-uniform day. That said, I hope they'd tackle any violation with more tact and compassion than sending a kid to sit in reception.
Wishy washy liberal twats, their idea of inclusive is warped. Like all public services they are staffed by useless halfwits. If she had had a palestine flag frock she would have been lauded.
Come on, Malc. Sending a young girl into isolation for wearing a flag is not wishy washy! Or are you thinking, if they weren't so soft, they'd have reached for the **cane?
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
They collaborated with the most powerful military in the world. You don't have to paint it as some noble sacrifice they made for us.
The old Arab saying (,via an Iraqi born friend) is proven on here tonight.
"Its better to be an enemy of the British than a friend, as they buy their enemies and sell their friends"
These families are legitimate refugees from one of the most despotic regimes on earth by any reasonable assessment. They broke no rules to get here and have a legitimate link to our country. If we are going to refuse them, who would qualify?
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
They collaborated with the most powerful military in the world. You don't have to paint it as some noble sacrifice they made for us.
The old Arab saying (,via an Iraqi born friend) is proven on here tonight.
"Its better to be an enemy of the British than a friend, as they buy their enemies and sell their friends"
These families are legitimate refugees from one of the most despotic regimes on earth by any reasonable assessment. They broke no rules to get here and have a legitimate link to our country. If we are going to refuse them, who would qualify?
The despotic regime which they were unwilling to oppose.
The defining features of our Afghan 'friends' turned out to be corruption and cowardice.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
They collaborated with the most powerful military in the world. You don't have to paint it as some noble sacrifice they made for us.
In fact it was the opposite way around.
It was British lives and money which were being sacrificed so as to give the Afghans an opportunity to build a tolerant society.
And when it came down to it the Afghans didn't want it.
There's a difference between being willing to die for your country and being willing to be tortured to death for your country. The Taliban are just too obscenely vicious to stand up to.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
Hmmmm, yes. I had assumed it was just a list of collaborators (for want of a better word), rather than people who had expressed an interest in going to the UK.
Looks like I'm right. From The Times
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Just.......... gobsmacking. How do you even begin to describe this?
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
They collaborated with the most powerful military in the world. You don't have to paint it as some 9noble sacrifice they made for us.
The old Arab saying (,via an Iraqi born friend) is proven on here tonight.
"Its better to be an enemy of the British than a friend, as they buy their enemies and sell their friends"
These families are legitimate refugees from one of the most despotic regimes on earth by any reasonable assessment. They broke no rules to get here and have a legitimate link to our country. If we are going to refuse them, who would qualify?
The despotic regime which they were unwilling to oppose.
The defining features of our Afghan 'friends' turned out to be corruption and cowardice.
Except they were willing to oppose. Thats why their lives were at risk.
That posters on here describe them as collaborators shows how far we have fallen.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
They collaborated with the most powerful military in the world. You don't have to paint it as some noble sacrifice they made for us.
The old Arab saying (,via an Iraqi born friend) is proven on here tonight.
"Its better to be an enemy of the British than a friend, as they buy their enemies and sell their friends"
These families are legitimate refugees from one of the most despotic regimes on earth by any reasonable assessment. They broke no rules to get here and have a legitimate link to our country. If we are going to refuse them, who would qualify?
What are you talking about?
We haven't refused them, have we?
I think Foxy’s point is that a number of right wing posters on here (Leon, williamglenn, Hyufd, even Malcolmg) don’t think we should be allowing those people into the UK
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
They collaborated with the most powerful military in the world. You don't have to paint it as some noble sacrifice they made for us.
In fact it was the opposite way around.
It was British lives and money which were being sacrificed so as to give the Afghans an opportunity to build a tolerant society.
And when it came down to it the Afghans didn't want it.
There's a difference between being willing to die for your country and being willing to be tortured to death for your country. The Taliban are just too obscenely vicious to stand up to.
That really is bizarre excuse making.
By your reasoning the Taliban could take over the world because they're 'too obscenely vicious to stand up to'.
Except they're not and they can't.
But they were good enough to take over the country because the Afghan government and military turned out to be nothing but corrupt cowards.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
Hmmmm, yes. I had assumed it was just a list of collaborators (for want of a better word), rather than people who had expressed an interest in going to the UK.
Looks like I'm right. From The Times
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Just.......... gobsmacking. How do you even begin to describe this?
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
Governments have surely fallen over less?
But, as usual, both the major parties (and very probably the Lib Dems too) have played along and really not given a damn about lying to us and spending our money. I am really revolted by the likes of Reform but the mainstream parties really don't help themselves.
Black swans aside, I am now pretty sure Reform will win, in some form, at the next election. The disgust at the system is too visceral, too deep seated. It can't be fixed with a small amount of growth and a mild improvement in the NHS (and even that looks ambitious)
You may be right. (I put it at 25% chance). What would be interesting to know is what thoughtful opinion - such as yours - believes as to how Reform will govern and what it actually will be like to have them in charge, what will change, what will be in their first budget and loads of other questions too. Is it just a post apocalyptic blur, or does it have outlines?
So far I find the party and supporters a bit vague and hand wavy.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
Hmmmm, yes. I had assumed it was just a list of collaborators (for want of a better word), rather than people who had expressed an interest in going to the UK.
Looks like I'm right. From The Times
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Just.......... gobsmacking. How do you even begin to describe this?
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
Hmmmm, yes. I had assumed it was just a list of collaborators (for want of a better word), rather than people who had expressed an interest in going to the UK.
Looks like I'm right. From The Times
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Just.......... gobsmacking. How do you even begin to describe this?
Doing the right thing
We should keep religion out of politics and do the thing that is in our interests.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
They collaborated with the most powerful military in the world. You don't have to paint it as some noble sacrifice they made for us.
The old Arab saying (,via an Iraqi born friend) is proven on here tonight.
"Its better to be an enemy of the British than a friend, as they buy their enemies and sell their friends"
These families are legitimate refugees from one of the most despotic regimes on earth by any reasonable assessment. They broke no rules to get here and have a legitimate link to our country. If we are going to refuse them, who would qualify?
What are you talking about?
We haven't refused them, have we?
I think Foxy’s point is that a number of right wing posters on here (Leon, williamglenn, Hyufd, even Malcolmg) don’t think we should be allowing those people into the UK
I've said no such thing
I've said we should not allow in Afghans who are just chancing their arm, and to whom we have no debt, and/or Afghans who have not been vetted and might present a clear danger of criminality or terrorism
Because of the monumental incompetence of HMG and the MoD, we're now letting in tens of thousands, unvetted, who had no prior eligibility. And the government was keen to keep this secret from everyone, indeed they wanted to EXPAND the scheme while lying to the voters
So does anyone have the full total of British lives and money spent on Afghanistan ?
To achieve an Afghan government which couldn't govern, an Afghan military which wouldn't fight and tens of thousands of Afghan refugees who we now need to support in this country.
Perhaps someone could find a few quotes of what Tony Blair promised as a comparison.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
Hmmmm, yes. I had assumed it was just a list of collaborators (for want of a better word), rather than people who had expressed an interest in going to the UK.
Looks like I'm right. From The Times
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Just.......... gobsmacking. How do you even begin to describe this?
It feels to me that the key issue here is how long this injunction was sustained for, and how the government seemed to tweak its justification for it from purely being on security/protection grounds to being something a little more concerning (essentially, introducing reputational/public opinion arguments).
I think we owed a duty to the people put in danger. I do think the idea that this should have been kept from the public (particularly given the cost) for so long feels wrong.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
Governments have surely fallen over less?
But, as usual, both the major parties (and very probably the Lib Dems too) have played along and really not given a damn about lying to us and spending our money. I am really revolted by the likes of Reform but the mainstream parties really don't help themselves.
Black swans aside, I am now pretty sure Reform will win, in some form, at the next election. The disgust at the system is too visceral, too deep seated. It can't be fixed with a small amount of growth and a mild improvement in the NHS (and even that looks ambitious)
You may be right. (I put it at 25% chance). What would be interesting to know is what thoughtful opinion - such as yours - believes as to how Reform will govern and what it actually will be like to have them in charge, what will change, what will be in their first budget and loads of other questions too. Is it just a post apocalyptic blur, or does it have outlines?
So far I find the party and supporters a bit vague and hand wavy.
I just want a lot of people at present in positions of legal and political power, to go to court and then, if convicted, to go to jail for a very long time
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
Hmmmm, yes. I had assumed it was just a list of collaborators (for want of a better word), rather than people who had expressed an interest in going to the UK.
Looks like I'm right. From The Times
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Just.......... gobsmacking. How do you even begin to describe this?
Doing the right thing
A Debt of Honour?
Why are you wheeling out all of this sentimental and faux patriotic rhetoric?
Metadata from the “raw” Epstein prison video shows approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds were removed from one of two stitched-together clips. The cut starts right at the “missing minute.”
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
Hmmmm, yes. I had assumed it was just a list of collaborators (for want of a better word), rather than people who had expressed an interest in going to the UK.
Looks like I'm right. From The Times
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Just.......... gobsmacking. How do you even begin to describe this?
Doing the right thing
A Debt of Honour?
Do these Afghans have a debt of honour to the UK ?
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
They collaborated with the most powerful military in the world. You don't have to paint it as some noble sacrifice they made for us.
The old Arab saying (,via an Iraqi born friend) is proven on here tonight.
"Its better to be an enemy of the British than a friend, as they buy their enemies and sell their friends"
These families are legitimate refugees from one of the most despotic regimes on earth by any reasonable assessment. They broke no rules to get here and have a legitimate link to our country. If we are going to refuse them, who would qualify?
What are you talking about?
We haven't refused them, have we?
I think Foxy’s point is that a number of right wing posters on here (Leon, williamglenn, Hyufd, even Malcolmg) don’t think we should be allowing those people into the UK
We’re not allowed to talk about a certain scandal on here. But in that context, it should be perfectly obvious why people might be reluctant to allow the mass import of unvetted people from a country that still has a persistent bacha bazi problem.
According to the Guardian this scheme (the ARAP scheme) has led to 900 principals and 3600 family members moving to Britain, with 600 further ones accepted, with immediate family. The scheme is now closed.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
Hmmmm, yes. I had assumed it was just a list of collaborators (for want of a better word), rather than people who had expressed an interest in going to the UK.
Looks like I'm right. From The Times
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Just.......... gobsmacking. How do you even begin to describe this?
Doing the right thing
A Debt of Honour?
Do these Afghans have a debt of honour to the UK ?
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
Hmmmm, yes. I had assumed it was just a list of collaborators (for want of a better word), rather than people who had expressed an interest in going to the UK.
Looks like I'm right. From The Times
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Just.......... gobsmacking. How do you even begin to describe this?
It feels to me that the key issue here is how long this injunction was sustained for, and how the government seemed to tweak its justification for it from purely being on security/protection grounds to being something a little more concerning (essentially, introducing reputational/public opinion arguments).
I think we owed a duty to the people put in danger. I do think the idea that this should have been kept from the public (particularly given the cost) for so long feels wrong.
Yes. If we were trying to get people out of Afghanistan that we considered to be in danger or which our incompetence had put in danger then I can see the sense of that being kept quiet, at least whilst it is going on. But there is a strong suspicion that the government just did not want to admit how many people were being admitted under a publicly announced scheme at what cost because...people wouldn't like it. And that is no excuse whatsoever. None.
Metadata from the “raw” Epstein prison video shows approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds were removed from one of two stitched-together clips. The cut starts right at the “missing minute.”
Doesn’t it take longer than that to strangle someone - I know films show it taking about 30 seconds (like how chloroform knocks people out in a matter of seconds in film world) but I thought it takes about 5 minutes to cause death. So whoever is supposed to do it got in to his cell, overpowered him and strangled him to death in 2 mins 35 seconds? Seems a bit unlikely.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
They collaborated with the most powerful military in the world. You don't have to paint it as some noble sacrifice they made for us.
The old Arab saying (,via an Iraqi born friend) is proven on here tonight.
"Its better to be an enemy of the British than a friend, as they buy their enemies and sell their friends"
These families are legitimate refugees from one of the most despotic regimes on earth by any reasonable assessment. They broke no rules to get here and have a legitimate link to our country. If we are going to refuse them, who would qualify?
What are you talking about?
We haven't refused them, have we?
I think Foxy’s point is that a number of right wing posters on here (Leon, williamglenn, Hyufd, even Malcolmg) don’t think we should be allowing those people into the UK
We’re not allowed to talk about a certain scandal on here. But in that context, it should be perfectly obvious why people might be reluctant to allow the mass import of unvetted people from a country that still has a persistent bacha bazi problem.
Except a filter was applied, and these are entire families, not exclusively young men.
According to the Guardian this scheme (the ARAP scheme) has led to 900 principals and 3600 family members moving to Britain, with 600 further ones accepted, with immediate family. The scheme is now closed.
So far fewer than the 33000 names on the data breach, so clearly a filtering process was applied to ensure legitimate claims.
So far, 36,000 people have arrived from the country, as of the end of March, and the government says that the total cost of all relocation schemes will be between £5.5bn and £6bn.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
Hmmmm, yes. I had assumed it was just a list of collaborators (for want of a better word), rather than people who had expressed an interest in going to the UK.
Looks like I'm right. From The Times
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Just.......... gobsmacking. How do you even begin to describe this?
Doing the right thing
A Debt of Honour?
Why are you wheeling out all of this sentimental and faux patriotic rhetoric?
Because we were talking about British values and culture earlier. Behaving honourably and keeping our word rank pretty highly for me as core British values.
According to the Guardian this scheme (the ARAP scheme) has led to 900 principals and 3600 family members moving to Britain, with 600 further ones accepted, with immediate family. The scheme is now closed.
So far fewer than the 33000 names on the data breach, so clearly a filtering process was applied to ensure legitimate claims.
So far, 36,000 people have arrived from the country, as of the end of March, and the government says that the total cost of all relocation schemes will be between £5.5bn and £6bn.
Yes but that is including all the other Afghan resettlement schemes, not just this one.
Metadata from the “raw” Epstein prison video shows approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds were removed from one of two stitched-together clips. The cut starts right at the “missing minute.”
Doesn’t it take longer than that to strangle someone - I know films show it taking about 30 seconds (like how chloroform knocks people out in a matter of seconds in film world) but I thought it takes about 5 minutes to cause death. So whoever is supposed to do it got in to his cell, overpowered him and strangled him to death in 2 mins 35 seconds? Seems a bit unlikely.
His suicide was assisted, has been my assumption for many months
He was told, "Off yourself, and those you love will not be hurt. We will turn off the cameras and the guards will be miraculously asleep for a few crucial minutes. You must do it at this particular time"
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
Hmmmm, yes. I had assumed it was just a list of collaborators (for want of a better word), rather than people who had expressed an interest in going to the UK.
Looks like I'm right. From The Times
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Just.......... gobsmacking. How do you even begin to describe this?
Doing the right thing
A Debt of Honour?
Do these Afghans have a debt of honour to the UK ?
They do now.
And how will that be repaid ?
Perhaps they should join the Ukrainian military and fight for that country's freedom.
Have I got this right? The BBC has fired @JohnTorode1 because he allegedly made a racially insensitive comment in a bar EIGHT YEARS ago, that he immediately apologised for, and now doesn’t remember ever saying? Salem wants its witch trials back.
According to the Guardian this scheme (the ARAP scheme) has led to 900 principals and 3600 family members moving to Britain, with 600 further ones accepted, with immediate family. The scheme is now closed.
So far fewer than the 33000 names on the data breach, so clearly a filtering process was applied to ensure legitimate claims.
So far, 36,000 people have arrived from the country, as of the end of March, and the government says that the total cost of all relocation schemes will be between £5.5bn and £6bn.
And from the Times:
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
Hmmmm, yes. I had assumed it was just a list of collaborators (for want of a better word), rather than people who had expressed an interest in going to the UK.
Looks like I'm right. From The Times
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Just.......... gobsmacking. How do you even begin to describe this?
Doing the right thing
A Debt of Honour?
Do these Afghans have a debt of honour to the UK ?
They do now.
And how will that be repaid ?
Perhaps they should join the Ukrainian military and fight for that country's freedom.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
Hmmmm, yes. I had assumed it was just a list of collaborators (for want of a better word), rather than people who had expressed an interest in going to the UK.
Looks like I'm right. From The Times
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Just.......... gobsmacking. How do you even begin to describe this?
Doing the right thing
A Debt of Honour?
Why are you wheeling out all of this sentimental and faux patriotic rhetoric?
Because we were talking about British values and culture earlier. Behaving honourably and keeping our word rank pretty highly for me as core British values.
Can you show me where we gave our word that anyone who so much as spoke nicely to us in Afghanistan was entitled to settlement here?
Does your concern for keeping our word extend to the government keeping its word on things like bringing down overall migration to the tens of thousands?
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
Hmmmm, yes. I had assumed it was just a list of collaborators (for want of a better word), rather than people who had expressed an interest in going to the UK.
Looks like I'm right. From The Times
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Just.......... gobsmacking. How do you even begin to describe this?
Doing the right thing
A Debt of Honour?
Do these Afghans have a debt of honour to the UK ?
They do now.
And how will that be repaid ?
Perhaps they should join the Ukrainian military and fight for that country's freedom.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
They collaborated with the most powerful military in the world. You don't have to paint it as some noble sacrifice they made for us.
The old Arab saying (,via an Iraqi born friend) is proven on here tonight.
"Its better to be an enemy of the British than a friend, as they buy their enemies and sell their friends"
These families are legitimate refugees from one of the most despotic regimes on earth by any reasonable assessment. They broke no rules to get here and have a legitimate link to our country. If we are going to refuse them, who would qualify?
What are you talking about?
We haven't refused them, have we?
I think Foxy’s point is that a number of right wing posters on here (Leon, williamglenn, Hyufd, even Malcolmg) don’t think we should be allowing those people into the UK
We’re not allowed to talk about a certain scandal on here. But in that context, it should be perfectly obvious why people might be reluctant to allow the mass import of unvetted people from a country that still has a persistent bacha bazi problem.
Except a filter was applied, and these are entire families, not exclusively young men.
A great many people would have reached the point where they find it almost impossible to believe anything the government says on the subject of immigration. Most especially this story.
“Down to the tens of thousands.” That joker at the Treasury last month swearing blind that the boat people are mostly babies and children and women. And then of course the thing that we are not allowed to talk about.
Interesting politics that Rayner seems to have clocked the vulnerability of paying benefits to +1m foreign citizens with the boriswave still to come. We might not be far off a new consensus. Question is whether it’s all just too late for the righteously furious Joe Voter.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
How very sinister….
To be fair to Afghans some of them will have fought with the Western forces against the Taliban so would likely have been killed now the Taliban are back in power there had they stayed
These Afghan families are at risk because they worked under the Queen's Colours and not trafficked in small boats with no papers or background details.
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
Agreed, they've been put in mortal danger due to the incompetence of a marine (was anyone sacked over this, I wonder). It's the cover-up that stinks.
We don't know this?
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
Hmmmm, yes. I had assumed it was just a list of collaborators (for want of a better word), rather than people who had expressed an interest in going to the UK.
Looks like I'm right. From The Times
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Just.......... gobsmacking. How do you even begin to describe this?
Doing the right thing
A Debt of Honour?
Why are you wheeling out all of this sentimental and faux patriotic rhetoric?
Because we were talking about British values and culture earlier. Behaving honourably and keeping our word rank pretty highly for me as core British values.
Can you show me where we gave our word that anyone who so much as spoke nicely to us in Afghanistan was entitled to settlement here?
Does your concern for keeping our word extend to the government keeping its word on things like bringing down overall migration to the tens of thousands?
You can blame the Tory government for not keeping it's word on that, not this government.
Comments
And, worse, Labour was keen to continue with this, and get the lie out there - the "agreed narrative" - and continue lying to the people. The only thing that stopped Labour was the determination of The Times and this brave judge who said NO
I feel watched
And they actually created one.
It is yet another reason to vote Reform. The fact Labour were intent on continuing and indeed extending the lies and deceptions is a real Whoah moment
They haven't come cleam because they want to. It's because they've been forced to do so by a judge
If they don't qualify as legitimate refugees with a connection to Britain, then who on earth would qualify?
On one hand, sure, makes sense given the outcry, on the other hand, surely not going to be all that difficult to find people coming out saying "X happened to me/my family and the perpetrators got a worse sentence for the tree".
I remember reading that they were all here to work and that the OBR assumes that all immigrants are net contributors to the UK economy.
"Liberty must be rationed among the few with the talent to use it.
There's no such thing as equality.
Most men are born with the gutter and are at home there.
As for fraternity, {we are} nobody's brother.
We stand alone at the head of the table...
and if ever our rights are challenged, this is our answer."
The sentiment fits so very well, doesn't it?
Working for a few months/weeks/days for the British government in Afghanistan so as to get a right to move to Britain was an incredible bargain for them.
Less so for Britain.
PR would likely lead to a Labour and LD and Green government or at most a Reform government diluted by the Tories whereas under FPTP most polls give Farage and Reform an outright majority now or with just DUP and TUV support required
You question established authority and institutions, favoring*(sic) significant systemic change and individual freedom.
That was mine. Pretty rubbish survey I thought, spelling errors or no spelling errors. A Likert scale should have five levels of response with 'neither agree nor disagree' available.
A few hours 'working' for a cousin so as to be able to claim benefits is not the equivalent of full time working in a skilled or essential job.
I think, in their hearts, there are already quite a few, who want a franchise test to exclude The Head Count.
All we know - AFAICS - is that a lot of these people ASKED to be put on the UK "rescue list". They were being vetted, to see if they qualified, or not. That process was then scotched by the "leak" and then we felt we had no choice but to briskly allow in everyone on the list. If you have info that proves this wrong, please show me. It is my understanding from what I have read so far
And if that is true, that means we are potentially rehousing, at vast expense, tens of thousands of Afghans who could be potential criminals, rapists, Taliban supporters - they have not been vetted yet
Again, I emphasise I could be wrong. This torrent of info is only now cascading down to us, the pitiful voters
But yes, he wasn't phoning that in, was he. Compelling on the course and off.
Whether a Romainian standing on the street selling the Big Issue qualifies as a self employed business owner, I don't know.
A lot easier and cheaper to bung someone a few thousand to leak a list than it is to use the people smugglers.
If they're already in the UK safely why not say "we are granting asylum to people who deserve it" openly and honestly?
As we have with people from Hong Kong, and Ukraine and elsewhere.
The most disturbing part of this story isn't that people were granted asylum, its that the government sought to lie about it and make telling the truth an offence.
"During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
"The judge warned: “Open justice is a cardinal constitutional principle, from which derogations can be justified only in exceptional circumstances,” and as the case wore on over the course of dozens of hearings it became clear he felt that definition was not being met"
And there might well be some kind of modern-day revolution.
Trouble is, most successful revolts against Authoritarian regimes conclude with the imposition of a different Authoritarian regime...
"Its better to be an enemy of the British than a friend, as they buy their enemies and sell their friends"
These families are legitimate refugees from one of the most despotic regimes on earth by any reasonable assessment. They broke no rules to get here and have a legitimate link to our country. If we are going to refuse them, who would qualify?
It was British lives and money which were being sacrificed so as to give the Afghans an opportunity to build a tolerant society.
And when it came down to it the Afghans didn't want it.
We haven't refused them, have we?
The defining features of our Afghan 'friends' turned out to be corruption and cowardice.
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Just.......... gobsmacking. How do you even begin to describe this?
That posters on here describe them as collaborators shows how far we have fallen.
By your reasoning the Taliban could take over the world because they're 'too obscenely vicious to stand up to'.
Except they're not and they can't.
But they were good enough to take over the country because the Afghan government and military turned out to be nothing but corrupt cowards.
So far I find the party and supporters a bit vague and hand wavy.
Talk about self-romanticising tosh.
I've said we should not allow in Afghans who are just chancing their arm, and to whom we have no debt, and/or Afghans who have not been vetted and might present a clear danger of criminality or terrorism
Because of the monumental incompetence of HMG and the MoD, we're now letting in tens of thousands, unvetted, who had no prior eligibility. And the government was keen to keep this secret from everyone, indeed they wanted to EXPAND the scheme while lying to the voters
To achieve an Afghan government which couldn't govern, an Afghan military which wouldn't fight and tens of thousands of Afghan refugees who we now need to support in this country.
Perhaps someone could find a few quotes of what Tony Blair promised as a comparison.
It reinforces something I didn’t want to believe; PB is dying
I think we owed a duty to the people put in danger. I do think the idea that this should have been kept from the public (particularly given the cost) for so long feels wrong.
If Reform can do that, I will be happy
Metadata from the “raw” Epstein prison video shows approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds were removed from one of two stitched-together clips. The cut starts right at the “missing minute.”
https://bsky.app/profile/wired.com/post/3ltzodjbuox2s
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/15/thousands-relocated-data-leak-afghans-who-helped-british-forces?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
So far fewer than the 33000 names on the data breach, so clearly a filtering process was applied to ensure legitimate claims.
He was told, "Off yourself, and those you love will not be hurt. We will turn off the cameras and the guards will be miraculously asleep for a few crucial minutes. You must do it at this particular time"
Perhaps they should join the Ukrainian military and fight for that country's freedom.
Piers Morgan
@piersmorgan
Have I got this right? The BBC has fired @JohnTorode1
because he allegedly made a racially insensitive comment in a bar EIGHT YEARS ago, that he immediately apologised for, and now doesn’t remember ever saying? Salem wants its witch trials back.
"Many others had not [served with UK forces], but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.
In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.
Court documents disclosed that the cabinet’s home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained “appropriate”. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals."
Does your concern for keeping our word extend to the government keeping its word on things like bringing down overall migration to the tens of thousands?
“Down to the tens of thousands.” That joker at the Treasury last month swearing blind that the boat people are mostly babies and children and women. And then of course the thing that we are not allowed to talk about.
Interesting politics that Rayner seems to have clocked the vulnerability of paying benefits to +1m foreign citizens with the boriswave still to come. We might not be far off a new consensus. Question is whether it’s all just too late for the righteously furious Joe Voter.