This is why Reform should avoid former elected Tories – politicalbetting.com

System · 6:34AM

This is why Reform should avoid former elected Tories – politicalbetting.com

I was pleased to meet with Ahmadullah and his family in Nottinghamshire, an Afghan interpreter who worked alongside British forces in Helmand.Over a third of local councils have already agreed to support, house and integrate families like his.#operationwarmwelcome pic.twitter.com/pcFVyOyIec

Read the full story here

DecrepiterJohnL · 6:43AM

Leon – there's another one for your political fibs article!

isam · 6:50AM

Don’t both Pochin and Jenrick’s tweets predate the email leak, immigration of Afghans on the list and subsequent cover up? If so, they can hardly be accused of double standards if they previously welcomed genuine refugees.

I’m not 100% on the dates though, so could be wrong

malcolmg · 6:51AM

Not decrepit but close second

Nigelb · 6:56AM

I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.

Luckyguy1983 · 6:57AM

Robert Jenrick has stated that that man did work as an interpreter for British forces, that he didn't come in under the dodgy scheme in question, and that he now lives with his family and works a full time.

It feels like compassionate lefties are throwing that man under the bus by trying to score a point about Jenrick using that Tweet. It's not a good look for PB in my opinion.

rottenborough · 6:59AM

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.

The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

Nigelb · 7:01AM

FPT
It's curious that the government didn't originally apply for a superinjunction in the Afghan case, just a straightforward injunction.

The original decision to convert it to a superinjunction was the initiative of the judge on the case.
Grant Shapps then changed MoD policy on the matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jul/16/grant-shapps-pushed-for-mod-afghan-superinjunction-to-remain-in-place

More detail on the costs involved also emerges, which unsurprisingly shows that Leon's certainty about the £7bn was misplaced.

More detail on the story here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rvyqd7wq2o

The role of the UK Special Forces (one of whom was responsible for the data leak) is somewhat murky.

Also extraordinary is that John Healey was briefed on this while in opposition, as shadow DefSec, and didn't tell Starmer, as he believed the injunction prevented his doing so.

Leon · 7:03AM

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.

“Confection”

No one knows the true numbers because the Government has been lying to us for two years, and is still - officially - lying. Injunctions remain in place

At the same time you can find reliable sources claiming everything from £200m to £10bn+

I don’t know the true figure; neither do you

eek · 7:05AM

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..

Malmesbury · 7:06AM

Luckyguy1983 said:
Robert Jenrick has stated that that man did work as an interpreter for British forces, that he didn't come in under the dodgy scheme in question, and that he now lives with his family and works a full time.

It feels like compassionate lefties are throwing that man under the bus by trying to score a point about Jenrick using that Tweet. It's not a good look for PB in my opinion.

Bad Facts

Theuniondivvie · 7:07AM

This better be good or I’ll be VERY DISAPPOINTED.

https://deadline.com/2025/07/jack-lowden-berlin-noir-playtone-apple-1236459917/

rottenborough · 7:07AM

Morning all,

A classic headline of the Telegraph genre this morning:

Labour won’t be in government long enough to witness the mess their NHS plan is creating

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/16/labour-wont-be-in-government-long-nhs-10-year-plan

Seems to arguing the case that the ten year plan won't work because it relies on GPs and they are crap.

rottenborough · 7:08AM

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..

The Afghan Surcharge of 2p on rate of income tax and all blamed on Tories?

Theuniondivvie · 7:09AM

Leon said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
“Confection”

No one knows the true numbers because the Government has been lying to us for two years, and is still - officially - lying. Injunctions remain in place

At the same time you can find reliable sources claiming everything from £200m to £10bn+

I don’t know the true figure; neither do you

But you’re going with the £7bn nevertheless?

rottenborough · 7:10AM

Nigelb said:
FPT
It's curious that the government didn't originally apply for a superinjunction in the Afghan case, just a straightforward injunction.

The original decision to convert it to a superinjunction was the initiative of the judge on the case.
Grant Shapps then changed MoD policy on the matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jul/16/grant-shapps-pushed-for-mod-afghan-superinjunction-to-remain-in-place

More detail on the costs involved also emerges, which unsurprisingly shows that Leon's certainty about the £7bn was misplaced.

More detail on the story here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rvyqd7wq2o

The role of the UK Special Forces (one of whom was responsible for the data leak) is somewhat murky.

Also extraordinary is that John Healey was briefed on this while in opposition, as shadow DefSec, and didn't tell Starmer, as he believed the injunction prevented his doing so.

On the last point: why didn't he just get some legal advice?

AnneJGP · 7:10AM

Good morning, everyone.

My apologies for being the lame brain that I am but I don't see an answer to the Why of the title in the thread header.

TheScreamingEagles · 7:11AM

Nigelb said:
FPT
It's curious that the government didn't originally apply for a superinjunction in the Afghan case, just a straightforward injunction.

The original decision to convert it to a superinjunction was the initiative of the judge on the case.
Grant Shapps then changed MoD policy on the matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jul/16/grant-shapps-pushed-for-mod-afghan-superinjunction-to-remain-in-place

More detail on the costs involved also emerges, which unsurprisingly shows that Leon's certainty about the £7bn was misplaced.

More detail on the story here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rvyqd7wq2o

The role of the UK Special Forces (one of whom was responsible for the data leak) is somewhat murky.

Also extraordinary is that John Healey was briefed on this while in opposition, as shadow DefSec, and didn't tell Starmer, as he believed the injunction prevented his doing so.

Why didn't Sunak tell Starmer on Privy Council terms?

TheScreamingEagles · 7:12AM

AnneJGP said:
Good morning, everyone.

My apologies for being the lame brain that I am but I don't see an answer to the Why of the title in the thread header.

It's related to the previous thread.

If Nigel Farage and Reform are going to win the next election then they need to not look like a party made up of failed Tory politicians like Sir Jake Berry, Suella Braverman, Liz Truss, and so on and so forth.

another_richard · 7:13AM

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..

If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

Nigelb · 7:14AM

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..

The current government has already truncated the scheme, so the total number won't be anything like £7bn. At some point the PAC will come up with an accurate estimate, but that's likely to take some time.
Given we're only a year into this Parliament, there's fortunately plenty of time for the record to be set straight.

The more important point is the number of politicians who apparently felt obliged by the existence of a superinjuntion to turn off whatever brains they possess.

The original application was for a four month media blackout. There doesn't seem to be any good reason at all why that was extended to a couple of years, which spanned a general election. And there are very good reasons why it shouldn't have been.

Malmesbury · 7:14AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:
FPT
It's curious that the government didn't originally apply for a superinjunction in the Afghan case, just a straightforward injunction.

The original decision to convert it to a superinjunction was the initiative of the judge on the case.
Grant Shapps then changed MoD policy on the matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jul/16/grant-shapps-pushed-for-mod-afghan-superinjunction-to-remain-in-place

More detail on the costs involved also emerges, which unsurprisingly shows that Leon's certainty about the £7bn was misplaced.

More detail on the story here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rvyqd7wq2o

The role of the UK Special Forces (one of whom was responsible for the data leak) is somewhat murky.

Also extraordinary is that John Healey was briefed on this while in opposition, as shadow DefSec, and didn't tell Starmer, as he believed the injunction prevented his doing so.
Why didn't Sunak tell Starmer on Privy Council terms?

I’ve heard to suggested that the super injunction prevented such.

Which would be a remarkable feature, if true.

Isn’t the point of the Privy Council, that it is the full I-need-to-know zone, with very few exceptions?

TheScreamingEagles · 7:15AM

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:
FPT
It's curious that the government didn't originally apply for a superinjunction in the Afghan case, just a straightforward injunction.

The original decision to convert it to a superinjunction was the initiative of the judge on the case.
Grant Shapps then changed MoD policy on the matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jul/16/grant-shapps-pushed-for-mod-afghan-superinjunction-to-remain-in-place

More detail on the costs involved also emerges, which unsurprisingly shows that Leon's certainty about the £7bn was misplaced.

More detail on the story here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rvyqd7wq2o

The role of the UK Special Forces (one of whom was responsible for the data leak) is somewhat murky.

Also extraordinary is that John Healey was briefed on this while in opposition, as shadow DefSec, and didn't tell Starmer, as he believed the injunction prevented his doing so.
Why didn't Sunak tell Starmer on Privy Council terms?
I’ve heard to suggested that the super injunction prevented such.

Which would be a remarkable feature, if true.

Isn’t the point of the Privy Council, that it is the full I-need-to-know zone, with very few exceptions?

That doesn't pass the smell test, if Shapps told Healey, then Sunak should have told Starmer.

AnneJGP · 7:16AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

AnneJGP said:
Good morning, everyone.

My apologies for being the lame brain that I am but I don't see an answer to the Why of the title in the thread header.
It's related to the previous thread.

If Nigel Farage and Reform are going to win the next election then they need to not look like a party made up of failed Tory politicians like Sir Jake Berry, Suella Braverman, Liz Truss, and so on and so forth.

Oh, thank you. Wasn't on for that one.

another_richard · 7:17AM

rottenborough said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
The Afghan Surcharge of 2p on rate of income tax and all blamed on Tories?

Could have done it a year ago while simultaneously stopping funding all the housing for the Afghans.

Too late for Labour now.

Instead Reeves signed off on more funding for them while simultaneously trying to stop WFA and PIP for millions of British people.

eek · 7:18AM

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:
FPT
It's curious that the government didn't originally apply for a superinjunction in the Afghan case, just a straightforward injunction.

The original decision to convert it to a superinjunction was the initiative of the judge on the case.
Grant Shapps then changed MoD policy on the matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jul/16/grant-shapps-pushed-for-mod-afghan-superinjunction-to-remain-in-place

More detail on the costs involved also emerges, which unsurprisingly shows that Leon's certainty about the £7bn was misplaced.

More detail on the story here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rvyqd7wq2o

The role of the UK Special Forces (one of whom was responsible for the data leak) is somewhat murky.

Also extraordinary is that John Healey was briefed on this while in opposition, as shadow DefSec, and didn't tell Starmer, as he believed the injunction prevented his doing so.
Why didn't Sunak tell Starmer on Privy Council terms?
I’ve heard to suggested that the super injunction prevented such.

Which would be a remarkable feature, if true.

Isn’t the point of the Privy Council, that it is the full I-need-to-know zone, with very few exceptions?

We also have the fact that the speaker seems to have known and was blocking any questions from being asked.

So that is two areas where super injunctions are overriding how the UK constitution supposedly works. And I say supposedly because it's not written down so its possible to change things but I don't see how any court should override Parliament and Government.

Sean_F · 7:18AM

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

Somewhere palatial, I expect.

Nigelb · 7:19AM

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:
FPT
It's curious that the government didn't originally apply for a superinjunction in the Afghan case, just a straightforward injunction.

The original decision to convert it to a superinjunction was the initiative of the judge on the case.
Grant Shapps then changed MoD policy on the matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jul/16/grant-shapps-pushed-for-mod-afghan-superinjunction-to-remain-in-place

More detail on the costs involved also emerges, which unsurprisingly shows that Leon's certainty about the £7bn was misplaced.

More detail on the story here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rvyqd7wq2o

The role of the UK Special Forces (one of whom was responsible for the data leak) is somewhat murky.

Also extraordinary is that John Healey was briefed on this while in opposition, as shadow DefSec, and didn't tell Starmer, as he believed the injunction prevented his doing so.
Why didn't Sunak tell Starmer on Privy Council terms?
I’ve heard to suggested that the super injunction prevented such.

Which would be a remarkable feature, if true.

Isn’t the point of the Privy Council, that it is the full I-need-to-know zone, with very few exceptions?

IMO, it's democratically unacceptable that a single judge - who is every bit as capable of error as anyone else - should impose ignorance on pretty well the entire government in this manner.
The review of the injunction seems to have concluded that there was no good reason at all for having it in place for so long. That ought to have been self evident back in the last Parliament.

Malmesbury · 7:20AM

Nigelb said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
The current government has already truncated the scheme, so the total number won't be anything like £7bn. At some point the PAC will come up with an accurate estimate, but that's likely to take some time.
Given we're only a year into this Parliament, there's fortunately plenty of time for the record to be set straight.

The more important point is the number of politicians who apparently felt obliged by the existence of a superinjuntion to turn off whatever brains they possess.

The original application was for a four month media blackout. There doesn't seem to be any good reason at all why that was extended to a couple of years, which spanned a general election. And there are very good reasons why it shouldn't have been.

But extending it prevented questions being asked.

It seems quite clear that on various areas the structures of government prefer silence and not collecting statistics. Because they believe the truth is bad.

FF43 · 7:21AM

I would say in this very specific case, Reform is the problem, not the former elected Tories. ie Reform is making it difficult for those Tories to come over to Reform with allegations, partly invented, about what the former Tories were up to.

eek · 7:21AM

rottenborough said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
The Afghan Surcharge of 2p on rate of income tax and all blamed on Tories?

To be blunt I don't care what they call it - it should have been done last October rather than screwing with Employer NI.

Because now we have rising inflation and increased unemployment (alongside which job vacancies numbers are low) which screams to me Stagflation (albeit not much at the moment but it's an issue).

SandyRentool · 7:22AM

I see that Reform has told renewables companies that they would scrap their subsidy deals if they form a government.

Does anyone know if this also applies to carbon capture projects?

Nigelb · 7:23AM

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
The current government has already truncated the scheme, so the total number won't be anything like £7bn. At some point the PAC will come up with an accurate estimate, but that's likely to take some time.
Given we're only a year into this Parliament, there's fortunately plenty of time for the record to be set straight.

The more important point is the number of politicians who apparently felt obliged by the existence of a superinjuntion to turn off whatever brains they possess.

The original application was for a four month media blackout. There doesn't seem to be any good reason at all why that was extended to a couple of years, which spanned a general election. And there are very good reasons why it shouldn't have been.
But extending it prevented questions being asked.

It seems quite clear that on various areas the structures of government prefer silence and not collecting statistics. Because they believe the truth is bad.

It's likely true that the (temporary) political convenience of not having this aired played quite a large part in the matter. That it was all originally a judge's idea possibly made them feel justified in continuing to hide it ?

wooliedyed · 7:23AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:
FPT
It's curious that the government didn't originally apply for a superinjunction in the Afghan case, just a straightforward injunction.

The original decision to convert it to a superinjunction was the initiative of the judge on the case.
Grant Shapps then changed MoD policy on the matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jul/16/grant-shapps-pushed-for-mod-afghan-superinjunction-to-remain-in-place

More detail on the costs involved also emerges, which unsurprisingly shows that Leon's certainty about the £7bn was misplaced.

More detail on the story here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rvyqd7wq2o

The role of the UK Special Forces (one of whom was responsible for the data leak) is somewhat murky.

Also extraordinary is that John Healey was briefed on this while in opposition, as shadow DefSec, and didn't tell Starmer, as he believed the injunction prevented his doing so.
Why didn't Sunak tell Starmer on Privy Council terms?
I’ve heard to suggested that the super injunction prevented such.

Which would be a remarkable feature, if true.

Isn’t the point of the Privy Council, that it is the full I-need-to-know zone, with very few exceptions?
That doesn't pass the smell test, if Shapps told Healey, then Sunak should have told Starmer.

Maybe we will hear from Dishy soon.
Starmer lying about when he found out would be very on trend. He could suspend the whip on a few more people to deflect

Malmesbury · 7:24AM

Nigelb said:

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:
FPT
It's curious that the government didn't originally apply for a superinjunction in the Afghan case, just a straightforward injunction.

The original decision to convert it to a superinjunction was the initiative of the judge on the case.
Grant Shapps then changed MoD policy on the matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jul/16/grant-shapps-pushed-for-mod-afghan-superinjunction-to-remain-in-place

More detail on the costs involved also emerges, which unsurprisingly shows that Leon's certainty about the £7bn was misplaced.

More detail on the story here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rvyqd7wq2o

The role of the UK Special Forces (one of whom was responsible for the data leak) is somewhat murky.

Also extraordinary is that John Healey was briefed on this while in opposition, as shadow DefSec, and didn't tell Starmer, as he believed the injunction prevented his doing so.
Why didn't Sunak tell Starmer on Privy Council terms?
I’ve heard to suggested that the super injunction prevented such.

Which would be a remarkable feature, if true.

Isn’t the point of the Privy Council, that it is the full I-need-to-know zone, with very few exceptions?
IMO, it's democratically unacceptable that a single judge - who is every bit as capable of error as anyone else - should impose ignorance on pretty well the entire government in this manner.
The review of the injunction seems to have concluded that there was no good reason at all for having it in place for so long. That ought to have been self evident back in the last Parliament.

Indeed.

There needs to be a defined group (supposed to be the Privy Council) who have access to everything.

Compartmentation is all very well. But at the top of government, the whole group - which includes opposition and non-politicians - has to know.

Otherwise this is a piece of democracy (as you say) being removed.

When you add in the ability for a government to pick which judge it takes a case to….

algarkirk · 7:25AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

AnneJGP said:
Good morning, everyone.

My apologies for being the lame brain that I am but I don't see an answer to the Why of the title in the thread header.
It's related to the previous thread.

If Nigel Farage and Reform are going to win the next election then they need to not look like a party made up of failed Tory politicians like Sir Jake Berry, Suella Braverman, Liz Truss, and so on and so forth.

There is no one factor which will win or lose the next election for Reform. The idea that it is fatal to have members who said one thing at time X and another at time Y is not really a runner. Though famous disasters like Truss may be problematic. No-one has heard of Jake Berry, and most other people.

The key questions for Reform in GE 2029 are deeper. Do they go in hard on truth telling and realism - something whose time may have come; do they go hard on the fact that Clacton voters are all for a nationalist state which spends bigly on the post 1945 social democrat deal; or do they go for protest and unicorns and contradictions?

Will they tell us approximately what % of GDP will be devoted to state expenditure in the fifth year of their government?

Or will they be 'the same as all the others'.

Leon · 7:26AM

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
“Confection”

No one knows the true numbers because the Government has been lying to us for two years, and is still - officially - lying. Injunctions remain in place

At the same time you can find reliable sources claiming everything from £200m to £10bn+

I don’t know the true figure; neither do you
But you’re going with the £7bn nevertheless?

It’s the only figure I’ve seen reported in now-released court transcripts, which are about as close to the truth as it’s possible to get. Amidst the murk

The whole thing reeks, horrendously, and it isn’t going away

Nigelb · 7:26AM

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:
FPT
It's curious that the government didn't originally apply for a superinjunction in the Afghan case, just a straightforward injunction.

The original decision to convert it to a superinjunction was the initiative of the judge on the case.
Grant Shapps then changed MoD policy on the matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jul/16/grant-shapps-pushed-for-mod-afghan-superinjunction-to-remain-in-place

More detail on the costs involved also emerges, which unsurprisingly shows that Leon's certainty about the £7bn was misplaced.

More detail on the story here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rvyqd7wq2o

The role of the UK Special Forces (one of whom was responsible for the data leak) is somewhat murky.

Also extraordinary is that John Healey was briefed on this while in opposition, as shadow DefSec, and didn't tell Starmer, as he believed the injunction prevented his doing so.
Why didn't Sunak tell Starmer on Privy Council terms?
I’ve heard to suggested that the super injunction prevented such.

Which would be a remarkable feature, if true.

Isn’t the point of the Privy Council, that it is the full I-need-to-know zone, with very few exceptions?
IMO, it's democratically unacceptable that a single judge - who is every bit as capable of error as anyone else - should impose ignorance on pretty well the entire government in this manner.
The review of the injunction seems to have concluded that there was no good reason at all for having it in place for so long. That ought to have been self evident back in the last Parliament.
Indeed.

There needs to be a defined group (supposed to be the Privy Council) who have access to everything.

Compartmentation is all very well. But at the top of government, the whole group - which includes opposition and non-politicians - has to know.

Otherwise this is a piece of democracy (as you say) being removed.

When you add in the ability for a government to pick which judge it takes a case to….

Parliament's Intelligence Committee is normally briefed on information which is being withheld from Parliament as a whole.
It seems highly unusual for a Speaker to decide they should not be told anything.

Malmesbury · 7:29AM

eek said:

rottenborough said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
The Afghan Surcharge of 2p on rate of income tax and all blamed on Tories?
To be blunt I don't care what they call it - it should have been done last October rather than screwing with Employer NI.

Because now we have rising inflation and increased unemployment (alongside which job vacancies numbers are low) which screams to me Stagflation (albeit not much at the moment but it's an issue).

If a Labour Chancellor had….

- merged NI and Income tax, simplified the rates and sneaked in some raises.
- protected poor pensioners with a combined rate that was equal to the old IT rate
- Converted old age benefits into a common taxable/means tested form
- Quadruple lock. Pension = Personal allowance
- Announced that “the savings”* would be used to fund the NHS and education.

.., this would have raised money. The Labour Party would be broadly happy with that. The markets would have been favourable. I would think that the government would be higher in the polls, as well.

*actually money from tax rises.

StillWaters · 7:30AM

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

It’s the 400k that doesn’t ring true. Presumably it includes massive overhead allocations?

It is, after all, more than the average cost of *buying* a house in the UK

Eabhal · 7:30AM

The vibe has definitely inverted in the US. Shane Gillis has ripped into Trump on Epstein - he's very much part of the Rogansphere.

Battlebus · 7:32AM

FPT and a tenuous link to this one.

The Two-Child limit appears to be one of ideology and the past Conservative governments were long on ideology and short on solutions. Here's some background.

The rationale for the two-child limit was to reduce the deficit by £1.36 billion per year by 2020/21. But the government also sought to justify it on the basis that they are hoping to influence behaviour — hoping to ‘encourage parents to reflect carefully on their readiness to support an additional child’. Yet, the savings to be made from the policy are quite modest in the context of the austerity cuts of £27 billion per year since 2010. Why pick on children again, and the poorest children at that?

So we have failed ideologues wanting to join another party which is again long on ideology and short on solutions. This governing stuff is difficult enough without the incompetent getting involved. And the cost of poverty is higher than the purported savings.

https://social-policy.org.uk/50-for-50/two-child-policy/

DavidL · 7:33AM

The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.

Nigelb · 7:35AM

Eabhal said:
The vibe has definitely inverted in the US. Shane Gillis has ripped into Trump on Epstein - he's very much part of the Rogansphere.

James Comey’s daughter who worked on Epstein case fired as federal prosecutor
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5405370-james-comey-daughter-maurene-comey-fired-reports/

"No specific reason given."

another_richard · 7:36AM

StillWaters said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

It’s the 400k that doesn’t ring true. Presumably it includes massive overhead allocations?

It is, after all, more than the average cost of *buying* a house in the UK

True, but this is the government so cost control is likely to be non-existent.

Its also possible that included the cost of renovating unused MoD property.

Nigelb · 7:37AM

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.

It's potentially something more than that.
...The UKSF official who inadvertently leaked the data was assisting with the verification of a small number of applications from Afghan special forces when the accidental breach occurred.
The official was in possession of the full dataset because UKSF – the umbrella group containing the SAS and SBS – was given a secret veto over Arap applications from former members of Afghan special forces.
The BBC revealed last year that UKSF had used that veto to block hundreds of Afghan commandos who had fought alongside the SAS and SBS from relocating to the UK.
Documents obtained by Panorama showed special forces had rejected applications despite some containing compelling evidence of service alongside the SAS on dangerous night raid operations.
The personal information of many of those Afghan special forces were included in the massive data breach revealed this week...

I go for cockup rather than conspiracy every time, but this requires further explanation.

OnlyLivingBoy · 7:37AM

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here.
I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.

Leon · 7:41AM

OnlyLivingBoy said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here.
I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.

Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them

It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want

Big_G_NorthWales · 7:45AM

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
“Confection”

No one knows the true numbers because the Government has been lying to us for two years, and is still - officially - lying. Injunctions remain in place

At the same time you can find reliable sources claiming everything from £200m to £10bn+

I don’t know the true figure; neither do you
But you’re going with the £7bn nevertheless?
It’s the only figure I’ve seen reported in now-released court transcripts, which are about as close to the truth as it’s possible to get. Amidst the murk

The whole thing reeks, horrendously, and it isn’t going away

Good morning

It is hardly featuring on Sky this morning with the top stories the rise in unemployment and Starmer sacking 4 of his mps

I am not convinced, especially with the summer recession, that it will remain the story

I do agree it should be revealed if Sunak told Starmer in the privy council, and that the judge increased the application from an injuction to a super injunction was entirely his decision

There will be those on the right who hope to stir discord but then that is their modus operandi unfortunately

As far as the pictures in the header, they show just how we should welcome those who helped our forces and were at risk

FrancisUrquhart · 7:45AM

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate rose to 4.7%, its highest in four years, though the ONS has said the figure needs to be treated with caution due to problems with how the data is collected.

StillWaters · 7:45AM

another_richard said:

StillWaters said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

It’s the 400k that doesn’t ring true. Presumably it includes massive overhead allocations?

It is, after all, more than the average cost of *buying* a house in the UK

True, but this is the government so cost control is likely to be non-existent.

Its also possible that included the cost of
renovating unused MoD property.

Renovating wouldn’t be an annual cost though, but a 1 time thing

Cost control, I agree, but there should be some degree of oversight.

FrancisUrquhart · 7:46AM

Starmer might be kicking another MP out this afternoon. Dianne has done another racism

Malmesbury · 7:47AM

StillWaters said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

It’s the 400k that doesn’t ring true. Presumably it includes massive overhead allocations?

It is, after all, more than the average cost of *buying* a house in the UK

It’s a Human Right to live in London.

According to a number of lawsuits bought by the usual suspects.

OnlyLivingBoy · 7:47AM

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here.
I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them

It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want

These numbers are transparently nonsense. As far as I know I am the only person on here actively involved in refugee resettlement but if there are others with expertise in this area who want to back the numbers up feel free to do so.

eek · 7:47AM

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here.
I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them

It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want

The figures don't pass the smell test - that isn't to say the figures are wrong - it's to say that if the figures are right there is a lot of HTF did this spiral into that price and what can we learn from it.

algarkirk · 7:48AM

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.

Two questions about super injunctions for the panel:

Has the Supreme Court visited the issue of their propriety, and what did they say?

How can an injunction be effective as regards anyone who doesn't and can't know it exists?

another_richard · 7:49AM

StillWaters said:

another_richard said:

StillWaters said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

It’s the 400k that doesn’t ring true. Presumably it includes massive overhead allocations?

It is, after all, more than the average cost of *buying* a house in the UK

True, but this is the government so cost control is likely to be non-existent.

Its also possible that included the cost of
renovating unused MoD property.
Renovating wouldn’t be an annual cost though, but a 1 time thing

Cost control, I agree, but there should be some degree of oversight.

Unless and until the government issues some actual numbers then all we have is what the Times is reporting.

Whether anyone will believe any government report is also doubtful.

boulay · 7:49AM

StillWaters said:

another_richard said:

StillWaters said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

It’s the 400k that doesn’t ring true. Presumably it includes massive overhead allocations?

It is, after all, more than the average cost of *buying* a house in the UK

True, but this is the government so cost control is likely to be non-existent.

Its also possible that included the cost of
renovating unused MoD property.
Renovating wouldn’t be an annual cost though, but a 1 time thing

Cost control, I agree, but there should be some degree of oversight.

I can’t imagine it will go down well with the Military if the MOD are spending these sorts of sums on renovating MOD property for refugees when the state of military accommodation has been and is atrocious.

Dura_Ace · 7:49AM

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.
It's potentially something more than that.
...The UKSF official who inadvertently leaked the data was assisting with the verification of a small number of applications from Afghan special forces when the accidental breach occurred.
The official was in possession of the full dataset because UKSF – the umbrella group containing the SAS and SBS – was given a secret veto over Arap applications from former members of Afghan special forces.
The BBC revealed last year that UKSF had used that veto to block hundreds of Afghan commandos who had fought alongside the SAS and SBS from relocating to the UK.
Documents obtained by Panorama showed special forces had rejected applications despite some containing compelling evidence of service alongside the SAS on dangerous night raid operations.
The personal information of many of those Afghan special forces were included in the massive data breach revealed this week...

This is fucking ridiculous. "Commando/Special Forces" in the Afghan Army was anybody whose Crocs were matching colours.

Malmesbury · 7:52AM

algarkirk said:

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.
Two questions about super injunctions for the panel:

Has the Supreme Court visited the issue of their propriety, and what did they say?

How can an injunction be effective as regards anyone who doesn't and can't know it exists?

It’s the modern version of the Official Secrets Act.

With no “Public Interest” justification for breaching it.

So everyone in the know, will know that if they leak it, they will be in breach and have no defence.

If someone is publishing something, they get told. And either take it down, or directly defy the court.

The critical bit is the no defence thing. So, when they ask a lawyer, the lawyer will always tell them to comply.

StillWaters · 7:53AM

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here.
I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them

It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want

They don’t sound plausible

How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?

OnlyLivingBoy · 7:54AM

Malmesbury said:

StillWaters said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

It’s the 400k that doesn’t ring true. Presumably it includes massive overhead allocations?

It is, after all, more than the average cost of *buying* a house in the UK

It’s a Human Right to live in London.

According to a number of lawsuits bought by the usual suspects.

Even London doesn't cost £400k to rent a property for four people. You can rent a four bed Victorian house in Zone 2 for less than £50k and a 2 or 3 bed flat for less than half that number. Refugees given right to remain here get the same miserly universal credit payments as anyone else. Generally they can only afford to live in London if they are able to find an agreeable landlord who will rent at below market rates.
The level of ignorance on this board is once again extraordinary, especially for a group of people who take excessive pride in their supposed intelligence and rationality!

FrancisUrquhart · 7:54AM

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here.
I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them

It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want

They don’t sound plausible

How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?

You employ the people behind the bat tunnel to sort out some renovation work?

DavidL · 7:56AM

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.
It's potentially something more than that.
...The UKSF official who inadvertently leaked the data was assisting with the verification of a small number of applications from Afghan special forces when the accidental breach occurred.
The official was in possession of the full dataset because UKSF – the umbrella group containing the SAS and SBS – was given a secret veto over Arap applications from former members of Afghan special forces.
The BBC revealed last year that UKSF had used that veto to block hundreds of Afghan commandos who had fought alongside the SAS and SBS from relocating to the UK.
Documents obtained by Panorama showed special forces had rejected applications despite some containing compelling evidence of service alongside the SAS on dangerous night raid operations.
The personal information of many of those Afghan special forces were included in the massive data breach revealed this week...

I go for cockup rather than conspiracy every time, but this requires further explanation.

The SAS and SBS may have had very good reasons for seeking to veto some of the Afghan SF troops, namely that they had seen themselves that these people were psychopaths and dangerous to the UK population, particularly the female population. If we had then decided we had to take them anyway, despite that perceived risk, because of the leak that would indeed raise other questions. But we are still talking about dozens rather than thousands in that category and millions rather than billions. The billions relate, for the most part, to the Parliamentary approved schemes that were in place and publicly known about.

another_richard · 7:59AM

FrancisUrquhart said:
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate rose to 4.7%, its highest in four years, though the ONS has said the figure needs to be treated with caution due to problems with how the data is collected.

Scores on the doors for this month:

Unemployment
2010 7.9%
2024 4.4%
2025 4.7%

Inflation
2010 3.2%
2024 2.0%
2025 3.6%

Pay rises
2010 1.3%
2024 5.8%
2025 5.0%

Mexicanpete · 8:00AM

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here.
I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them

It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want

They don’t sound plausible

How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?

Maybe the free Motability Mercedes Benz G Wagen is included in the figures?

Malmesbury · 8:00AM

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Malmesbury said:

StillWaters said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

It’s the 400k that doesn’t ring true. Presumably it includes massive overhead allocations?

It is, after all, more than the average cost of *buying* a house in the UK

It’s a Human Right to live in London.

According to a number of lawsuits bought by the usual suspects.
Even London doesn't cost £400k to rent a property for four people. You can rent a four bed Victorian house in Zone 2 for less than £50k and a 2 or 3 bed flat for less than half that number. Refugees given right to remain here get the same miserly universal credit payments as anyone else. Generally they can only afford to live in London if they are able to find an agreeable landlord who will rent at below market rates.
The level of ignorance on this board is once again extraordinary, especially for a group of people who take excessive pride in their supposed intelligence and rationality!

By the time overheads from incompetent procurement come in…

See the rates that have been paid for block booking hotels.

Foxy · 8:01AM

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.
It's potentially something more than that.
...The UKSF official who inadvertently leaked the data was assisting with the verification of a small number of applications from Afghan special forces when the accidental breach occurred.
The official was in possession of the full dataset because UKSF – the umbrella group containing the SAS and SBS – was given a secret veto over Arap applications from former members of Afghan special forces.
The BBC revealed last year that UKSF had used that veto to block hundreds of Afghan commandos who had fought alongside the SAS and SBS from relocating to the UK.
Documents obtained by Panorama showed special forces had rejected applications despite some containing compelling evidence of service alongside the SAS on dangerous night raid operations.
The personal information of many of those Afghan special forces were included in the massive data breach revealed this week...

I go for cockup rather than conspiracy every time, but this requires further explanation.

The UKSF do need to give their heads a wobble over data security, but it does show that there was active vetting of applications to ensure they are valid. Whether the vetting was any more competent than their other actions in the aftermath of the Afghan debacle is a further question.

Foss · 8:03AM

another_richard said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate rose to 4.7%, its highest in four years, though the ONS has said the figure needs to be treated with caution due to problems with how the data is collected.
Scores on the doors for this month:

Unemployment
2010 7.9%
2024 4.4%
2025 4.7%

Inflation
2010 3.2%
2024 2.0%
2025 3.6%

Pay rises
2010 1.3%
2024 5.8%
2025 5.0%

What made you choose 2010 as the earliest value?

TBH, the charts are probably more informative.

Foxy · 8:03AM

another_richard said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate rose to 4.7%, its highest in four years, though the ONS has said the figure needs to be treated with caution due to problems with how the data is collected.
Scores on the doors for this month:

Unemployment
2010 7.9%
2024 4.4%
2025 4.7%

Inflation
2010 3.2%
2024 2.0%
2025 3.6%

Pay rises
2010 1.3%
2024 5.8%
2025 5.0%

So pay rises are 1.4% in real terms, and there is less demand for immigrant labour?

Dura_Ace · 8:03AM

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.
It's potentially something more than that.
...The UKSF official who inadvertently leaked the data was assisting with the verification of a small number of applications from Afghan special forces when the accidental breach occurred.
The official was in possession of the full dataset because UKSF – the umbrella group containing the SAS and SBS – was given a secret veto over Arap applications from former members of Afghan special forces.
The BBC revealed last year that UKSF had used that veto to block hundreds of Afghan commandos who had fought alongside the SAS and SBS from relocating to the UK.
Documents obtained by Panorama showed special forces had rejected applications despite some containing compelling evidence of service alongside the SAS on dangerous night raid operations.
The personal information of many of those Afghan special forces were included in the massive data breach revealed this week...

I go for cockup rather than conspiracy every time, but this requires further explanation.
The SAS and SBS may have had very good reasons for seeking to veto some of the Afghan SF troops, namely that they had seen themselves that these people were psychopaths and dangerous to the UK population, particularly the female population.

It takes one to...

Theuniondivvie · 8:03AM

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.
It's potentially something more than that.
...The UKSF official who inadvertently leaked the data was assisting with the verification of a small number of applications from Afghan special forces when the accidental breach occurred.
The official was in possession of the full dataset because UKSF – the umbrella group containing the SAS and SBS – was given a secret veto over Arap applications from former members of Afghan special forces.
The BBC revealed last year that UKSF had used that veto to block hundreds of Afghan commandos who had fought alongside the SAS and SBS from relocating to the UK.
Documents obtained by Panorama showed special forces had rejected applications despite some containing compelling evidence of service alongside the SAS on dangerous night raid operations.
The personal information of many of those Afghan special forces were included in the massive data breach revealed this week...

I go for cockup rather than conspiracy every time, but this requires further explanation.
The SAS and SBS may have had very good reasons for seeking to veto some of the Afghan SF troops, namely that they had seen themselves that these people were psychopaths and dangerous to the UK population, particularly the female population. If we had then decided we had to take them anyway, despite that perceived risk, because of the leak that would indeed raise other questions. But we are still talking about dozens rather than thousands in that category and millions rather than billions. The billions relate, for the most part, to the Parliamentary approved schemes that were in place and publicly known about.

Hmm.

'SAS had golden pass to get away with murder, inquiry told'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07g40x1v53o

Leon · 8:05AM

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here.
I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them

It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want

They don’t sound plausible

How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?

My point is more: people are choosing whatever numbers they like to fit their agenda. Then claiming some superiority in their method

Perhaps I am the same. But all I’ve done is take the number used in court which is near to the source material as we can get

What we need is some serious parliamentary scrutiny. Those who blithely think this story has gone away because “it’s not on most read list at express.co.uk” are fucking delusional

This is not Watergate. This is more like a bank run. Very very dangerous. It may indeed fizzle out with minor reputational damage to one or two corporations. Or it may be a grave systemic risk

OnlyLivingBoy · 8:05AM

Malmesbury said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Malmesbury said:

StillWaters said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

It’s the 400k that doesn’t ring true. Presumably it includes massive overhead allocations?

It is, after all, more than the average cost of *buying* a house in the UK

It’s a Human Right to live in London.

According to a number of lawsuits bought by the usual suspects.
Even London doesn't cost £400k to rent a property for four people. You can rent a four bed Victorian house in Zone 2 for less than £50k and a 2 or 3 bed flat for less than half that number. Refugees given right to remain here get the same miserly universal credit payments as anyone else. Generally they can only afford to live in London if they are able to find an agreeable landlord who will rent at below market rates.
The level of ignorance on this board is once again extraordinary, especially for a group of people who take excessive pride in their supposed intelligence and rationality!
By the time overheads from incompetent procurement come in…

See the rates that have been paid for block booking hotels.

Nah, it's transparently nonsense.

Nigelb · 8:06AM

.

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.
It's potentially something more than that.
...The UKSF official who inadvertently leaked the data was assisting with the verification of a small number of applications from Afghan special forces when the accidental breach occurred.
The official was in possession of the full dataset because UKSF – the umbrella group containing the SAS and SBS – was given a secret veto over Arap applications from former members of Afghan special forces.
The BBC revealed last year that UKSF had used that veto to block hundreds of Afghan commandos who had fought alongside the SAS and SBS from relocating to the UK.
Documents obtained by Panorama showed special forces had rejected applications despite some containing compelling evidence of service alongside the SAS on dangerous night raid operations.
The personal information of many of those Afghan special forces were included in the massive data breach revealed this week...

I go for cockup rather than conspiracy every time, but this requires further explanation.
The SAS and SBS may have had very good reasons for seeking to veto some of the Afghan SF troops...

Absolutely.
They may also have some very bad reasons, in the light of recent reporting.

All quite possibly coincidence and cockup, which is still the more likely explanation.
But this whole thing smells bad enough that I'm no longer happy to take that on trust.

another_richard · 8:06AM

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.
It's potentially something more than that.
...The UKSF official who inadvertently leaked the data was assisting with the verification of a small number of applications from Afghan special forces when the accidental breach occurred.
The official was in possession of the full dataset because UKSF – the umbrella group containing the SAS and SBS – was given a secret veto over Arap applications from former members of Afghan special forces.
The BBC revealed last year that UKSF had used that veto to block hundreds of Afghan commandos who had fought alongside the SAS and SBS from relocating to the UK.
Documents obtained by Panorama showed special forces had rejected applications despite some containing compelling evidence of service alongside the SAS on dangerous night raid operations.
The personal information of many of those Afghan special forces were included in the massive data breach revealed this week...

I go for cockup rather than conspiracy every time, but this requires further explanation.
The SAS and SBS may have had very good reasons for seeking to veto some of the Afghan SF troops, namely that they had seen themselves that these people were psychopaths and dangerous to the UK population, particularly the female population. If we had then decided we had to take them anyway, despite that perceived risk, because of the leak that would indeed raise other questions. But we are still talking about dozens rather than thousands in that category and millions rather than billions. The billions relate, for the most part, to the Parliamentary approved schemes that were in place and publicly known about.

Has anyone added up how many of these 'special forces' Afghanistan had ?

Because there seems to have been endless thousands of them.

What they were 'special' at is also a mystery.

Because it certainly wasn't at fighting the Taliban.

So perhaps they were 'special' at cowardice or corruption or in the traditional Afghan activity of robbing and raping different ethnic or geographical demographics.

DavidL · 8:07AM

algarkirk said:

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.
Two questions about super injunctions for the panel:

Has the Supreme Court visited the issue of their propriety, and what did they say?

How can an injunction be effective as regards anyone who doesn't and can't know it exists?

Not really my area but I think the leading case remains JIH-v-News Group , a decision by the Court of Appeal in 2011 which upheld such an order and set the criteria for a super injunction: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff6f860d03e7f57ea4e85

My understanding is that the media are given notice of the existence of the order so that they cannot write about the story but they are also not allowed to write about or mention the existence of the order.

OnlyLivingBoy · 8:09AM

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here.
I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them

It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want

They don’t sound plausible

How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?
My point is more: people are choosing whatever numbers they like to fit their agenda. Then claiming some superiority in their method

Perhaps I am the same. But all I’ve done is take the number used in court which is near to the source material as we can get

What we need is some serious parliamentary scrutiny. Those who blithely think this story has gone away because “it’s not on most read list at express.co.uk” are fucking delusional

This is not Watergate. This is more like a bank run. Very very dangerous. It may indeed fizzle out with minor reputational damage to one or two corporations. Or it may be a grave systemic risk

I'm not choosing a number to fit my agenda. I am giving you a number that I actually know, because I am actually involved in refugee resettlement.

ydoethur · 8:10AM

DavidL said:

algarkirk said:

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.
Two questions about super injunctions for the panel:

Has the Supreme Court visited the issue of their propriety, and what did they say?

How can an injunction be effective as regards anyone who doesn't and can't know it exists?
Not really my area but I think the leading case remains JIH-v-News Group , a decision by the Court of Appeal in 2011 which upheld such an order and set the criteria for a super injunction: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff6f860d03e7f57ea4e85

My understanding is that the media are given notice of the existence of the order so that they cannot write about the story but they are also not allowed to write about or mention the existence of the order.

'A super injunction is a very expensive way of making sure an embarrassing story is plastered all over every newspaper's front page.'

Jeremy Clarkson.

another_richard · 8:12AM

Foss said:

another_richard said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate rose to 4.7%, its highest in four years, though the ONS has said the figure needs to be treated with caution due to problems with how the data is collected.
Scores on the doors for this month:

Unemployment
2010 7.9%
2024 4.4%
2025 4.7%

Inflation
2010 3.2%
2024 2.0%
2025 3.6%

Pay rises
2010 1.3%
2024 5.8%
2025 5.0%
What made you choose 2010 as the earliest value?

TBH, the charts are probably more informative.

Because in 2010, as in 2024, we had a change of government.

And many have forgotten what state the economy was in at that time.

Taz · 8:13AM

Well done Rachel pt 94

JLR to cut up to 500 posts

https://www.itv.com/news/central/2025-07-17/jaguar-land-rover-to-cut-up-to-500-uk-jobs

Leon · 8:13AM

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here.
I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them

It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want

They don’t sound plausible

How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?
My point is more: people are choosing whatever numbers they like to fit their agenda. Then claiming some superiority in their method

Perhaps I am the same. But all I’ve done is take the number used in court which is near to the source material as we can get

What we need is some serious parliamentary scrutiny. Those who blithely think this story has gone away because “it’s not on most read list at express.co.uk” are fucking delusional

This is not Watergate. This is more like a bank run. Very very dangerous. It may indeed fizzle out with minor reputational damage to one or two corporations. Or it may be a grave systemic risk
I'm not choosing a number to fit my agenda. I am giving you a number that I actually know, because I am actually involved in refugee resettlement.

wtf and who cares. There may well be special circumstances for these people. Extra security. Extra medical issues. I don’t frigging know and neither do you

Once again - none of us knows much because the whole thing is disgracefully shrouded in appalling deception and secrecy. Did the government inform the treasury? The bond markets? Anyone? That they were intending to spend £7bn? Or have spent it? Or what?

This depressing fiasco gets crazier the closer you look. A lot of people on here really don’t want to look

eek · 8:13AM

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

algarkirk said:

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.
Two questions about super injunctions for the panel:

Has the Supreme Court visited the issue of their propriety, and what did they say?

How can an injunction be effective as regards anyone who doesn't and can't know it exists?
Not really my area but I think the leading case remains JIH-v-News Group , a decision by the Court of Appeal in 2011 which upheld such an order and set the criteria for a super injunction: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff6f860d03e7f57ea4e85

My understanding is that the media are given notice of the existence of the order so that they cannot write about the story but they are also not allowed to write about or mention the existence of the order.
'A super injunction is a very expensive way of making sure an embarrassing story is plastered all over every newspaper's front page.'

Jeremy Clarkson.

Is eventually plastered all over every front page

And as with tax, there may be a whole set of benefits in delaying the news for x months while you get your ducks in a line

MaxPB · 8:15AM

Inflation up and unemployment up. Well done, Rachel. Quite the achievement.

Big_G_NorthWales · 8:15AM

Taz said:
Well done Rachel pt 94

JLR to cut up to 500 posts

https://www.itv.com/news/central/2025-07-17/jaguar-land-rover-to-cut-up-to-500-uk-jobs

But we have the US trade deal haven't we !!!!!!!

tlg86 · 8:15AM

eek said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

algarkirk said:

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.
Two questions about super injunctions for the panel:

Has the Supreme Court visited the issue of their propriety, and what did they say?

How can an injunction be effective as regards anyone who doesn't and can't know it exists?
Not really my area but I think the leading case remains JIH-v-News Group , a decision by the Court of Appeal in 2011 which upheld such an order and set the criteria for a super injunction: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff6f860d03e7f57ea4e85

My understanding is that the media are given notice of the existence of the order so that they cannot write about the story but they are also not allowed to write about or mention the existence of the order.
'A super injunction is a very expensive way of making sure an embarrassing story is plastered all over every newspaper's front page.'

Jeremy Clarkson.
Is eventually plastered all over every front page

And as with tax, there may be a whole set of benefits in delaying the news for x months while you get your ducks in a line

It would have changed my vote at the election.

Leon · 8:16AM

How does anyone here know that there are not further super injunctions related to this issue? Or indeed any issue?

It’s a catastrophic explosion of public trust in our democracy. This is why it’s like a bank run

When you can’t trust the bank, you run to get your cash and you never use that bank - or maybe any bank - ever again

DavidL · 8:16AM

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.
It's potentially something more than that.
...The UKSF official who inadvertently leaked the data was assisting with the verification of a small number of applications from Afghan special forces when the accidental breach occurred.
The official was in possession of the full dataset because UKSF – the umbrella group containing the SAS and SBS – was given a secret veto over Arap applications from former members of Afghan special forces.
The BBC revealed last year that UKSF had used that veto to block hundreds of Afghan commandos who had fought alongside the SAS and SBS from relocating to the UK.
Documents obtained by Panorama showed special forces had rejected applications despite some containing compelling evidence of service alongside the SAS on dangerous night raid operations.
The personal information of many of those Afghan special forces were included in the massive data breach revealed this week...

I go for cockup rather than conspiracy every time, but this requires further explanation.
The SAS and SBS may have had very good reasons for seeking to veto some of the Afghan SF troops, namely that they had seen themselves that these people were psychopaths and dangerous to the UK population, particularly the female population. If we had then decided we had to take them anyway, despite that perceived risk, because of the leak that would indeed raise other questions. But we are still talking about dozens rather than thousands in that category and millions rather than billions. The billions relate, for the most part, to the Parliamentary approved schemes that were in place and publicly known about.
Has anyone added up how many of these 'special forces' Afghanistan had ?

Because there seems to have been endless thousands of them.

What they were 'special' at is also a mystery.

Because it certainly wasn't at fighting the Taliban.

So perhaps they were 'special' at cowardice or corruption or in the traditional Afghan activity of robbing and raping different ethnic or geographical demographics.

I think I heard yesterday that the UK had something like 190K soldiers who served in Afghanistan, something more than 2x the entire size of the British army. This shows that the war went on over a very extended period of time and many generations of forces, special or not, will have been involved.

Taz · 8:16AM

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:
Well done Rachel pt 94

JLR to cut up to 500 posts

https://www.itv.com/news/central/2025-07-17/jaguar-land-rover-to-cut-up-to-500-uk-jobs
But we have the US trade deal haven't we !!!!!!!

We do indeed. Negotiated by the man who pays full price for a Carpetright carpet.

Taz · 8:17AM

MaxPB said:
Inflation up and unemployment up. Well done, Rachel. Quite the achievement.

Growth down too. Stagflation here we are

rottenborough · 8:17AM

Have Leon and Allister Heath every been seen in the same room together?

"This incendiary saga weaves together every debacle, every infamy of the past 20 years – our failed adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan, the massive increase in immigration and often insufficient integration, the grooming gang monstrosity, the rise of technocratic, anti-democratic governance dressed up as “human rights”, the war against free speech, the lockdown power grab, the welfare dependency culture, the ruinous economic and financial mismanagement – into one meta-indictment of our ghastly ruling class, of the useless Tory-Labour uniparty, of our failed state."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/16/british-public-never-forgive-elites-for-afghanistan-leak

Mexicanpete · 8:20AM

...

Taz said:
Well done Rachel pt 94

JLR to cut up to 500 posts

https://www.itv.com/news/central/2025-07-17/jaguar-land-rover-to-cut-up-to-500-uk-jobs

Whereas Reeves is no doubt a suboptimal Chancellor did you read the report beyond the headline?

Trump's tariffs are noted. It has also been widely reported that Jaguar is not marketing new vehicles for at least a year. Jaguars are/ were made in Castle Bromwich.

By all means call this Government out, but don't make a story fit your frame for the sake of it.

DavidL · 8:21AM

Leon said:
How does anyone here know that there are not further super injunctions related to this issue? Or indeed any issue?

It’s a catastrophic explosion of public trust in our democracy. This is why it’s like a bank run

When you can’t trust the bank, you run to get your cash and you never use that bank - or maybe any bank - ever again

One of my favourite stories about FDR was the Fireside chat that he did explaining how banking worked to the American people. The next day there were vast queues of people bringing their money back to the banks. He was genuinely special.
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-12-1933-fireside-chat-1-banking-crisis

Foxy · 8:21AM

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.
It's potentially something more than that.
...The UKSF official who inadvertently leaked the data was assisting with the verification of a small number of applications from Afghan special forces when the accidental breach occurred.
The official was in possession of the full dataset because UKSF – the umbrella group containing the SAS and SBS – was given a secret veto over Arap applications from former members of Afghan special forces.
The BBC revealed last year that UKSF had used that veto to block hundreds of Afghan commandos who had fought alongside the SAS and SBS from relocating to the UK.
Documents obtained by Panorama showed special forces had rejected applications despite some containing compelling evidence of service alongside the SAS on dangerous night raid operations.
The personal information of many of those Afghan special forces were included in the massive data breach revealed this week...

I go for cockup rather than conspiracy every time, but this requires further explanation.
The SAS and SBS may have had very good reasons for seeking to veto some of the Afghan SF troops, namely that they had seen themselves that these people were psychopaths and dangerous to the UK population, particularly the female population. If we had then decided we had to take them anyway, despite that perceived risk, because of the leak that would indeed raise other questions. But we are still talking about dozens rather than thousands in that category and millions rather than billions. The billions relate, for the most part, to the Parliamentary approved schemes that were in place and publicly known about.
Has anyone added up how many of these 'special forces' Afghanistan had ?

Because there seems to have been endless thousands of them.

What they were 'special' at is also a mystery.

Because it certainly wasn't at fighting the Taliban.

So perhaps they were 'special' at cowardice or corruption or in the traditional Afghan activity of robbing and raping different ethnic or geographical demographics.

A bit like ARVN troops fleeing Saigon in 1975 I expect that they were a mixture of reluctant conscripts, sleeper agents and the brave and fearless.

My cousin who did a couple of tours of Afghanistan said that one of the most difficult things with the Afghan soldiers he fought with was holding them back. Brave to the point of recklessness, with little fire discipline and rather over eager to get stuck in.

Selebian · 8:22AM

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:
The Jenrick story is a bit of my confusion on this. The government had an announced public policy of helping Afghans who had worked with our forces and made it clear that they would be granted asylum. None of this was secret, quite the contrary and it had broad public support.

So, the secrecy really related specifically to the leaking of the data of those who had applied and an additional scheme ARAP that was put in place to help those thought to be at risk from that leak. It seemed to me yesterday that that part of the story was getting completely mixed up with the other schemes covering broadly the same people which were already in force (@Foxy in fairness was making this point).

The reality is that this is a somewhat smaller story than it first appeared even if the super injunction aspect of it needs more attention.
It's potentially something more than that.
...The UKSF official who inadvertently leaked the data was assisting with the verification of a small number of applications from Afghan special forces when the accidental breach occurred.
The official was in possession of the full dataset because UKSF – the umbrella group containing the SAS and SBS – was given a secret veto over Arap applications from former members of Afghan special forces.
The BBC revealed last year that UKSF had used that veto to block hundreds of Afghan commandos who had fought alongside the SAS and SBS from relocating to the UK.
Documents obtained by Panorama showed special forces had rejected applications despite some containing compelling evidence of service alongside the SAS on dangerous night raid operations.
The personal information of many of those Afghan special forces were included in the massive data breach revealed this week...

I go for cockup rather than conspiracy every time, but this requires further explanation.
The SAS and SBS may have had very good reasons for seeking to veto some of the Afghan SF troops, namely that they had seen themselves that these people were psychopaths and dangerous to the UK population, particularly the female population. If we had then decided we had to take them anyway, despite that perceived risk, because of the leak that would indeed raise other questions. But we are still talking about dozens rather than thousands in that category and millions rather than billions. The billions relate, for the most part, to the Parliamentary approved schemes that were in place and publicly known about.
Hmm.

'SAS had golden pass to get away with murder, inquiry told'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07g40x1v53o

I initially read David's comment to mean that the Afghan SF troops have seen themselves that the UK SF were psychopaths and there was therefore a risk they might mention this on arrival!

OnlyLivingBoy · 8:22AM

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here.
I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them

It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want

They don’t sound plausible

How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?
My point is more: people are choosing whatever numbers they like to fit their agenda. Then claiming some superiority in their method

Perhaps I am the same. But all I’ve done is take the number used in court which is near to the source material as we can get

What we need is some serious parliamentary scrutiny. Those who blithely think this story has gone away because “it’s not on most read list at express.co.uk” are fucking delusional

This is not Watergate. This is more like a bank run. Very very dangerous. It may indeed fizzle out with minor reputational damage to one or two corporations. Or it may be a grave systemic risk
I'm not choosing a number to fit my agenda. I am giving you a number that I actually know, because I am actually involved in refugee resettlement.
wtf and who cares. There may well be special circumstances for these people. Extra security. Extra medical issues. I don’t frigging know and neither do you

Once again - none of us knows much because the whole thing is disgracefully shrouded in appalling deception and secrecy. Did the government inform the treasury? The bond markets? Anyone? That they were intending to spend £7bn? Or have spent it? Or what?

This depressing fiasco gets crazier the closer you look. A lot of people on here really don’t want to look

It's a useful reminder of how innumerate some people are.

Sean_F · 8:23AM

rottenborough said:
Have Leon and Allister Heath every been seen in the same room together?

"This incendiary saga weaves together every debacle, every infamy of the past 20 years – our failed adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan, the massive increase in immigration and often insufficient integration, the grooming gang monstrosity, the rise of technocratic, anti-democratic governance dressed up as “human rights”, the war against free speech, the lockdown power grab, the welfare dependency culture, the ruinous economic and financial mismanagement – into one meta-indictment of our ghastly ruling class, of the useless Tory-Labour uniparty, of our failed state."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/16/british-public-never-forgive-elites-for-afghanistan-leak

The problem being that our ruling class is indeed, ghastly, as @Cyclefree points out so often.

Big_G_NorthWales · 8:24AM

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here.
I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them

It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want

They don’t sound plausible

How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?
My point is more: people are choosing whatever numbers they like to fit their agenda. Then claiming some superiority in their method

Perhaps I am the same. But all I’ve done is take the number used in court which is near to the source material as we can get

What we need is some serious parliamentary scrutiny. Those who blithely think this story has gone away because “it’s not on most read list at express.co.uk” are fucking delusional

This is not Watergate. This is more like a bank run. Very very dangerous. It may indeed fizzle out with minor reputational damage to one or two corporations. Or it may be a grave systemic risk
I'm not choosing a number to fit my agenda. I am giving you a number that I actually know, because I am actually involved in refugee resettlement.
wtf and who cares. There may well be special circumstances for these people. Extra security. Extra medical issues. I don’t frigging know and neither do you

Once again - none of us knows much because the whole thing is disgracefully shrouded in appalling deception and secrecy. Did the government inform the treasury? The bond markets? Anyone? That they were intending to spend £7bn? Or have spent it? Or what?

This depressing fiasco gets crazier the closer you look. A lot of people on here really don’t want to look

John Healey at the dispatch box stated it had cost at least £800 million

I assume he has the figures to quote it in the HOC

Leon · 8:24AM

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here.
I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them

It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want

They don’t sound plausible

How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?
My point is more: people are choosing whatever numbers they like to fit their agenda. Then claiming some superiority in their method

Perhaps I am the same. But all I’ve done is take the number used in court which is near to the source material as we can get

What we need is some serious parliamentary scrutiny. Those who blithely think this story has gone away because “it’s not on most read list at express.co.uk” are fucking delusional

This is not Watergate. This is more like a bank run. Very very dangerous. It may indeed fizzle out with minor reputational damage to one or two corporations. Or it may be a grave systemic risk
I'm not choosing a number to fit my agenda. I am giving you a number that I actually know, because I am actually involved in refugee resettlement.
wtf and who cares. There may well be special circumstances for these people. Extra security. Extra medical issues. I don’t frigging know and neither do you

Once again - none of us knows much because the whole thing is disgracefully shrouded in appalling deception and secrecy. Did the government inform the treasury? The bond markets? Anyone? That they were intending to spend £7bn? Or have spent it? Or what?

This depressing fiasco gets crazier the closer you look. A lot of people on here really don’t want to look
It's a useful reminder of how innumerate some people are.

If you mean our MPs, the government and in particular Rachel “Tiny Tears” Reeves, then yes

another_richard · 8:24AM

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

another_richard said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.

It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.

But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.

One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.

Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here.
I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them

It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want

They don’t sound plausible

How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?
My point is more: people are choosing whatever numbers they like to fit their agenda. Then claiming some superiority in their method

Perhaps I am the same. But all I’ve done is take the number used in court which is near to the source material as we can get

What we need is some serious parliamentary scrutiny. Those who blithely think this story has gone away because “it’s not on most read list at express.co.uk” are fucking delusional

This is not Watergate. This is more like a bank run. Very very dangerous. It may indeed fizzle out with minor reputational damage to one or two corporations. Or it may be a grave systemic risk
I'm not choosing a number to fit my agenda. I am giving you a number that I actually know, because I am actually involved in refugee resettlement.

These Afghans weren't refugees though.

It was a special settlement program which the government wanted to keep secret.

There may well have been, in fact almost certainly was, plenty of money changing hands to incentivise people keeping quiet.

Similarly these Afghans might have been placed in non-standard ie affluent/expensive areas to encourage them to keep quiet and also keep them away from the 'refugee industry'.

HYUFD · 8:24AM

The ex Tory Reform councillor may be embarrassed by having to back Farage's new send the Afghans back to the Taliban policy having previously welcomed them.

Jenrick however is and remains a Conservative MP so clearly is still proud of welcoming those Afghans who were given refugee status to protect them from the Taliban after having helped western forces

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

This is why Reform should avoid former elected Tories – politicalbetting.com

Comments