Came from X and saw hideous responses over there. Just wanted to say thank you Lewis for you and your colleagues as these kind of stories are fundamental to accountability and without your (and others’) persistence, we may be non the wiser
So - what seems to have happened is that a new government came in, this matter came to the top of the pile for the new minister, he went "hold on a minute", commissioned a review, which decided the super injunction was nonsense, and so it got lifted. Is that it in a nutshell?
Yes, I just made the same comment because Lewis appeared to say that lab was guilty for maintaining the injunction. If in fact, they commission a report and as soon as the report was out, they handed it to the judge then I don’t see that they have any blame to bear, but in all of this copious journalism, both spoken and written, this hasn’t been clarified. And there seems to be a little bit of both-sidesing happening. I don’t mind blaming Labour if it’s lab’s fault but I don’t see that they should be blamed if they did a review and then following the review, the injunction was lifted, do you?
What should be a concern is that at the nub of the injunction is thoroughly inept, dishonest govt intent on covering up another consequence of their chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, coincidentally while Dominic Raab, the minister responible, was busy at the seaside in Greece where "the sea was closed"
The decision to seek an injuction can only be interpreted as being politically motivated & a result of the mess it created for itself and rather than try to fix it, cover it up until it's a problem for someone else
As you said 'So many times I sat in court 27 and wondered- what else don’t we know? Might there be other courts like this, in other cases?' My trust in government is at an all-time low. Thank you for constantly asking these questions 🙏
It seems that the underlying data breach and its potential consequences for individuals in Afghanistan became less important than perceived reputational risks to the administration and individual politicians of the day.
I’d like to know more about the high level intervention that the current SoS for Defence has referred to. Was it a ministerial direction?
I have long supported a charity in Kabal, and was on Twitter following the events and the impact on this charity during the withdrawal of the NATO troops. I saw Tweets from Government officials, some very high up, posted and quickly deleted. I didn’t know the facts, just sensed something impacting these people in sometimes devastating ways was happening that would have long repercussions. Reading your piece today joins so many dots. Thank you!
In the USA they have closed sessions of Congressional committees where elected Reps & Senators question people like the CIA chief or Homeland Secretary.
There should be a Commons select or joint Committee of the Commons & Lords that hears things like this in closed session so the Executive can be held to account.
My trust in government is improved by all this. Impressed that the State managed to get so many people out of danger while maintaining necessary secrecy!
But there are many many people that they didn’t save, and the publishing of the list has put them at greater danger, and the current government has simply closed the deal on future candidates.
Good, professional journalists who can and will hold power to account have never been more important and needed. A sincere and heartfelt thank you to you and all like you who do this for us.
I’m listening to the bonus episode now but I don’t agree that you want someone to lose their job because of a mistake. I feel the same about the Glastonbury mistake. If there is a malicious leak etc then of course someone should be fired but I don’t think the time you’ve spent grilling John Healey on this one issue is unhelpful. It is like calling for a witch-hunt or even a public execution. It makes me deeply uncomfortable. Of course the individual(s) should face disciplinary action which I assume has happened. Privacy and maybe employment law should be respected as to the details.
Suppose (1) that the review report had been based on recently acquired information which had not been available at the time of the original decision, and (2) that the original decision had been properly justified by the information which was available at that time. On that assumption who should and could properly have made that decision, given the consequences which might have flowed from it having been made in an open context? It could hardly have been made in circumstances subject to parliamentary or press scrutiny without risking the harm which it was intended to avoid.
Congrats on the scoop, Lewis — great reporting as usual and an excellent post.
I’m sure there has been some PR shenanigans involved. The previous government’s illegal proroguing of Parliament leaves us in no doubt about their contempt for honour, convention, parliamentary process, and the electorate — especially when these get in the way of a favourable soundbite.
Speaking personally, however, my life is no better for knowing about this sordid incident. Nor is it a revelation that ministers have been manipulating process for political gain, sad though that is.
While I'm ashamed about the UK’s involvement in the Afghanistan war, its shoddy exit, and this leak, I’m glad that some people at least tried to keep a lid on it, pay for the damage, and protect those who helped us — perhaps from death or a fate worse than death. Drawing more attention to it was never going to help them.
At some point, we must trust our elected officials and security services. I hope there are many other security matters kept secret for the public good, and that our elected members have the integrity to act in good faith.
It’s true we need to know if our parliamentary overlords are putting their own interests first — but we didn’t need this leak to know that they were not. I doubt this changes anyone’s view of this government or the last.
Just my opinion, of course — in general, openness and a free press are critical to our democracy.
Came from X and saw hideous responses over there. Just wanted to say thank you Lewis for you and your colleagues as these kind of stories are fundamental to accountability and without your (and others’) persistence, we may be non the wiser
So - what seems to have happened is that a new government came in, this matter came to the top of the pile for the new minister, he went "hold on a minute", commissioned a review, which decided the super injunction was nonsense, and so it got lifted. Is that it in a nutshell?
Yes, I just made the same comment because Lewis appeared to say that lab was guilty for maintaining the injunction. If in fact, they commission a report and as soon as the report was out, they handed it to the judge then I don’t see that they have any blame to bear, but in all of this copious journalism, both spoken and written, this hasn’t been clarified. And there seems to be a little bit of both-sidesing happening. I don’t mind blaming Labour if it’s lab’s fault but I don’t see that they should be blamed if they did a review and then following the review, the injunction was lifted, do you?
https://substack.com/@ethanthomass/note/c-135646849?r=61wtuq&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
What needs to happen going forward
yeah nah
What should be a concern is that at the nub of the injunction is thoroughly inept, dishonest govt intent on covering up another consequence of their chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, coincidentally while Dominic Raab, the minister responible, was busy at the seaside in Greece where "the sea was closed"
The decision to seek an injuction can only be interpreted as being politically motivated & a result of the mess it created for itself and rather than try to fix it, cover it up until it's a problem for someone else
As you said 'So many times I sat in court 27 and wondered- what else don’t we know? Might there be other courts like this, in other cases?' My trust in government is at an all-time low. Thank you for constantly asking these questions 🙏
It seems that the underlying data breach and its potential consequences for individuals in Afghanistan became less important than perceived reputational risks to the administration and individual politicians of the day.
I’d like to know more about the high level intervention that the current SoS for Defence has referred to. Was it a ministerial direction?
Excellent reporting
No wonder Sunak couldn’t wait to call an election and get the hell out….utterly shameful
he should’ve gone to USA while he had the chance
I have long supported a charity in Kabal, and was on Twitter following the events and the impact on this charity during the withdrawal of the NATO troops. I saw Tweets from Government officials, some very high up, posted and quickly deleted. I didn’t know the facts, just sensed something impacting these people in sometimes devastating ways was happening that would have long repercussions. Reading your piece today joins so many dots. Thank you!
In the USA they have closed sessions of Congressional committees where elected Reps & Senators question people like the CIA chief or Homeland Secretary.
There should be a Commons select or joint Committee of the Commons & Lords that hears things like this in closed session so the Executive can be held to account.
My trust in government is improved by all this. Impressed that the State managed to get so many people out of danger while maintaining necessary secrecy!
But there are many many people that they didn’t save, and the publishing of the list has put them at greater danger, and the current government has simply closed the deal on future candidates.
Good, professional journalists who can and will hold power to account have never been more important and needed. A sincere and heartfelt thank you to you and all like you who do this for us.
I’m listening to the bonus episode now but I don’t agree that you want someone to lose their job because of a mistake. I feel the same about the Glastonbury mistake. If there is a malicious leak etc then of course someone should be fired but I don’t think the time you’ve spent grilling John Healey on this one issue is unhelpful. It is like calling for a witch-hunt or even a public execution. It makes me deeply uncomfortable. Of course the individual(s) should face disciplinary action which I assume has happened. Privacy and maybe employment law should be respected as to the details.
Quality journalism Lewis - very well done. And important too, especially that question about who guards the guardians.
Suppose (1) that the review report had been based on recently acquired information which had not been available at the time of the original decision, and (2) that the original decision had been properly justified by the information which was available at that time. On that assumption who should and could properly have made that decision, given the consequences which might have flowed from it having been made in an open context? It could hardly have been made in circumstances subject to parliamentary or press scrutiny without risking the harm which it was intended to avoid.
Great reporting Lewis Goodall
Perhaps it’s all connected to the war crimes situation some British military have been accused of in recent Times.
Have a look at today’s observer. It seems that’s a possibility although there aren’t many details yet.
Congrats on the scoop, Lewis — great reporting as usual and an excellent post.
I’m sure there has been some PR shenanigans involved. The previous government’s illegal proroguing of Parliament leaves us in no doubt about their contempt for honour, convention, parliamentary process, and the electorate — especially when these get in the way of a favourable soundbite.
Speaking personally, however, my life is no better for knowing about this sordid incident. Nor is it a revelation that ministers have been manipulating process for political gain, sad though that is.
While I'm ashamed about the UK’s involvement in the Afghanistan war, its shoddy exit, and this leak, I’m glad that some people at least tried to keep a lid on it, pay for the damage, and protect those who helped us — perhaps from death or a fate worse than death. Drawing more attention to it was never going to help them.
At some point, we must trust our elected officials and security services. I hope there are many other security matters kept secret for the public good, and that our elected members have the integrity to act in good faith.
It’s true we need to know if our parliamentary overlords are putting their own interests first — but we didn’t need this leak to know that they were not. I doubt this changes anyone’s view of this government or the last.
Just my opinion, of course — in general, openness and a free press are critical to our democracy.