Thread by @StarkNakedBrief

Some call it Britain’s "Watergate".

Others say it's an exaggeration.

What we do know: the UK government secretly ushered in thousands of foreigners—into hotels and military bases—after a devastating MoD leak.

The most scandalous details...

Thread 🧵

To recap, in 2022, a Ministry of Defence (MoD) official accidentally leaked data identifying Afghan asylum applicants.

Everybody freaked, worried hostile actors would get wind. In response, the government and courts effectively suspended democracy for nearly 2 years.

Now, the government’s successful suppression of the leak—and its far-reaching fallout—would not have been possible without the cooperation of the judiciary.

After the Conservative-led MoD reportedly learned of the leak on 14 August 2023—and moved to secure an injunction days later—High Court judge Justice Robin Knowles did something rather curious.

As the Financial Times put it, Knowles “took the exceptional further step of issuing a super-injunction”.

In short, it seems it was the judiciary that was initially responsible for the unprecedented censorship order—not former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace or Sir Grant Shapps (though they didn't exactly oppose it).

Knowles noted his decision would infringe on freedom of expression and of the press, but maintained the restriction was “justified in the particular and exceptional circumstances of this case,” citing risks to life and of torture.

Based on a subjective interpretation of the risks posed by the leak, a single judge subverted the most fundamental tenets of any democracy: freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Even the judge, Justice Martin Chamberlain, who subsequently took over the case in November 2023, ruled in favour of maintaining restrictions—twice—before eventually lifting it in May.

At the time, he acknowledged the super-injunction would give rise to the “understandable suspicion that the court’s processes are being used for the purposes of censorship”.

That’s because they were. Although some may argue, at least initially, the government and courts were justified in suppressing news of the leak—if the Taliban had indeed not obtained the data.

The thing is, there was evidence suggesting they already had it from the get-go.

Just days after the MoD were notified of the leak, an activist assisting Afghan applicants informed them that Taliban intelligence had made a threatening phone call to one of the applicants—using a number that had only ever been shared in their asylum application.

Applicants also reported being contacted on WhatsApp by Iranian numbers, asking them to submit scans of their passports.

But then more information emerged...

Now that the super-injunction has been lifted, The Telegraph has finally been able to report that Taliban sources claimed to have obtained the spreadsheet in 2022—more than a year before the MoD claimed to have learnt of the breach.

We also know the Taliban is reported to have murdered over 200 former Afghan soldiers and police since the leak.

Even current Defence Secretary John Healey admitted last Wednesday that he was “unable to say for sure” whether anyone had been killed as a result of it.

In short, the government may not have been forthcoming with the court, and/or the court failed to appropriately consider the available evidence suggesting the Taliban already possessed the dataset.

How can the media know but our intel agencies?

It’s an important point because if the Taliban already had the list, then the government and judiciary’s justification for the censorship order collapses. Its only arguable benefit was political preservation.

Despite this, in an op-ed for The Telegraph last week, then-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace insisted there was “still to this day is, no evidence that any of the data found its way to the Taliban.”

No evidence? Hmm...

Labour has wasted no time in playing the blame game.

The party has posted several videos on social media accusing the Conservatives of orchestrating the cover-up—while crediting themselves for lifting the super-injunction.

The truth is less straightforward...

Yes, the Conservatives repeatedly renewed the super-injunction, even after Judge Chamberlain contested its necessity.

They also launched the secret resettlement route with the Home Office in Dec 2023 (some claim it wasn’t set up until Apr 2024 but reports contradict this).

But once Labour took over, they not only kept the exact same system in place—they expanded it.

Since the July 2024 General Election, Labour reportedly applied to maintain the super-injunction 8 times. In fact, restrictions remained in place for another whole year.

Then, in Oct 2024, a Cabinet sub-committee chaired by Pat McFadden—joined by senior Labour figures including Angela Rayner, Rachel Reeves, John Healey, Yvette Cooper, and Shabana Mahmood—expanded the resettlement schemes.

The decision came at staggering cost to the taxpayer.

A £7 billion hole (est cost of the resettlement schemes) quietly ripped into the public finances. At the same time, they raised taxes, moaned about "black holes", and kept the gag on journalists and MPs.

Bottom line: both parties and governments are culpable.

Full breakdown... It's a long piece but documents the smaller but arguably more scandalous cover-ups and the key players involved:

news.starknakedbrief.co.uk/p/britains-wat…