There is a lot of deflection taking place by politicians this morning, suggesting that the court kept the superinjunction in place and that had to be overcome. That's not true or not complete- the government kept it in place by repeatedly applying for its renewal.
What done me was the original judge suggested the super injunction. Govt: Can we kick him sir? Judge: Have you considered stamping on his face? open.spotify.com/episode/4Z0V...
Is there any reason why you don’t name which government it was Lewis? It was the previous Conservative government’s decision and choice to do this. The Labour govt has resolved it.
Perhaps Lewis it would be helpful if you mentioned it was the previous Tory Government. Just a thought.
You really should be clear 'which' government. Labour are predictably taking the flac over your (excellent) report. Is that fair?
John Lewis liked Gospel Music and was a fan of Aretha Franklin. He stated " If it hadn't been for music, oh, the Civil Rights Movement would have been like a bird without wings." Get in Good Trouble on July 17th! youtu.be/k7iQ5kinBb8?...
Why don't people read it and then make up their minds. www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/u...
Which government?
The Conservatives, unsurprisingly.
I don't carry a torch for any party, but Healey couldn't have known about the super before he got the job; he may not have been told about it straightaway; he then needed to review it before making a decision; he's had a war to handle. Shall we wait for answers before stringing him up?
I've seen that Healey was briefed on the leak while he was in opposition. Other Labour cabinet members only learned of it when Labour came into power last year. I may be wrong but this suggests Healey would have known of the superinjunction as he was the only one in opposition to know of the leak?
I didn't see that. Surprises me a bit, tbh, but it would be good to know who knew what and when.
Could it be the Healey couldn't investigate until Labour in power & then a proper report was needed to clarify if the super injunction could be removed? Imagine if the super-injunction had been removed without scrutiny & lives had been lost. MSM would be all over Labour for not assessing risk.
Problem with that argument is that Healey didn't ask for a review until January this year. A superinjunction is really not typical, so you'd imagine Healey would want to get answers on why it was issued. Instead he just left it. I get what you mean though.
Fair point, however there were a lot of more important issues like Ukraine,USA/NATO, Houti attacks etc. I don't think the public realise how much any Government & civil service are responsible for. It all takes time to assess, communicate with dept's & react accordingly. No quick fix unfortunately
Yup
I reckon Lewis is more angry about this than anyone else in the country.
He's annoyed because it didn't get more attention in PMQs. 🙄
@lewisgoodall.com he is massively worked up about it. And trying to blame labour, like all the other journalists.
@lewisgoodall.com Lewis you realise people are turning against you for the way you’re trying to apportion blame to labour ?
There did not need to be superinjunction. Wallace/the MOD could have put a DSMA in place (D-Notice in old pre-2015 money) under Category 05 "Personnel and their Families who work in Sensitive Positions". 05: Personnel and their Families who work in Sensitive Positions The Afghans were personnel.
I really enjoyed your exposé on The Newsagents. Maybe "enjoyed" not the right word, I was genuinely astounded. Thought you were a bit combative with John Healey but understand why. I note: no mention of Global on the BBC reporting of this !
Yes, I think you’re absolutely right and it’s frustrating that Lewis is discounting comments as people not liking criticism of their own side. I can give lab plenty of criticism, but I don’t want to give it to them unjustly.
bsky.app/profile/lewi...
Was there any evidence it would no longer dangerous to lift the injunction before the MOD review? If not, it would have been potentially putting the lives of loads of Afghan allies at risk for all this to have been made public. When it was clear the risk had passed Labour acted to end it. Well done!
Wouldn't part of the cover up be 1. to avoid embarrassment for the Tories & resulting public backlash on their immigration performance during an election year, given the breach’s scale & cost. 2. to delay scrutiny of the £850 million–£7 billion resettlement costs & potential compensation claims.
Whilst they sorted out an unprecedented position .. not like nipping to the dry cleaners Lewis to get a stain removed.. show an iota of the complexity the Tories left for Labour and the extreme danger of getting this decision wrong.. which thankfully Labour hasn’t!
So this whole thing massively endangered thousands of people, cost millions and went beyond the normal rules of what should be done, so what is going to happen to those politicians who were responsible? Let me guess, nothing and they'll get to keep / will still go on to get their various "honours"
An uneducated and uninformed electorate allows this type of gaslighting to continue. It shields the complicit by providing nonexistent "cover."
This is a really important thread on these super injunctions & MOD. Mr Goodall is in a position to speak with authority on these particular injunctions. The injunctions have been discharged so please read & share widely. There needs to be public debate about the appropriateness of such injunctions.
The Tory government that is.
You have to wonder what else they're hiding
Which government??
Cock up under Johnson Imposed under Sunak Reviewed and removed under Starmer
Lewis seems to have conveniently missed this little detail out. BBC Laura style reporting.
Not normally like him.
But not the first either.
Enjoyed your interview with John Healey but I think your focus on no-one being fired was too much. Having dealt with security breach policies before (not MOD) you want people to immediately admit to cock-ups so you can mitigate them effectively. Firing everybody involved has the opposite effect.
That said, if it turns out the leak was because someone did something deliberately stupid (e.g. discussing war plans on Signal when they have been told not to) or covered up an honest mistake with dishonest actions then firing becomes appropriate, for exactly the same reasons.
To be fair, as a new government, you have to be very careful about making public information the previous government had kept secret. Getting a formal review, letting it take time to get detailed information to make a judgement, get the findings, then take action was a sensible course of action.
What benefit would there have been to lifting the super injunction before the review was concluded? That would have been irresponsible. Yes would have allowed scrutiny, however what's the difference between the scrutiny happening now or 6 months ago? I would argue very little. High risk, low reward
Somebody being sensible on social media. A rare thing. 🤝
Govt. using a super injunction to hide from public and Parliamentary scrutiny undermines our democracy and allowing it to continue makes the new govt. complicit. The only question on any issue is now "are elements of this under a super injunction?" and it's illegal to answer In the affirmative...
...it's no longer a question of whether politicians are trustworthy - our government IS now fundamentally untrustworthy as a point of British law and has been for at least two years. This will continue to be the case until there's legislation to ban their use by government and lift existing ones.
Lewis of Reform broke the Tory scandal yesterday. Today Lewis of Reform is trying to pin it as a Labour scandal No one gives a toss this all started in Johnson's government 2019 & Sunak renewed the super injunction in 2024 Irrelevant Lewis of Reform has become.
Did you read another series of skeets or just simply enjoy wielding axes?
Is the Rimmer report available yet? Can't find it in the HoC library...
Indeed in May 2024, the super was discard by Justice Chamberlain, saying it no longer made sense and was likely endangering more people than it was protecting. The government chose to appeal to the Court of Appeals and they won and the super held. They didn't need to do that. It was ministerial.
Who was in power in May 2024 Lewis ? Why are you so desperate to pin the blame on Labour when it was a Tory govt that did this?
Had the result of the inquiry come out at that point? Because if it hadn’t, then maintaining the injunction might be justified and if it had then it isn’t and I would like to know which.
The Radio 4 interview by the ex defence minister was complete BS.
The Tory government
Does it suggest institutional rather than political failings, given how it had endured through both governments?
Trying to get my head around this. The reaction of the Mail etc seems to prove the need for it doesn't it ?
Ministers of all colours had ample opportunity to end this outrageous restriction on parliament's rights and press freedom. The justification they put forward, an evidential basis to risk, has now been rubbished by the MoD's own review.
Safety is more important than your wish to have a story surely?
Before we both sides this, Did Labour just keep it in place while they got to grips with governing or did they renew the injuction ?
'Before we both sides this' Before? That's established now. Just passed a newsstand where the Mail are shouting on the front page about Ministers. Seems Lewis is pushing that too, in this tweet.
@lewisgoodall.com God question. Did Labour actively apply to keep the injunction or just use what was in place? Both unacceptable of course 😔
If they were waiting for the result of a review, then it is sort of justifiable. If they had the result of the review and then they renewed it it’s not, and Lewis hasn’t addressed that point anywhere.
Again politicians have said the super was the court’s decision and Ben Wallace said he didn’t know why it became a super. I can tell him because I was the only journalist in that first hearing when it happened. Yes the govt applied for an injunction and the then judge suggested a super.
I was confused Wallace with that when you made that crystal clear in your reporting but also made clear the government lawyers jumped on it. So yes they didn’t ask for it but loved the idea.
I'm not an expert but it sounds like "fancy an upgrade"?
The government accepted that- they didn’t need to. But more germanely, the govt kept applying for the super to be maintained. At any point they could have dropped the super element and even maintain the injunction. That was discussed in court. They elected not to do so.
Perhaps they were right to do so?
You were very close to the whole issue. Surely it was so sensitive that the protection of the people in the lists was paramount to both governments and superseded making the error public? They are dealing with the Taliban who are not renowned for calm responses!
It is true that by the time Healey comes in and the CoA has ruled the government had to address the basis of their judgment and right to life arguments. That’s clearly what the Rimmer review was for. He deserves credit for finally ending this absurdity.
Too little, too late on that score Lewis, I fear most of the media has already made this all about the civil service and the labour government. bsky.app/profile/paro...
But there are still questions about why it took so long, why he has closed the resettlement schemes at the moment of maximum danger and how it can be that Rimmer can dismiss the entire basis for the superinjunction hitherto. How did the MoD get it so wrong?
Bloody hell, this been going on for 23 months. Labour has been in power for 12 of those months. This could have been resolved in 2024 but it wasn’t. In fact the Labour Government has pretty much been dragged to this release. I wonder what they are still hiding? (I voted Labour as well).
Please keep posing the questions, pointing out the contradictions and even applauding the good decisions. You're in an almost unique position on this one.
Those are justifiable questions, but I’m not sure that I’m holding Lab responsible for this, and I’m surprised that you are. It’s no good saying that people don’t like to hear bad things about their side. If they legitimately have done nothing wrong then they shouldn’t be forced to take the blame.
Thanks for what you have done. Still confused how the injunction could protect the Afghan’s when the data was already out there.
To stop it being spread further particularly by the media.
I’m not convinced that’s the only reason.
Please, what means / is for superinjudction in this case? (I’m lawyer in Brazil just trying to figure this government movement)
It’s completely unprecedented and probably unconstitutional. Not only did they have an injunction to stop people talking about it, they had a super injunction to prevent them, even mentioning that there was something that they couldn’t talk about.
Because to do otherwise could well have put thousands of Afghan allies at risk of reprisals from the Taliban. The only reason the courts agreed to this was because of the risk to innocent Afghans.
One has to believe that the primary purpose of this injunction was nothing to do with protecting Afghans but everything to do with protecting the MOD and covering up their incompetence. Same old establishment seeking to protect itself.
