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.