Afghan nationals: have you arrived in the UK under the Afghan Response Route?
Personal information about more than 33,000 Afghans seeking relocation to the UK after the Taliban takeover was released in error by a defence official. Fears that the individuals named would be at risk from reprisals from the Taliban led the last government to set up a secret relocation scheme, the Afghan Response Route (ARR), involving 20,000 people.
The secret scheme, which can only now be reported after a High Court judge lifted a superinjunction on Tuesday, was first obtained by the MoD in August 2023.
The scheme is closing down but the government has said it will honour any outstanding offers. Have you arrived in the UK under the ARR?
We would like to hear from any Afghans who have arrived in the UK under the ARR scheme or are due to come.
You can share anonymously if you prefer
Please include as much detail as possible.
Please note, the maximum file size is 5.7 MB.
Your contact details are helpful so we can contact you for more information. They will only be seen by the Guardian.
Your contact details are helpful so we can contact you for more information. They will only be seen by the Guardian.
If you include other people's names please ask them first.
Contact us on Signal at +447766780300.
For true anonymity please use our SecureDrop service instead.
If you're having trouble using the form click here. Read terms of service here and privacy policy here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
26 minutes ago
- Metro
Why was a superinjunction put on the Afghan evacuation story and what did it do?
On Tuesday, it was revealed for the first time that the British Government had used a superinjunction to keep a secret from the public. The term 'superinjunction' may be familiar to people who paid attention to the news in the 2010s, thanks to their deployment by several high-profile figures who wanted to stop people reading about their private lives. It is a court order a step above an injunction, which is used to stop details of the case being published in public. In a case with a superinjunction, not even the existence of the injunction can be made public. These orders are powerful enough when used by an individual. The use of one by the government to keep the entire UK in the dark is unprecedented. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money was spent without the public's knowledge, to bring a large number of individuals to the UK from Afghanistan without anyone being allowed to learn why. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here. It all stemmed from an accidental data breach in February 2022, which exposed the personal details of more than 18,000 Afghans who had assisted British forces in their fight against the Taliban. When the government learned about this breach 18 months after it happened, then-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace requested an injunction in the courts. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The reason for this, according to court documents, was to 'preserve the confidentiality of the personal information for as long as possible in order that His Majesty's Government may do everything it reasonably can to help those who might have been put at further risk by the data compromise'. But when the time came for the injunction to be placed, Judge Robin Knowles decided to go a step further. More Trending He wrote: 'I conclude that it is an environment of no publication that best protects lives, although again the matter must and will be kept under constant review.' This decision was made for eight reasons listed in the judgement: 'The risk in question is to the lives of many individuals and their families, and of torture.' The confidentiality of the data was not completely lost, though it had been breached. The order would create a period of time where the data compromise is 'not known or widely known'. It would be less likely for the information to fall into the wrong hands during that period. The period would provide an opportunity for the government to do 'everything it reasonably can' to help those at risk. The impact on freedom of expression was 'justified in the particular and exceptional circumstances of this case'. The fact the injunction would probably no longer be needed at some point and be lifted would limit that impact. The operation and duration of the injunction would be kept under close review. This order was so stringent, then-shadow Defence Secretary John Healey did not tell his party leader about the situation when he was briefed before last year's election. Instead, Sir Keir Starmer learned about it after he became Prime Minister. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: What changes in ISAs could mean for you and where you should invest MORE: Middle class parties hit by lumpy skin disease MORE: What changes to mortgages for first-time buyers means for you
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Free speech under threat as Brits fear causing offence over race religion and immigration
Free speech is under threat in Britain because people fear causing offence over race, religion and immigration, according to a new study. More than a third of Britons felt they had to self-censor their views on race or ethnicity while 32 per cent said they felt they could not speak freely about immigration or religious extremism. Some 41 per cent felt they had to hold back their views on transgender issues while 31 per cent felt constrained from discussing the conflict in Gaza following the October 7 Hamas terror attack. Almost half of Britons believe people are too easily offended, according to research for the Commission for Countering Extremism, which advises the Government. Older, white males are among those who feel the most restricted, and the more outspoken a person's views, the more likely they are feel constrained by the risk of offending others. The study, based on interviews with 2,500 people, was conducted by Ipsos to establish the state of free speech in Britain and was first reported by the Telegraph. People who are white, male, older and not university educated were more strongly in favour of free speech, regardless of the issue, but felt less able to speak their minds, the poll found. Some 48 per cent of this group said they felt they had to hold back their comments on race, far higher than the average of 36 per cent. The same was true on immigration, where 43 per cent felt they had to hold back on their views compared to an overall average among the public of 32 per cent. Among religious groups, Christians were more likely to back the right to free speech, but also more likely to feel they had to hold back on expressing their views. By contrast, women, younger Britons and people from ethnic minorities or non-Christian religions tended to think that people needed to be more sensitive in the way they spoke. Meanwhile the poll found that people predominantly held back from expressing their views to avoid causing offence or starting an argument. Some 46 per cent resisted expressing their views on any religious figure, text or teaching and 35 per cent held back their political views to avoid causing offence. Some people held back because of heightened concerns about their safety, with a quarter restraining themselves from discussing religion because of safety fears and 17 per cent their political views. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said that the Left's 'determination to shut down debate around immigration has created a chilling environment for free speech'. He told the Telegraph: 'In this context, a catch-all definition of Islamophobia would be a disaster, worsening the culture of fear that has spread throughout society.'
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
UK's anti-corruption champion to go to offshore haven on fact-finding mission
The Foreign Office will dispatch the UK's anti-corruption champion, Margaret Hodge, to the British Virgin Islands (BVIs) to find out why the offshore haven is dragging its feet on proposals designed to fight financial crime. Several of the UK's semi-autonomous British overseas territories missed last month's deadline to implement new registers of corporate ownership, a measure targeting the secrecy regimes campaigners say benefit criminals and kleptocrats. But, while territories such as Anguilla and Bermuda are understood to be on the verge of complying, Foreign Office ministers are running out of patience with the BVIs' slow progress. Companies based on the islands have appeared in multiple international investigations into alleged wrongdoing, including the Paradise Papers and revelations about alleged tax evasion by the Russian oligarch and former Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich. On Wednesday, the day after meeting leaders of the overseas territories, the Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty said he would send the veteran anti-corruption campaigner Lady Hodge to the islands on a 'fact-finding' mission. 'This government is committed to tackling illicit finance and working with our overseas territories is crucial to addressing this issue in the UK and overseas,' said Doughty. 'Some of our overseas territories are making progress towards transparent, accessible registers of company ownership, but we have made clear we need to see rapid, consistent progress across the board. 'As an immediate next step, I have asked Baroness Hodge to undertake a fact-finding visit to the British Virgin Islands and report back to me. I will consider further steps carefully in light of the findings.' Hodge, 80, was named the UK's anti-corruption champion in December last year in recognition of her record in combating illicit finance and advocating for transparency in Britain's offshore financial havens in particular. Hodge, who has held six ministerial posts, was the Labour MP for Barking from 1994 until she stood down before the general election last year. David Lammy, the foreign secretary, has vowed to lift the veil of corporate secrecy that allows people to disguise their business dealings in jurisdictions such as the BVIs. Successive governments have been pushing overseas territories, and a separate group of crown dependencies, such as Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, to introduce fully publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership (Parbos). At a meeting in London last November, five overseas territories, including the BVIs, promised to introduce legitimate interest access registers of beneficial interests (Liarbos) as a prelude to further steps. A spokesperson for the BVIs' government said: 'We continue to collaborate closely with international partners, including the UK government, working together to uphold high standards and protect our financial system. 'This week's productive talks in London between premier Natalio Wheatley and minister Stephen Doughty reflect our shared commitment to strengthening governance and democracy in the Virgin Islands. We look forward to building on this cooperation in a spirit of mutual respect.' The Guardian has approached Hodge for comment.
