The BBC are going into overdrive  on the story of some Afghan detainees, held for their own safety and that of British troops, beyond what is claimed to be the legal time limit.

Excited claims of a British Guantanamo are being bandied about….the detainee’s lawyers making sure they hype that line to generate a bit of ‘shock’….the BBC were happy to play along at first…but all mentions of Guantanamo seemed to have been scrubbed from the latest reports…maybe someone had a little word.

I mentioned earlier that perhaps the ‘failure’ of MI5 to pick up the two killers of Lee Rigby may be in part linked to the knowledge that as soon as they do detain someone the BBC and human rights lawyers will blitz them.

When you see the coverage that the BBC is giving to a detention centre in Afghanistan you may think I had a point….already being billed as a mini Guantanamo.

It’s the top story on the web and had been a constant thread throughout the Today programme.

Suspected or known Taliban captives are held by the British…they are supposed to hand them over to the Afghan judicial process but do not because that is prone to using torture and violence….not only that but a bundle of Afghan dollars soon wins the captive’s release and they are back on the battlefield.

So essentially the Afghans were being held by the British to prevent them being abused by the Afghan authorities…and to stop them walking out of prison, picking up a rifle or a bomb and setting off to kill a British soldier.  Controversial.

Evan Davis on the Today programme (about 08:15) had on lawyer Phil Shiner who is acting for 8 detained Afghans…detained because they are believed to be Taliban.

Shiner was allowed to deliver his well rehearsed spiel unchecked.  Davis had no relevant questions challenging anything he claimed.

This is what the web story reports he said, and as also said to Davis:

 “This is a secret facility that’s been used to unlawfully detain or intern up to 85 Afghans that they’ve kept secret, that Parliament doesn’t know about, that courts previously when they have interrogated issues like detention and internment in Afghanistan have never been told about – completely off the radar.”

He also claimed that the British were not doing anything to solve the problem such as setting up a monitored Afghan facility.

You might have thought Davis would have had a bit of research to check his claims before speaking to him…and the web site to delve deeper….but no…it wasn’t until Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond came on that we learned the truth.

Hammond  told us that he had informed Parliament…so no ‘secret‘ facility then……he also revealed that there was an ongoing programme to improve the Afghan judicial system and implement a proper overwatch and judicial process to allow a safe transfer of detainees…he also revealed that Shiner’s firm had actually been involved in legally blocking the transfer of Afghans to the Afghan authorities.


You wonder just what Shiner would have got away with if Hammond hadn’t also been on to correct his misinformation….would Davis have challenged him? 

The web site’s initial report still has the wrong information in it and is still on the front page….claiming Parliament didn’t know of the facility and missing out the essential fact that the UK had been working with the Afghans to introduce a system that would ensure the safety of detainees.

There is a new updated report now headlining…it’s obviously a very important matter for the BBC.

 This reports that the UK is ready to hand over detainees to the Afghans:  ‘The MoD said it had now found a “safe route” for their return’….the BBC claiming: ‘The move came after the BBC was shown documents detailing how 85 suspected insurgents were being held at Camp Bastion, the main British base in Afghanistan.’


Is that the BBC trying to claim the credit?

They do now note that: ‘Mr Hammond said the UK government has been working with its Afghan counterparts to find a safe way to resume transfers of detainees to the Afghan judicial system.’

But then report the opposite: 

“The UK could have trained the Afghan authorities to detain people lawfully with proper standards and making sure they are treated humanely,” Phil Shiner, of Public Interest Lawyers, told the BBC.

“They could have then monitored that, including with ad hoc inspections, to make sure the Afghans were obeying the law. They have chosen not to do so.”

He said the UK was acting in an “entirely unconstitutional” way.


A final point…Hammond revealed that the work of the likes of Phil Shiner was being funded by British legal aid.  I would have thought that was almost as controversial as holding detainees beyond the legal time for their own safety and that of British troops.  Wonder what the Great British Public think of that…funding the legal defence of foreign terrorist suspects in a foreign land whilst Barristers only today have sent a letter to government detailing  how cuts to legal aid will damage the provision of justice.

The BBC don’t think it worth serious comment…mocking Hammond for raising the matter:

T’he defence secretary was keen to point out the Afghans’ case was being brought “at the expense, of course, of the British taxpayer, because Mr Shiner’s actions are funded by the legal aid system”.



Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to AFGHANAMO

  1. London Calling says:

    Phil Shiner has so much form I am surprised that he does not become the story rather than the glove-puppet response of the usual suspects – Guardian Indy London ES BBC repeating his twisted and repugnant villain-as-hero view of the world.

    Cut off the oxygen from Shiner, ie the funding from the public purse. We are funding the enemy FFS and the Home Office is responsible. The BBC is nothing but contemptible – I do wonder, has this bastion of the Fourth Estate been infiltrated by an Islamic Fifth Column? As for Theresa May, useless.


    • The Sage says:

      You are absolutely spot on in regard to Shiner. The guy is a parasite – earning a living from these cases. He did the same in Iraq.
      We need to expose Shiner for the charlatan he is.
      The BBC won’t do it, though.


  2. Andy S. says:

    Left wing lawyer Phil Shiner certainly seems to have a huge axe to grind concerning the British Military. He’s the one who went to Kenya soliciting allegations (probably with the promise of much compensation) of rape during the Mau-Mau uprising. He also went to Iraq to solicit complaints of ill treatment of Iraqi civillians by British troops and now he’s having a go at our military in Afghanistan.

    This apologist for our enemies seems to allege misbehaviour by our troops in every theatre of operations they are posted.

    Shiner will always be given airtime on the BBC as his treasonous stance is grist to the Beeboid mill.


    • The Sage says:

      Agreed. Money is the key here – and plenty of it from Legal Aid. Not concern for any foreign nationals.


  3. Pounce says:

    So let me get this right, on one side the bBC are demanding questions are asked about how the Islamic murderer who when caught in Kenya was picked up by the British and released in the Uk

    And on the other they are demanding that Islamic terrorists caught in Afghanistan are released


  4. stuart says:

    what worrys me about this story is that this could give more sucker and encouragement to those out there that want to do harm to are lads serving in afghanistan and put them in more danger home and abroad,why did the bbc have to run this story when tensions are still running high in this country, you just dont ever learn bbc.


  5. Doublethinker says:

    The BBC like to make sure that we remain as ethical as possible. Using their own definition of ethical of course, which is rather at variance with that of the British people. The BBC speaks for the minority liberal elite which have taken control of Britain by undemocratic means and which are forcing us all to take part in a massive social engineering experiment . The outcome of which is highly uncertain. How will the influx of immigrants from alien cultures end? Who knows? It is a massive gamble for the highest possibly stakes, the future of the country. Moreover it was a gamble that there was never any need to take and one which if the British people had been asked about they would have turned down flat.
    The liberal left and their BBC mouthpiece are doing all they can to preserve community cohesion ,although they are having to resort to lies ,the suppression of the truth and the suspension of free speech to do so. Of course these are democratic values and the liberal left are so arrogant that they think they know better than the people do.
    If the gamble ends badly then they will pay a heavy price, which is their due, but unfortunately so will the rest of us and the immigrants they so stupidly encouraged to come here.


    • Mo says:

      Good point well made Doublethinker.

      Why can a society not state that it does not wish to have a significant amount of people into it’s country which have a world view that is the antithesis of it’s own?

      Try the reverse on them and they would not permi it and understandably so.


  6. Dave666 says:

    This story now seems to have disappeared. BBc Breakfast seems to be taken with the 4 year old who phoned an ambulance when his mother collapsed.
    If it wasn’t for this thread I might of thought I imagionated it.


  7. George R says:

    Meanwhile in Afghanistan, Islamic jihad Taliban attack Red Cross compound.

    (As inadequately narrated in sing-song voice by one Bilal Sawary: video clip.)

    “Afghan Red Cross office attacked”


  8. Smell the glove says:

    We never hear about greedy legal aid lawyers, who would make greedy bankers look innocent.


  9. will says:

    The story is important because it damages UK credibility. If we are believers in British values, one of them is habeus corpus. Lots would like to do this to Tommy Robinson in this country. It’s an affront to our values to imprison without trial.


    • Andrew says:

      Just for info, I think you meant “habeas corpus” which translates as “you may have the body” from Latin.


      • will says:

        I’ll blame android text prediction which doesn’t like Latin. Probably Chinese, Cyrillic script and hieroglyphics as well.


  10. London Calling says:

    Richard Littlejohn The Great Human Rights Swindle

    For the past decade, Phil Shiner, head of the Birmingham-based Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), has made a handsome living suing the British taxpayer – at the British taxpayers’ expense

    Human rights lawyers are not famous for their sense of humour. So it was something of a surprise to learn that the sour-faced solicitor Phil Shiner lists comedy as one of his hobbies.

    For the past decade, Shiner has made a handsome living suing the British taxpayer — at the British taxpayers’ expense.

    Shiner is head of the Birmingham-based Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) — not to be confused with the post-punk band Public Image Limited (PiL), put together by Johnny Rotten after the self-immolation of the Sex Pistols.

    Rotten once starred in a movie called The Great Rock ’n’ Roll Swindle. If Shiner is ever immortalised on the silver screen it should be called The Great Human Rights Swindle.

    Shiner’s firm specialises in bringing actions against the British Army.

    I first crossed swords with him on TV during the Iraq war when his representatives were harvesting claims in the back streets of Baghdad and Basra. PIL is a yuman rites version of one of those Blame Direct outfits who advertise on daytime TV.

    Have you been tortured by a British soldier? You could be entitled to com-pen-say-shun.

    Shiner is always on the lookout for a jihadist with a grievance which can be used to discredit the Army and win some hard cash. Unlike Blame Direct and the rest of the ‘no win, no fee’ brigade, Shiner gets paid win, lose or draw.

    He is bankrolled out of the legal aid budget.

    Over the years he has secured £3 million compensation for his clients, mostly foreign nationals who have alleged abuse at the hands of British troops in Iraq.

    His work won him the prestigious accolade ‘Human Rights Lawyer of the Year’ in 2004. I bet that was a fun night.

    Farce of ‘British Guantanamo’: Lawyers (with BBC help) demand 90 Afghans be freed but now say they’re better off IN prison
    The man who loves to sue Britain… on legal aid, of course
    Britain breached international law by ‘torturing and killing prisoners’ during Iraq War, claim 180 Iraqis

    We don’t know how much he has earned, but legal aid fees clocked up in cases filed by PIL must run into millions.

    And at a time when the Government is attempting to bring under control the burgeoning £2 billion legal aid budget, Shiner continues to thrive.

    As part of the proposed £350 million cuts, members of middle-class households with an annual income of £37,000 will no longer be entitled to legal aid for a whole raft of civil claims, including debt and divorce.

    Yet the funding for firms such as PIL to bring claims for damages on behalf of foreign nationals over incidents alleged to have taken place thousands of miles away would appear to be unaffected.

    Over the years, Phil Shiner has secured £3 million compensation for his clients, mostly foreign nationals who have alleged abuse at the hands of British troops in Iraq

    This week Shiner turned up on Radio 4’s Today Programme peddling his latest crusade for truth and justice.

    He was given a prime platform by a gleeful BBC to denounce ‘Britain’s Guantanamo Bay’.

    Shiner claimed that dozens of Afghans are being held in a ‘secret prison’ at Camp Bastion in Helmand Province.

    He demanded they should be brought before a court or released. He said: ‘This is a secret facility that’s been used to unlawfully detain or intern up to 85 Afghans that they’ve kept secret, that Parliament doesn’t know about, that courts previously when they have interrogated issues like detention and internment in Afghanistan have never been told about — completely off the radar.

    ‘It is reminiscent of the public’s awakening that there was a Guantanamo Bay.

    This week Shiner claimed that dozens of Afghans are being held in a ‘secret prison’ at Camp Bastion in Helmand Province. He demanded they should be brought before a court or released

    ‘And people will be wondering if these detainees are being treated humanely and in accordance with international law.’

    This must be where Shiner’s legendary sense of humour comes into play. He should know full well that this isn’t a ‘secret prison’. And he is aware that the Army has been trying to get rid of these prisoners for years.

    Back in 2010, Britain wanted to hand over the detainees to the Afghan justice system. Eventually the High Court in London ruled that they could not be transferred to the Afghans because they might be tortured, which would breach their yuman rites.

    Far from being ‘detained unlawfully’ they are being held in British custody on the specific orders of a British court.

    Shiner should know full well that there isn’t a ‘secret prison’. And he is aware that the Army has been trying to get rid of the prisoners held there for years

    You’d expect Shiner to know that. Because in 2010, the original Camp Bastion case was brought by, you guessed, one Phil Shiner. On legal aid, natch. So how does he explain telling the BBC this was a ‘secret camp’, ‘off the radar’, that the courts haven’t been told about?

    Now, three years later, he’s heading back to court to argue that the detainees should be put on trial or set free.

    Talk about playing both ends. Like Boris Johnson, Shiner appears to be pro-having cake and pro-eating it.

    But thanks to the success of his earlier lawsuit, the High Court has ruled the prisoners can’t be entrusted to the Afghan legal system.

    Since Shiner doesn’t approve of military justice, that means they would have to be released back into the local community, where they would be at liberty to resume their terrorist activities.

    In comedy, as in life, timing is everything.

    Just a week after a British soldier was murdered by Islamist terrorists on the streets of South London, this is an odd time to argue that we should be releasing their comrades-in-jihad on to the streets of Afghanistan to kill more of our troops.

    Whatever happens next, one thing is certain: yet again the final bill will fall to the mug British taxpayers.

    Shiner may not be much of a comedian, but he’s certainly having a laugh.

    And the joke’s on us.

    Read more: