This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/22/afghanistan-interpreters-visa-bureaucracy
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Afghan interpreters 'risk being failed by bureaucracy' | Afghan interpreters 'risk being failed by bureaucracy' |
| (4 months later) | |
| The government was accused of taking an overly bureaucratic approach after a series of loopholes were identified in the government scheme to allow about 600 Afghan interpreters to be given five-year British visas. | The government was accused of taking an overly bureaucratic approach after a series of loopholes were identified in the government scheme to allow about 600 Afghan interpreters to be given five-year British visas. |
| David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, challenged Downing Street to prove that Britain was honouring its debt to those who have served the state after restrictions were placed by the government on the interpreters. | David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, challenged Downing Street to prove that Britain was honouring its debt to those who have served the state after restrictions were placed by the government on the interpreters. |
| The Times, which has been campaigning on behalf of Afghan interpreters, reported that the scheme will be open to those who have served with British forces on the frontline for more than 12 months. | The Times, which has been campaigning on behalf of Afghan interpreters, reported that the scheme will be open to those who have served with British forces on the frontline for more than 12 months. |
| Downing Street denied reports that the scheme would apply only to interpreters who are made redundant this year as troops leave Afghanistan. But a source made clear that it would be open only to interpreters who lose their jobs as a result of the withdrawal of troops. | Downing Street denied reports that the scheme would apply only to interpreters who are made redundant this year as troops leave Afghanistan. But a source made clear that it would be open only to interpreters who lose their jobs as a result of the withdrawal of troops. |
| Davis demanded that the scheme should also apply to interpreters who have had to leave the military as a result of Taliban intimidation and those who have had to stand down after being wounded. | Davis demanded that the scheme should also apply to interpreters who have had to leave the military as a result of Taliban intimidation and those who have had to stand down after being wounded. |
| Davis said: "There is a simple test because of our debt of honour. Did the individual concerned act as a servant of the British state and is he or his family at risk? If the answer to any of those questions is yes, we have a debt and we should be generous. We cannot have a bureaucratic response." | Davis said: "There is a simple test because of our debt of honour. Did the individual concerned act as a servant of the British state and is he or his family at risk? If the answer to any of those questions is yes, we have a debt and we should be generous. We cannot have a bureaucratic response." |
| A former Afghan interpreter, who came to Britain after his initial application was rejected, was highly critical of the government. The man, who was severely injured in a bombing which killed a British officer and who gave his name as Mohammed, told the PM programme on Radio 4: "The government is not being fair to the Afghan interpreters – those interpreters who have served this country, those interpreters who have helped the British forces in Afghanistan, those interpreters who have saved the lives of the British forces in Afghanistan. The government is turning their back [on] them and their families." | A former Afghan interpreter, who came to Britain after his initial application was rejected, was highly critical of the government. The man, who was severely injured in a bombing which killed a British officer and who gave his name as Mohammed, told the PM programme on Radio 4: "The government is not being fair to the Afghan interpreters – those interpreters who have served this country, those interpreters who have helped the British forces in Afghanistan, those interpreters who have saved the lives of the British forces in Afghanistan. The government is turning their back [on] them and their families." |
| Lord Dannatt, the former head of the army, said the government needed to do more. He told PM: "We can't do what we have to do without those interpreters. Mohammed trod the same path that our soldiers trod, that is what the prime minister said, and he took a fierce blow to his body when he was blown up. So he shared the risks. If he shared the risks, we have a huge moral obligation to stand by these people. Yes, I know there are worries about immigration, worries about costs. Those are things we are all aware of. But we have an overriding moral obligation to these people who stood beside us, helped us do what we had to do. We ought to be generous in allowing them to come here for their own safety. Probably not open the floodgates to absolutely everybody – things should be looked at on a case-by-case basis – but with the absolute predisposition to be generous and to say yes when there is any case of threat or danger to them or their immediate family." | Lord Dannatt, the former head of the army, said the government needed to do more. He told PM: "We can't do what we have to do without those interpreters. Mohammed trod the same path that our soldiers trod, that is what the prime minister said, and he took a fierce blow to his body when he was blown up. So he shared the risks. If he shared the risks, we have a huge moral obligation to stand by these people. Yes, I know there are worries about immigration, worries about costs. Those are things we are all aware of. But we have an overriding moral obligation to these people who stood beside us, helped us do what we had to do. We ought to be generous in allowing them to come here for their own safety. Probably not open the floodgates to absolutely everybody – things should be looked at on a case-by-case basis – but with the absolute predisposition to be generous and to say yes when there is any case of threat or danger to them or their immediate family." |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |