interpreters redux

It looks like some momentum is building:

Mr Browne also said the government would "move at the appropriate pace" to get its policy right in relation to duty of care "to all of those whom we have a responsibility to".

He said: "We will do what we can in the meantime, as we continue to do, to keep those people who we think are under immediate threat safe."

A government spokeswoman said: "We are extremely grateful for the service of locally-employed staff in Iraq and take their security very seriously.

"We recognise that there are concerns about the safety of former employees. Government keeps all such issues under review and we will now look again at the assistance we provide."

I’m a little more optimistic about this than Justin, since I think it’s unlikely for opsec reasons that there’ll be a formal public announcement. People need to be extracted quietly so as not to tip off the insurgents that the process is underway, for one thing. What seems to have been achieved so far is getting the issue a bit more front and centre. Next job: keeping it there.

For the record, I don’t think that asylum for Iraqis should be restricted to the people working with the British army and administration. But if the government won’t help them, who will it help?

Meanwhile, Arrsers on the case.

The petition now stands at 566 signatories, which means a couple of hundred more names have been added over the past two days. And there's now a facebook group on the issue.

UPDATE: The Rumour Service strikes. Those boys are pure journo crack. The Times story also confirms the suspicion that the government got caught pulling a sneak, something it won't be desperately happy about. I suspect one day we'll be running a save ARRSE campaign.

Comments

[Justin]

Yes, doing it on the quiet would make perfect sense. Let's hope that's the plan. Still, it doesn't detract from the fact that the Government's default position on this seems to have been "fuck 'em".

[Chris Williams]

Get on to the original arrse thread though, for an interesting take on the issue. It seems that the best way to argue for the case there is to come out with an ever-nastier peice of racial abuse against other immigrants. I was hoping that the exposure of their mates to the full force of IND idiot-think might have led some forces types to specualate that this was what happens to everyone. But no: xenophobia rules. Hordes of unwashed must be coming in to scrounge, cos it says so in the Mail. Sha bi.

[jamie]

It seems to be a structural feature of the worldview to the extent that you can't welcome some immigramts without ritually condemning some other notional scroungers. As to how many mean it...well, more than a few but maybe less than the ones who say it. It's a shame to see, though - wo cao.

[Justin]

I suspect one day we'll be running a save ARRSE campaign.

Lo and behold.

[dsquared]

I am entirely suspicious about the timing of this - I think it's got everything to do with the Iraqi employees campaign (btw, I think the phrase "Iraqi translators" is a bit dangerous, as it allows Des Browne to chew down the number of visas to the 90 people actually employed as interpreters).

[jamie]

Good point 'squared - I'll be less sloppy in future.

[dsquared]

wow check out CiF - Neil Clark decides to declare holy war on the remnants of his credibility with a post entitled "Keep These Quislings Out".

[Dan Hardie]

' (btw, I think the phrase "Iraqi translators" is a bit dangerous, as it allows Des Browne to chew down the number of visas to the 90 people actually employed as interpreters).'
Dsquared's right, and I've consciously been avoiding the 'Iraqi *interpreters*' slogan: I've been using 'employees' or 'refugees' or similar, since (eg) cooks, drivers and cleaners may well be at equal risk. Can everyone involved in the campaign please do likewise.

And what a piece of luck: the fruitcake's fruitcake writes his fruitiest ever article attacking us! As I said in the CiF piece, all we need now is the principled opposition of Nick Griffin.

[Dan Hardie]

Btw, can everyone and anyone commenting on the CiF piece please include a link to a blogpost with the talking points for a letter to MPs? Link to any blog that does so, but CiF really did the dirty on us when they posted Dsquared's article at 7pm on a Saturday. Now that we've got a high-profile article, thanks to dear Mr Clark, we've got to use it.

[dsquared]

I have another one scheduled to appear about an hour from now, which means that it will be up most of Saturday morning. It does link to about three versions of the letter. The only downside from Clark's article (the absolute vehemence of the comments on which is surely some sort of indication of the mood of the nation) is that the little bugger has now portrayed it as a "pro war blogs" campaign, which probably ought to be stamped on asap.

[Dan Hardie]

I think my comment stamped it into the dust, but feel free to add further boot pressure.

[dsquared]

hey hey Georgina! I'm now scheduled fo "20 hours from now", which means it ought to go up with the Saturday Guardian posts and be up all day Saturday. Not as good as a weekday slot but I didn't submit it on a weekday and better than an afternoon graveyard.

[Dan Hardie]

I know I am turning into the Needy Person From Hell, which sounds like a minor character from a bad episode of 'Friends', but can you put a CT thread up asking for replies from MPs? Monday wd probably be best: more time for letters to come in the post, plus better viewing figures.

[dsquared]

Will do

[dsquared]

btw, I mention in said article that the recent spike in British casualties is quite likely not unconnected to the Iraqi employees situation. With good precedent from the later days in Vietnam, people who are feeling scared (and betrayed) start doing little favours for the enemy. Kind of like Rene Artois in "Allo Allo" but not funny.

[jamie]

Dan, I'm not sure about that. British forces are regularly shuttling between two venues where they can be constantly watched. Not sure I'd raise security gremlins now, either.

[dsquared]

good point - I'll adjust.

[Dan Hardie]

I'm with Jamie on the above. My suggested talking points for 'the British Army and the employees' are a) the senior officers are *FURIOUS* about the treatment of these people, as witness various comments in the Times articles; b) around 90% of the rank and file, to judge by the ARRSE threads, are also furious, which corresponds with my instincts. The soldiers want these people out, the soldiers are the ones (besides the employees themselves) who will take any risks in getting these people onto bases and thence onto planes, voila tout.

Simple, honest, populist: our campaign in a nutshell.

[dsquared]

Done and done - removed the security paragraph - hope it sticks as the Guardian site can be a bit temperamental about edits on scheduled posts. Haven't put much in about the Army at all beyond the little bit needed to give it a newsy hook, to be honest.