A damning Parliamentary report exposes the entire, horrible list of Foreign Office errors during Kabul evacuation.

Many thousands of Afghans had been working for Britain in the past, and they begged for their release before the evil Taliban took control. They were instead met with indifference.

Only one officer monitored and processed a torrent of phone calls during the crisis.

In a battle for their lives, translators, humanitarian workers, contractors, activists and others with UK connections were involved. Whitehall has been missing in action. 

Some were at home working, others were overworked, while some simply buckled when they were asked to make “hundreds” of decisions that would affect their lives. 

The chaos continued, and Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab went on holiday to Crete on Crete in the sunshine while the chaos erupted.

The evacuation team did not have any detailed information about Afghanistan. Liaison with the Home Office proved impossible and many emails were not read.

Former Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab answers questions on Government policy on Afghanistan during a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee in September

Dominic Raab, former Foreign Secretary, answers questions about Government policies on Afghanistan at a September meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee

Raphael Marshall (pictured), a junior civil servant, has claimed he was at times the only person dealing with thousands of emails from those desperate to flee the Taliban

Raphael Marshall, a junior civil servant claims he handled thousands of emails sent by those trying to flee from the Taliban.

Raphael Marshall, a whistleblower told the Commons foreign Affairs committee that only 5% of the tens and thousands of people in desperate need received assistance. Some were later murdered.

While Civil Service employees were trying to balance work and life, many people died. 

Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the committee said that they favored bureaucracy above humanity.

These are the lessons to be learnt from this complete mess. Every responsible party must be identified. They are liable for the blood of others.

Perilous speech is allowed

It is a crime to incite hatred towards anyone. Inciting violence is also considered a crime if it reaches the point of inciting hatred.

Hatred based on race, religion or disability is considered an aggravating factor and is subject to harsher punishments.

It is not acceptable to use incivilized language that intimidates or abuses others. 

If the language used is such an aggressive way that it threatens behaviour, this is also against the law.

The problem of defining the boundary between the offensive and the threatening has been difficult. 

Freedom to offend is a fundamental pillar of freedom speech in this country.

The comedian who tells tasteless jokes or the feminist who believes only women have wombs are entitled to hold and express their views – however disagreeable some may find them. It’s all part of what it means to be a free nation.

Law Commission proposes to broaden the definition of hate crimes to anyone who causes hostility on the grounds of gender or sex. These proposals, although well intended, can be problematic for people who are concerned about freedom of speech.

Although the commission states that its recommendations will not “criminalise offensive remarks”, who is making this judgment?

Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Angela Rayner caused controversy with her 'scum' jibe

Angela Rayner, Deputy Leader of Labour Party caused controversy by her “scum” jibe

Angela Rayner, deputy Labour leader, would likely not be charged with publicly demeaning Tory MPs. But could it be that a Tory male MP was for having the same opinion about Rayner because Rayner is a female?

Are transgender activists, who harassed and threatened a feminist lecturer for sex, likely to be charged? Oder do her rights prevail over theirs?

The Mail doesn’t seek to minimize the suffering caused by hatred-stokers. 

All people deserve the protection afforded by law. Everyone has the right feel safe.

However, freedom of speech and expression is an intangible commodity. It should not be subjugated to identity politics.