Labour revives Covid-era ‘spy unit’ to snoop on migrant hotel critics online

The team, which is based in Kyle’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, was previously called the “Counter Disinformation Unit”, and was used by the Government during the Covid pandemic to monitor anti-lockdown campaigners.

The revelation comes amid skyrocketing fury at Labour – including allies of Donald Trump – over the Online Safety Act, which critics warn allows officials to censor social media.

It also adds to the accusations that Labour is trying to silence criticism of its continued use of migrant hotels.

The Prime Minister had pledged to stop their use by 2029 due to increasing “community tensions”, as well as their cost of £4million every day to taxpayers.

|

Civil servants working under Peter Kyle, the Technology Secretary, complained about numerous posts during the Southport riots in August last year

In one of the flagged emails, an unnamed civil servant warned there were “significant risks” of protests at migrant hotels becoming violent because of the posts.

The official added there was a “definite sense of urgency” about the posts in Whitehall.

The emails were sent on August 3 and August 4 last year, during the worst weekend of the summer unrest when protesters attacked migrant hotels throughout the UK.

Another email sent the same weekend included officials warning the social media site that users were posting about “two-tier” policing at Southport rallies.

FREE SPEECH UNDER THREAT – READ MORE:

The riots in Southport last summer, during which these emails were sent

It said: “I am sure you will not be surprised at the significant volumes of anti-immigrant content directed at Muslim and Jewish communities as well as concerning narratives about the police and a ‘two-tier’ system we are seeing across the online environment.”

The social media company was asked to explain “any measures you have taken in response… as soon as you are able to.”

A third example of flagged “concerning content” was a video of Pakistani men celebrating on a street, posted on August 5, alongside the caption: “Looks like Islamabad but it’s Manchester.”

The Government team claimed the post had been shared “in order to incite fear of the Muslim community”.

While the emails did not ask the social media company to remove the posts, the officials did want explanations as to how they were being dealt with.

The correspondence was revealed by Jim Jordan, chairman of the US House of Representatives’ judiciary committee, after a subpoena was issued for the social media company to hand over messages “regarding the company’s compliance with foreign censorship laws”.

Jordan said: “In recent years, UK citizens have become increasingly fed up with the double standard in the UK.

“Many tweets get you a longer prison sentence than many violent offences.”

The correspondence was revealed by Republican Congressman Jim Jordan

Officials have denied that social media posts were being censored, instead insisting the role of the unit was to monitor online “trends” and highlight where platforms’ own rules were being broken.

Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said: “When I called out ‘two-tier Keir’, little did I realise Starmer’s officials were pressuring tech companies to suppress debate about a ‘two-tier’ justice system.

“This Government’s cynical attack on free speech will only further erode public confidence in the criminal justice system.

“The solution is to apply the law evenly to all groups, not to attempt to stifle criticism.”

Robert Jenrick warned that Labour’s ‘cynical attack on free speech will only further erode public confidence in the criminal justice system’

However, Government officials have rejected the claims, saying that Jordan’s committee had “misunderstood” the role of NSOIT, which they argued was simply to find out whether social media companies were taking action on harmful content, rather than ordering them to remove it.

A Government spokesman said: “Free speech is a cornerstone of our democracy. The Online Safety Act protects it.

“Platforms have a duty to uphold freedom of expression, and the Act places no curbs whatsoever on what adults can say and see on the internet – unless it is something that would already be illegal, offline.

“The Government has no role in deciding what actions platforms take on legal content for adults – that is a matter for them, according to their own rules.

“However we make no apologies for flagging to platforms content which is contrary to their own terms of service and which can result in violent disorder on our streets, as we saw in the wake of the horrific Southport attack.”