T

Party time with oomfs 🎉

@torturedMarcel Thanks Marcel 😚

@23TRB23 you’re skin is literally glowing. looking good!

🌞

May have caught the sun a little ☀️

I disagree with Lord Hermer KC, the Attorney General. I don’t accept that international law requires our Prime Minister to deliver a pusillanimous statement setting out the UK’s position whose first point is “We did not participate”. I’ve set out the gist of my approach below. ⬇️   The Prime Minister has refused publicly to support the US and Israel strikes, and also refuses to allow the US to use UK bases, because of international law advice he has reportedly received from Lord Hermer.   International law ought to provide a mechanism to restrain and, if necessary, end despotic and tyrannical regimes such as that in Iran. If the doctrines of international law prove unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, and tie the hands of democracies while forcing them to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed. It will have become a fundamentally immoral system of law, and one which is worse than worthless in the modern world.   To be clear: I don’t believe that it is. I think international law is important, and both can and should provide a just legal order. I do, however, have serious questions as to the moral attitudes of some of its expositors; too many international lawyers serenely promote an analysis which ultimately protects tyrants.   Seven points, and some questions:   1 The inherent right to use force in the face of an imminent attack from a hostile nation which is responsible for a pattern of hostile actions exists for good reason: a country cannot be expected to remain idle and just wait for the next attack.   2 Iran has repeatedly threatened to attack the UK’s bases and personnel. Those threats come in the context of persistent Iranian attempts to launch attacks on UK soil, too; the Director General of MI5 has stated, and the PM confirmed last night, that the UK has responded to tens of Iranian-backed plots, presenting potentially lethal threats to British citizens and UK residents. There is also a constant barrage of cyberattacks; while not all cyberattacks are armed attacks in sense of Article 51 of the UN Charter, some may be, and all confirm not just hostile intent but action pursuant to such intent.   3 The UK’s long-standing allies, the US and Israel, were right to consider that they faced further attacks prior to their recent military action, given that (i) Iran has previously attacked both states directly and also through its many proxies; (ii) Iran has repeatedly stated its intent to destroy Israel; (iii) Iran was assessed to be on the brink of acquiring a nuclear capability with uranium enrichment at 60% (which can only be for military use); and (iv) Iran already possessed – as demonstrated by its recent attacks – a sophisticated and effective long-range delivery capability which Israel cannot fully neutralise with defensive weapons.   4 The acquisition of a nuclear capability by Iran represents a genocidal risk for Israel and its people. Iran’s repeatedly stated aim is to wipe the State of Israel, and its inhabitants, off the face of the earth. The slogan of the proxies through which Iran has often attacked Israel is: “God is greater, death to America, death to Israel, curse to the Jews, victory to Islam”. In these circumstances, whether they are characterised as part of an ongoing armed conflict with Iran or as a new use of force based on self-defence, Israel’s actions are justifiable.   5 The UK (and also the US) is permitted under international law to use force to aid another state which is acting in self-defence. Moreover, the UK is under an obligation in international law is to prevent genocide, not just to stop it: stopping an on-going genocide is required, but it necessarily means that action was taken too late. 1/2

'There is no example in history where you've bombed people to democracy' Sorry? Germany, Italy, Japan and Serbia spring to mind.

@DrMusicale Well Admiralty Arch is being turned into a hotel thanks to Osborne but I guess merely subjective. It might be the iconic base I concede that, but even with No.11 I don't think it's enough or fit for purpose for today and I think the two I suggested are better

@23TRB23 Or procure No.11 for PM’s use also and move the Chancellor out to Admiralty Arch or similar. Think Downing St is such an iconic PM base that they need to stay there.

Controversial perhaps, but the PM should frankly move into Lancaster or Marlborough House and let Downing Street be renovated and expand it as the Cabinet Office.

@Scot_law_twnk It's a phenomenal film!

Evening plans sorted, will report back.

On another note, the lengthy construction times for any energy project are attributable to planning laws rather than the project itself, which he has said nothing about...

He is prioritising ideology over science - nuclear is clean, efficient and safe. It ranks *below* most renewable sources for deaths and even greenhouse emissions per unit of energy production.

Polanski opposing nuclear energy because it's "old" is absurd. Nuclear energy was invented in the 1950s. Solar, wind and hydroelectric power were invented in the 1800s. By his logic, if age is the qualifier, the entire renewable energy agenda falls apart.

@FrankFWJH @barbourtwat @O17A03 Yes 🫡

@barbourtwat @O17A03 churches are cool but skyscrapers >>>> churches amirite @23TRB23

St. Peter Lutheran Church before (1903-1970) and after (1977 - present)

@johndawnl Thank you John! x

@23TRB23 Congrats🖤

I graduated yesterday ☺️

@s_p819 Thanks Dan x

@terancio_tezza Thanks Tez x

@23TRB23 congrats !! x

@Tonypwbristol Thanks Tony! X

@23TRB23 Congratulations, sincerely, xx.

@StuartCan_NI Thx Stuart

@23TRB23 Congrats. 👏🏼 hope you had a great graduation day. 😁

😁😁😁

@WaiteMWT Yeah it's you 🫵🏻

We all have that one friend who can’t cook for shit