Stuart Niven

@nicolelampert @LeftieStats What you should be investigating is all the brothels his mother owns in north Manchester. That’s the story

@LeftieStats The story is about the fact that he’s Jewish. And that his Jewish family are worried about the party he’s leading. Facts.

When the leader of racist party calls a Jewish journalist - me - ‘parasitic’ simply for reporting that his Jewish family are scared by the direction his ‘Zionism is racism’ party is going in. This is the true face of the nasty Greens.

@GreenGreenwich @ZackPolanski That’s like saying. Why don’t people in Liverpool buy the sun newspaper. They never vote conservative like they would never buy that rag paper. So clearly unaware and inept of all surroundings.

What a reply! 💚

@geordiejosh I’m a city fan and I think he’s class. Watched him at Chelsea before he came to you. Really rate him highly. Top talent. England’s best LB by far.

Every single football fan who gave their first credits to Lewis Hall on Tuesday exposed themselves as casuals, he does this every week for Newcastle If England want the best chance at winning the World Cup starting Hall isn’t even a conversation.

@RitainDevon @ZackPolanski So I present actual fact and evidence and you use charged emotion to try and prove a point. Well played. Good response. Thought provoking and engaging 😂😂

@SN1ven @ZackPolanski Stop lying. Surely you’re not one of Nuttyahus floozys being bribed to lie. We thought you’d all disappeared because the bribery option by nuttyoo was a complete failure

An illegal war by USA & Israel, propped up by missions from UK air bases. Supported by Nigel Farage. Over 1000 civilians dead & now the threat of global economic fallout. Trump's disaster makes us all less safe, less secure - and we will remember those who backed it.

@narindertweets Do you not see you lose all credibility with that last sentence. No man worth his salt would deny the opening statement. You then lose some with that click bait. The facts speak for themselves. Don’t ruin a good statement

@SN1ven Click bait when its FACT? No.

The uncomfortable truth and crucially- by men KNOWN to them and in their own homes in the VAST MAJORITY of cases. The tragedy is some only care about crimes against women if the man is an immigrant.

Almost every line of this is wrong. Soleimani wasn’t some peace negotiator, he was the head of Iran’s IRGC Quds Force, responsible for coordinating militias that killed hundreds of coalition troops. The strike happened after Iranian-backed militias attacked US forces and stormed the US embassy in Baghdad. And the idea Arab states were angry? Many Gulf states quietly welcomed Iran being checked. You’re repeating propaganda, not history.

@SN1ven @ZackPolanski What absolute rubbish.The original illegal war lies with Trump 4attacking Iran in middle of talks. Arab countries will thinks twice now about trusting US with anything. Look at the trouble Trump and Isrel caused their countries and neither War monster warned the Arab countries

Those comparisons don’t work. WW2 involved states invading other states. Rwanda and Bosnia involved genocide already legally recognised by international courts. In the current case: • No international court has ruled genocide. • Hamas & Hezbollah are non-state armed groups targeting civilians. • Responsibility to Protect requires UN Security Council authorisation. Historical analogies aren’t a substitute for the actual legal framework.

@SN1ven @ZackPolanski you are essentially arguing against intervention in ww2 against the nazis and japanese empire, against intervention in the rwandan genocide, against intervention in the bosnian genocide. it's an evil thing to argue.

You’re mixing up several areas of international law. 1️⃣ UN Charter Article 51 allows states to act in self-defence after an armed attack, including against states that fund, arm or direct proxy groups carrying out those attacks. Iran has funded and armed Hezbollah, Hamas and other militias for decades. 2️⃣ Responsibility to Protect (2005) does NOT allow countries to unilaterally attack another state. Any military action under R2P requires UN Security Council authorisation. 3️⃣ And again, no international court has ruled Israel is committing genocide. So invoking genocide and R2P to justify unilateral attacks is simply not how international law works.

@SN1ven @ZackPolanski strange how hezbollah and hamas attacks serve as a justification for unilateral military attack by the us and israel against iran through an indiscriminate bombing campaign, but not even genocide justifies houthi and iranian intervention against israel.

You’re misunderstanding R2P. The Responsibility to Protect doctrine (2005) does NOT give individual states the right to unilaterally attack another country. Any military intervention under R2P must be authorised by the UN Security Council. That’s literally written into the doctrine itself. Also, ‘fighting back’ by groups like Hezbollah or Hamas firing rockets at civilians is not lawful resistance under international law, it’s classified as terrorism and indiscriminate attacks. Quoting international law while misrepresenting it isn’t the win you think it is.

@SN1ven @ZackPolanski 2) israel has been bombing and terrorizing the people of palestine and lebanon since decades earlier than 1982. palestinian and lebanese groups fighting back against that, with the support of other parties or not, is not aggression.

Two big problems with this. 1️⃣ Article 8 of the Genocide Convention does NOT give states the right to attack another country. It allows states to appeal to the UN, not launch missiles or proxy wars. Unilateral attacks violate UN Charter Article 2(4). 2️⃣ Hezbollah was created, armed and funded by Iran in 1982 and Hamas has received Iranian funding and weapons since the 1990s. These aren’t random groups Israel ‘picked’, they’re Iranian proxies. Also worth noting: no international court has ruled Israel guilty of genocide. Quoting international law while getting it completely wrong is… bold.

@SN1ven @ZackPolanski and houthi attacks on israel began in response to israel committing genocide in gaza. article 8 of the convention on the prevention and penishment of the crime of genocide gives parties to the convention, including iran and yemen, the right to intervene to stop genocide.

@deathpigeon @ZackPolanski ‘Unprovoked’ while Iran funds Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and multiple militias attacking Israel, US bases and global shipping. That’s not self-defence. That’s proxy warfare.

@SN1ven @ZackPolanski iran is acting in self-defense in this war, not the us and israel. the us and israel did an unprovoked first strike and iran is defending itself. yes, this is illegal.

Lots of insults, zero evidence. If ‘a dozen hospitals’, a ‘pharmaceutical plant’ and an ‘oil refinery causing toxic fallout over Tehran’ had actually been hit, every major international news outlet would be reporting it. They aren’t. That’s the difference between facts and online fantasy.

@SN1ven @ZackPolanski Lying pos. It’s an illegal AND immoral war and the Evil Axis of Epstein already attacked a dozen hospitals, the main pharmaceutical company and the oil refinery which is causing massive toxic fallout over the whole of Tehran. You are a racist, warmongering, evil pos.

Yes, to have a trial the suspect must be present. But the International Criminal Court has no police force. Arrests only happen if a state with jurisdiction actually detains the person and transfers them to The Hague. Israel also isn’t a party to the Rome Statute, which is why these cases involve long jurisdictional disputes first. So it’s not quite as simple as “someone on X demands an arrest and a trial happens.”

@SN1ven @AlwaysCurious26 @ZackPolanski Ok so you agree to have a trial the suspect needs to present

That’s not quite how the International Criminal Court works. A prosecutor can request a warrant if they believe there are reasonable grounds. Judges then decide whether the legal threshold is met. That still isn’t a conviction — it’s the start of a legal process where evidence is tested. It’s the same principle used in every legal system: allegation → investigation → trial → verdict. X declaring someone guilty tends to skip a few of those steps.

@SN1ven @AlwaysCurious26 @ZackPolanski Do all criminals get to demand they are found guilty before they agree to an arrest? The body of evidence is enough for the warrant to be issued so there's a case to answer so he either needs to attend willingly or is arrested and stands trial , then the evidence is tested

Blimey. That escalated quickly. For the record, self-defence in international law comes from Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which allows states to respond to armed attacks. The October 7 attacks by Hamas killed over 1,200 civilians and involved mass hostage-taking. Whether subsequent actions are lawful is exactly what investigations and courts examine. Shouting “illegal” on X isn’t quite the same thing as proving it.

@SN1ven @ZackPolanski How’s this for English you patronising warmongering cunt. There’s was NO credible threat. They started it ILLEGALLY. It was Illegal. Eat a bag of dicks you treacherous twat.

“Moral indefensible” is a subjective judgement. What I’ve described is the legal standard: allegations are tested through evidence and due process, not declared as fact first. That’s the principle used by courts like the International Criminal Court. International humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, applies to everyone. If evidence proves crimes by any party, prosecute them. If it doesn’t, you don’t invent guilt to satisfy a narrative. That’s not moral evasion. That’s the rule of law.

@SN1ven @Naramsin20 @ZackPolanski I know how the law works. I was just curious with how you applied it. And as I’ve said - I think your take is morally indefensible. But you do you…

An arrest warrant request isn’t the same as an automatic arrest. The International Criminal Court has no police force. Arrests depend on member states, and Israel isn’t even a party to the court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute. That’s why these cases proceed through investigation and legal challenge first. Supporting due process means examining evidence before declaring guilt, exactly the standard international law is built on.

@SN1ven @Naramsin20 @ZackPolanski I’ve not declared guilt. I’ve said arrest those who have a warrant out. Give them a fair trial. Something which is apparently beyond you…

You’re misunderstanding the point. Timelines explain causation in a conflict. They don’t justify war crimes. Both things can be true at the same time. Under the Geneva Conventions, deliberately targeting civilians is illegal whether it’s done by a state or by groups like Hamas. That’s why the October 7 attacks are universally recognised as war crimes. Allegations against Israel are being examined by the International Criminal Court. If evidence proves crimes, prosecute. If it doesn’t, you don’t declare guilt first. That’s not “having it both ways.” That’s applying the same legal standard to everyone.

@SN1ven @Naramsin20 @ZackPolanski You demand a timeline matters - then say it doesn’t when it doesn’t suit your narrative - you can’t have it both ways. As I said judge each action alone - and hold up international law. Arrest those with warrants out against them - grant them a fair trial.

There isn’t a double standard in what I’ve said. International humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, applies to all parties in a conflict. Deliberately targeting civilians is illegal whether it’s done by a state or a non-state actor like Hamas. The October 7 attacks deliberately targeted civilians, something documented by the United Nations and multiple investigations. Allegations against Israel are being examined by the International Criminal Court. If evidence proves crimes, prosecute. If it doesn’t, you don’t declare guilt first and investigate later. That’s not inconsistency, that’s the rule of law.

@SN1ven @Naramsin20 @ZackPolanski I never said they did. October 7th doesn’t justify breaking of international law either. I’m being consistent here - you are not.