Janine 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧🇮🇱🇺🇦

International Law

Keir Starmer’s disgraced Cabinet Office Minister Josh Simons - who led the Labour Together ‘think tank’ until the 2024 election - was planning the Government response in early October to the already-feared Tory Humble Address seeking Morgan McSweeney’s Mandelson vetting messages.

Carington was foreign secretary when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1982. He resigned his position on 5 April, taking full responsibility for the complacency of the Foreign Office and failures of preparedness and posture

If HMT isn’t delaying the DIP that must mean it’s the MoD… really?

@JamesCleverly @AEHALL1983 x.com/navylookout/st…

Stuttering, hesitating, clearly being passed notes by his SPAD, this is a humiliating exchange. He is supposed to be the Defence Secretary, not the Defensive Secretary. He is supposed to present strength, not weakness.

UK 'war footing' latest: We have a Defence Secretary, & four SpAds, who have been in post (Shadow & HMG), for *SIX YEARS* - who do not know how many frigates & destroyers the UK has. Let that sink in. By all accounts a decent man, he is nevertheless clearly unfit for post.

@ArchRose90 @JaggersRay x.com/navylookout/st…

Another Labour MP, another car crash interview. The Defence Secretary John Healey, doesn’t know how many of our frigates and destroyers are available. Is anyone in the Labour cabinet actually on top of their brief? Because it doesn’t appear that any of them are.

@euronews Hard to escape the impression that Starmer is utterly clueless and out of his depth, relying on Hermer for permission to govern. Permission to apply existing laws shouldn't be necessary, eg:

@Keir_Starmer @DefenceHQ Clown show!!! The Secretary of State for Defence hasn’t the first clue what he’s doing!

Putin is rubbing his hands at the war in the Middle East because he thinks higher oil prices will let him line his pockets. I will always defend British interests at home and abroad, which is why we are taking action against Russia’s shadow fleet today.

@BenObeseJecty x.com/navylookout/st…

Maybe if John Healey knew how many ships the Royal Navy had he’d be able to make sure they were where they were needed. Hardly a gotcha question.

And again, Keir Starmer is deliberately trying to misled people. The whole point is that the phone was 'stolen' a week AFTER No.10 officials had discussed the possibility of parliament demanding to see the messages.

Every country practised slavery. African nations more enthusiastically and more recently than most. So why go after Britain, which is unique in its determination to stamp out the foul trade? Why not, say, China or Nigeria or Saudi? Because Britain keeps inviting its enemies to have a go. It will not sanction countries that back motions like this. Incredibly, it would not even vote against the motion. telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/2…

I learnt so much writing my 1st and 2nd books that I've released a rewrite of The Crimson Scarf using the lessons learned. I've done a time-limited price drop deal on the Kindle version, starting at 8:00 am for 40 hours. You can get it for just 99p. mybook.to/CrimsonScarf

As the Labour Party starts to jockey internally for position in the next leadership race, Labour MPs are unearthing tired and incoherent Brexit tropes to try to gain support from the EU cultists and obsessives. Don't let them get away with all the lies. Call them out.

I find this curious too. I have so many profiles on my timeline who have been adamant that there’s little point negotiating with Putin and the only thing he (a bully) understands is strength but these same accounts are staunchly against the US/Israeli intervention in Iran citing military and civilian casualties and the bully Iran holding the card of the SoH. I can only put it down to their hatred of President Trump skewing their thought process 🤷🏼‍♀️

@TimesRadio Newsreader It’s the Royal Navy NOT the British Navy. Sake!!! 🙄

This sums up the contempt the government has for us. @Nigel_Farage mentions the 1,000 illegal migrants that arrived this week & what will be done this Summer to prevent the usual rise in boats? Heckling, laughing and Keir Starmer responding with nothing to do with the question.

@SpeechUnion @LNathan123 I thought he was just adjusting his toupee 🤷🏼‍♀️

The moment you finally realise you’re leading the most authoritarian government in our country’s history: 1️⃣ Introducing an official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” that silences legitimate criticism of religion — 18 years after Parliament abolished such laws. 2️⃣ Removing the right of most defendants to have a jury trial, in the biggest assault on English liberty in over 800 years. 3️⃣ Requiring pub landlords to monitor customers’ private conversations to protect staff from remarks, comments, or jokes they may find “offensive”. 4️⃣ Clamping down on lawful social media posts, arresting an Irish comedian for gender-critical tweets and even threatening to ban access to X in the UK. It’s not a great look, is it, Prime Minister…

The Slave Trade Reparations Trap Is Already Set On Tuesday, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution demanding that Britain and other former colonial powers enter into "good-faith dialogue on reparatory justice" for the transatlantic slave trade. It passed 124 to three. Britain abstained. The government called this a principled stand. James Kariuki, Britain's chargé d'affaires at the UN, said the UK "continues to disagree with fundamental propositions of the text." Strong words. The problem is that this government has already demonstrated, in precise detail, exactly how much those words are worth. The man who championed this cause from the backbenches is now Deputy Prime Minister. In 2018, Lammy told Parliament he wanted not just an apology but reparations. In 2020, he said the process of "repairing" Britain's colonial past was "obviously financial." He is now the second most powerful figure in the government. Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, said that same year that there was "a moral and legal" case for compensation. These are not old positions they have repudiated. They are positions they have declined to retract. The African Union's legal strategy is no secret. Their experts plan to seek an ICJ advisory opinion establishing reparations as a matter of international obligation. They chose this route because it worked. A previous ICJ opinion on Chagos prompted Starmer to hand over £30 billion of British sovereign territory rather than "break international law." The reparations movement noted the outcome. Tuesday's resolution is the first brick in the same foundation. The abstention is not a defence. It is a waiting room. Look at who voted in favour. China. Iran. Russia. India. This is the moral coalition that has appointed itself arbiter of Britain's historical guilt. China, which runs the largest forced labour system currently operating on earth. Iran, whose government funds proxy militias and whose record on human rights requires no elaboration. Russia, prosecuting a war of territorial conquest in Europe. These governments did not vote yes because they have thought seriously about Atlantic slavery. They voted yes because a financially and legally weakened Britain serves their interests, and because Western self-flagellation is a gift that keeps giving. The resolution contains a revealing admission. Its supporters openly ranked the transatlantic trade as more grave than the Arab slave trade, which ran for 1,300 years and took millions of Africans across the Sahara and Indian Ocean. The reason given: scale and duration. By that measure, the Arab trade should face equal scrutiny. It does not. The resolution targets Western nations and leaves others untouched. Some historical criminals are in the dock. Others helped write the charges. The US representative said so plainly. He rejected the idea of ranking atrocities by political convenience and accused the resolution's backers of using history as a weapon. Only the United States, Israel, and Argentina voted against. Britain could not manage even that. There is a pattern here that is no longer possible to mistake for coincidence. Gibraltar. Chagos. And now this. Each time, the same sequence: international legal pressure applied, ministers express disagreement, then Britain writes the cheque. Starmer did not create the reparations movement. But he handed it its proof of concept. The arguments against reparations are well-rehearsed and decisive. The question is whether a government containing David Lammy and Lord Hermer has the will to make them. When the ICJ opinion arrives, and the Foreign Office begins its familiar audit of what international law requires, that question will answer itself. "The arguments against reparations are well-rehearsed and decisive. The question is whether a government containing David Lammy and Lord Hermer has the will to make them."

@BenObeseJecty Admiral Chris Parry served this country for decades at the highest levels of naval command. He has forgotten more about defence, security and national interest than most politicians will ever know. His comment was clumsy. He said so himself, apologised unreservedly and explained precisely what he meant. It was about reparations, not race. It was about whether a British Foreign Secretary should be advocating for the financial interests of foreign governments while holding one of the great offices of state. That is a legitimate and serious question that the political class has conspicuously avoided answering. And he is right. David Lammy, as Foreign Secretary, travelled to the Caribbean and publicly championed reparations, effectively committing British taxpayers to a financial obligation to foreign states while representing Britain abroad. The question of where a minister's primary loyalty lies when he does that is not racism. It is constitutional accountability. You may disagree with the argument. Dismissing it as 1950s hate is not an answer. It is a way of avoiding one. Now consider what you are defending. A Foreign Secretary who has been photographed at pro-Palestinian events. A Labour government that blocked allied use of British bases during strikes on a regime that has sponsored twenty terror plots on British soil, firebombed Jewish ambulances in Golders Green, and murdered its own citizens in the streets. A party whose record on antisemitism under its previous leadership was so severe that the Equality and Human Rights Commission launched a full statutory investigation. David Lammy calls Admiral Parry's comment 1950s hate. The Jewish community might reasonably ask what decade Labour's record on antisemitism belongs to. Admiral Parry's support for the Jewish community is documented and consistent. His comment about reparations was clumsy. It was not hate. The people calling it hate are the same people who stayed silent while Jewish ambulances burned in north London. You called him a liability. Britain could use a few more liabilities of his calibre in public life. And considerably fewer of the kind that mistake vocabulary for virtue while the country burns around them.