wtfNeedSignUp
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
The British Summer of Discontent - The growing civil unrest of the native British population, sparked by the murder of 3 young girls in Southport
- Thread starter Bloom Worm Cross Field
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
No it'll be fine.
Illumithotty
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2022
That's a three year supply.
Now, I loathe the retarded oil protesters for being retarded in their actions/ethos. They're basically saying that it's time to start cutting off our legs so we don't run out of shoe leather. And the way they go about it is the kind of performative priggishness that makes life measureably worse for everyone.
But just as you can run through a resource and then find out the consequences later, you can squander it just as effectively by leaving it underutilized and suffering for it. Okay, feels like I'm veering into middle-way meanderings, but even if the figures on worldwide oil consumption and this single oil producing patch were both off by an order of magnitude each, it behooves us to find ways to turn a 300 year supply into one that can be used for 600 years through smart management.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2023
That’s terrorism. Why hasn’t the word terrorism been used?
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2023
I found an article written by Keir Starmer for The Guardian, in which he addresses the then PM Tony Blair, about the legalities of using force in Iraq:
March 17 2003:
Link / Archive
My post is not about the article although it is hilarious in hindsight. At the bottom of the Guardian article was this small blurb about Keir, that included the email address he had at Doughty Street Chambers:
When I searched for his address in quotation marks on the search engine Startpage it gave me this link:
It is a link to a PDF on the website for an organization called the British Institute of International and Comparative Law:
Link / Archive
The website already had existing archives going back to 2013:
https://archive.is/www.biicl.org
The title of the file is "_a_17_project_network" it is a 4 page document that lists the names, countries, establishments, positions, roles and email addresses of the people in the network. The the majority of them are from different African countries with a smaller group of UK citizens involved including Keir Starmer, his name is found at the top of page 4.
Document time frame:
Starmer is listed with his email address from Doughty Street Chambers, he was a founding member in 1990 and left in 2008 when he was appointed the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Source / Archive
I have attached the PDF at the bottom. I strongly advise Kiwi's from the UK and EU countries to protect themselves by using Tor or a VPN.
Edit: Formatting.
March 17 2003:
Link / ArchiveThe legal community is deeply divided on the question of the legality of using force against Iraq in the absence of a further UN resolution. There are two camps. The first takes the view that military action can be justified without a further resolution either on the basis of self-defence or on the basis that previous UN resolutions, including resolution 1441, authorise the use of force. The second takes the opposite view that, as things stand, there is no actual or imminent threat from Iraq that would justify a "self-defence" response by the UK and that nothing in resolution 1441, or any other UN resolution, authorises the use of force without a further resolution giving clear authority to do so.
The government has been advised on the issue by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general. His advice is to be disclosed today. All the prime minister has been prepared to say so far is that the UK will not take any action that does not have a "proper legal basis", as he made clear in his answers in parliament last week.
Time is now running out. In the very near future British troops are likely to be committed to battle. They, their families and the public have a right to know what the "proper legal basis" for their action is. Engaging in armed conflict in breach of international law is a precarious business. The idea that the prime minister would end up before the international criminal court for participating in a US-led attack is far-fetched. But military commanders on the ground will not thank the government if any action they take is later judged to have been in breach of international law.
The limits of the potential arguments available to the government are clear. According to the UN charter, there are only two possible situations in which one country can take military action against another. The first is in individual or collective self-defence - a right under customary international law which is expressly preserved by Article 51 of the UN charter. The second is where, under Article 42 of the charter, the security council decides that force is necessary "to maintain or restore international peace and security" where its decisions have not been complied with. In other words, where a UN resolution clearly authorises military action.
The question whether the Article 51 self-defence route justifies a pre-emptive attack has been keenly debated. Article 51 itself is silent on the matter. But even if it does justify a pre-emptive strike, which is surely the sounder position in a nuclear world, any threat to the UK or its allies would have to be imminent and any force used in response to that threat would have to be proportionate before Article 51 can be relied on. The mere fact that Iraq has a capacity to attack at some unspecified time in the future is not enough.
The problem for the government is one of credibility. No one believes that Iraq is about to attack the UK or its allies, and any self-defence claim by the government would sit very uncomfortably with the US position that military action is justified to destroy such weapons of mass destruction as Iraq may have, and to bring about a change of leadership.
The second route, which depends on Article 42 of the UN charter, appears more promising for the government. There are two strands to this argument. The first is that resolution 1441 itself authorises the use of force against Iraq. It warns Iraq that "it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate obligations spelled out in that resolution. But, critically, the words "all necessary means" have not been used.
They are important words because they are the formula used by the UN to indicate that the use of force is authorised. They were the words used to justify military action against Iraq in 1991 and, subsequently, when the security council authorised intervention in Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti. The argument that all the security council members, including France and Russia, intended to authorise the use of force when they voted for resolution 1441 is hardly compelling, and arguments that resolution 1441 implicitly authorises the use of force run into the same difficulty.
The only real alternative for the government is to argue that Iraq's failure to comply with the ceasefire requirements of UN resolution 687, passed at the end of military action against Iraq in April 1991, justifies the renewed use of force. But that, too, is not without its difficulties. Like resolution 1441, resolution 687 does not itself authorise the use of force. The only security council resolution expressly authorising the use of force against Iraq was 678, which was passed at the start of the Gulf war in November 1990, and the only action it authorised was such force as was necessary to restore Kuwait's sovereignty.
It is true that the ceasefire resolution 687 requires Iraq to destroy all weapons of mass destruction, but under Article 42 it is for the security council and not the US or UK to decide how it is to be enforced. In 1993 the UN secretary general suggested that resolution 678 justified US and UK air attacks to enforce the no-fly zone in Iraq. But that is a very fragile basis for arguing that, 10 years later, it justifies an all-out attack without the need for a further UN resolution.
The government has a point when it grumbles about permanent members of the security council, such as France and Russia, threatening to veto any further UN resolution. But that does not justify the US or the UK acting outside the UN. It merely highlights the need for reform of the undemocratic security council structure which they put in place at the end of the second world war. Article 2 of the UN charter requires all states to refrain from the threat or use of force that is inconsistent with the purposes of the UN, which emphasises that peace is to be preserved if at all possible.
Against that background, it is no surprise that the government has been coy about its advice so far. But on the eve of war that is not good enough. If the attorney general's advice is that force can be used against Iraq without a further UN resolution, he must explain fully how the legal difficulties set out above are to be overcome. Simply to argue that the interpretation of resolution 1441 accepted by all the other security council members except the US and the UK should be abandoned in favour of military action won't convince anybody. Flawed advice does not make the unlawful use of force lawful.
The government has been advised on the issue by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general. His advice is to be disclosed today. All the prime minister has been prepared to say so far is that the UK will not take any action that does not have a "proper legal basis", as he made clear in his answers in parliament last week.
Time is now running out. In the very near future British troops are likely to be committed to battle. They, their families and the public have a right to know what the "proper legal basis" for their action is. Engaging in armed conflict in breach of international law is a precarious business. The idea that the prime minister would end up before the international criminal court for participating in a US-led attack is far-fetched. But military commanders on the ground will not thank the government if any action they take is later judged to have been in breach of international law.
The limits of the potential arguments available to the government are clear. According to the UN charter, there are only two possible situations in which one country can take military action against another. The first is in individual or collective self-defence - a right under customary international law which is expressly preserved by Article 51 of the UN charter. The second is where, under Article 42 of the charter, the security council decides that force is necessary "to maintain or restore international peace and security" where its decisions have not been complied with. In other words, where a UN resolution clearly authorises military action.
The question whether the Article 51 self-defence route justifies a pre-emptive attack has been keenly debated. Article 51 itself is silent on the matter. But even if it does justify a pre-emptive strike, which is surely the sounder position in a nuclear world, any threat to the UK or its allies would have to be imminent and any force used in response to that threat would have to be proportionate before Article 51 can be relied on. The mere fact that Iraq has a capacity to attack at some unspecified time in the future is not enough.
The problem for the government is one of credibility. No one believes that Iraq is about to attack the UK or its allies, and any self-defence claim by the government would sit very uncomfortably with the US position that military action is justified to destroy such weapons of mass destruction as Iraq may have, and to bring about a change of leadership.
The second route, which depends on Article 42 of the UN charter, appears more promising for the government. There are two strands to this argument. The first is that resolution 1441 itself authorises the use of force against Iraq. It warns Iraq that "it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate obligations spelled out in that resolution. But, critically, the words "all necessary means" have not been used.
They are important words because they are the formula used by the UN to indicate that the use of force is authorised. They were the words used to justify military action against Iraq in 1991 and, subsequently, when the security council authorised intervention in Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti. The argument that all the security council members, including France and Russia, intended to authorise the use of force when they voted for resolution 1441 is hardly compelling, and arguments that resolution 1441 implicitly authorises the use of force run into the same difficulty.
The only real alternative for the government is to argue that Iraq's failure to comply with the ceasefire requirements of UN resolution 687, passed at the end of military action against Iraq in April 1991, justifies the renewed use of force. But that, too, is not without its difficulties. Like resolution 1441, resolution 687 does not itself authorise the use of force. The only security council resolution expressly authorising the use of force against Iraq was 678, which was passed at the start of the Gulf war in November 1990, and the only action it authorised was such force as was necessary to restore Kuwait's sovereignty.
It is true that the ceasefire resolution 687 requires Iraq to destroy all weapons of mass destruction, but under Article 42 it is for the security council and not the US or UK to decide how it is to be enforced. In 1993 the UN secretary general suggested that resolution 678 justified US and UK air attacks to enforce the no-fly zone in Iraq. But that is a very fragile basis for arguing that, 10 years later, it justifies an all-out attack without the need for a further UN resolution.
The government has a point when it grumbles about permanent members of the security council, such as France and Russia, threatening to veto any further UN resolution. But that does not justify the US or the UK acting outside the UN. It merely highlights the need for reform of the undemocratic security council structure which they put in place at the end of the second world war. Article 2 of the UN charter requires all states to refrain from the threat or use of force that is inconsistent with the purposes of the UN, which emphasises that peace is to be preserved if at all possible.
Against that background, it is no surprise that the government has been coy about its advice so far. But on the eve of war that is not good enough. If the attorney general's advice is that force can be used against Iraq without a further UN resolution, he must explain fully how the legal difficulties set out above are to be overcome. Simply to argue that the interpretation of resolution 1441 accepted by all the other security council members except the US and the UK should be abandoned in favour of military action won't convince anybody. Flawed advice does not make the unlawful use of force lawful.
My post is not about the article although it is hilarious in hindsight. At the bottom of the Guardian article was this small blurb about Keir, that included the email address he had at Doughty Street Chambers:
When I searched for his address in quotation marks on the search engine Startpage it gave me this link:
It is a link to a PDF on the website for an organization called the British Institute of International and Comparative Law:
Link / Archive
The website already had existing archives going back to 2013:
https://archive.is/www.biicl.org
The title of the file is "_a_17_project_network" it is a 4 page document that lists the names, countries, establishments, positions, roles and email addresses of the people in the network. The the majority of them are from different African countries with a smaller group of UK citizens involved including Keir Starmer, his name is found at the top of page 4.
Starmer is listed with his email address from Doughty Street Chambers, he was a founding member in 1990 and left in 2008 when he was appointed the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Source / Archive
I have attached the PDF at the bottom. I strongly advise Kiwi's from the UK and EU countries to protect themselves by using Tor or a VPN.
Edit: Formatting.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2022
Tom Nook's Gloryhole
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 28, 2021
So one of two things happened:
1) She was raped by a grooming gang and the intense trauma essentially caused her to memories to become unreliable testimonies.
2) She picked a handful of Pakistani names at complete random and several happened to be child rapists.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2023
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2023
The PDF was attached as the JPEG conversion is a little hard to read. If you are questioning my advice about UK/EU Kiwis protecting themselves with Tor or VPN.
I can see that it may seem alarmist but with the current government practices of imprisoning citizens for wrongthink, I feel justified in my recommendations.
I stumbled upon this document and believe it adds more insight into Starmers background of championing human rights for everyone except his own countrymen.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2024
We somewhat recently received some figures demonstrating arrest rates by immigrant nationality. To nobody's shock, immigrants are arrested for a litany of offences, generally at a far higher rate than UK nationals. Albanians in particular having a comically high arrest rate.
New data has emerged, this time with regards to convictions. The data is more or less congruent.
Some stand outs: 40% of Albanians are convicted of a crime at a whopping 30-fold over UK nationals.
Sexual offences are, by and large, comitted by Afghanistanis or Eritreans.
2/3rd of sexual offences in London are comitted by immigrants.
The data is very broad, mixing stats of generalised immigrant vs UK and stratified by nationality. I highly recommend checking the data yourself.
https://www.migrationcentral.co.uk/p/over-100000-foreign-national-convictions
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/dKWEi
To nobody's surprise, the UKpolitics subreddit is coping, stating that there are a number of hidden factors such as economic status and age. Not sure how exactly that disputes the argument that uncontrolled immigration is perhaps not good.
New data has emerged, this time with regards to convictions. The data is more or less congruent.
Some stand outs: 40% of Albanians are convicted of a crime at a whopping 30-fold over UK nationals.
Sexual offences are, by and large, comitted by Afghanistanis or Eritreans.
2/3rd of sexual offences in London are comitted by immigrants.
The data is very broad, mixing stats of generalised immigrant vs UK and stratified by nationality. I highly recommend checking the data yourself.
https://www.migrationcentral.co.uk/p/over-100000-foreign-national-convictions
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/dKWEi
To nobody's surprise, the UKpolitics subreddit is coping, stating that there are a number of hidden factors such as economic status and age. Not sure how exactly that disputes the argument that uncontrolled immigration is perhaps not good.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2024
"X does more Y" has been my go to answer to a lot of things for a while now, "but that's raycis/classist to say they're more Y because they is X" is always the reaction, to which I respond "I didn't say why, just that they do, why do YOU think it's like that?" to which there is never any coherent response. It always feels just as good as the first time to see the gears fail to turn.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2024
My pet theory for why Albanians are so overrepresented is likely due to the large Albanian gang presence in Europe alongside their involvement in the small-boat cottage industry. I imagine a large portion of Albanians that make their way to our shores have done so explicitly to participate in criminal enterprise.
Possibly an even worse indictment of them as an immigrant group than the stats alone.
- Joined
- May 22, 2017
The chart only says that it's tracking total population. I didn't see any breakdown based on sex. The laughably higher rate of criminality suggests that it's almost exclusively males that are showing up from foreign locales. Bear in mind, even those UK numbers are artificially high by mixing white Britons with non-whites that have otherwise gained citizenship. This can be further confirmed by the absence of Pakistan on that list. I.e. shit is even worse than the article suggests. White brits in London are being drowned in a sea of foreign criminals.
- Joined
- May 7, 2022
I noticed Moldova's number is right about 1/6. I can only assume that's because they all have a wife and 4 kids who don't get arrested.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2021
Don't forget that with those new sentencing guidelines those numbers will come down because all the worst offenders are minority groups and there must be sentenced less harshly.
Amin Yasister
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2023
Is it just the case that Albanians are useless at crime, and so are caught easily?
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2023
Just GTFO of Britain. Nothing of value left.
lion of panjshir
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 8, 2021
Right next to the infinite gold and uranium supplies we still haven't figured out to extract after almost a century of trying.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
The lithium is relatively easy to extract, though. It's in the form of salts, so you can just evaporate the water and then process what's left, which is functionally the same way lithium is mined from conventional sources, such as brines.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
The whole "ISLAM IS FEMINIST" shit is being pushed hard recently. I see a lot of this shit in my corner of the world now.