Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 19h

I bet 90% of the government couldn’t pass it.

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 23h

Reminds me of this from 2017. Trump probably thought it made him look big. In reality he just looks pathetic. youtu.be/pfbNIb2-0ks

Trump shoves fellow leader

YouTube video by KTVU FOX 2 San Francisco

youtu.be

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 1d

That’s the impression left by the ‘Russia Report’. The Intelligence and Security Committee notes that the government hadn’t enquired whether there was Russian interference in UK elections.

1 2

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 1d

There’s also the problem of jurisdiction. Trump’s worst abuses, so far, are happening at home so don’t fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC.

The Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:
• the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court; or
• the crimes were referred to the ICC
Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to a resolution adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter.

1

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 1d

Crime of aggression? If he attacks Venezuela, possibly.

Finally, the fourth crime falling within the ICC's jurisdiction is the crime of aggression. It is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, integrity or independence of another State. The definition of this crime was adopted through amending the Rome Statute at the first Review Conference of the Statute in Kampala, Uganda, in 2010.

1

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 1d

War crimes? Looks unlikely on current evidence.

Third, war crimes which are grave breaches of the Geneva conventions in the context of armed
conflict and include, for instance, the use of child soldiers; the killing or torture of persons such as civilians or prisoners of war; intentionally directing
attacks against hospitals, historic monuments, or buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes.

1

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 1d

Crimes against humanity? Possibly although, again, we’re probably not quite there yet.

Second, the ICC can prosecute crimes against humanity, which are serious violations committed as part of a large-scale attack against any civilian population. The 15 forms of crimes against humanity listed in the Rome Statute include offences such as murder, rape, imprisonment, enforced disappearances, enslavement - particularly of women and children, sexual slavery, torture, apartheid and deportation.

1

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 1d

It’s not as simple as that. Which crime would they prosecute?

Genocide? Things are going to have to get a lot worse before that applies.

First, the crime of genocide is characterised by the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means: causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

1

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 1d

I do. I also remember Farage couldn’t quit the UKIP leadership (again) fast enough.

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 1d

It needs a better investigation of the issue than a parliamentary committee, even one with statutory powers, can do. Something like an American special prosecutor.

1 10

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 1d

It was released in 2020. isc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/u...

isc.independent.gov.uk

1 1

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 1d

It was released in 2020 (isc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/u...). Evidence from intelligence sources has been redacted but, most interesting, is the admission that the intelligence services weren’t looking out for foreign interference in Uk elections.

isc.independent.gov.uk

1

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 2d

No, there was definitely more to it. Whatever it was, I had to have my passport checked by a human and avoided the machines after that.

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 2d

To be fair I don’t think either of them truly believed in Brexit. I believe one saw supporting it as his ticket to Number 10 and the other as a way to get rich.

2 1 10

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 2d

If this works anything like the eBorders machines they had at Stansted a few years ago, I’m buggered. “Remove glasses and stand on mark”. I now can’t see the instructions on the screen and a queue of frustrated travellers is forming behind me.

1 3

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 3d

That said, not sure what Farage could be charged with. Unlike Gill, I suspect he’s too wily to accept bribes.

Unfortunately I’m of the opinion that Farage et al will have to be defeated politically. Some scandal coming to our rescue is probably a forlorn hope (I feel the same about Trump/Epstein).

2 2

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 3d

I’m sure there is but I think it’ll need a different kind of investigation to uncover it. I’d compare it to the ‘phone hacking scandal that’s going to need a tenacious journalist to keep digging until the rest of the media, police and government can’t ignore it.

1 1

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 3d

However I’m afraid those expecting the Russia Report to reveal a smoking gun, that would single-handedly discredit Farage, UKIP (or Reform UK), Johnson and the Brexit referendum were always going to be disappointed. Parliamentary committee reports aren’t that type of document.

isc.independent.gov.uk

1

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 3d

Johnson delayed publishing the redacted report until after the 2019 election because it was critical of government. One concern, very topical now, was that existing legislation against foreign spies was weak. That still seems to be the case with the recent Chinese agent debacle.

1

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 3d

They saw all the evidence. Although bound by the Official Secrets Act, do you honestly believe none of them would have spoken out if the Prime Minister didn’t act on a serious threat contained in the redacted evidence?

1

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 3d

The Intelligence and Security Committee, which complied the report, was made up of Conservative, Labour and SNP MPs, one Conservative peer and one crossbencher. The chair of the committee was stripped of the whip over Brexit and deselected by his local party (i.e. no friend of the government).

1

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 3d

I’ll ask you the same questions. Which part of the report and have you read it?

There are redacted passages throughout, where intelligence is referenced. Two sections of the report are redacted in their entirety; “Annex” and “Classified Oral and Written Evidence”.

1

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 3d

I suspect their wealthy proprietors think a Reform government will make them richer, like Trump’s admin has benefited the wealthiest in America. Those also involved in broadcasting, or aspirations that way, look forward to Reform doing to the BBC what Trump has done to NPR.

2

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 3d

Unfortunately their target voters are people who don’t follow politics. Until the tabloids start giving this stuff the same front page treatment they give Starmer buying a field, it’ll never cut through. Of course, that’s not going to happen.

4

Floating Voter @floatingvoter.bsky.social · 3d

I, as I imagine you do, find it difficult to believe “12 jobs” Nigel does anything for free.

2