Best Of

The Tory Party is descending geyond the gutter of politics in to the sewers

First Nick Timothy - still staggeringly in post

Now THE CHIEF WHIP!

If Badenoch is utterly gutless to act or so terrifyingly evil as to agree with this bile and to support it, they should go and she should go!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/22/tory-chief-whip-reposts-ai-video-created-by-far-right-figure-jailed-for-hate-crimes

So the crime here is someone reposting a perfectly legal, satirical, AI video produced by someone with a dodgy background.

Is our politics so shit this is, somehow, an issue.

If they’re endorsing Nazism or rTommeh that’s one thing. This is a nothing story.

Yes, because it’s much easier to attack the messenger than to try and refute the message.

Our politics is that sh!t.

.

No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.

Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.

But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.

Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.

Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?

If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.

The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.

It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.

It's notable how 'we must start a war to overthrow the regime for the sake of the Iranian people' has so easily morphed into it's fine to target civilians, whatever the law says.

This is approaching Russian logic.

Yup, Vladimir Putin's could have written Bart's posts this morning.

It reinforces the point I have been making, plenty of the Iranian population and the wider diaspora think this war isn't about regime change but bombing Iran back into the stone age.

Except I am right.

As Richard Tyndall also said too, the targeting of energy facilities has been consistently done over time, under the claim of military necessity.

It is one of those irregular verbs again.

It doesn't make it right.

Anyhoo, you fund the Iranian regime by refusing to get an EV, so pipe down.

Given that many EV components are literally made of oil I am not sure that is the winning argument you think it is.

It's more a piss take about Bart's absolutism, he only sees black and white, not shades of grey.

Quite the contrary, I absolutely see shades of grey, which is precisely why we need to treat international law as a guideline and not an absolute. Because grey exists and it matters.

"Israel and the US are the good guys; Iran are the bad guys."
I seem to recall quite recently.

Excellent summary, thanks Viewcode. I don't know for sure if what you have written is legally correct as I don't know your legal background but I do know you have consulted with a lot of people on both sides of the debate and from what I have seen they concur with the 'legal' position you have set out even if they disagree with it.

This is hugely useful and informative.

Thank you. As for my background IANAL: I made my living as a computer programmer for many decades (and hated it) but I prefer statistics and after many years of trying I am now employed as a statistician (which suits me much more).

During the "many years of trying" I kept up my statistical hours by doing freelance work after-hours or writing articles on subjects of statistical interest, which involved me looking at historical/legal/military/statistical documents and extracting the needful, so this article was no big jump conceptually

What I have written is defensible, cited, and represents my honest opinion on the state-of-play. But the interpretation of the present and the ongoing development will be decided by judges and politicians not me, so I can't vouch for this past the date of submission, which was March 15/16.

No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.

Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.

But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.

Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.

Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?

If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.

The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.

It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.

It's notable how 'we must start a war to overthrow the regime for the sake of the Iranian people' has so easily morphed into it's fine to target civilians, whatever the law says.

This is approaching Russian logic.

Yup, Vladimir Putin's could have written Bart's posts this morning.

It reinforces the point I have been making, plenty of the Iranian population and the wider diaspora think this war isn't about regime change but bombing Iran back into the stone age.

Except I am right.

As Richard Tyndall also said too, the targeting of energy facilities has been consistently done over time, under the claim of military necessity.

It is one of those irregular verbs again.

It doesn't make it right.

Anyhoo, you fund the Iranian regime by refusing to get an EV, so pipe down.

Are you arguing that the law takes no account of precedence?

If the precedence is that the West [not merely Russia] has repeatedly bombed energy infrastructure post-1949 then that precedence seems rather valid to today's situation, does it not?

On your gibe, I don't refuse to get an EV. If I could afford one for the same price I got my new car, I would have gladly got one.

My Swift cost me £13k, new direct from the dealer (actually paid negotiated price, not sticker price). If I could have got an EV for the same price, I would have.

Still its a self-charging hybrid and gets double the mileage to fuel ratio that my last vehicle got, so I'll take that as a win and hope that by the time this vehicle needs replacing, EVs will have continued to come down in price and up in quality to the point that a new EV will cost a comparable amount in real terms. Already seems some dodgy Chinese brands are there, but I don't trust them, hopefully other brands will follow before too long.

PS great article viewcode.