Your friend Susan – politicalbetting.com

System · 9:09AM

Your friend Susan – politicalbetting.com

A PBer asked if their trans friend was legally a woman after the Supreme Court Judgement. To preserve her anonymity, I’ll create a fictional archetype: your friend Susan.

Read the full story here

DavidL · 9:14AM

Finally.

Been looking forward to this. Sorry I was not able to contribute.

Battlebus · 9:15AM

How many trans are out there? Susans, and susans of them.

TheScreamingEagles · 9:16AM

@Morris_Dancer

I have always believed in ACAB!

https://x.com/UpdatingOnRome/status/2035393722074996908

Casino_Royale · 9:18AM

My name is Luka, I live on the second floor.

bondegezou · 9:18AM

Thanks, @viewcode , I found that informative.

Casino_Royale · 9:19AM

A deeply bipolar song, very upbeat and catchy, but actually sad and about child abuse.

Maybe that's what makes it so brilliant.

BartholomewRoberts · 9:20AM

It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.

Treat all people with dignity and respect.

When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.

However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.

If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.

Scott_xP · 9:21AM

@rimaanabtawi.bsky.social‬

Uh oh.

Patriot missile involved in Bahrain blast likely US-operated, analysis finds

https://bsky.app/profile/rimaanabtawi.bsky.social/post/3mhmyiysqpc2j

Morris_Dancer · 9:21AM

TheScreamingEagles said:
@Morris_Dancer

I have always believed in ACAB!

https://x.com/UpdatingOnRome/status/2035393722074996908

It is a historical irony that Flavius Phocas was overthrown by the son of the Exarch of Carthage.

Richard_Tyndall · 9:22AM

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.

Casino_Royale · 9:22AM

Also, on topic - the thread header reminds me of the Eels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC3MH-U6yDk&list=RDlC3MH-U6yDk&start_radio=1

bondegezou · 9:23AM

Battlebus said:
How many trans are out there? Susans, and susans of them.

The census said 0.5% in the UK, although there’s reason to believe that many respondents misunderstood the question, so the true figure might be lower, but probably no lower than 0.05%. The numbers are roughly equal in terms of those identified as male or female at birth. An increasingly high proportion identifying as trans are identifying as non-binary.

BartholomewRoberts · 9:24AM

DavidL said:
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.

turbotubbs · 9:26AM

BartholomewRoberts said:
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.

Treat all people with dignity and respect.

When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.

However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.

If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.

Stop being so rational. That’s not how trans issues get debated.

TheScreamingEagles · 9:26AM

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

DavidL · 9:27AM

Casino_Royale said:
A deeply bipolar song, very upbeat and catchy, but actually sad and about child abuse.

Maybe that's what makes it so brilliant.

I always thought that it was about domestic abuse rather than child abuse. But I completely agree about the contrast between the upbeat tune and the actual content which is disturbing.

Yes, I think I'm okay
I walked into the door again
If you ask that's what I'll say
And it's not your business anyway

MattW · 9:29AM

Thank you for this article.

Appreciated.

Theuniondivvie · 9:30AM

turbotubbs said:

BartholomewRoberts said:
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.

Treat all people with dignity and respect.

When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.

However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.

If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Stop being so rational. That’s not how trans issues get debated.

Yes, a striking absence of ‘blokes in dresses’ so far.

Viewcode, I salute your tenacity in getting this done in a balanced and lucid way.

Casino_Royale · 9:30AM

Appreciate Viewcode's piece, and I'm not doing Trans again.

Have a good day everyone.

DavidL · 9:31AM

What I would say is that if there was any doubt about whether the FWS decision applied to toilets (and I do not personally think that there was) the GLP decision made it clear that it did. Another spectacular own goal by that pompous, arrogant and ultimately incompetent organisation.

Theuniondivvie · 9:32AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

Putin will be ticking off the list of things that are now apparently justified.

MattW · 9:34AM

Battlebus said:
How many trans are out there? Susans, and susans of them.

Not Sustrans any more.

They are now the "Walk Wheel Cycle Trust". I think that is designed to be un-acronym-able. If you try, it sounds like a guinea pig.

(Expect a rebranding of the National Cycle Network in due course, to reflect that it is used just as heavily for walking and wheeling. There is the slight problem that it is on 70683 signposts to be dealt with.)

BartholomewRoberts · 9:35AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

Except that energy facilities, with the exception of specifically-protected ones like dams and nuclear, have been consistently targeted since then too, since they still provide legitimate military necessity.

In Korea and Vietnam the energy facilities were consistently targeted.

In the Gulf War the coalition forces heavily bombarded Iraq's electricity grid. Justified because electricity is essential to command, control and weapons production.

NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia included heavy and targeted bombardment of Serbia's electrical infrastructure.

If it is proportionate to reopening the Strait then it is a legitimate military objective, under dual-use principles.

noneoftheabove · 9:35AM

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

It is a special military operation, they have not declared war.

BartholomewRoberts · 9:37AM

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.
It is a special military operation, they have not declared war.

I don't recall Tony Blair officially declaring war when we were bombing Serbia's electrical grid, do you?

DavidL · 9:38AM

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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 Conventions in large part post date WW2. The 4th Convention, for example, dates from 1949 and it was designed to stop or prevent many of the atrocities carried out by both sides in the war recently finished. The likes of Dresden, for example, would no longer be permissible. The dambuster raid may be a more marginal case because it was primarily focused on eliminating German production of war material.

I do not think that "we want something else to happen and are willing to blackmail with such threats to get it" is any kind of military necessity as set out in the Convention. It would, if he does it, be a grave breach of the Convention, at least in my view.

Malmesbury · 9:39AM

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.
It is a special military operation, they have not declared war.
I don't recall Tony Blair officially declaring war when we were bombing Serbia's electrical grid, do you?

It’s my understanding that the legality of various actions doesn’t depend on a declared state of war.

Right from the first Hague Convention.

Nigelb · 9:39AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

Richard_Tyndall · 9:40AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

And yet they were, repeatedly.

In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries.
The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder.
More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.

I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.

TheScreamingEagles · 9:40AM

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

Taz · 9:41AM

I wonder when Bridget Phillipson will stop sitting on, and holding back, the EHRC guidance ?

BartholomewRoberts · 9:41AM

DavidL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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 Conventions in large part post date WW2. The 4th Convention, for example, dates from 1949 and it was designed to stop or prevent many of the atrocities carried out by both sides in the war recently finished. The likes of Dresden, for example, would no longer be permissible. The dambuster raid may be a more marginal case because it was primarily focused on eliminating German production of war material.

I do not think that "we want something else to happen and are willing to blackmail with such threats to get it" is any kind of military necessity as set out in the Convention. It would, if he does it, be a grave breach of the Convention, at least in my view.

I am not an historian but 1949 would be 50 years before Tony Blair and NATO chose to bomb Serbia's electrical grid, deeming it to be militarily necessary, would it not?

Other than "I don't like who is doing it" can you give me a good reason why it was militarily necessary in 1999, but considering the military objective of forcing the reopening of the Strait it would fail the necessity test today?

Taz · 9:42AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

Yebbut. Israel can do what it likes, war crime or not, as far as some are concerned.

Taz · 9:42AM

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

Which regime ? The Israeli one ?

Roger · 9:43AM

Scott_xP said:
@rimaanabtawi.bsky.social‬

Uh oh.

Patriot missile involved in Bahrain blast likely US-operated, analysis finds

https://bsky.app/profile/rimaanabtawi.bsky.social/post/3mhmyiysqpc2j

An informed interview from an American who fears that because of the likelihood of Trump losing he could resort to nuclear weapons.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEPEx1Zm5Eo&t=422s

BartholomewRoberts · 9:44AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

squareroot2 · 9:44AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

Isn't that a consequence rather than an aim.

Malmesbury · 9:44AM

BartholomewRoberts said:
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.

Treat all people with dignity and respect.

When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.

However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.

If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.

The problem comes with the polarisation, which is now profound and deep.

In your second to last paragraph, you use the expression “real women” - for a substantial number of activists, that alone puts you in the “TERF JK Rowling CANCEL” box.

Everything else you say would be ignored.

stodge · 9:45AM

Morning all

First, thanks to @viewcode and others for the thread this morning.

It's a subject about which I have no strong views and I don't feel equipped to take a view based on my lack of knowledge and experience.

The article is incredibly helpful in setting out the legal thicket into which we seem to have fallen on this issue.

Do I have an answer or solution? No, apart from the general and shallow epithets about people respecting each other which aren't probably of much help to "Susan".

Sunil_Prasannan · 9:45AM

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.

Treat all people with dignity and respect.

When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.

However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.

If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
The problem comes with the polarisation, which is now profound and deep.

In your second to last paragraph, you use the expression “real women” - for a substantial number of activists, that alone puts you in the “TERF JK Rowling CANCEL” box.

Everything else you say would be ignored.

Is it possible to be a TERM?

TheScreamingEagles · 9:46AM

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

Cicero · 9:47AM

Very good header, so much so, that it answers much of the debates we occasionally have here.
I struggle to find much to contribute more, beyond that being respectful should be the beginning and not the end of the question.

DavidL · 9:48AM

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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 Conventions in large part post date WW2. The 4th Convention, for example, dates from 1949 and it was designed to stop or prevent many of the atrocities carried out by both sides in the war recently finished. The likes of Dresden, for example, would no longer be permissible. The dambuster raid may be a more marginal case because it was primarily focused on eliminating German production of war material.

I do not think that "we want something else to happen and are willing to blackmail with such threats to get it" is any kind of military necessity as set out in the Convention. It would, if he does it, be a grave breach of the Convention, at least in my view.
I am not an historian but 1949 would be 50 years before Tony Blair and NATO chose to bomb Serbia's electrical grid, deeming it to be militarily necessary, would it not?

Other than "I don't like who is doing it" can you give me a good reason why it was militarily necessary in 1999, but considering the military objective of forcing the reopening of the Strait it would fail the necessity test today?

I think that was a debatable case and it was indeed debated at the time. The Final Report on the Nato bombing campaign is here: https://www.icty.org/en/press/final-report-prosecutor-committee-established-review-nato-bombing-campaign-against-federal#IVA6
Paragraph 55 is a useful summary.

"The targeted components of the military-industrial infrastructure and of government ministries must make an effective contribution to military action and their total or partial destruction must offer a definite military advantage in the circumstances ruling at the time. Refineries are certainly traditional military objectives but tradition is not enough and due regard must be paid to environmental damage if they are attacked (see paras. 14-25 above). The media as such is not a traditional target category. To the extent particular media components are part of the C3 (command, control and communications) network they are military objectives. If media components are not part of the C3 network then they may become military objectives depending upon their use. As a bottom line, civilians, civilian objects and civilian morale as such are not legitimate military objectives. The media does have an effect on civilian morale. If that effect is merely to foster support for the war effort, the media is not a legitimate military objective. If the media is used to incite crimes, as in Rwanda, it can become a legitimate military objective. If the media is the nerve system that keeps a war-monger in power and thus perpetuates the war effort, it may fall within the definition of a legitimate military objective. As a general statement, in the particular incidents reviewed by the committee, it is the view of the committee that NATO was attempting to attack objects it perceived to be legitimate military objectives."

Taz · 9:48AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

No, it isn’t right, but apologists justify it to themselves.

Malmesbury · 9:50AM

MattW said:

Battlebus said:
How many trans are out there? Susans, and susans of them.
Not Sustrans any more.

They are now the "Walk Wheel Cycle Trust". I think that is designed to be un-acronym-able. If you try, it sounds like a guinea pig.

(Expect a rebranding of the National Cycle Network in due course, to reflect that it is used just as heavily for walking and wheeling. There is the slight problem that it is on 70683 signposts to be dealt with.)

Nonesense

The sign posts are the opportunity - to engage with domain expert consultancies is creating signage that is inclusive, modern and forward looking.

After £216 million pounds has been spent on creating signs that minorities find racist, are invisible to those with colour blindness and could attacks for epileptics, no actual new sign would be installed. Probably for the best, since testing revolved that no one can actually read the information on them.

kinabalu · 9:50AM

Roger said:

Scott_xP said:
@rimaanabtawi.bsky.social‬

Uh oh.

Patriot missile involved in Bahrain blast likely US-operated, analysis finds

https://bsky.app/profile/rimaanabtawi.bsky.social/post/3mhmyiysqpc2j
An informed interview from an American who fears that because of the likelihood of Trump losing he could resort to nuclear weapons.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEPEx1Zm5Eo&t=422s

The same sentiment as often expressed about his pal Putin and Ukraine.

Richard_Tyndall · 9:52AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

TheScreamingEagles · 9:53AM

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

Malmesbury · 9:54AM

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

The oil footprint of an EV, over its lifetime, is vastly less than an ICE.

BartholomewRoberts · 9:54AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

stodge · 9:56AM

It seems the Iranians are claiming the Straits of Hormuz are open to all ships except those "linked to Iran's enemies". Now, that seems a pretty broad statement - does that include the registry of the ship or simply where it's going?

Trump continues to thrash and threaten - it's a long while since I was in that state but he sounds more like an angry early teenage boy some days. It's my experience some people, as they get older, revert to a more child like state - I warned Mrs Stodge about that and drew the inevitable rejoinder she wouldn't notice the difference and then sent me upstairs without any supper.

The one thing all this uncertainty won't do is help oil prices (unless you like having high oil prices as a major oil producer who doesn't need the Gulf like, oh I don't know, America or Russia).

I am told by those who have more knowledge of this than I (which is almost anyone on almost anything), petrol supplies are fine but diesel might become an issue - I've literally no clue.

IF I were a bluff old cynic with childlike tendencies, I'd suggest the current situation could almost be contrived to hurt Europe and China at the expense of America and Russia but that would be wrong, wouldn't it?

BartholomewRoberts · 9:56AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

TheScreamingEagles · 9:58AM

Will Kemi Badenoch sack her Chief Whip?

Tory chief whip reposts AI video created by far-right figure who was jailed for hate crimes

Exclusive: Rebecca Harris promotes latest Crewkerne Gazette skit, created by Joshua Bonehill-Paine who says he is Tory member

The Conservative party’s chief whip has been condemned for promoting AI-generated footage created by a notorious far-right figure who was jailed for hate crimes against Jewish people.

Rebecca Harris reposted the latest skit by the Crewkerne Gazette, which depicts Kemi Badenoch and her shadow justice secretary, Nick Timothy, as characters in the gangster film Scarface.

The online satirical account had gained a large online following before its creator was revealed last month to be Joshua Bonehill-Paine, an activist who previously described himself as a “nationalist, fascist, theorist and supporter of white rights”.

It can now also be revealed that Bonehill-Paine claims to be a fully paid-up member of the Conservative party, despite a history of far-right activism and convictions ranging from assault to racially aggravated harassment against a Jewish Labour MP.

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

TheScreamingEagles · 10:00AM

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.
No, it isn’t right, but apologists justify it to themselves.

Indeed, I am consistent, I condemn Russia for targetting Ukraine's energy infrastructure.

Xtrain · 10:01AM

The 2024 film "Crossing" set in Georgia and Istanbul deals with the trans subject very sensitively. Recommended whatever your views on the subject.

BartholomewRoberts · 10:01AM

DavidL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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 Conventions in large part post date WW2. The 4th Convention, for example, dates from 1949 and it was designed to stop or prevent many of the atrocities carried out by both sides in the war recently finished. The likes of Dresden, for example, would no longer be permissible. The dambuster raid may be a more marginal case because it was primarily focused on eliminating German production of war material.

I do not think that "we want something else to happen and are willing to blackmail with such threats to get it" is any kind of military necessity as set out in the Convention. It would, if he does it, be a grave breach of the Convention, at least in my view.
I am not an historian but 1949 would be 50 years before Tony Blair and NATO chose to bomb Serbia's electrical grid, deeming it to be militarily necessary, would it not?

Other than "I don't like who is doing it" can you give me a good reason why it was militarily necessary in 1999, but considering the military objective of forcing the reopening of the Strait it would fail the necessity test today?
I think that was a debatable case and it was indeed debated at the time. The Final Report on the Nato bombing campaign is here: https://www.icty.org/en/press/final-report-prosecutor-committee-established-review-nato-bombing-campaign-against-federal#IVA6
Paragraph 55 is a useful summary.

"The targeted components of the military-industrial infrastructure and of government ministries must make an effective contribution to military action and their total or partial destruction must offer a definite military advantage in the circumstances ruling at the time. Refineries are certainly traditional military objectives but tradition is not enough and due regard must be paid to environmental damage if they are attacked (see paras. 14-25 above). The media as such is not a traditional target category. To the extent particular media components are part of the C3 (command, control and communications) network they are military objectives. If media components are not part of the C3 network then they may become military objectives depending upon their use. As a bottom line, civilians, civilian objects and civilian morale as such are not legitimate military objectives. The media does have an effect on civilian morale. If that effect is merely to foster support for the war effort, the media is not a legitimate military objective. If the media is used to incite crimes, as in Rwanda, it can become a legitimate military objective. If the media is the nerve system that keeps a war-monger in power and thus perpetuates the war effort, it may fall within the definition of a legitimate military objective. As a general statement, in the particular incidents reviewed by the committee, it is the view of the committee that NATO was attempting to attack objects it perceived to be legitimate military objectives."

So long story short NATO attacked the electrical grid and the report afterwards confirmed that it was an attempt to attack objects it perceived to be legitimate military objectives. Noteworthy that the bulk of that paragraph is about media and not electricity being the grey area though, indeed it immediately confirms refineries as a legitimate target.

So NATO attacking energy, as had happened in a plethora of past conflicts, was legitimate.

It is another irregular verb. When they do it, it is a war crime, but when we do it, it is a legitimate military objective.

Well, if the goal is to collapse the regime and reopen the Strait then it is, again, a legitimate military objective.

DecrepiterJohnL · 10:02AM

In soccerball news, today sees relegation battles including the Cameron Derby and the League Cup Final, which used to be a major event.

Deleted details of trans friends in case of jigsaw doxxing.

Sunil_Prasannan · 10:03AM

Battlebus said:
How many trans are out there? Susans, and susans of them.

Desperately Seeking Sunil

Nigelb · 10:03AM

.

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

RochdalePioneers · 10:04AM

On topic. If you've had surgery as described then you have changed physical sex. Surely that's obvious.

Off topic. The Iran war is just going to keep getting worse. As bad as prices are now, they're only going in one direction. What a tosser Trump is.

Eabhal · 10:05AM

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.
And yet they were, repeatedly.

In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries.
The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder.
More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.

I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.

I'm not sure if I follow this argument. Does it come down to "dealing drugs is illegal, but people still do it, so..."?

I think we'd all agree that the world would be a better place if such conventions were abided by. There are times when they don't survive contact with 21st century reality - human rights/refugees, and must be reformed - and others when they must be suspended because an aggressor would use them to their advantage otherwise. We should clearly state when this is the case.

I think a justifiable action against Iran would be a total economic blockage - stop them exporting oil to China/India, in the same way they are doing that to the Gulf States for Europe. Destroying their domestic energy/water is entirely different.

MelonB · 10:05AM

Xtrain said:
The 2024 film "Crossing" set in Georgia and Istanbul deals with the trans subject very sensitively. Recommended whatever your views on the subject.

If that’s as good as the director’s previous film “and then we danced” then I must see it. I’m off to Istanbul and ending up back in Georgia during my early summer rail travels.

BartholomewRoberts · 10:05AM

Nigelb said:
.
BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.

Yes. I stand by that.

Israel and the US are rather flawed good guys, not angelic good guys, but they absolutely are the good guys in this conflict.

Good guys often have flaws. Shades of grey.

Iran absolutely are the bad guys.

viewcode · 10:07AM

Richard_Tyndall said:
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.

squareroot2 · 10:07AM

How much more would oil be if ships took the extra two weeks voyage to avoid the Straits of Hormuz?

Nigelb · 10:09AM

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:
.
BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.
Yes. I stand by that.

Israel and the US are rather flawed good guys, not angelic good guys, but they absolutely are the good guys in this conflict.

Good guys often have flaws. Shades of grey.

Iran absolutely are the bad guys.

I see shades of grey when it suits my argument wilful blindness.

Eabhal · 10:10AM

squareroot2 said:
How much more would oil be if ships took the extra two weeks voyage to avoid the Straits of Hormuz?

I think you've confused the Red Sea for the Gulf. The pipelines across Saudi don't have anywhere near the capacity to replace the volume going through the Strait.

viewcode · 10:12AM

The legal bit. This article does not constitute advice as defined in the code of conduct and professional standards of the Royal Statistical Society and you are urged to consider other sources as well.

(In gambling terms : DYOR)

Nigelb · 10:12AM

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.
And yet they were, repeatedly.

In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries.
The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder.
More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.

I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.

The Korean War killed around 10% of the civilian population.
Are we up for that ?

Stuartinromford · 10:13AM

TheScreamingEagles said:
Will Kemi Badenoch sack her Chief Whip?

Tory chief whip reposts AI video created by far-right figure who was jailed for hate crimes

Exclusive: Rebecca Harris promotes latest Crewkerne Gazette skit, created by Joshua Bonehill-Paine who says he is Tory member

The Conservative party’s chief whip has been condemned for promoting AI-generated footage created by a notorious far-right figure who was jailed for hate crimes against Jewish people.

Rebecca Harris reposted the latest skit by the Crewkerne Gazette, which depicts Kemi Badenoch and her shadow justice secretary, Nick Timothy, as characters in the gangster film Scarface.

The online satirical account had gained a large online following before its creator was revealed last month to be Joshua Bonehill-Paine, an activist who previously described himself as a “nationalist, fascist, theorist and supporter of white rights”.

It can now also be revealed that Bonehill-Paine claims to be a fully paid-up member of the Conservative party, despite a history of far-right activism and convictions ranging from assault to racially aggravated harassment against a Jewish Labour MP.

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

QTWTAIN.

viewcode · 10:14AM

Taz said:
I wonder when Bridget Phillipson will stop sitting on, and holding back, the EHRC guidance ?

I was honestly afraid it was going to be Friday past. I'd have to rewrite the article ☹️

Nigelb · 10:17AM

viewcode said:
The legal bit. This article does not constitute advice as defined in the code of conduct and professional standards of the Royal Statistical Society and you are urged to consider other sources as well.

(In gambling terms : DYOR)

It seems a pretty good summary, though.
And in any even professional legal advice is not infrequently wrong.

An interesting question, now there is at least partial license to discriminate against trans individuals, is how broad are the protections against discrimination afforded to them, as trans individuals, by the Equality Act, as you mention in the header.

Sunil_Prasannan · 10:19AM

viewcode said:

Taz said:
I wonder when Bridget Phillipson will stop sitting on, and holding back, the EHRC guidance ?
I was honestly afraid it was going to be Friday past. I'd have to rewrite the article ☹️

As you know, it's not entirely my cup of tea, but thanks for the effort put into the article!

Nigelb · 10:19AM

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.
And yet they were, repeatedly.

In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries.
The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder.
More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.

I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.
The Korean War killed around 10% of the civilian population.
Are we up for that ?

(It almost saw the use of nuclear weapons, too.)

Sunil_Prasannan · 10:20AM

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.
And yet they were, repeatedly.

In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries.
The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder.
More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.

I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.
The Korean War killed around 10% of the civilian population.
Are we up for that ?

Barty might be...

Cookie · 10:21AM

One aspect of the war I don't recall being discussed in much detail is the impact on thr economies of Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Presumably these countries are at present practically unable to do the one thing their economy depends on i.e. export their hydrocarbons. Now most of these ate fabukously wealthy so can bear this for a bit - but it must beeven more problematic for them than it is for their customers, no?

BartholomewRoberts · 10:22AM

Nigelb said:

viewcode said:
The legal bit. This article does not constitute advice as defined in the code of conduct and professional standards of the Royal Statistical Society and you are urged to consider other sources as well.

(In gambling terms : DYOR)
It seems a pretty good summary, though.
And in any even professional legal advice is not infrequently wrong.

An interesting question, now there is at least partial license to discriminate against trans individuals, is how broad are the protections against discrimination afforded to them, as trans individuals, by the Equality Act, as you mention in the header.

Is there license to discriminate against trans individuals?

As far as I can tell there is only a right to exclude eg trans women from women's-only spaces, but that is done not on the grounds that the trans individual is trans. It is done on the grounds that it is a women's-only space, excluding biological males, and the person being excluded is a biological male.

If safeguarding requires excluding males from that space, whether it be on grounds of safety, dignity, fairness (eg sport) or similar then that is reasonable.

If it does not, then there should not be an exclusion of any males, so there should not be an exclusion of trans individuals either.

As far as I know it is never legal to exclude someone on the grounds they are trans alone.

viewcode · 10:24AM

Nigelb said:

viewcode said:
The legal bit. This article does not constitute advice as defined in the code of conduct and professional standards of the Royal Statistical Society and you are urged to consider other sources as well.

(In gambling terms : DYOR)
It seems a pretty good summary, though.
And in any even professional legal advice is not infrequently wrong.

An interesting question, now there is at least partial license to discriminate against trans individuals, is how broad are the protections against discrimination afforded to them, as trans individuals, by the Equality Act, as you mention in the header.

I honestly don't know. I assume it will come out in the wash of case law.

kinabalu · 10:24AM

BartholomewRoberts said:
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.

Treat all people with dignity and respect.

When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.

However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.

If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.

Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.

But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.

So we're not there yet.

Taz · 10:26AM

TheScreamingEagles said:
Will Kemi Badenoch sack her Chief Whip?

Tory chief whip reposts AI video created by far-right figure who was jailed for hate crimes

Exclusive: Rebecca Harris promotes latest Crewkerne Gazette skit, created by Joshua Bonehill-Paine who says he is Tory member

The Conservative party’s chief whip has been condemned for promoting AI-generated footage created by a notorious far-right figure who was jailed for hate crimes against Jewish people.

Rebecca Harris reposted the latest skit by the Crewkerne Gazette, which depicts Kemi Badenoch and her shadow justice secretary, Nick Timothy, as characters in the gangster film Scarface.

The online satirical account had gained a large online following before its creator was revealed last month to be Joshua Bonehill-Paine, an activist who previously described himself as a “nationalist, fascist, theorist and supporter of white rights”.

It can now also be revealed that Bonehill-Paine claims to be a fully paid-up member of the Conservative party, despite a history of far-right activism and convictions ranging from assault to racially aggravated harassment against a Jewish Labour MP.

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

Why should she ?

It’s a Nothing story.

BartholomewRoberts · 10:27AM

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.

Treat all people with dignity and respect.

When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.

However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.

If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.

But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.

So we're not there yet.

There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.

If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".

Taz · 10:27AM

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.
And yet they were, repeatedly.

In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries.
The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder.
More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.

I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.
The Korean War killed around 10% of the civilian population.
Are we up for that ?
Barty might be...

Is 10% enough !!

DecrepiterJohnL · 10:29AM

The toilets thing is unfortunate and seems to have been extended beyond the Supreme Court judgment by the EHRC. In practice, it creates the requirement for trans men and trans women to ‘out’ themselves at work, in restaurants, and just about anywhere really by forcing them to use the ‘wrong’ facilities (including disabled toilets with no disability).

Nigelb · 10:29AM

Cookie said:
One aspect of the war I don't recall being discussed in much detail is the impact on the economies of Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Presumably these countries are at present practically unable to do the one thing their economy depends on i.e. export their hydrocarbons. Now most of these are fabulously wealthy so can bear this for a bit - but it must be even more problematic for them than it is for their customers, no?

If it carries on, it will be equally problematic for some of their customers.
The dependency of some Asian countries on Middle East gas supplies is profound, and extends well beyond energy alone.

The S Korean semiconductor industry, for example, imports the vast majority of its helium and bromine from the gulf.

Taz · 10:31AM

RochdalePioneers said:
On topic. If you've had surgery as described then you have changed physical sex. Surely that's obvious.

Off topic. The Iran war is just going to keep getting worse. As bad as prices are now, they're only going in one direction. What a tosser Trump is.

Well I’ve stocked up on tinned tomatoes, baked beans, dried pulses, basmati and quick cook rice, olive oil and a couple of other things.

BartholomewRoberts · 10:31AM

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The toilets thing is unfortunate and seems to have been extended beyond the Supreme Court judgment by the EHRC. In practice, it creates the requirement for trans men and trans women to ‘out’ themselves at work, in restaurants, and just about anywhere really by forcing them to use the ‘wrong’ facilities (including disabled toilets with no disability).

No, it does not.

Plenty of people use the gender-neutral disabled toilets for a plethora of reasons and anyway not all disabilities are visible.

Having adequate provision of gender-neutral toilets that can be used by the disabled or anyone else who requires them is a reasonable compromise that protects everyone.

DecrepiterJohnL · 10:32AM

Pedantry corner. Court judgments are normally spelled without the ‘e’ &ndash: judgment not judgement. I've no idea why. Some sort of shibboleth perhaps, like wigs, or shoes in primary colours.

noneoftheabove · 10:32AM

For those who haven't realised there is a 60 page appendix attached! A remarkable effort.

Malmesbury · 10:34AM

viewcode said:

Richard_Tyndall said:
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.

Given the level of effort and review put in, it deserves a wider publication than PB.

Far better than 99% of the articles published in mainstream journalism on the subject.

Richard_Tyndall · 10:34AM

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.
And yet they were, repeatedly.

In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries.
The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder.
More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.

I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.
The Korean War killed around 10% of the civilian population.
Are we up for that ?

Personally I am not up for any of it. I do not agree with this attack on Iran (with or without targeting the oil infrastructure) nor the Israeli actions in Gaza.

But the argument made was that we should not be bombing energy infrastructure because it has been banned under international treaty since 1949. I am simply pointing out that that has not stopped even those countries who supposedly support international law from making these attacks in the interim so that it seems a strange issue to raise now.

OnlyLivingBoy · 10:35AM

RochdalePioneers said:
On topic. If you've had surgery as described then you have changed physical sex. Surely that's obvious.

Off topic. The Iran war is just going to keep getting worse. As bad as prices are now, they're only going in one direction. What a tosser Trump is.

I filled up the car with diesel at 1.56 figuring prices were only going higher. One of my better pieces of economic forecasting!

Taz · 10:37AM

Fool us once……

https://x.com/eylonalevy/status/2035643069349937578?s=61

Nigelb · 10:37AM

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.

Treat all people with dignity and respect.

When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.

However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.

If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.

But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.

So we're not there yet.

It is not clear to me what the law now says about that.

Direct discrimination in the workplace is clearly barred, but "things should generally be trans inclusive" is a wish, not a legal statement or test, and it's not now very clear, quite where borderlines are drawn.

viewcode · 10:38AM

My original intention was to write a series: the first one conceptualising it as a war of ideas which can be tracked by tracking the rise and fall of specific terminology over time, the second one placing it in the context of similar concepts (gambling, male homosexuality, drugs) and how these are resolved over time, the third one being a discussion of how archetypes (the wealthy sybarite, the overproviding doctor, the jumped-up pantry boy, etc) recur over the centuries.

But I was severely blocked on the first one, partly on how the American view has supplanted the British view in the discourse, but mostly on the realisation that to do it properly would take more than a year.

So when questions were asked on PB about individual friends, the concept collapsed down to a single question - is there a "your friend Susan" exception - which I could answer in a realistic timeframe. "Realistic" in this case was nearly six months, but you can't have everything.

OnlyLivingBoy · 10:39AM

On topic: IMHO your friend Susan, who has fully transitioned and is living as a woman, is a woman. The only exception I would make is in the field of professional or amateur competitive sports. The fact that Susan cannot join a voluntary organisation that would like to include her is both a tragedy and a disgrace.

BartholomewRoberts · 10:40AM

viewcode said:
My original intention was to write a series: the first one conceptualising it as a war of ideas which can be tracked by tracking the rise and fall of specific terminology over time, the second one placing it in the context of similar concepts (gambling, male homosexuality, drugs) and how these are resolved over time, the third one being a discussion of how archetypes (the wealthy sybarite, the overproviding doctor, the jumped-up pantry boy, etc) recur over the centuries.

But I was severely blocked on the first one, partly on how the American view has supplanted the British view in the discourse, but mostly on the realisation that to do it properly would take more than a year.

So when questions were asked on PB about individual friends, the concept collapsed down to a single question - is there a "your friend Susan" exception - which I could answer in a realistic timeframe. "Realistic" in this case was nearly six months, but you can't have everything.

You can tell you're put a lot of effort into this, it is really well written. Well done.

Richard_Tyndall · 10:40AM

Eabhal said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.
And yet they were, repeatedly.

In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries.
The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder.
More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.

I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.
I'm not sure if I follow this argument. Does it come down to "dealing drugs is illegal, but people still do it, so..."?

I think we'd all agree that the world would be a better place if such conventions were abided by. There are times when they don't survive contact with 21st century reality - human rights/refugees, and must be reformed - and others when they must be suspended because an aggressor would use them to their advantage otherwise. We should clearly state when this is the case.

I think a justifiable action against Iran would be a total economic blockage - stop them exporting oil to China/India, in the same way they are doing that to the Gulf States for Europe. Destroying their domestic energy/water is entirely different.

I think my point is that we have never even tried to abide by these rules. If the UN itself was ignoring these rules and if we are condoning Ukraine attacking Russian oil refineries today then it seems rather hypocritical to be calling out this one specific element of the Israeli/US actions. All the more so when the basic idea of the war, to my mind, is unjustified and counter to international law.

Has there actually been a war the West has been involved in since WW2 where we have not attacked energy infrastructure if present?

BartholomewRoberts · 10:43AM

Richard_Tyndall said:

Eabhal said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:
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.
And yet they were, repeatedly.

In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries.
The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder.
More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.

I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.
I'm not sure if I follow this argument. Does it come down to "dealing drugs is illegal, but people still do it, so..."?

I think we'd all agree that the world would be a better place if such conventions were abided by. There are times when they don't survive contact with 21st century reality - human rights/refugees, and must be reformed - and others when they must be suspended because an aggressor would use them to their advantage otherwise. We should clearly state when this is the case.

I think a justifiable action against Iran would be a total economic blockage - stop them exporting oil to China/India, in the same way they are doing that to the Gulf States for Europe. Destroying their domestic energy/water is entirely different.
I think my point is that we have never even tried to abide by these rules. If the UN itself was ignoring these rules and if we are condoning Ukraine attacking Russian oil refineries today then it seems rather hypocritical to be calling out this one specific element of the Israeli/US actions. All the more so when the basic idea of the war, to my mind, is unjustified and counter to international law.

Has there actually been a war the West has been involved in since WW2 where we have not attacked energy infrastructure if present?

Only one I can think of, ironically considering how hated it was by many, was the 2003 Iraq War.

Preservation of facilities was an explicit objective then.

MattW · 10:43AM

Malmesbury said:

MattW said:

Battlebus said:
How many trans are out there? Susans, and susans of them.
Not Sustrans any more.

They are now the "Walk Wheel Cycle Trust". I think that is designed to be un-acronym-able. If you try, it sounds like a guinea pig.

(Expect a rebranding of the National Cycle Network in due course, to reflect that it is used just as heavily for walking and wheeling. There is the slight problem that it is on 70683 signposts to be dealt with.)
Nonesense

The sign posts are the opportunity - to engage with domain expert consultancies is creating signage that is inclusive, modern and forward looking.

After £216 million pounds has been spent on creating signs that minorities find racist, are invisible to those with colour blindness and could attacks for epileptics, no actual new sign would be installed. Probably for the best, since testing revolved that no one can actually read the information on them.

Hah !

They have pretty much zero budget, including for maintenance, and they have never had one. I think the whole of England is about £10 million per annum, specific funded projects aside. There's no money in it for consultants !

That is why they do not install signposts but put stickers on other people's.

turbotubbs · 10:43AM

RochdalePioneers said:
On topic. If you've had surgery as described then you have changed physical sex. Surely that's obvious.

Off topic. The Iran war is just going to keep getting worse. As bad as prices are now, they're only going in one direction. What a tosser Trump is.

It's that obvious. If you are a transwoman you can still get prostate cancer, for instance. Your DNA is not rewritten. That you may physically resemble a woman doesn't make you one
And yet I can see why some would be happier to accept those people in an women only space but not some who has had no surgery. It's not a view I share but I respect others right to disagree.

Your friend Susan – politicalbetting.com

Comments