I just saw this which will, I think, be of interest to you:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cewzdl81x0qo
It's a history of the crime which Andrew may be charged with, although
it looks like it might be difficult to prove.
This may be way beyond what you actually care about but this video, featuring a discussion between Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Starkey,
eventually gets to the point where Rees-Mogg explains how the two
different jury types - grand jury and petty jury (which we just call
"jury" now) - came about.
This may be way beyond what you actually care about but this video,
. . .
Feb 26, 2026 at 3:14:36 PM PST, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
This may be way beyond what you actually care about but this video, >>featuring a discussion between Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Starkey, >>eventually gets to the point where Rees-Mogg explains how the two >>different jury types - grand jury and petty jury (which we just call >>"jury" now) - came about.
Not to be overly pedantic, but it's spelled 'petit jury'.
On Feb 26, 2026 at 3:14:36 PM PST, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
This may be way beyond what you actually care about but this video,
featuring a discussion between Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Starkey,
eventually gets to the point where Rees-Mogg explains how the two
different jury types - grand jury and petty jury (which we just call
"jury" now) - came about.
Not to be overly pedantic, but it's spelled 'petit jury'.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
This may be way beyond what you actually care about but this video,
I shall get to it. Thank you.
. . .
Knowing your interest in all things legal, I think you might be
interested in this discussion about the role of international law in the forming of national policies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qozUZc_fEN4 [10 minutes; the first
couple of minutes is breaking news but then the relevant part begins]
The context is the Keir Starmer originally refused to let their closest ally, America, use their bases in either the UK or Diego Garcia (in the Indian Ocean) to launch aircraft against Iran for any reason. After 2
days of pressure from both the US and domestic elements, he reversed
himself and allowed those bases to be used "provided they were used
strictly for defensive purposes".
Starmer apparently has strong beliefs about international law trumping domestic law and his Attorney-General (and close friend) Lord Hermer
feels the same so the two fought the idea of the US using the bases
tooth and claw.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (who is NOT a lawyer) and his guest (who IS a top
lawyer) discuss the matter. Rees-Mogg restates these points and expands
on some of them in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvOiy0_voA [9 minutes]
In a nutshell, international law is extremely problematic as a basis for national policy.
Knowing your interest in all things legal, I think you might be
interested in this discussion about the role of international law in the >forming of national policies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qozUZc_fEN4 [10 minutes; the first
couple of minutes is breaking news but then the relevant part begins]
The context is the Keir Starmer originally refused to let their closest >ally, America, use their bases in either the UK or Diego Garcia (in the >Indian Ocean) to launch aircraft against Iran for any reason. After 2
days of pressure from both the US and domestic elements, he reversed
himself and allowed those bases to be used "provided they were used
strictly for defensive purposes".
Starmer apparently has strong beliefs about international law trumping >domestic law and his Attorney-General (and close friend) Lord Hermer
feels the same so the two fought the idea of the US using the bases
tooth and claw.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (who is NOT a lawyer) and his guest (who IS a top
lawyer) discuss the matter. Rees-Mogg restates these points and expands
on some of them in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvOiy0_voA [9 minutes]
In a nutshell, international law is extremely problematic as a basis for >national policy.
On Mar 2, 2026 at 3:37:36 PM PST, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Knowing your interest in all things legal, I think you might be
interested in this discussion about the role of international law in the
forming of national policies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qozUZc_fEN4 [10 minutes; the first
couple of minutes is breaking news but then the relevant part begins]
The context is the Keir Starmer originally refused to let their closest
ally, America, use their bases in either the UK or Diego Garcia (in the
Indian Ocean) to launch aircraft against Iran for any reason. After 2
days of pressure from both the US and domestic elements, he reversed
himself and allowed those bases to be used "provided they were used
strictly for defensive purposes".
Starmer apparently has strong beliefs about international law trumping
domestic law and his Attorney-General (and close friend) Lord Hermer
feels the same so the two fought the idea of the US using the bases
tooth and claw.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (who is NOT a lawyer) and his guest (who IS a top
lawyer) discuss the matter. Rees-Mogg restates these points and expands
on some of them in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvOiy0_voA [9 minutes]
In a nutshell, international law is extremely problematic as a basis for
national policy.
Starmer's press release in response to Trump's attack on Iran:
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2028534673002070016/vid/avc1/1280x720/Bv5ndF2YUSY2KOS2.mp4?tag=21
;-)
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Knowing your interest in all things legal, I think you might be
interested in this discussion about the role of international law in the
forming of national policies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qozUZc_fEN4 [10 minutes; the first
couple of minutes is breaking news but then the relevant part begins]
The context is the Keir Starmer originally refused to let their closest
ally, America, use their bases in either the UK or Diego Garcia (in the
Indian Ocean) to launch aircraft against Iran for any reason. After 2
days of pressure from both the US and domestic elements, he reversed
himself and allowed those bases to be used "provided they were used
strictly for defensive purposes".
Starmer apparently has strong beliefs about international law trumping
domestic law and his Attorney-General (and close friend) Lord Hermer
feels the same so the two fought the idea of the US using the bases
tooth and claw.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (who is NOT a lawyer) and his guest (who IS a top
lawyer) discuss the matter. Rees-Mogg restates these points and expands
on some of them in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvOiy0_voA [9 minutes]
In a nutshell, international law is extremely problematic as a basis for
national policy.
I'll get to this when I have a moment.
I guess I cannot blame Starmer. If he wants no involvement with war in
Iran, then yes, he won't allow an ally to drag them into war.
However, Diego Garcia is different as it's been a joint US base since
the Viet Nam War era.
I keep having to remind myself that this is a large island in the Chagos Archipelago, named for a Portuguese nobleman, then held by France till
one of the Napoleonic wars after which the British got it. There was a
tiny "native" population, although in human terms, these islands only recently became inhabited a few centuries back. They forced out the
natives to build the base.
To this day, the French still have Reunion.
Looking it up, Starmer signed a treaty with Nauritius, yet to be ratified,
to transfer sovereignity but keep the base.
The archipelago had been
split off from Mauritius before sovereignity. I'm not sure they had been ethnically similar historically but in colonial days, peoples came from
all over the place.
The treaty came after the British lost international arbitration.
It's east of Africa, no where near Iran. Short of building an artificial island, I don't know where else the US could dock an aircraft carrier.
I guess I cannot blame Starmer. If he wants no involvement with war in
Iran, then yes, he won't allow an ally to drag them into war.
Tue, 3 Mar 2026 00:36:55 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
I guess I cannot blame Starmer. If he wants no involvement with war in >>Iran, then yes, he won't allow an ally to drag them into war.
But Iran has ALREADY struck British bases in Cyprus, Bahrain and Qatar
so how can Starmer claim he is not at war with Iran?
. . .
On 2026-03-02 7:36 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Knowing your interest in all things legal, I think you might be
interested in this discussion about the role of international law in the >>> forming of national policies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qozUZc_fEN4 [10 minutes; the first
couple of minutes is breaking news but then the relevant part begins]
The context is the Keir Starmer originally refused to let their closest >>> ally, America, use their bases in either the UK or Diego Garcia (in the >>> Indian Ocean) to launch aircraft against Iran for any reason. After 2
days of pressure from both the US and domestic elements, he reversed
himself and allowed those bases to be used "provided they were used
strictly for defensive purposes".
Starmer apparently has strong beliefs about international law trumping
domestic law and his Attorney-General (and close friend) Lord Hermer
feels the same so the two fought the idea of the US using the bases
tooth and claw.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (who is NOT a lawyer) and his guest (who IS a top
lawyer) discuss the matter. Rees-Mogg restates these points and expands >>> on some of them in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvOiy0_voA [9 minutes]
In a nutshell, international law is extremely problematic as a basis for >>> national policy.
I'll get to this when I have a moment.
I guess I cannot blame Starmer. If he wants no involvement with war in
Iran, then yes, he won't allow an ally to drag them into war.
However, Diego Garcia is different as it's been a joint US base since
the Viet Nam War era.
I keep having to remind myself that this is a large island in the Chagos
Archipelago, named for a Portuguese nobleman, then held by France till
one of the Napoleonic wars after which the British got it. There was a
tiny "native" population, although in human terms, these islands only
recently became inhabited a few centuries back. They forced out the
natives to build the base.
To this day, the French still have Reunion.
Looking it up, Starmer signed a treaty with Nauritius, yet to be ratified, >> to transfer sovereignity but keep the base.
Not quite: he negotiated a 99 year lease with Mauritius to keep using
Diego Garcia and its base. He also agreed to pay Mauritius 101 million pounds a year. That will add up to a LOT of money in a century!
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Knowing your interest in all things legal, I think you might be
interested in this discussion about the role of international law in the
forming of national policies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qozUZc_fEN4 [10 minutes; the first
couple of minutes is breaking news but then the relevant part begins]
The context is the Keir Starmer originally refused to let their closest
ally, America, use their bases in either the UK or Diego Garcia (in the
Indian Ocean) to launch aircraft against Iran for any reason. After 2
days of pressure from both the US and domestic elements, he reversed
himself and allowed those bases to be used "provided they were used
strictly for defensive purposes".
Starmer apparently has strong beliefs about international law trumping
domestic law and his Attorney-General (and close friend) Lord Hermer
feels the same so the two fought the idea of the US using the bases
tooth and claw.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (who is NOT a lawyer) and his guest (who IS a top
lawyer) discuss the matter. Rees-Mogg restates these points and expands
on some of them in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvOiy0_voA [9 minutes]
In a nutshell, international law is extremely problematic as a basis for
national policy.
I'll get to this when I have a moment.
I guess I cannot blame Starmer. If he wants no involvement with war in
Iran, then yes, he won't allow an ally to drag them into war.
However, Diego Garcia is different as it's been a joint US base since
the Viet Nam War era.
I keep having to remind myself that this is a large island in the Chagos Archipelago, named for a Portuguese nobleman, then held by France till
one of the Napoleonic wars after which the British got it. There was a
tiny "native" population, although in human terms, these islands only recently became inhabited a few centuries back. They forced out the
natives to build the base.
To this day, the French still have Reunion.
Looking it up, Starmer signed a treaty with Nauritius, yet to be ratified,
to transfer sovereignity but keep the base. The archipelago had been
split off from Mauritius before sovereignity. I'm not sure they had been ethnically similar historically but in colonial days, peoples came from
all over the place.
The treaty came after the British lost international arbitration.
It's east of Africa, no where near Iran. Short of building an artificial island, I don't know where else the US could dock an aircraft carrier.
On Mar 2, 2026 at 4:36:55 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
. . .
It's east of Africa, no where near Iran. Short of building an artificial >>island, I don't know where else the US could dock an aircraft carrier.
You can't bring a carrier into such shallow waters. What you'd do is anchor >the carrier a mile or so off the island and resupply it with smaller boats >going back and forth to the shore.
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 3 Mar 2026 00:36:55 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
I guess I cannot blame Starmer. If he wants no involvement with war in >>>Iran, then yes, he won't allow an ally to drag them into war.
But Iran has ALREADY struck British bases in Cyprus, Bahrain and Qatar
so how can Starmer claim he is not at war with Iran?
I hadn't heard. They really are trying to force an international
coalition to form, aren't they.
On Mar 3, 2026 at 8:19:28 PM PST, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-03-02 7:36 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Knowing your interest in all things legal, I think you might be
interested in this discussion about the role of international law in the >>>> forming of national policies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qozUZc_fEN4 [10 minutes; the first
couple of minutes is breaking news but then the relevant part begins] >>>
The context is the Keir Starmer originally refused to let their closest >>>> ally, America, use their bases in either the UK or Diego Garcia (in the >>>> Indian Ocean) to launch aircraft against Iran for any reason. After 2 >>>> days of pressure from both the US and domestic elements, he reversed >>>> himself and allowed those bases to be used "provided they were used
strictly for defensive purposes".
Starmer apparently has strong beliefs about international law trumping >>>> domestic law and his Attorney-General (and close friend) Lord Hermer >>>> feels the same so the two fought the idea of the US using the bases
tooth and claw.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (who is NOT a lawyer) and his guest (who IS a top
lawyer) discuss the matter. Rees-Mogg restates these points and expands >>>> on some of them in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvOiy0_voA [9 minutes]
In a nutshell, international law is extremely problematic as a basis for >>>> national policy.
I'll get to this when I have a moment.
I guess I cannot blame Starmer. If he wants no involvement with war in >>> Iran, then yes, he won't allow an ally to drag them into war.
However, Diego Garcia is different as it's been a joint US base since
the Viet Nam War era.
I keep having to remind myself that this is a large island in the Chagos >>> Archipelago, named for a Portuguese nobleman, then held by France till >>> one of the Napoleonic wars after which the British got it. There was a >>> tiny "native" population, although in human terms, these islands only
recently became inhabited a few centuries back. They forced out the
natives to build the base.
To this day, the French still have Reunion.
Looking it up, Starmer signed a treaty with Nauritius, yet to be ratified,
to transfer sovereignity but keep the base.
Not quite: he negotiated a 99 year lease with Mauritius to keep using
Diego Garcia and its base. He also agreed to pay Mauritius 101 million
pounds a year. That will add up to a LOT of money in a century!
And the natives there don't want to be Mauritian. It's an entirely different culture and people. So after spouting al this politically correct, anti-colonial woke nonsense, Starmer is completely ignoring the wishes of the native people for politics.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Mar 2, 2026 at 4:36:55 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
. . .
It's east of Africa, no where near Iran. Short of building an artificial >>> island, I don't know where else the US could dock an aircraft carrier.
You can't bring a carrier into such shallow waters. What you'd do is anchor >> the carrier a mile or so off the island and resupply it with smaller boats >> going back and forth to the shore.
Ok. So Diego Garcia is more about bringing in supplies than docking a carrier. What could the US replace it with?
On 2026-03-04 2:47 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Mar 2, 2026 at 4:36:55 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
. . .
It's east of Africa, no where near Iran. Short of building an artificial >>>> island, I don't know where else the US could dock an aircraft carrier.
You can't bring a carrier into such shallow waters. What you'd do is anchor >>> the carrier a mile or so off the island and resupply it with smaller boats >>> going back and forth to the shore.
Ok. So Diego Garcia is more about bringing in supplies than docking a
carrier. What could the US replace it with?
Diego Garcia also has an airfield; it's not just a port.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Mar 2, 2026 at 4:36:55 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
. . .
It's east of Africa, no where near Iran. Short of building an artificial >>> island, I don't know where else the US could dock an aircraft carrier.
You can't bring a carrier into such shallow waters. What you'd do is anchor >> the carrier a mile or so off the island and resupply it with smaller boats >> going back and forth to the shore.
Ok. So Diego Garcia is more about bringing in supplies than docking a carrier. What could the US replace it with?
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 234:23:16 |
| Calls: | 207 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 83,204 |