You are not insane. You simply need to understand Finster'sSecond Law, which readeth thusly:
"There is no such thing as law. There is only context."
The longer form version is: "Laws are for little people. Policy is for The People Who Matter, because policy is what determines when the law is applied, how, and to whom."
In the case of the UK, what is written on the page is irrelevant. The law is whatever will make the sovereign happy, and the sovereign is across the ocean in Washington. (For its part, Washington appears to take its orders from AIPAC and Israel, although if the United States were ever to abandon Israel, the UK would drop Israel like a hot turd.)
You are right, they make it up as they go along and won't follow it anyway. But the point I was I was trying to make is that they actually made a law to allow this. And this law came into full enforcement during the genocide. And the law is that if the Prime Minister is a foreign asset, we then simply belong to Israel and are one of its provinces, for want of a better word. And the law does not allow us to get out of that control. It is legalised treason. We are trapped.
The point I was trying to make though is that if the Prime Minister is a foreign asset, we simply belong to Israel and are one of its provinces, for want of a better word. And the law does not allow us to get out of that control. It is legalised treason. We are trapped.
I'll be honest I've only skimmed through this Aya (I'll re-read it tomorrow when I have brain capacity) but my first reaction is: isn't Keir Starmer already acting on behalf of a foreign country ('Israel') against our interests? Like Tony Blair he also thinks he can get away with war crimes. 🤮
I'm afraid I think you're wrong - it only provides them immunity from prosecution under this Act (or rather, under these particular provisions).
And while I don't like what actually happens in the UK or Australia with regard to acting like a colony of the USA, it would be pretty hard to argue that there should never be intelligence or military cooperation with any other country, or that the government should not be entitled to decide what cooperation, and with which country.
What strikes me as the ridiculous part of what you have quoted is the breadth of it - it would cover selling a London street directory to a foreign embassy. (Like, as I think you have written about previously, the ridiculous breadth of the Terrorism Acts).
BTW, I don't think any lawyer would bother reading the bits produced by ChatGPT.
Chatgpt bit was to show even an AI bot can see the flaw. I'm actually going to redo this without the chat gpt bit - you're not the only one who told me off ha :)
In regards to non prosecution, what else can they be prosecuted under? The NSA repeals the Official Secrets Act and the ICC act can only be prosecuted under by the AG.
'..it would be pretty hard to argue that there should never be intelligence or military cooperation with any other country, or that the government should not be entitled to decide what cooperation, and with which country.' You make the point exactly!' The difficulty and breadth means there very little they can be done in a democratic state and not transparent or able to be so.
Genuinely intrigued. What else can be done?
It is massively broad and like the terrorism law will be utterly misused!
This is great research work, precisely the kind of background I was looking for in an essay on the astonishingly rapid turn of the UK to authoritarian society.
I'll be working on it during November so watch my space...
You are not insane. You simply need to understand Finster'sSecond Law, which readeth thusly:
"There is no such thing as law. There is only context."
The longer form version is: "Laws are for little people. Policy is for The People Who Matter, because policy is what determines when the law is applied, how, and to whom."
In the case of the UK, what is written on the page is irrelevant. The law is whatever will make the sovereign happy, and the sovereign is across the ocean in Washington. (For its part, Washington appears to take its orders from AIPAC and Israel, although if the United States were ever to abandon Israel, the UK would drop Israel like a hot turd.)
You are right, they make it up as they go along and won't follow it anyway. But the point I was I was trying to make is that they actually made a law to allow this. And this law came into full enforcement during the genocide. And the law is that if the Prime Minister is a foreign asset, we then simply belong to Israel and are one of its provinces, for want of a better word. And the law does not allow us to get out of that control. It is legalised treason. We are trapped.
Of course, although the UK is Washington's little bitch, not Israel's. And provinces have rights. Puppets have only obligations.
It's the system that's crazy, Aya, and not you. And we have to find a way to hold Israel accountable and to stop its murderous behaviour.
The system is insane!
The point I was trying to make though is that if the Prime Minister is a foreign asset, we simply belong to Israel and are one of its provinces, for want of a better word. And the law does not allow us to get out of that control. It is legalised treason. We are trapped.
I'll be honest I've only skimmed through this Aya (I'll re-read it tomorrow when I have brain capacity) but my first reaction is: isn't Keir Starmer already acting on behalf of a foreign country ('Israel') against our interests? Like Tony Blair he also thinks he can get away with war crimes. 🤮
Yes, but this gives him full legal defence to do so.
Hi Aya,
I'm afraid I think you're wrong - it only provides them immunity from prosecution under this Act (or rather, under these particular provisions).
And while I don't like what actually happens in the UK or Australia with regard to acting like a colony of the USA, it would be pretty hard to argue that there should never be intelligence or military cooperation with any other country, or that the government should not be entitled to decide what cooperation, and with which country.
What strikes me as the ridiculous part of what you have quoted is the breadth of it - it would cover selling a London street directory to a foreign embassy. (Like, as I think you have written about previously, the ridiculous breadth of the Terrorism Acts).
BTW, I don't think any lawyer would bother reading the bits produced by ChatGPT.
Hiya.
Chatgpt bit was to show even an AI bot can see the flaw. I'm actually going to redo this without the chat gpt bit - you're not the only one who told me off ha :)
In regards to non prosecution, what else can they be prosecuted under? The NSA repeals the Official Secrets Act and the ICC act can only be prosecuted under by the AG.
'..it would be pretty hard to argue that there should never be intelligence or military cooperation with any other country, or that the government should not be entitled to decide what cooperation, and with which country.' You make the point exactly!' The difficulty and breadth means there very little they can be done in a democratic state and not transparent or able to be so.
Genuinely intrigued. What else can be done?
It is massively broad and like the terrorism law will be utterly misused!
This is great research work, precisely the kind of background I was looking for in an essay on the astonishingly rapid turn of the UK to authoritarian society.
I'll be working on it during November so watch my space...