Comments by "TruthWarrior" (@Truth-warrior-j3e) on "PoliticsJOE" channel.

@Rob-el8ti just about everything. it would be far easier to list what is factually correct. Oh…..wait a minute…..not so easy. If you want a specific example of nonsense - the chicken nuggets story. Also the reason for high energy prices - there are many reasons too long to list but the key ones, UKs old infrastructure, leaving the EU meaning we now longer benefit from the internal EU electricity grid thus having to pay higher prices for electricity. We have also ditched our gas storage and no face far higher gas prices because of the Ukraine war. The list of nonsense from Truss is extensive and even when there is a grain of truth its completely misleading in the way it is presented
7
@АлёшаА-ъ7п the short answer is - for the same reason that Russia is not expelled. The USA is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council and, like Russia, can always veto any such proposal. The long answer is more nuanced: The legality of the NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which included Serbia) in 1999 remains a debated topic under international law. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state unless it is in self-defense or has been authorized by the UN Security Council. The NATO bombing was not explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council, which raised questions about its legality under the Charter. NATO justified the bombing as a humanitarian intervention, aiming to stop the mass atrocities against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. While this rationale is ethically compelling, there was no established legal basis under international law for humanitarian intervention without Security Council authorisation at the time. The concept of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P), which supports humanitarian intervention under specific circumstances, was formally recognized only later, in 2005. Some scholars argue that the NATO intervention could be justified under evolving customary international law, which may allow for humanitarian intervention to prevent grave human rights abuses. However, this remains a contentious view, as not all states agree on the legal grounds for such interventions. There is a distinction between legality and legitimacy. Many argued that while the bombing might have been illegal under strict interpretations of international law (due to the lack of UN authorization), it was legitimate from a moral standpoint given the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. In summary, while the NATO bombing of Serbia was not explicitly legal under the UN Charter as it lacked Security Council authorization, it was argued by some to be legitimate due to humanitarian reasons. The legality of such actions is still a subject of debate among international law experts, reflecting the complexities of interpreting humanitarian intervention within the framework of international law.
5
No that’s not correct. She didn’t ban cannabis and neither did she grant any licence let alone a sole licence to anyone let alone her husband. She also was not ‘Drugs Minister’. Neither did she step down because of a perceived conflict of interest. She did subsequently resign when she was the UK's Justice Minister in July 2022. She stepped down during a wave of government resignations protesting then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson's leadership. In her resignation letter, she expressed concerns about the erosion of values such as integrity, decency, and professionalism under Johnson's leadership, citing scandals like "Partygate" and the mishandling of complaints against MP Chris Pincher. Atkins, along with other ministers, felt that Johnson's leadership had become untenable, leading to their departures from government. There was controversy surrounding Victoria Atkins, regarding her stance on cannabis regulation. Atkins, who has been openly critical of cannabis reform and regulation, is married to Paul Kenward, the managing director of British Sugar. British Sugar, under Kenward’s leadership, has been involved in growing cannabis for medicinal purposes in partnership with GW Pharmaceuticals. The cannabis is cultivated to produce Epidiolex, a drug used to treat severe epilepsy in children. The criticism stems from the apparent contradiction between Atkins’s hardline stance against cannabis reform and the fact that her husband’s company is profiting from its regulated medical use. Some have pointed to this situation as hypocritical, given her role in shaping drug policy while benefiting indirectly from the legal cannabis industry Concerning contract award, this was made in 2016. Atkinson did not become a minister until 2017. Unlike for example the ‘fast track’ system of PPE contracts, the granting of a licence for cannabis production is highly regulated by law and the process is strictly governed to ensure compliance by the home office. No one individual has the remit to grant such a licence.
5
If she has one I doubt they would admit it
4
Worth pointing out an interesting fact about the Daily Mail: Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere, who co-founded the Daily Mail, had controversial political views in the early 20th century. In the 1930s, he expressed support for fascist movements, including admiration for Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany. He even published articles supportive of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. The Harmsworth family still control the Daily mail today through their media company DMGT
3
Yes, private criminal prosecutions are possible in the UK. A private individual or organization can initiate a criminal prosecution, as opposed to the state (through the Crown Prosecution Service, CPS). This is allowed under section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. Black Belt Barrister on Utube has just released an excellent video on the topic. As he explains, it’s not without its challenges though.
2
@JesusHChrist-q9d you mean like Jacob Rees-Mogg? No, not my style.
2
@rayc9539 you are absolutely right and I take no pleasure whatsoever in observing the consequences
2
Russia cannot be voted out of the United Nations primarily because it is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5), which also includes the United States, China, the United Kingdom, and France. These countries have special privileges, including the power to veto any substantive resolution in the Security Council. This veto power effectively gives any P5 member the ability to block any action, including a vote to remove them or to make significant changes to the structure of the UN itself. For a country to be expelled from the UN, a resolution must be passed by the Security Council, followed by a two-thirds majority vote in the General Assembly. Since Russia has veto power in the Security Council, it can block any proposal aiming to remove it from the organisation.
1
She makes Trump look intelligent - which is I suppose the point of her. Otherwise what is the point of her?
1
To be fair, the lettuce would have done a better job.
1
Yes. Assessments have been conducted by a range of organizations, including the UK government itself, the Bank of England, the OBR, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), and international organizations like the IMF and OECD. The full extent of Brexit’s impact is still unfolding, as many of the changes are long-term. But all of the results are far from encouraging for the UK.
1