Remember that Hamas fired on the people who want to feed the Palestinian people.
Hamas wants people to die of starvation. They are killing their own people.

Continuing row over £200,000 donation to Vaughan Gething's leadership campaign shows no signs of letting up
bbc.in/3Qj996O

There’s a really clear pattern to the disinformation campaign in the West about Gaza. Let me explain how it works:

1) Hamas take an incident and spin it to claim the IDF have done something appalling. They’ll usually use something designed to resonate with the West eg related to…

What on earth is going on??

Will Keir Starmer accept it??? 👀👇

As I understand it, any leftover money that Vaughan Gething took from a criminal to fund his campaign to be First Minister is due to be sent to the UK Labour Party by mid May.

It’s a little more than embarrassing that 500+ U.K. lawyers and associates either didn’t bother to read the judgement or didn’t understand it.

Worth noting many are of the opinion that Baroness Hale has a record of allowing her politics to cloud her legal judgement.

ICJ president confirms they didn’t decide a ‘plausible risk of genocide’.

Some of us signed a letter saying so (yes we had higher numbers, but our true ally is competence)

599 other lawyer said the opposite

They were both wrong, and a minority

😐😐😐

I’m sure the people who made the error will be queuing up to acknowledge it. They might even reflect on what they’ve done in this country to contribute to a climate that feels increasingly unsafe for Jews.

Me in “Law degree wasn’t a total waste of time” shocker

Finally. We can put this “the ICJ ruled plausible genocide” bullshit to bed.

I’ve been arguing this for months, but in case you don’t believe me, here’s the actual President of the ICJ who delivered the ruling:

“It didn’t decide that the claim of genocide was plausible”.

No, it isn't, that's an important legal distinction

If a Government passes legislation abolishing gravity, then it is irrational (see Dr Bonham's case 1610)

If it instead contradicts a court on a finding of fact that is subjective - Parliament is just asserting its dominance

Hope this makes sense

Gravity objectively exists

So the answer to the Q, 'does Gravity exist?', *must* be yes

But the Q 'is Rwanda a safe place?' is not an objective Q

It is a judgment, or opinion, and Parliament has the power, under our constitution, to over rule any court…

Let me make it easy for those interested in the truth or who have been denying that these mobs are motivated by anti-Semitism or support for terrorism. Here is a short thread with just some of the direct evidence. I will just focus on the protests at and around Columbia:

I mean who knew that the initial finding of the Court was widely misrepresented?

Anyone competent.

If I’ve understood this correctly then there are a whole lot of people who need to eat humble pie.

She basically says Gaza has a plausible right to be protected from Genocide - no one would disagree with that.

South Africa has a plausible right to bring the case to protect…

This is actually a pretty big deal:

Joan Donoghue, who served as President of the International Court of Justice until February, has clarified that the court did NOT rule that Israel’s actions in Gaza could plausibly be considered genocide.

WATCH:

Israeli and U.N. Officials have both now Confirmed that during a recent Inspection of the Temporary Jetty in Central Gaza that will be utilized in conjunction with the U.S. Army’s Floating Dock to bring Humanitarian Aid into Gaza, they were Attacked by Hamas Mortar Fire resulting…

🖊️ This was a tricky one to unravel…

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Over 200 people from Wales who received treatment at a controversial London clinic could be recommended to take part in a study of the long-term outcomes for patients receiving gender care at a young age
nation.cymru/news/over-200-…

It’s always my fault, isn’t it.