Sean Wilken KC

Are you going either to demand a constable hie you home or to find some sheep and herd them across a bridge?

Did Vancouver - London - HK in 24 ish hrs once upon a time. I recommend a lie down

A lot of the purely domestic UK market is fuel oil (UK being cold and wet) which is heavier than petrol (longer carbon chains etc). Brent is closer to petrol. You wouldn't use petrol in a fuel oil boiler as a) waste of cash; and b) the boiler might break. Selling N Sea oil into the UK is inapposite.

A crude oil naturally comes in different forms. Brent is less dense than some and lower in sulphur. It isn't what the domestic UK market is set up to process and to use - so one would have to rejig the whole user market and infrastructure as well.

Even assuming she were right on the figures (which she isn't), how does she propose to get the hydrocarbons a) out of the ocean floor; b) from there onshore; and c) then solely utilised by the domestic market. There is also the qu about different crudes selling to different markets 1/2

FWIW you can see what the industry thinks by taking a peak at the decommissioning queues at Invergordon. Compare that to the potential reserves in the Arctic

the fact that the older a field is, the hard it is to get anything good out of it and the fact that a lot of N Sea Oil is not for the domestic market.

So, as with all Thatcherite fantasies, the devil is in the details 2/2.

15 - 16 billion barrels as per Wood. That's probably to 2050 as a blanket figure.

It fails, however, to take into account what is economically extractable (far lower though the current Straits of Hormuz may alter that), getting the hydrocarbons onshore through old infrastructure 1/2

Tonight’s reading involved a 9th C Burgundian Count called Hairy Paws. Nah. Those were Hairy Paws…
Any excuse for a dog pic I know

I am shocked, shocked I tell you. Boebert can read?

Isn’t this 1968 Sorbonne graffiti - I use force as part of a diplomatic process; we target CnC; they use TA?

The only time you would have been right on aerial bombing was 1907 to 1913 and certainly not past 1945/6.

TBF I did once argue (before the Court of Appeal no less) that as PIL's norms were politically driven to a significant extent, they could not be legal grundnorms but the CoA's Hart wasn't in that argument...

I thought ROE were quite popular with significant chunks of the military as a means of avoiding war crimes…

Can't be prosecuted in the ICC - war crimes are, however, justiciable in any jurisdiction - universal jurisdiction and all that.

He also decapitated the candidates for the changed regime

Sorry - as to bombing, that is not what the law says. As to the second, a further logical solecism which seeks to assume an a priori lack of legality in the conflict which is then compounded by the actual illegality of targeted killing of civilians

The first sentence is plain rude. The second sentence not only contains a logical solecism but also"might" is carrying an awful lot of legal and logical weight. With that, have a nice rest of the day

Not what you said. And not part and parcel of the balance of the message. The law of war is littered with political and moral approximations - starting with "thou shalt not kill... on well if you must". It also exists, perforce, in a factual mess (fog of war n all that) but we are where we are...

I quote: "No action undertaken by US and Israel can be even remotely considered as lawful taken individually"

Again not where the law is at.

A US soldier hands a bar of chocolate to a civilian in, say, Fallujah. Is that illegal?

O/wise a participant has to check whether the war is legal before doing anything - which would be an unreasonable demand on them. It is also worth bearing in mind that wars can become illegal even if legit. On the o/hand, saying to someone "go and kill loads of civilians" enables them to say "no"

The article is more nuanced than that. If I have a system that allows repeated school bombings, then either my "mistake" defence wears thin or the system is designed to achieve the illegal result

targeted, that's illegal. The illegality in atrocities are not because they happened it is because they were not accidents. It works the other way round. Targeted assassination even in a legal war is illegal. May sound pedantic but it is where the law of war is at 1/2A

If we assume that the war was illegal (seems fairly safe) and if we assume the school and civilians were not targeted (no evidence), then the bombing itself would not be illegal - participation in an illegal war does not make every act illegal per se. Obv if the school were deliberately 1/2

I understand the cover for James’ “Sid Down” was something……

You’ve missed out on”Matron in Milnrow Coop”

I see there’s some commentary going round that unlike some, Putin didn’t bomb schools. Without validating the bombing of schools, that’s missing the word “just”. He bombed hospitals, roads, power plants and homes to name a few. Then the troops went in and massacred civilians.

There was a BBC programme on the linguistic genius of Scottish swearing. Looks like there is someone who wants to experience that genius first hand