Trump has already lost the Iranian war he chose to start

Trump has publicly stated that he is considering actions (such as destroying desalination plants and power plants in Iran) that experts in international humanitarian law warn could amount to war crimes if carried out.

Put another way, on his Truth Social website, he is admitting that he is considering committing a war crime by explicitly threatening to destroy desalination plants, power plants, and other infrastructure that international humanitarian law protects.

Trump is openly stating that he is threatening to go down the path of war crimes! Astonishing. Iranian civilians are desperately worried according to the BBC. They are stockpiling foods etc. And probably water.

What counts as a war crime when bombing civilian infrastructure? Under established international humanitarian law (IHL), a war crime occurs when a party intentionally attacks civilian infrastructure that is not a legitimate military objective, or launches attacks that are indiscriminate or disproportionate in ways that foreseeably harm civilians. 

There is some talk emerging that Trump could be challenged for his incompetence to act as president.

The constitutional mechanism allowing the Vice President to assume presidential authority is the Twenty‑Fifth Amendment, adopted in 1967. Its key provision, Section 4, enables the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to declare that the President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office.” Once this written declaration is sent to congressional leaders, the Vice President immediately becomes Acting President. If the President contests the declaration, Congress must decide the issue; a two‑thirds vote in both houses is required to keep the Vice President in place. Section 4 has never been invoked.

Many believe that he should be replaced. He is acting erratically endangering Americans and civilians in other countries. Arguably he needs to be stopped constitutionally.

He has already lost the war with Iran because Iran hold the trump cards (excuse the pun). The Iranians know they are winning by simply not agreeing to submit to Trump's outrageous threats. If they persist they beat Trump.

And importantly, if Trump has to commit alleged war crimes to try and 'win' he has lost! Conclusively. Sadly there might be many innocent civilians killed in this process.

Plus Iran has the ultimate lever to win: closing the Strait of Hormuz. This is hurting Trump directly as it is hurting the American economy which he proudly states he has made more vibrant and successful.

---------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

PM Starmer ready to accept animal cruelty to get closer to EU

This is my opinion based on a factually true story.

This is crass, objectionable thinking by the Prime Minister of the UK and his team, Sir Keir Starmer who wants to undo Brexit and work more closely with the EU in order - he thinks - to grow the dead British economy. The trouble is that he has to sell his soul to work more closely with the EU and pay a huge financial price probably in the billions of euros. The EU always extracts billions from countries which want to work with the EU.

Foie Gras and Fur Production in the EU

Foie gras and animal fur remain legal industries within the European Union, even though both involve practices widely criticised for causing animal suffering. Foie gras is produced mainly in France, along with smaller operations in Spain, Hungary and Bulgaria. The process relies on force‑feeding ducks or geese to enlarge their livers far beyond normal size. This method, known as gavage, is banned in several EU countries on welfare grounds, but the EU single market rules mean the product itself cannot be banned from sale. France, in particular, treats foie gras as part of its cultural heritage and strongly defends its production.

Fur farming has been banned in a growing number of EU states — including the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium and Italy — but fur sales and imports remain legal at EU level. Countries that still farm fur, such as Finland, continue to export it freely within the single market. The EU has not introduced a bloc‑wide ban on fur products, despite public pressure and citizen‑led initiatives calling for one.

The result is a patchwork: some EU countries prohibit the production of foie gras or fur, but none can block their sale. As long as these products remain legal at EU level, they continue to circulate freely across the union.

The price of working closer with the EU

The UK government are now ready to drop a promise to ban imports of animal fur and foie gras in order to secure a deal with the EU to enable the UK to work more closely with the continent. Foie gras was banned in the UK 20 years ago. To accept imports is a big step backwards.

The EU are not prepared it seems to make the imports of these animal cruelty products an exception for the UK.

The trouble is that the UK have to accept EU standards even if they are lower than UK standards in the area of animal welfare.

Frankly this makes me angry. Animal welfare is often de-prioritised by politicians because it gets in the way of economic progress. It always will because exploiting animals is good business.

---------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Who 'owns' a domestic cat? Or does anyone?

There are countless examples of cat caregivers losing their cat because he/she has gone walkabout and disappeared only to have ended up in a new home not far away after being rescued by an animal lover with whom the lost cat lives contentedly for a long time until the 'original owner' discovers the new arrangement and complains; demanding the return of their cat and even employing a lawyer to threaten legal proceedings.

The cat is the innocent victim in a human dispute; having no knowledge of legal ownership. In this familiar story, the microchip embedded in the cat's neck if it exists is not evidence of ownership. Perhaps it is evidence of 'possession' no more.

Does a person who rescues and cares for a once 'owned' cat become legally entitled to claim ownership? The law is vague on this because if we are honest domestic cats are not really 'owned' like an inanimate 'chattel' such as a table and chairs or a television.

The concept of legal ownership does not really fit the the cat caregiving scenario. And the phrase 'cat caregiving' gives the game away. So called owners are in truth caregivers. The cat agrees to live with a caregiver in a mutually agreeable social contract. He gets fed and cared for and in return he provides companionship to the human caregiver.

There is not much more to it. To get into a tangle about ownership as happened in France recently with Pompon being rescued and cared for for 24 months and the 'true owner' trying to reclaim her cat named 'Flocon' is inappropriate I feel [see story below].

The cat decides who she/he is 'owned' by. If she is happy in her new home and is being cared for well - as is the case in the French story - she stays there. The former owner should be gracious enough to let their cat go. After all, in the French case Pompon had been missing for 2 years. That's enough to break the claim for ownership.

It is actually worse than that because the former owner claims that her cat was stolen. That is not uncommon either. It is wrong though. Cats can't trespass and cats can't be truly owned. In the case of cat rescue it is inappropriate to allege theft by the rescuer unless malicious intent can be firmly established.

The only time theft can be cited is when professional thieves steal a cat from the street for resale.

In disputes like this the answer is mediation to come to an agreeable solution with the welfare of the cat firmly in mind. A cat rescued 24 months ago and settled in a new home should remain in that home. And if a cat wanders from a home it might indicate lack of good caregiving. Another reason for the rescuer to be allowed to take possession.

The French cat story:

In the village of Augicourt in eastern France, a domestic cat has become the subject of a legal dispute between two women, each claiming ownership. Aimée Raclot says she found the animal, which she named Pompon, abandoned and in poor health in her barn. She paid for veterinary treatment and later had the cat microchipped in her own name. A neighbour, however, insists the cat is hers, called Flocon, and supports her claim with earlier veterinary records. She has filed a complaint alleging theft, prompting police involvement and legal proceedings. The case is now heading towards mediation. At its core, the dispute raises a familiar legal tension between possession and care on the one hand, and prior ownership on the other. While Raclot emphasises the rescue and welfare of the cat, the neighbour maintains that original ownership should prevail. The outcome will depend on how the competing evidence is assessed under French law.

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

When Hegseth Makes War Sound Like a Crusading Video Game

Unlike AI I am free to write an op-ed which attacks politicians. AI is programmed to not provide strong opinions about politicians even if it is warranted! 😎

So here goes: there is something deeply wrong when a leader - I am referring to the so called 'Secretary of War', Pete Hegseth - talks about killing as if it were exciting or clean (indeed moral). As if he has reduced the real thing to a game. As if he is addicted to war pornography. I think he genuinely is. It seems like that.

War is supposed to be the last resort, something heavy and tragic. It is always bloody tragic. And avoidable. But the way Trump and Hegseth have spoken about the Iran conflict makes it sound more like a video game than a real war with real people dying. When someone prays for “every round to find its mark” or for “overwhelming violence of action,” it doesn’t sound like leadership. It sounds like someone enjoying the idea of destruction.

That is why Pope Leo’s Palm Sunday message hit so hard. He said, “God does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.” It was a simple sentence, but it cut straight through the noise. Prayer is not meant to bless killing. It is not meant to make violence feel righteous. It is meant to achieve the opposite. 

When someone uses prayer to ask for better killing, they are not talking to God — they are trying to use God. And that is a dangerous thing. God - if he existed - would grimace at such attempts at prayer.

The tragedy becomes even clearer when you look at the other side. While American officials pray for victory, young men in Iran kneel on their prayer rugs and ask God for the same thing. Two nations, two faiths, one God — and each convinced that the other must be defeated. It becomes a mirror image: each side praying for the success of its weapons, each side believing it is righteous, each side asking God to help it kill. Nothing about that is holy. 

Nothing about that is sane. And yet Hegseth apparently ardently believes everything he says in prayer to his God. It demonstrates - as far as I am concerned - that he is a slightly (greatly?) deranged person. And a very dangerous person. 

Trump is not dissimilar. They both have borderline personality disorders which is probably why Trump appointed Hegseth who incidentally insisted on being titled 'Secretary of War' not of defence. Note: an executive order authorised “Department of War” and “Secretary of War” as secondary, non‑statutory titles for communications. This did not replace the legal name — it simply allowed the terminology to appear in messaging. Hegseth seized on this immediately.

The real problem is the way war is being imagined. When leaders talk about killing with excitement instead of sorrow, war becomes easier to start and harder to stop. The language becomes simple, clean, and thrilling, while the reality is bloody, messy, and full of grief. Once war is spoken of like entertainment, the human cost disappears from view.

That is why Pope Leo’s warning matters. He is trying to pull the moral weight back into the room. He is reminding everyone — leaders, soldiers, citizens — that war is not a show, not a game, and not a place to look for spiritual excitement. It is a place of suffering. And anyone who forgets that is already lost.

----------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

End of toxic chemicals in Britain's sofas which will protect companion animals

I'm told by The Sunday Times that this UK government is going to end the use of toxic flame retardants in British furniture which is welcome news not only for children but also companion animals. I've always said - and I've said it for many years - that the kind of damage that these flame retardant do to companion animals (who might spend a long time snoozing on a sofa) is hidden. You end up with pets with idiopathic diseases. These are diseases that veterinarians fail to diagnose properly by which I mean they fail to diagnose the cause and it might well be that the cause is flame retardants in furniture.

Check this out: flame retardants – Michael Broad -  a range of articles on this important topic.

And the reason why, in Britain, there are flame retardant in British furniture and have been for nearly 40 years is because in Britain the rules have been far stricter than in Europe and the world generally which means that it is been almost impossible for manufacturers to pass fire safety tests without using large amounts of chemical flame retardant.

In short, the origin of toxic flame retardants in sofas and armchairs is British legislation. A typical UK sofa contains about 2 kg of toxic flame retardant apparently which is shocking.

We've known about this for a long time but successive British governments have done nothing about it.

The Sunday Times reports that the World Health Organisation announced last month in the latest Lancet Oncology Journal that the most common flame retardant in British sofas is TCPP (Tris(chloropropyl) phosphate is a widely used chlorinated organophosphate flame retardant) and it is known that it is probably carcinogenic to humans. This chemical makes up to 20% of the foam in a typical British sofa.

Other countries don't use flame retardants in furniture. For example, IKEA use flame retardants in sofas sold in Britain and Ireland but they do not use them for the rest of the world. Can you imagine how idiotic this is and that's thanks to successive British governments.

However, there some good news. On Tuesday the government announced that it would change the rules. It's going to drop an open flame test and bringing new regulations underpinned by a smoulder test. This mimics a lit cigarette on fabric in line with Europe and American policies.

It's obviously a balance between protecting inhabitants of homes by helping to prevent fire and protecting those inhabitants from toxic chemicals. Perhaps what might be behind some of this is an attempt to help protect the NHS in the UK. This government has been trying hard to take proactive measures to prevent people going to hospital. Clearly, fire retardants have silently been sending people to hospital. We don't have statistics but knowing that fire retardants are carcinogenic it is highly likely that some people have developed cancer and some pets have developed cancer because of these chemicals.

Apparently the change of heart is "credited to a campaign by Delyth Fetherstone-Dilke, 56, a former Warner Bros lawyer from Richmond, south-west London. She switched careers to become an upholsterer and 2014." The rules which enhance the use of fire retardants in sofas and other furniture were introduced in 1988 after a fire at a Woolworths shop in Manchester in 1979. The fire started in a sofa and killed 10 people.

There are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies which tell us that these toxic chemicals migrate out of the furniture into house dust and then into people with the highest levels in young children. That's this newspaper report but I would like to add the simple fact that it is highly likely that these chemicals also find their way into companion animals. This is logical.

The fire test rules have been under review since 2009 and a House Of Commons enquiry suggested changing the rules in 2019 but nothing happened for 17 years. Can you imagine how slow British governments work? It is absolutely shocking in my view.

---------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.