The finding that Israel is not acting with intent to commit a genocide, Lammy implies in his letter, absolves ministers of a duty to act on the responsibility to prevent one, set out in the 1948 genocide convention.
But they haven’t found that. He said that they have not concluded. So they are not absolved of the responsibility.
I in no way agree with the gov on this.
But. How are you interpreting the word concluded.
Lemmy will be using to arrive at a judgement or opinion.
“has not concluded” means that they haven’t yet come to a judgement or opinion.
You could interpret it to mean that they have come to a conclusion and the conclusion was that it was not happening, but the article doesn’t support that interpretation.
FTA: “The government said it was still studying” “The government’s lack of conclusion” “the government is accepting responsibility for determining”
Edit: the article also mentions that their duty is to prevent genocide, not to stop ongoing genocide, so the fact that they haven’t found that that there is a genocide occurring doesn’t absolve them of that duty.
Except they have not come to the judgement that Israel is committing genacide. Literally means they are claiming they have no evidence.
It’s a bull shit claim politically.
But English language wise. Failing to conclude the actions of a 3rd party meet certain standards. Very much indicates that processes requiring those standards are not required.
If a court case is in progress, the judge has not come to a conclusion. That does not mean that no evidence has been presented and it does not mean that the judge has decided that the defendant is innocent.
I have to admire how you wrote a paragraph lecturing me about how English works and didn’t use a single complete sentence.
All of that notwithstanding, you are absolutely right that it is a bullshit political claim.
PS I’m good with the meaning of words. But crap with grammar. So would never question your use of grammar.
If the Judge or jury has cot come to a conclusion. It is illegal for them or any other representative of the court to process the accused as if guilty.
You really are failing to make your case.
The gov is intentionally using the term because it dose not claim anything about the case. Only there lack of response.
We do not disagree the gov is responsible.
We just disagree on your interpretation of their use of language. Them saying they have not concluded the actions have happened. Is them claiming the evidence is not convincing to them.
In your court example they are “claiming” they did not have strong enough evidence to convict.
I in no way disagree that in that example Judge Starmer and all the Protection Lawyers are currupt as hell.
I just point out that your statement that not having concluded they are guilty. In no way indicates they are required to act. You need to provide proof they do consider Israel guilty to make that claim.
We just disagree on your interpretation of their use of language. Them saying they have not concluded the actions have happened. Is them claiming the evidence is not convincing to them.
OK, we flat out disagree. I think you are simply wrong about what the language means. Moreover, I think that they are deliberately phrasing it that way so that they can avoid saying that the evidence is not convincing to them.
A agree the phrasing is intentional. I think we both agree they are lying scum.
But the meanings of the word concluded is pretty darn clear. As is the meaning of not.
As I say my written grammar (and spelling) may be poor. But my language comprehension is pretty fucking good.
Cooper is about to replace Lammy and she’ll never stand up to the Israelis.
Oh, well. Do let us know when you conclude something.
I genuinely cannot fathom how they sleep at night.
their bank accounts are apparently cushy and warm
weird how this decision came right after israel signing a military contract with the uk. what a coincidence.
Better hurry up before it’s too late.
