Men jailed for stealing golden toilet from UK mansion
Two men who stole a golden toilet from an English mansion have been sentenced to more than two years in prison.
The 18-carat fully functioning toilet was on display as a piece of contemporary art at Blenheim Palace - the country mansion where British wartime leader Winston Churchill was born - when five burglars smashed a window and yanked it from its plumbing in a brazen early-morning raid in September 2019.
It was never recovered and was believed to have been chopped up and sold.
James Sheen, 40, a roofer who pleaded guilty to burglary, conspiracy and transferring criminal property was sentenced in Oxford Crown Court to four years in prison.
Michael Jones, 39, who worked for Sheen and was convicted of burglary at trial, was sentenced to two years and three months.
The toilet weighed 98kg and was worth more than its weight in gold, being insured for more than $US6 million ($A9.2 million).
The toilet was part of a satirical commentary on consumer culture, titled America, by Italian conceptual artist Maurizio Cattelan, whose work of a banana duct-taped to a wall was sold in 2024 for $US6.2 million at auction in New York.
"This bold and brazen heist took no more than five-and-a-half minutes to complete," Judge Ian Pringle said in recounting the crime on Friday.
"America has never been seen again."
The piece that poked fun at excessive wealth had previously been on display at The Guggenheim Museum, in New York, which had offered the work to US President Donald Trump during his first term in office after he had asked to borrow a Van Gogh painting.
Jones had booked a viewing of the toilet the day before the theft to take photos, check out the lock and have his own private session on the golden throne.
He deemed the experience "splendid" during his testimony.
The next morning before dawn the gang of thieves crashed through the wooden gates of the palace in two stolen vehicles and tore well-tended lawns.
They pulled up to the estate's courtyard and smashed a window that Jones had photographed the day before.
The thieves used sledgehammers and a crowbar to wrench the toilet from its foundation, causing considerable damage to the 18th-century property, a UNESCO World Heritage site filled with valuable art and furniture that draws thousands of visitors each year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Irwin says Prince William 'truly cares' about nature
Conservationist Robert Irwin can see that Prince William "truly cares" about the environment. The 21-year-old son of late Crocodile Hunter star Steve Irwin recently teamed up with the heir to the British throne after he was was named a Global Ambassador for the Prince of Wales' Earthshot Prize. Ahead of the two joining forces again at the London Climate Action Week, Irwin said the royal is clearly dedicated to "putting a spotlight" on the issue. He told The Sunday Mirror newspaper: "I love being around passionate people, it inspires me. The prince is just that - passionate, curious and thoughtful. I've been fortunate enough to share many great discussions about the things we love about the natural world. And it's clear that he has a profound love for wildlife and wild places. "He knows that he can put a spotlight on people making a real difference. He takes this responsibility very seriously, and he has a great ability to direct attention to where it needs to be. He is very compassionate and works hard to make sure that his conservation efforts benefit people as much as the environment. "I am always impressed by his knowledge and dedication and in the conversations I have had with him, I often learn something new. Most importantly though, he truly cares about a healthy planet for our future generations." He said: "I have the privilege of carrying on a conservation legacy that my dad and my family created, and that is something very important to me. It makes me feel incredibly excited and hopeful when I get to join forces with like-minded causes dedicated to making the world a better place. To be part of an initiative that shares the values of our own charity efforts through Wildlife Warriors is a great honour." Conservationist Robert Irwin can see that Prince William "truly cares" about the environment. The 21-year-old son of late Crocodile Hunter star Steve Irwin recently teamed up with the heir to the British throne after he was was named a Global Ambassador for the Prince of Wales' Earthshot Prize. Ahead of the two joining forces again at the London Climate Action Week, Irwin said the royal is clearly dedicated to "putting a spotlight" on the issue. He told The Sunday Mirror newspaper: "I love being around passionate people, it inspires me. The prince is just that - passionate, curious and thoughtful. I've been fortunate enough to share many great discussions about the things we love about the natural world. And it's clear that he has a profound love for wildlife and wild places. "He knows that he can put a spotlight on people making a real difference. He takes this responsibility very seriously, and he has a great ability to direct attention to where it needs to be. He is very compassionate and works hard to make sure that his conservation efforts benefit people as much as the environment. "I am always impressed by his knowledge and dedication and in the conversations I have had with him, I often learn something new. Most importantly though, he truly cares about a healthy planet for our future generations." He said: "I have the privilege of carrying on a conservation legacy that my dad and my family created, and that is something very important to me. It makes me feel incredibly excited and hopeful when I get to join forces with like-minded causes dedicated to making the world a better place. To be part of an initiative that shares the values of our own charity efforts through Wildlife Warriors is a great honour." Conservationist Robert Irwin can see that Prince William "truly cares" about the environment. The 21-year-old son of late Crocodile Hunter star Steve Irwin recently teamed up with the heir to the British throne after he was was named a Global Ambassador for the Prince of Wales' Earthshot Prize. Ahead of the two joining forces again at the London Climate Action Week, Irwin said the royal is clearly dedicated to "putting a spotlight" on the issue. He told The Sunday Mirror newspaper: "I love being around passionate people, it inspires me. The prince is just that - passionate, curious and thoughtful. I've been fortunate enough to share many great discussions about the things we love about the natural world. And it's clear that he has a profound love for wildlife and wild places. "He knows that he can put a spotlight on people making a real difference. He takes this responsibility very seriously, and he has a great ability to direct attention to where it needs to be. He is very compassionate and works hard to make sure that his conservation efforts benefit people as much as the environment. "I am always impressed by his knowledge and dedication and in the conversations I have had with him, I often learn something new. Most importantly though, he truly cares about a healthy planet for our future generations." He said: "I have the privilege of carrying on a conservation legacy that my dad and my family created, and that is something very important to me. It makes me feel incredibly excited and hopeful when I get to join forces with like-minded causes dedicated to making the world a better place. To be part of an initiative that shares the values of our own charity efforts through Wildlife Warriors is a great honour." Conservationist Robert Irwin can see that Prince William "truly cares" about the environment. The 21-year-old son of late Crocodile Hunter star Steve Irwin recently teamed up with the heir to the British throne after he was was named a Global Ambassador for the Prince of Wales' Earthshot Prize. Ahead of the two joining forces again at the London Climate Action Week, Irwin said the royal is clearly dedicated to "putting a spotlight" on the issue. He told The Sunday Mirror newspaper: "I love being around passionate people, it inspires me. The prince is just that - passionate, curious and thoughtful. I've been fortunate enough to share many great discussions about the things we love about the natural world. And it's clear that he has a profound love for wildlife and wild places. "He knows that he can put a spotlight on people making a real difference. He takes this responsibility very seriously, and he has a great ability to direct attention to where it needs to be. He is very compassionate and works hard to make sure that his conservation efforts benefit people as much as the environment. "I am always impressed by his knowledge and dedication and in the conversations I have had with him, I often learn something new. Most importantly though, he truly cares about a healthy planet for our future generations." He said: "I have the privilege of carrying on a conservation legacy that my dad and my family created, and that is something very important to me. It makes me feel incredibly excited and hopeful when I get to join forces with like-minded causes dedicated to making the world a better place. To be part of an initiative that shares the values of our own charity efforts through Wildlife Warriors is a great honour."
Perth Now
2 hours ago
- Perth Now
Robert Irwin can see that Prince William 'truly cares' about the environment
Robert Irwin can see that Prince William "truly cares" about the environment. The 21-year-old conservationist - who is the is the son of late Crocodile Hunter star Steve Irwin - recently teamed up with the heir to the British throne after he was was named a Global Ambassador for the Prince of Wales' Earthshot Prize, and ahead of joining forces with him again at the London Climate Action Week, he admitted that the royal is "clearly" dedicated to "putting a spotlight" on the issue. He told The Sunday Mirror newspaper: "I love being around passionate people, it inspires me. The prince is just that - passionate, curious and thoughtful. I've been fortunate enough to share many great discussions about the things we love about the natural world. And it's clear that he has a profound love for wildlife and wild places. "He knows that he can put a spotlight on people making a real difference. He takes this responsibility very seriously, and he has a great ability to direct attention to where it needs to be. He is very compassionate and works hard to make sure that his conservation efforts benefit people as much as the environment. "I am always impressed by his knowledge and dedication and in the conversations I have had with him, I often learn something new. Most importantly though, he truly cares about a healthy planet for our future generations." The Crikey! It's The Irwins star - whose father died at the age of 44 in 2006 after being pierced by a stingray barb in the Great Barrier Reef - is able to continue the "legacy" that his dad created and feels "hopeful" to be able to connect with prominent figures such as the Prince of Wales in his work. He said: "I have the privilege of carrying on a conservation legacy that my dad and my family created, and that is something very important to me. It makes me feel incredibly excited and hopeful when I get to join forces with like minded causes dedicated to making the world a better place. To be part of an initiative that shares the values of our own charity efforts through Wildlife Warriors is a great honour."
The Advertiser
8 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Australia's enduring love affair with the US is at a critical point
Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997). Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket. As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall. It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt. As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive. Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential. Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability. In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance. In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity. Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate. The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against. McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold. Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism. Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here. "Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian. As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium. READ MORE KENNY: It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms. As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back. Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it. Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too. To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes? Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation? Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997). Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket. As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall. It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt. As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive. Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential. Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability. In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance. In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity. Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate. The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against. McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold. Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism. Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here. "Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian. As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium. READ MORE KENNY: It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms. As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back. Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it. Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too. To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes? Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation? Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997). Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket. As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall. It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt. As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive. Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential. Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability. In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance. In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity. Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate. The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against. McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold. Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism. Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here. "Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian. As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium. READ MORE KENNY: It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms. As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back. Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it. Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too. To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes? Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation? Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997). Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket. As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall. It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt. As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive. Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential. Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability. In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance. In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity. Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate. The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against. McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold. Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism. Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here. "Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian. As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium. READ MORE KENNY: It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms. As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back. Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it. Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too. To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes? Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation?
