MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, November 19th 2018 - 15:41 UTC

Star Princess ban from Falkland Islands: health reasons not politics

Tuesday, January 17th 2012 - 12:13 UTC
Full article 35 comments

FOR only the second time in recent years, on January 14 the Falkland Islands Government refused permission for a cruise ship to land its passengers in the islands' capital, Stanley. The ship in question was the Star Princess which had 2,608 passengers aboard.

The reason for the ban, according to a press release from a government spokesperson was the presence on the ship of the highly infectious norovirus, which causes sickness and diarrhea. At the time of the ship's arrival it was at what was described as 'red alert' status with 58 registered cases.

This decision, described as “difficult” in the communiqué, was taken by the Islands' Chief Medical Officer , “following agreed protocols” and after “consultation with both the ship's doctor and a consultant microbiologist in the UK.”

Suggestions from Argentina that the decision to cancel the ship's visit was made as a reprisal for the recent Mercosur countries decision to ban vessels flying the Falkland Islands flag are being ridiculed in Stanley, where the loss of a visit by a ship of this size may have cost the economy over £100,000, including the £46,944 which would have gone to the government's coffers from passenger arrival tax alone.

Source: Penguin News

 

Categories: Tourism, Falkland Islands.

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Alejomartinez

    A very significant silence from Mercopress is much more than telling. It claims to cover the whole ofnthenSouth Atlantic and even reports irrelevant news fromthe islands it insists not to call as all ofnthenregion does: Malvinas. However, it purposedly omitsnto mention the article by Simon Winchester recently published in The Times of the UK. Interesting ommission as the article calls the UK to put and end to this colonial situation, sit down and negotiate a “civilised solution” recognising Argentine sovereignty and the need to take into account and guarantee the islanders' interests and way of life. That is to say UN and hence Argentina's position. This article accompanied an opinion column by Argentine FM on this issue. Mercopress is regrettably too biased to speak mthe A very significant silence from Mercopress is much more than telling. It claims to cover the whole ofnthenSouth Atlantic and even reports irrelevant news fromthe islands it insists not to call as all ofnthenregion does: Malvinas. However, it purposedly omitsnto mention the article by Simon Winchester recently published in The Times of the UK. Interesting ommission as the article calls the UK to put and end to this colonial situation, sit down and negotiate a “civilised solution” recognising Argentine sovereignty and the need to take into account and guarantee the islanders' interests and way of life. That is to say UN and hence Argentina's position. This article accompanied an opinion column by Argentine FM on this issue. Mercopress is regrettably too biased to speak mthe truth!

    Jan 17th, 2012 - 12:21 pm 0
  • Rufus

    There's nothing on MP about the rather stupid idea to catch as many illex squid as possible before they reach Falklands water, incidentally potentially wrecking the future of the entire fishery. That's made the UK press as well.

    The problem is that given the fact that the Falkland Islanders can remember the previous Argentine idea of taking into account and guaranteeing their interests and way of life, not to mention the current Argentine administration's efforts to undermine their interests, they don't trust your guarantees.

    Jan 17th, 2012 - 01:14 pm 0
  • ElaineB

    With regard to the article it was a very sensible decision made by TFI government in consultation with medical experts. They looked at the LONG-TERM affects of allowing the infection to spread, rather than the SHORT-TERM financial gain from the tourists. That the Argentine government would seek to make the decision political does not reflect well on them. Are they suggesting they would have opted for the short-term gain?

    As for the unrelated comment @ 1. That opinion piece is one person's opinion. In the UK press we allow free expression and there are a variety of opinions expressed. Some reflect majority opinion and some do not. This particular opinion does not reflect government policy or the majority opinion. It is valid as a minority opinion but that is all.

    If you do not like the content of MP, why read it? Why not start your own online news site?

    Jan 17th, 2012 - 01:58 pm 0
Read all comments

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!