Head of BOT Department, next Governor of the Falkland Islands
The Falkland Islands Government announced on Friday the appointment of Mr Colin Roberts CVO as the next Governor of the Falkland Islands.
MLA Sharon Halford said: “We already enjoy a good relationship with Mr Roberts through his previous role as Director of the Overseas Territories Directorate within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The experience he has from this role will stand him in good stead when he takes up his new post in April 2014, and we look forward to warmly welcoming Mr Roberts and his family.”
As a modern, self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, “we enjoy a relationship based on the shared ideals of democracy, freedom and self-reliance, said MLA Halford, adding, “we look forward to working in partnership with Mr Roberts and his colleagues as we work through the challenges and opportunities presented by these exciting time.
Mr Roberts since 2008 has been Director of the British Overseas Territories Directorate, Commissioner for British Antarctic Territory and British Indian Ocean Territory.
From 2004 to 2008 Mr Roberts was ambassador to Lithuania and before, political counsellor in Tokyo, 2001/04.
The coming Falklands governor joined the Foreign Office in 1989 and was first posted to the Republic of Ireland Desk, and then to the Embassy in Tokyo 1990/94.
Mr Roberts is fluent in Japanese and was a lecturer at the Ritsumeikan University of Kyoto.
Last June Mr Roberts was involved in an exchange of letters with Argentine ambassador Alicia Castro regarding proposals from Buenos Aires on air links and fisheries cooperation.
Suggested Stories
-
May 21st 2013
Falkland Islands: it’s a three-side debate; Argentina must recognize Islanders right to decide their future
-
May 21st 2013
Falklands: optimism about identification of unknown Argentine delegation
-
May 21st 2013
Falklands MPA has the minimum force necessary to prevent a repeat of 1982 invasion
-
May 20th 2013
Falkland Islands: Argentina blasts UK’s ‘double standard’ on self determination right
72 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
What a difference to Cecilia Nahón's appointment to Washington.
I think you will find that the Malvinas DID have a good relationship with the places in your list until they started to fabricate history where the cinderellas castle was actually Argentine sovereign territory after a three month vacation in Disney Land 180 years ago where they murdered Mickey Mouse and raped poor Minnie.
They further went on to claim that Aslan was actually an Argentine giving them historic rights to Narnia, and that Yoshi planted a cabbage in Mario land that had Argentine roots...
After that, even the fantasy countries hated and despised the Malvinistas.
Still, keep on wishing for never never Malvinas land, maybe the tooth fairy will bring you one, then you can have a Viceroy too! There, feel better.
“Self-determination”? Don´t be childish.
“New Viceroy for the FI Colony...”
Actually you probably meant that as some sort of insult, but it isn't really.
He will indeed be in a viceregal position. The Govenors of Australian states are viceroys and they're sovereign states (though 111 years ago were colonies and now in a federation). Actually the position of the Governor-General of Australia is also frequently referred to as viceregal. Isn't Australia independent?
Probably why the whole colony thing confuses you so much. I hear that even Argentina started out as a viceroyalty. Understandable that you made this mistake; I hear the national education of some countries leaves a little to be desired.
If you wish to call him a viceroy then please do so. It would be considered polite actually and akin to recognising him as a representative of Her Majesty.
It's rare to find such reverence on here.
Could you enlighten us as to what that is - as if we couldn't guess?
It is Argentina that seeks to deny their right to self determination and to become a vassal state of Argentina by denying their rights as a “people” (whatever you choose that to mean). Remember your specious claim (in any case signed away by yourselves in 1850 under the Southern-Aranas Treaty) only relates to the land - not the people.
You are swallowing propaganda again.
There are 15 countries with a UK governor/vice regal representative...including
Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, Bahamas, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Papua New Guinea, Antigua and Barbuda, St Kitts, Solomon Islands, Belize.
There are also a number of British Oversea Territories with the same relationship, many of which you know including the Falklands.
Even Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have their First Ministers as representatives of her Majesty as do the Crown Dependancies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.
So, there is a full range of countries, states and territories all with a governor or viceregal representative, some are fully independent, some are BOTs, and some are integral states.
There are also many states which are republics where there is no longer this position.
In every single case, EVERY SINGLE ONE, what is the common theme?
The relationship with the UK is determined by the inhabitants.
If the Australians wanted to become a republic they could, indeed they have had referenda on that option.
If Scotland wants independence, it's people can choose it.
if the Falkland Islanders want to be part of Argentina, they can make that decision.
So, self-determination is only childish in the minds of the Argentines who would deny that to them.
Well said mate. It's one thing to say your a democracy and yet another to live in a Democracy. You know what it means to me, it means even though I may not like and even disagree with decisions of the many, I accept them, the alternative is abhorent to me; to be dictated to by the will of the few. Could not think of anything worse.
I am not all that hot on the Human Rights Brigade, to my mind they have hijacked the principle, to encompass all sorts of ridiculous issues, but the right to decide your own destiny? it's up there with the right to life. I would and have done, defend it with my life. Why? because I want it for my children and their childrens children, that's why.
Or dust! Dust anyone? Dust?
The fact that ex-colonies like Australia, New Zealand, India, or the Falkland Islands are still friendly with the colonising state is totally foreign to our way of thinking. The fact of no violence being involved in the granting of independence or whatever other form of self-government is strange to us!!!!!
A colony is usually a result of conquest. Anyone who cares to look at how the British managed to create an empire, will see it was mostlyachieved through trade and settlement. Even India, The Jewel in the Crown” was not taken by force, certainly was not colonised. It was taken by trade, and a private army.
SELF-DETERMINATION.....All day every day!
There stance is ridiculous, what? you Argentines really believe that the UN is going to rip up their charter and throw it away, so you can enforce your
will on an archipelago located in the South Atlantic?
Are you seriously that dellusional?or what?
Face it, the world has far greater problems that need and to be frank, deserve, their attention.
“Don't be cinics and geta back islands to Argentina”
Back to Argentina? Argentina formed in 1853, not on the Islands from 1853 onwards till 1982 when the Argentine pirates and squatters were sent home.
Argentina never owned the Islands so you can't give Islands back to a country that did not own them.
Three months of illegal occupation in 1982 ( ie 1/4 of a year) do not displace 180 years of legal occupation (plus 143 years of prior claim) the maths is quite simple really.
“colony 100%”
No mate, they will never again become an Argentine colony, The Argentine colony with implanted pirate squatters during April-June 1982 were kicked off so the people born there (ie with a birthright) got their country back.
SELF-DETERMINATION.
I have heard a whisper from the foreign office, I'm not saying it's true mind, but I have heard this. Apparently. with affect from the 9th of January, 2013 a ship called the IOU LIBERTAD is becoming available.
The Foreign Office has commisioned a feasability study. To hire the IOU LIBERTAD, invite Argentinian settlers to colonise, dare I say it, Queen Elizabeth Land.
Those colonists who dare to undertake this courageous adventure, will be given British Citezenship and hence forth, be known as, Royal Queens!
Laugh...laugh..
What happened to their “” self determination “” rights ?
They forgot the “” Referandum“” abruptly..
after all yesterday is yesterday,today is today....
Laugh...laugh..
What's the problem, thought you guys knew that no one was going to pay any attention to it!
As my daughters used to say, when they where younger. “Ohh Yeaaaahhhh!!!”
(Extenended arm finers held high.) Man! don't you just hate your kids!!!!!!
Refute my post @26. !
Hope you got my Christmas Greeting,
What is there to refute?
London did appoint a new Governor.
There will be a referendum.
Argentina will ignore it.
You and I will agree!
To disagree.
You are used to be slave.
You can not speak freely.
You can not act freely.
shortly you all have subconscious fears.
That what you think?
Calmed down a little, since I first read your post.
I will say this though.
You just answered the question, why the UK will never ceede sovereignty.
Good time to remember the only list of LEGAL Governors Island, pirates:
SPANISH
1767-1773 F. Ruiz Puente
1773-1774 D. Chauri
1774-1777 F. Gil y Lemos y Taboada
1777-1779 R. Carassa y Souza
1779-1781 S. de Medina y Juan
1781-1783 J. M. del Carmen Altolaguirre
1783-1784 F. D. Montemayor
1784-1785 A. de Figueroa
1785-1786 R. de Clairac y Villalonga
1786-1787 P. de Mesa y Castro
1787-1788 R. de Clairac y Villalonga
1788-1789 P. de Mesa y Castro
1789-1790 R. de Clairac y Villalonga
1790-1791 J. J. de Elizalde y Ustariz
1791-1792 P. P. Sanguineto
1792-1793 J. J. de Elizalde y Ustariz
1793-1794 P. P. Sanguineto
1794-1795 J. de Aldana y Ortega
1795-1796 P. P. Sanguineto
1796-1797 J. de Aldana y Ortega
1797-1798 L. de Medina y Torres
1798-1799 F. X. de Viana y Alzaibar
1799-1800 L. de Medina y Torres
1800-1801 F. X. de Viana y Alzaibar
1801-1802 R. Fernández de Villegas
1802-1803 B. de Bonavía
1803-1804 A. L. de Ibarra y Oxinando
1804-1805 B. de Bonavía
1805-1806 A. L. de Ibarra y Oxinando
1806-1808 B. de Bonavía
1809-1810 G. Bondas
1810-1811 P. G. Martínez
ARGENTINES
1820-1821 D. Jewett
1821-1821 W. Mason
1824-1824 P. Areguatí
1829-1832 L. Vernet
1832-1832 J. F. Mestivier
1832-1833 J. M. Pinedo
1982-1982 M. Menéndez
THE MALVINAS ARE ARGENTINE FOREVER
anything is possable, if you take the argies point of view.
My goodness me, I never realised until now that there was an Argentine equivalent of Beachcomber's Anthology of Huntingdonshire Cabmen (1)
(1) In the words of an over-enthusiastic critic, 'a masterpiece of imaginative literature'. The Anthology consists of the more striking names (with initials) from each of the three volumes. It is a factual and unemphatic work, and the compiler has skinned the cream from the lists. Here are such old favourites as Whackfast, E.W., Fodge, S., and Nurthers, P.L. The index is accurate, and the introduction by Cabman Skinner is brief and workmanlike.
It is not so much ignorance or the history you espouse but more the spin you put on it.
For instance your list looks quite impressive until you realise that it only covers a period of 58 years. And then we can start to unstitch your “facts”.
Jewett!? Jajaja A convicted pirate who actually fought against Argentina from Brazil. He was never appointed a governor. He was on the islands to repair his ship.
Areguatí? What was he governor of? There was no settlement in 1824.
Mestivier lasted 15 days before being murdered by Argentinean mutineers.
Pinedo was never a governor - he was there hunting mutineers.
Also Menéndez was a Military Commander for 72 days. If you recognise him as a governor then you have to recognise Bignone as a legitimate President of Argentina. Can of worms that one.
So really your list doesn't even cover 58 years. More like 44. And for 9 of those years the British also had governors on the islands. So that brings it down to 35 years.
35 years. Now let's compare this to the 180 years of British Governors.
Once we remove those listed above I accept that Spain had legitimate governors on the islands, however you can only accept those as legitimate if you also accept the British governors as legitimate. After all, the first British settlement predates the Spanish presence on the islands.
The Malvinas were never Argentinean. Spanish perhaps but not Argentinean.
But now the Falkland Islands are British. Every argument or example you use to bolster Argentinean claims can also be used (usually more strongly) to bolster the British claim.
The list of governors, IT’S NO joke, it's absolutely real and you will find in the history books.
The Spanish governors were appointed by the government of Buenos Aires and residing in the colony founded by Jean Antoine de Bougainville in Puerto Soledad (now Port San Luis) and of course living there, whose term lasted mandates what indicated in the listing. The British had occupied only Port Egmont in 1765 (Saunders Island) after the founding of Soledad by Bougainville (1764), who recognized Spanish sovereignty, delivery the colony to the Spanish Crown (1767). Spain DID NOT BUY the colony, but he paid Bougainville (not France) a sum in recognition of their expenses by Soledad. From 1767 until 1811, without interruption, never missed the Spanish garrison and the governor in the Malvinas.
The first Spanish governor, Ruiz Puente, upon learning of the English presence in Egmont, sent Madariaga, who in 1770 SURRENDERED to the English there. To avoid a war with England, Spain allowed the British to return to Egmont by calling Masserano Declaration, pledging to abandon these, which actually did in 1774. There ends the minimal presence of the English (8 YEARS) on an island in the archipelago, the island Saunders (Trinidad for us).
All in all, it happened 44 years of uninterrupted presence with 20 Spanish governors until 1811 that before the emancipatory revolution in Buenos Aires, Soledad evacuated leaving a plate of Spanish sovereignty assertion. What happened next? Produced Argentina Independence (United Prov River Plate) in 1816, the new state inherited the islands as part of its territory and soon sent to David Jewett Buenos Aires in 1820 to take possession of the islands which it does this year on behalf of his government (Buenos Aires).
To summarize, in 1829 the central government created the Political and Military Command of the Malvinas Islands by appointing Luis Vernet
So, VRRP was a colony of Spain and the settlement in the Malvinas was a dependent colony of that colony. When UPRP replaced VRRP in 1816 the Malvinas colony stopped being a dependent colony and was incorporated into one of the Provinces of UPRP, though which one isn't clear (BA Province perhaps?). Four years later in 1820 someone was sent to claim something that was already fully integrated, (or was he actually sent to belatedly integrate an inherited colony. perhaps?).
Anyway, should we believe that, unlike Patagonia, the Malvinas Islands were an integral part of the Argentine political entity when the latter was recognised by UK in 1825? If so, which Province was Vernet responsible to, I wonder, or was it to the national authority that he reported? If it was the national authority then the Malvinas at that time was either a colony or a Province in its own right in 1833. You see, you seem to be suggesting that Vernet was Governor of a UPRP colony, which conflicts with the idea that you put forward earlier in your post that the new state inherited the islands as part of its territory.
I remain mired in my ignorance and look to you to drag me out of it.
The Spanish left the islands. There was no civilian population. Even by your list between 1811 and 1820 there was no governor.
Nobody disputes the Spanish history. Nobody should (although you seem to) dispute the French and British history.
The simple and unanswered points are these:
Did the Falklands automatically cede to the United Provinces in 1811 when Spain left. You argue yes, I suggest no.
Did Jewitts claim to sovereignty real hold any weight unless backed up by a civilian population. You argue yes, I suggest no.
Did Vernet represent the United Provinces. You argue yes, I argue that it was an independent business venture.
Was Mesteveir/Pinedo a legal coloniasation or an illegal penal colony removed after a few weeks, already mutinous murderous rapists. Again we disagree.
So..
The Spanish list is true. no point reporting it as nobody disputes it.
What is disputed is the “Governor” position you appointed to Jewitt (pirate), Vernet (independent businessman and pirate), Mestevier (murdered by Argentines and wife raped), and Pinedo (present for a couple of weeks to manage a penal colony).
And you call today's Governor dubious LOL.
What about the gaps in your list???
get over it,
you lost.
Chau pirates! ...... The Malvinas are Argentine, forever.
no exist, but in ones dreams.
This is the key point in your argument.
“Argentina/United Provinces inherited the sovereignty from Spain”
The Jewitt/Vernet/Mestevier is noise.....it doesn't constitute sovereignty. You know it, I know it.
So, where is this inheritance and why?
Why did Argentina inherit the Falklands and not Uruguay. Why did Argentina inherit the Falklands and not Paraguay? Why are the Argentine borders today, so different from the UP borders in 1832?
Why didn't India “inherit” Aden from the British?
Why didn't Australia “inherit” New Zealand?
Why didn't Mexico “inherit” Cuba?
It's bullshit Jose.
In the days of 1832, if you could sustain a civilian population in an unhabited land, you could claim sovereignty.
Spain failed..as your list shows in 1811
Argentina has never sustained a civilian population...as your list shows.
Britain has sustained a civilian population twice...including today's for 180 years.
Game..set..match...
All that remains is for the UK now to do the same or grant the Islands independence and we can all stop arguing.
“1829-1832 L. Vernet”
Jose, if Vernet was a governor of the United Provinces of the River Plate (ie not Argentina-which was formed in 1853)-then can you explain why he accepted British Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands?
Later Vernet was to recieve NO compensation for his property on the Falkland Islands from Argentina or the USA, but he did from the British Government.
If he did not consider that the Falkland Islands were owned by the British he would have not have applied for compensation from the British Government. In any case the British did not attempt to destabilise Vernet's setttlement (as his settlers who wished to, were allowed to stay in 1833), it was the USA in 1831 courtesey of the USS Lexington raid..
“ALL British arguments over the Malvinas are a SHIT”
I listened and replied with facts and you call them shit. You show your inability to argue or prove the facts you espouse. I never said the list of Governors is a joke. I just showed you it is partially wrong.
I don’t dispute how Spain came to own Puerto Soledad. You inconveniently ignore that Spain compensated and reinstated the British colony in 1771 and this colony was not under Spanish governance so Spain did not claim sovereignty over the entire islands. This action speaks volumes about Spain’s sovereignty.
Even you admit that the Spanish had abandoned the islands by 1811. Again no one is arguing this point. 1767 to 1811 is only 44 years.
The British also left a plate asserting sovereignty. Accept the Spanish one then you must to accept the British one.
As for Argentina inheriting the Islands upon independence; the proof?. Not all of the VRRP was part of Argentina. The VRRP included territory from Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia, so not all territory of the VRRP was included in independent Argentina.
The fact is that Spain recognises British sovereignty over the islands so they dispute these facts.
Jewett was NOT sent to take possession of the islands. Where do you get these facts from? Jewett was on the islands due to his ineptitude. He was never governor as he was commanding the Heroína at that time.
Regarding Vernet, again no one is arguing what Argentina was doing at this time but you again ignore history. Vernet sought British permission for his colony. Also Britain denied that Argentina has rights to garrison troops there. When it learnt of this, it evicted the garrison ONLY as it had no issue with the colony.
Also why did Argentina not mention or claim the islands between 1850 and 1884 or between 1888 and 1941. Again why did Argentina not accept ICJ jurisdiction in 1947 or 1948 or 1955?
You concentrate on some minutiae of history but ignore huge glaring facts.
What about all the lands Argentina stole and conquered from others since 1832.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
perhaps you should give them back first.
I know it's off topic and and not in line with the mutial hate that goes on in this forum but I would just like to extend my best wishes to all those in the Falkland Islands.
Yes. I think that with a BIG year coming up next year, I would just like to say “Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year” to everyone in the Falklands. All the best for the New Year and I hope that the New Year brings Peace, long life and good fortune with it....
And To all my friends on this forum as well. I will say “All Hail and well met!!!” May you and your families have a great Christmas and a very Happy New Year. May all your hangovers be small ones!!!
And lastly, to the Argentine posters on this forum. Friends and friendly enemies alike, have a good Christmas. Look after yourselves and your families, stay safe and have a Happy New Year. I hope that things get better for Agentina in the coming year. I hope things get better for ALL Argentinian's everywhere.
Love and Peace from Nottingham
U.K
P.S:- Has anyone tried “Hot Vimto”???? They were selling down at the Christmas market. If you haven't, DON'T!!! It tastes like warm mouth wash.
Which is it? A demotion or promotion. You just claimed it could be both.
Considering his diplomatic background, fluency in a difficult language such as Japanese and experience as a university lecturer; I'd say that he is the perfect person to deal with the upcoming referendum and the associated international attention.
I'm not sure why the UK woud be rattled by Cristina. After all she really hasn't gained anything. Even Chile and Uruguay only pay lip service to her demands. Her continual harping on has only emboldened the Falklands to hold a referendum.
No one can out shrill Cristina but she isn't the person to convince. It's the UN and other countries. And I'd say that the UK has already taken the initiative with this move. A diplomat is exactly what is needed to sell the referendum's outcome.
So the Governor is just a figurehead, you say.
How does that square with your usual position that the Falklands are no more than a colony?
That settles it, then. A colony no more.
they have no boats , .
“what is there left for a Governor to do except get dressed up in court dress and ostrich plumes?”
Not a lot, except acting as a hotline to the British Government, as the executive powers of the governor have diminished greatly, and in my opinion rightly, since 1982.
Is because they don’t have one..
Jealousy and envy..
.
Still making generalised statements.
“the Referendum will be but an embarrassing memory”
What is so embarrassing about democracy? The referendum may not change the status quo-hardly “embarrassing”. The world cannot ignore self-determination even if some countries deny people have the right to do so.
You thinking they are a colony doesn't negate that 60% of the islanders consider their identity to be Falkland Islander. Even as colonists do they not deserve the right to have their voice heard?
It also doesn't change the fact that a referendum is totally in line with UN practices. The UN has twice asked less than 700 Tokelauan voters to vote on their self-determination. Now that was embarrassing. After answering 'incorrectly' in 2006 they were asked again in 2007. And still not enough votes to make a change. They will probably lower the threshold from 2/3 majority to a simple majority in the next referendum. Let's hope so as it will set a nice precedent for the Islands.
“From Ambassador to a NATO ally via a desk in Whitehall to figurehead in the Falklands isn't just a demotion it's a career crash and burn”
You don't have a very good grasp on how governments work. Roberts would have known of his nomination and appointment before the public so could have declined. And a viceregal position is hardly a demotion and it is far from a figurehead-your grasp (lack of) of constitutional law is showing.
Maybe the Falklands could become a republic with a nice strong executive president-there's a great example right next door.... hang on a minute the poverty, crime, tanking economy and rising inflation aren't really selling points are they.
Seems the Islanders are happy with their arrangement-not even Australia with a similar system voted to change recently. Must be something to be said for governors who dress “up in court dress and ostrich plumes”.
Such a contrarian.
He must be a good choice, and UK and Falklands must be on the right track if there is so much resistance to the appointment.
The Faux-Brit Trolls aren't liking this much.
:- )
A. “the Referendum will be but an embarrassing memory”
B. “every referendum will be but an embarrassing memory”
If you answered B you finally got something right in 2012.
All that time to think and thankfully you fail to disappoint. Of all my long winded replies you could only pick on one word! Semantics and deflection. Clutching at straws much? But then if you can’t beat them (me) then I suppose you join them or should I be flattered by the emulation?
However back to your initial generalisation - not your feeble comment above.
Why will the referendum be “but an embarrassing memory”? Let’s break it down and find this embarrassment shall we:
Logistics of holding a referendum?
-No the UK is adequately capable – zero chance of embarrassment
The question?
-No it is far from controversial – zero chance of embarrassment
The turnout?
-No, in a small community not a problem – zero chance of embarrassment
Observers?
-No, the UK will rustle up someone – zero chance of embarrassment
The result?
-Probably not as let’s face it the result will hardly be surprising – zero chance of embarrassment
So what will be embarrassing? I wonder….
Will the UN ignore it?
Will Argentina ignore it?
Will the UK fail to use it?
Will nothing change?
Aaaaaa Nothing will change and so this whole exercise is a waste of time. The whole world will still call the Falklands…. what was the term you used? A colony that’s it.
So it’ll be embarrassing because it won’t change anything. And why? Well because nothing the UK has done has changed the status of the Falklands. Renaming it a British Overseas Territory doesn’t make it less a “colony”. The UN still thinks so. Argentina thinks so. Argentina’s neighbours concur (verbally at least).
So the referendum will be an “embarrassing memory” because nothing the UK has done has ever fixed the problem in the past. And short of independence or handing them to Argentina to integrate the islands and decolonise them in line with UN GA intent (paraphrasing you here), nothing will change.
Unless it will be embarrassing for a different reason, that’s a generalisation.
Please try harder Doveoverdover.
The great naval commander, RN retired, turned up on here a few months ago with glowing references from Think. His pitch was that of a Brit of high military calibre who knew more about the world than us plebs. In fact he knew almost as much about the world as Think himself.
He started off his posts by weighting them 90% in the favour of the Falklands but there was always a nasty little barb in each one. Always a little bit of doubt. The idea was that we'd read his little doubts and think if such a man of the world has doubt maybe we all should. The only trouble is that we all saw through him and either took no notice of him or took the micky out of him. The more this happened the nastier the posts got. After a very short time his true colours came out.
The best advice is not to waste any time on him.
“So, the origin of your rudeness is now perfectly clear for all to read.”
Here you go with another one of your “ah, gotcha!” moments. Anyone would think you just trapped OJ Simpson into a confession.
Very poor try commander. I have no doubt that you are 100% on the Argentine (your) side. Your attempt in the early days to appear otherwise was nothing but a facade.
The Falkland Islands belong to the Falkland Islanders and we are making our own destiny. Thanks to the support of the UK Overnment our future is secure.
I don't see it so much as wasting time as.... well sport really.
Comment #65 makes it all worthwhile.
I'm it for the long haul so it will only get better.
PS. Is it just me or does comment #69 seems to be par for the course on this website when someone is challenged? Almost as if they all take the same class in trolling.
What you need to realise is that it is the great naval commander who does the challenging and question asking. We do not ask HIM questions. Those are the rules.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!