MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Malvinas after all are the Falkland Islands, say Argentine official webs
The Argentine press claimed Friday that the official news agency argentina.gob.ar, which depends from the government’s Mass Media Secretariat, is using in its web presentation Google maps of the country which refer to the South Atlantic archipelago as Falkland Islands and only in brackets (Malvinas). Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesOops! Hahaha, has there actually been a time when Argentina's claim is consistent?
Mar 01st, 2011 - 08:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0I do wonder how Alicia Kirchener got that job....wink wink nod nod flash the cash :D
Snigger:)
Mar 01st, 2011 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0They will have to change this very quickly because Google and the “|Rest of the world” are wrong and a few idiot Argentine politicians are always correct !
Mar 01st, 2011 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0@2, well done, Saphira, still got the giggles.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0@4,I thought you would like it:)that small word says it all hahaha
Mar 01st, 2011 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Like Saddam Hussein the Kirchners certainly know how to “Keep it in the Family”.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But if the Argentine people are happy with blatant nepotism thats all that matters.
Wow, Mercopress has definitively revealed! The “error” is unmistakably revealing of the utterly biased approach of Mercopress against anything related to Argentina. As the Malvinas are Argentina's, we couldn't expect less! Thanks, it's evident now and not because I say so!
Mar 01st, 2011 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not for the first time, they pulped a load of school books not so long ago for using the F word.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@7 What are you trying to say it makes no sense
Mar 01st, 2011 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@#7
Mar 01st, 2011 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Errr no! I think you'll find that mecropress report on the news, and news is news. Saying its biased is like saying “ohhh but you shouldn't report this because the falkland island government hasn't made the same mistakes with their maps, so its biased as its unfair” lol
Sorry but news is news and news is never biased. just because you don't like the news reported doesnt make it biased either. Just because the argentine government do not believe in freedom of the press, doesnt make it biased either. In fact, the only person being biased here would be yourself for your comment. So go and biased off somewhere else is you don't like it, as theres always the argentine state owned news agencies, i bet.
As per the article itself, LMAO, i say LMAO.
They are going to re-write history.....again !
Mar 01st, 2011 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 010 - I'm not sure I agree that news is never biased. Is Rupert Murdoch, for example, really committed to delivering impartial news, and operates without any sort of personal agenda? You could say the same about The Daily Star, The Guardian, Fox News, CNN, etc.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How cannot it be evident that it's biased when the article colloquially introduces this ” (¿?)“ after stating the ”error”! If that is not taking sides... I do understand why so many British islanders are so fond of this lowest quality soap opera!
Mar 01st, 2011 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#12 reporting of facts is not biased and news is reporting of facts.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Only when a journalist reports their own opinion does it move from being news to a personal opinion of the facts or of a person, which can then be biased.
But striaght reporting of facts of an event is not biased, as that its indeed what has occured here. i.e its a fact that the argentine.ar use google maps clearly showing the Falkland islnads as the falkland islands with isle Malvinas in brackets. Thats a fact so this article is a straight reporting of fact. so it is not biased.
#13
the use of (¿?) is nothing more than the reporters own expression of confusion/bemusement just like the confused emoticon is in public forums. It does not change the facts of the event, which if you check the are accurate, therefore the truth is not biased. Look at it this way the simple ? means its a question the ¿ next to ? is asking whether its a question or not a question i.e is it one or the other - or in this case is it the falkland islands or is it the malvinas? so the report is confused by the contradictory use of names by the argentinian government.
Have to agree with Teaboy here, there isn't one single opinion in the entire article.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Infact, this is a requote from the “The Argentine press” as it says in the header.
In reality google maps are just easy to use, easy oversight to make really.. just rather amusing.
The fact is .....portal argentina.ar has got it right for the first time. They are the Falkland islands and the Islas Malvinas does not exist except in the imagination of a few deluded Argentine politicians.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just needs a few more truths to be admitted by Argentina and they not only will have shot their selves in the foot but in the asking for it as well.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Told you we were British and the headline confirms it all.
What about the other news story where certain Argentine baddies have now ended up in court charged with steeling babies from their own people. Are they that bad they can't find a loyal wife anymore. What next will they get up to.
Never hear of us Islanders steeling babies because we are all to busy producing them to further populate our Kelpers domain.
2 saphira, 5 saphira and the idiot 3 Viscount Falkland!!!
Mar 01st, 2011 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0giggle!! while you can! I think, brits!!!you should most worry that laugh!!! The Malvinas Argentina Islands are Coming back soon ...giggle, snigger!!!
Hardly, Kiwi...Theres nothing Argentina can do.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 014 - I do understand what you're saying, and I didn't necessarily mean this article/site. I just mean that being biased doesn't necessarily mean printing lies. It's as much about how facts are spun and presented, and the prominence afforded to them. The news is presented by news outlets, which almost always have their own personal agendas and interests, and above all want to sell as many newspapers as possible.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For example, if a newspaper supports Politician A and not Politician B, and there are two equally negative stories coming out about both politicians A and B on the same day, they'd give the negative story about Politician B much more prominence. They'd be printing facts, but they'd still be biased.
Or another example, say there's a protest of 50,000 people, it all goes peacefully, but five protesters are seen smoking a joint, then a newspaper (who is against the protests) runs with the story 'Drugged protesters march through London', with the angle of the story really focused on the 5 pot smokers (even if it was 5 out of 49,995), they'd still be printing facts, but not giving a very balanced view of events.
Define the term “Soon” Kiwi, a succession of leaders right from Peron have talked about recovering the Falklands “soon” and that was 60 years ago :)
Mar 01st, 2011 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Didn't the former Nestor say that he would die seeing the beloved Malvinas back in Argentine sovereignty? XD.
Or Menem saying they would get them by 1997.
Not to mention Christina's election pledge to get them before the end of her first term in office XD?
Is soon a flexible term in a Argentina? Any where in between 10-100,000 years :)
We what did you expect, even when confronted with the truth, they fail to understand it lol.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 020 Frase.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes i agree with you there, in genereal as a whole (meaning all articles printed or reported on in the paper or during the news broadcast i.e choose the news that suites their agenda) can be biased. But the articles themselves minus the reporters personal opinion can not be biased as their reporting the facts of the article. So when i say news i mean single event (or an article) that is reported on, not loads of events reported together (a selection of news). Sorry for the confusion there Fraser were both right.
Alejomartinez was saying the article proved Mercopress was biased when they only qouted the article from an argentine news agency, without making a personal comment on it themselves. So i guess he thinks the argentine press is biased and in favour of the falklands too lol
”Google maps of the country which refer to the South Atlantic archipelago as Falkland Islands and only in brackets (Malvinas).“
Mar 01st, 2011 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OMG, American Google uses both versions of the islands'name, what about when the British official history of Malvinas agrees with the Argentinian version and force to be changed?
”Falkland Islanders have criticised the Government's official history of the 1982 war, claiming that it contains a series of “serious” errors which make it too sympathetic to Argentina's claims to the territory”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html
Oh my god Nestor Kirchner is alive and he has blond hair. Eeeewwwww.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Poor bundle of ignorants! If only they knew it's UN double nomenclature, had it been in Spanish it'd have been the other way around! Google and other external sources stick to it as there's a sovereingty dispute recognised by the UN.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0yeah but its your government that condoned the use of the maps calling them falkland islands, so google and how they name them isn't the issue here is it? No.... it was your governments decision to use those maps. So there goes your UN argument out the window! IDIOT
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0@marcos i guess you forgot how i explain to you how the error in the book were rectify 2 weeks ago and that all other history records in the national archieve were indeed correct. Making it an authors error, not that of the british governments. IDIOT #2
@Teaboy 2: IDIOT you poor guy, sorry to be so coarse but you leave me no choice. If I were you I'd be more worried to notice that Google maps resorts to the UN wording which is not your position btw. There is a sovereignty dispute whether you like it or not. Argentine official maps are correctly drawn up and official place names are in place, including all of the names on the islands as part of Tierra del Fuego province. Does YOUR Gov't (UK) objected to Google's using the Argentine official name? As I understand you claim sovereignty of that territory you occupy since 1833 and you still neglect the way Google and other providers name what you (only) claim yours??? I D I O T
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0We have sovereignty .... we don't claim it.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 03:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Indeed we have 'no doubt' about our sovereignty, therefore there is no dispute on our side.
Therefore, only Argentina has a dispute and, as it takes two to tango, there can be no dispute.
Ain't logic wonderful :-)
Redhoyt! So you have it (sovereignty I mean), wow, what a world! The whole of it urges you to sit down to solve the dispute whose existence you insist on denying. Wow again, then it's Argentina's short-sightedness. Insular minds? No, that would be too offensive, as British subjects you will always be insular either in our land or in yours, far away (even from Europe...)
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 03:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well done Ajeco - suitably impressed I see (you do DO irony I suppose?) And when did the WHOLE world urge the UK to sit down ..... you are surely not refering to the discredited C-24? or the UN GA which hasn't passed a Resolution on the subject since 1988, or maybe you mean the UNSC .... must have missed that one :-)
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 05:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentines are getting desperate-won't do you any good, my friends. -as the lslands are STILL OURS.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 08:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0#30 Lol Alejopissedonmartini's - whos the Idiot, me who knows it is up to the map creater whether to include the both names of a disputed territory. Or some idiot like you that makes up a UN resolution that they must all comply with and as such all map makers must include both names. Which going by maps i have seen without the Malvinas name on would confirm your fantasy as being just an idiots dream. SO SORRY AELJO but your an Idiot not me.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your whole claim to the island dates back to 1833, which was when the provinces where still all independent provinces and as such argentina didn't exist and neither did argentinians. Therefore the idlands cannot possibly be yours since we claimed them as far back as 1690 and had settlements there way before your illegal occupation in the 1833. Also juis Vernet asked britain premission to set up a commercial settlement there. Now, why would he do that, if they were not a british soverienty? And please explain to us how a country that did not exist till 1853 can claim land was stolen from them in 1833? The falklands were not part of the province of Tierra del Fuego, to say that they are, is like saying britain is part of france due to it being just 20 odd miles of the coast of france at their closest point. Lol next you'll be claimin the chilian part on the west of Tierra del Fuego province. Not only that Tierra del Fuego province is iteslf an island and in order for you to get their from mainland argentina over land, you have to go through chile.
Picture of chilian argentine border :- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Chile_location_map.svg/2000px-Chile_location_map.svg.png
Oh, and if memory serves me right, the province of Tierro del fuego wasn't official a province at all till the government of Tierro del fuego was set up in the 1884 and the border with chile was only decided in 1881.
So that blows any claim you have to the falkland islands being part of Tierro del Fuego right out of the water!
Sovereignty disputes become resolved in the terminology on maps usually by force majeur.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thus the Louisiana Purchase added states to what was a British Dominion and (Lo and Behold) the words The United States of America appeared on maps around the world.
The maps didn't say USA (British Province of America), because treaties were signed life and the world had moved on.
Similarly, the Malvenas terminology is long relegated to history, because treaties were signed and life has moved on.
Google probably recognises the anachronism because it does business in the region.
Teaboy, fundamentally. I'm not prone to go down and immerse in further comments with you guy. You're too basic for my intellectual standards. Go, study first and then I'll see if I feel like considering you again. This is it and NOT because I'm wrong. By the way, your version of the history is incomple and flawed, not to mention the many many details that could be extracted if you only had a minimal notion of international law and world politics. Too late for you. Sorry. I won´'t call you idiot.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#35 LMAO, Sorry but its argentinian history that is flawed, you cannot tell me the official world and geological history is wrong. you cannot tell me the international borders between chile and argentina are wrong. You cannot tell me that the province of Tierro del fuego was an argentinian province prior to 1881 when the argentina first establish a government there! You cannot tell me the argentina existed as a country prior to 1853 when all provinces were independent provincial states just like that of the 50 states that made up the U.s. prior to them joining up and forming a federal republic. You cannot tell me that John Strong (a brit) was not the first person to see the falkland islands and subsquently named them. You can not tell me that the first british flag was not raised in the first british settlement on the island at Port Egmont in 1765 when upon landing the islands were official claimed for the crown of Great Britain. You can not tell me that in 1774 the british didn't leave a plague officially claiming soveriengty, or that the spanish in 1771 did not cede their claim to sovereignty.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The british never ceded sovereignty to the islands, so any occupation by United Provinces of the Río de la Plata was illegal under international law. Also note that the province of Tierra del Fuego was not part of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata also some provinces that did make up the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata now form part of brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay with only the following provinces at the time now being part of argentina Buenos Aires:
Entre Ríos
Corrientes
Santa Fe
Mendoza
San Juan
Catamarca
Tucumán
Santiago del Estero
Salta
Jujuy
Misiones
Córdoba
The outpost of Carmen de Patagones in Patagonia, part of Buenos Aires
The southern provinces at the time were dominios indigenas (says it all). So bring on the ICJ since you like international law, and dont insult my intelligence just because you have no way to counter the truth and the facts.
Thank you Teaboy....bring on the custard creams !
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lol Just to add more salt in the the argentinians sovereingty wounds, it may interested them to know the fact that many times in the 1500's and afterwards the british set foot in and explored (Francis Drake being one of them) the province of Tierro del fuego along with french and spanish explorers. Also The British Patagonia Mission (based in brighton UK), under its superintendent Waite Stirling, founded Ushuaia in Tierro del fuego province as an Anglican mission in 1869. In 1884 the Government of Tierra del Fuego was created, and a subprefecture was established at Ushuaia. The above are all historical facts in brief, and there is more details to it such as settlements by the british explorers etc
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So we Brits were their long before you argentinians where, so it seems, we have a better historical claim to Tierro del fuego province than argentina has. Which means the falklands are beyond any doubt british.
This is what the argentinians do to the habitants of the land they want - A 1879 Chilean expedition led by Ramón Serrano Montaner reported large amounts of placer gold in the streams and river beds of Tierra del Fuego. This prompted a massive immigration to Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego from 1883 and 1909. Numerous Argentinians, Chileans and Croatians settled in the main island leading to increased conflicts with native Selknam. Julius Popper, Romanian explorer, was one of the most successful entrepreneurs. Popper, who was granted rights by the Argentine government to exploit any gold deposits he found in Tierra del Fuego, has been pointed as a central figure in what is called the Selknam genocide. The Selknam and Yaghan populations of Tierra del Fuego declined sharply due to persecution by settlers, diseases and mass transfer to the Salesian mission of Dawson Island, where despite the missionaries efforts many perished, and this was from 1880's - 1910's not long before WW1, not a bad effort in terms of matching the germans for genocide.
Over the years the islands have been colonised by the French, Spanish and English.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 01592 August First sighting of the Falklands by Captain John Davis in the Desire.
1764 February French land and establish settlement of Port Louis
1765 January British land at Saunders Island and claim Islands
1767 April French Colony formally handed over to the Spanish
1769 September British and Spanish meet. Hostility ensues.
1774 May British leave Port Egmont. Settlement abandoned.
1831 December United States vessel Lexington destroys Port Soledad settlement.
1832 September Temporary Spanish Governor appointed. Murdered by mutineers.
1832 December British arrive in Port Egmont and take possession.
1833 January British remove Argentines and establish sovereignty in Port Louis.
1833 August The Port Louis Murders leave newly appointed governor Brisbane dead
1834 January Lieutenant Smith appointed Governor
And the islands have been British ever since
maybe helpfull
Not the first time, the Latzina map, one of the Argentine maps that killed Argentina's claim to the Beagle Channel Islands (as they showed the islands to be Chilean) also show the Falklkands as not part of Argentine territory.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Map.rep.arg.1883.jpg
From the case:
Finally, the Court wishes to stress again that its conclusion to the effect that the PNL [Picton, Nueva and Lennox Islands] group is Chilean according to the 1881 Treaty has been reached on the basis of its interpretation of the Treaty, especially as set forth in paragraphs 55-111 above, and independently of the cartography of the case which has been taken account of only for purposes of confirmation or corrobation. The same applies in respect of the particular maps discussed in, and from, paragraph 119 onwards.
Explains why Argentina is none too keen on the ICJ route, as they own maps directly contradict their case as it did in the Beagle Channel case.
More of the maps here, very interesting how the maps were later “revised” to reflect Argentina's “re-interpretation” of the treaties it signed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Map.rep.arg.1883.jpg
39 briton,
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 03:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's an interesting gap you got there between 1774 and 1831. ;-)
41 Martin Fierro, more than interesting gap, very telling btw. Nothing less than the 37 Spanish governors who ruled the islands during these years before the Argentine ones afterwards... Then “our” story is said to be biased! Poor guys, even their own country has admitted the weakness of their claim. More than once. And they entered into negotiations on the transfer of sovereignty back to Argentina, more than once too. But this is too mild a forum to discuss these issues seriously. This is not an insult but sheer truth. It's not worth the effort. I won't call them idiots, of course
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 03:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0This isn't even a forum, it's a circus.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 03:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0An honourable move. Now for considering a settlement.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 07:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0@43 Martino, for your efforts its a circus because you are in the wrong and you know it. Your country is in the wrong and knows it also but will not admit it. You can't handle being the losers can you Martino?
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 08:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0You've seen all the facts presented but choose not to believe them because they PROVE that you are wrong. You must win under any circumstances, eh Martino? You all thought that we would be a pushover, didn't you. With all the irrelevant stuff you bring up about the“evil”British! indeed! as if that has anything to do with the people of the Falkland lslands. Go on, be a man, admit that you are wrong and let us live in peace with a good neighbour(you can do it, just try for once to do the right thing).
@44, stop being stupid, Graham
@Martin - You fail to understand that spain ceded sovereingty in 1771 treaty, just because we abandoned our settlement there in 1776, does not mean we ceded our soveriengty of the islands. You do not need to occupy an island in order for it to be your sovereign territory. Hence why louis Vernet (who was a frenchman) was aware of the British claim to the Falkland Islands, and in January 1826 before sailing he took his Argentine grant to the British Consulate where it received their stamp. It is also why Vernet expressed the wish that, in the event the British returned to the Islands, they would take his colony under their protection. Vernet expressed the same sentiments to Langdon, a British captain. Both Parish and Langdon passed Vernet's request on to London. Basically Argentina (or at the time the united provinces of the rio de la plata acted illegally by giving louis vernet a grant to land on east falkland and for fishing and sealing resources as they did not have sovereignty of the islands which vernet knew, hence why he asked britain to sanction his colony and therefore making it a british sanctioned colony (not an argentine colony). That is why in 1833 the argentine illegal garrison was expelled peacefully but the birtish sanctioned colony was allowed to stay along with the inhabitants.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Vernet was born in Hamburg Teaboy2. Vernet had a somewhat flexible attitude to his nationality, at various times he claimed to be German, French, American (USA) and Argentine.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Even when face with the truth, not interested??
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0even when faced with the facts, not interested ??
perhaps the reason being, is that they cant handle the truth,
or accept the facts, only what their teachers told them at school.
That then is as far as they will ever get ??????????
@#47 Justin i agree, his personal views of his nationality changed from time to time, but that doesn't change the fact he was of Huguenots descent making him a descendent of French Protestants hence his french name. He is also known to have given a French birthplace in his effort to have the French Government intercede with the British Government on his behalf. So although his personal view on his nationality changed according to the situation he was in, it doesn't change the fact he was of french descent.
Mar 04th, 2011 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Everybody offers opinion as if their view should prevail.
Mar 04th, 2011 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is something called International Law which gives definitive ruling on the issue.
This is not ambiguous, and it defines the precise status of the Falklands/Malvinas.
Why not accept this position and move the debate on from a world-wide benchmark?
The law is no good unless people are willing to obey it, [does that make sense to you] because it makes no sense to Argentina, so your idea falls well short of what you may call democracy,
Mar 04th, 2011 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0until Argentina comes in from the cold, and agrees to except and obey international law, then there no point in going on, is there,
Argentina is the cause,, and Argentina is the problem, therefore Argentina is the only one that can change the status quo, we cant force them to do it, only they can change themselves, [Argentina, over to you ]
50, GeoffWard, there is only one court that this dispute can be brought before to decide, definitively, the issue of sovereignty, and that is the ICJ.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 04:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unfortunately, Argentina has not accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ over these kind of international disputes. Argentina can accept the ICJ's jurisdiction (and has done so on a number of occasions), but it only does so on an individual, case-by-case basis.
Argentina refused to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ on the 4 occasions (1947, 1951, 1953 & 1954) when the UK offered to submit the question of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands Dependencies to the ICJ.
The UK, on the other hand, does accept the automatic jurisdiction of the ICJ. If another State wishes to bring up an international dispute with the UK, it need only lodge its case with the ICJ and the UK is bound to accept the jurisdiction and the decision of the ICJ.
Also, Geoff, it is the usual practice in law that it is the aggrieved party who brings any claim before a court and this holds true with the ICJ. In the Falklands' case, the UK has both practical and legal sovereignty. The dispute may be an occasional annoyance, but the UK and the Falkland Islanders have no interest in a change in the status quo.
Argentina does have a real interest in changing the status quo. Therefore, the usual practice dictates that it is up to Argentina to bring any case relating to sovereignty before the ICJ.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!