MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“Falklands’ flag remains an internationally recognized registry”
Surprise and perplexity has surfaced from the Falkland Islands following the announcement by President Jose Mujica that Falklands’ flagged vessels are barred from Uruguayan ports. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesIn response to the question in the first para - nothing has changed, just that the Uruguayans have all the strength of a River Plate sea fog and might as well be in control of Buenos Aires when you consider the gutless useless shower they have in government.
Dec 19th, 2011 - 08:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Plastic bag say “Jump”, Uruguay say “How high, senora?”
It seems you are right #1, and it is a real shame for Uruguay.
Dec 19th, 2011 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Uruguay has taken a unilateral stance against the Falklands flag but, by doing so, they have effectively declared a hostile act against the British flag as well.
Dec 19th, 2011 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0FIG and the FCO (if they haven't already) need to take some serious legal advice and approach the International Maritime Organisation, as well as the UN because this action is not justified in international law and is hostile to the UK and to the international maritime community.
The Falklands flag is not a flag of convenience and there are no maritime sanctions worldwide in force against the FI, so this is a serious matter and needs to be rebutted.
The insidious creep of backdoor methods to isolate the Islands may not appear to be significant (doubtless there will be calls to transfer FI flagged vessels to British flag, but that is just running away from the problem). The minor irritations will mount up and action needs to be taken to nip them in the bud.
This is really old news. Unasur, of which Uruguay is a member, agreed to ban ships with Falklands flags over a year ago.
Dec 19th, 2011 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2010/11/29/unasur-ban-huge-negative-impact-on-falkland-islands
“Falklands’ flag remains an internationally recognized registry”
Dec 19th, 2011 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0That might be true in Europe... but guess what?
You´re in Latinamerica... and no country recognizes pirats flags down here.
I agree with you,Islas MAlvinas!!
Dec 19th, 2011 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MAlvinas are in SA.Any extracontinetal power,OUT!!!
uk is FINISHED!!!
MALVINAS ARGENTINAS!!
Bravo Uruguay,Bravo Argentina!
Long live to South America!!!
it is all going better than I expected.
Dec 19th, 2011 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain is broke and has no military to speak of.
Half the British population are immigrants and have no sense of loyalty to Britain thanks to the British culture of self-hate and apologism.
The young British are not taught Geography so do not know where the Falklands are and as they are no longer taught history either they too have no sense of patriotism.
Europe is about to collapse so they certainly will not support the British in any conflict in the South Atlantic and America hardly speaks English anymore and has a President who hates the Europeans so the 'special relationship' is now a part of history.
And of course, you have saved us a fortune in finding that Oil.
Argentina has a growing circle of nations supporting its claim against a foreign former colonial power so this time , it does not stand alone and of course now that the world is run by Bankers rather than Politicians. money takes precedence over any desire to self determination by a couple of plane loads of sheep farmers who can hardly bear to live on that wind blasted swamp anyway.
So all in all, things are working out very well indeed.
Well, it appears that Uruguay is continuing to tell Argentina one thing and is actually doing another.
Dec 19th, 2011 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Many thanks for supporting and recognising this FI flagged vessel Uruguay.
www.marinetraffic.com/ais/shipdetails.aspx?MMSI=740352000
#7 Dental Floss, that is a fine piece of propaganda. You even got most of the grammar okay if not the punctuation. I don't suppose you'd be prepared or able to back any of it up with any credible references. Please feel free if you think you can. Otherwise we'll just take it for what it is, shall we? Propaganda from a powerless nation that has no other option. What date do you put on Argentina taking the Falklands oil? 2016, 2017, 2018 or maybe further into the future? Or maybe you already have it and we just don't realise yet.
Dec 19th, 2011 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ha ha ha ha ha!
“The Uruguayan position is potentially very worrying”, said a Foreign Office.
Dec 19th, 2011 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yep...
“Falklands’ flag remains an internationally recognized registry”
That's right...in an English farm.
It seems perfect. So are our brothers. Great Britain according to them has nothing to do with the Malvinas Islands and on the flag of the islands, is the pirate flag and in all the islands around the world usurped.
Dec 19th, 2011 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To all the 'Cretins Of Argentina' to give you a resonable collective name.
Dec 19th, 2011 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Denying recognition of an international flag register is very likely to alienate a large proportion of the Register.
Please carry on with your idiotic actions: the more the international community see of your despicable antics the better, they can only damage your own abysmal reputation further.
Rearrange the following into a well know saying: 'foot in yourself the shoot'!
Oh yes I forgot to mention Bruce that the air-link will cease in March which will certainly upset the islanders especially as their sea links to Uruguay and Chile will end too.
Dec 19th, 2011 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Imagine being stuck on that rock for years and years and years...perhaps you can use some of the oil money to buy an airbus.
But Marcos if Uruguay refuses to recognise FI flagged vessels then why is it still providing port facilities to that FI flagged ship (or is AIS information also a lie?).
Dec 19th, 2011 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Drey - can you show us any evidence? I guess those on the FI will have to purchase a seat on the flight to Miami with those oil drillers?
Islas Malvinas---- Yes, we all know that you don't abide by any international laws you don't have to keep reminding everyone of your law breaking ways its common knowledge all over the World. And the only pirates in the South Atlantic are the crews in your pirate ships that are harassing law abiding people and as such the crew sailing them are liable to be arrested for piracy. Have a nice day Pirate lover.
Dec 19th, 2011 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@15 Woof! Woof!
Dec 19th, 2011 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ha,ha,ha!!!
Dec 19th, 2011 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0# 7 Dental Floss, can you back any of it up?
Dec 19th, 2011 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0# 13 Dental Floss, I don't doubt for a minute that the LAN flight might be stopped. It won't be the first time. It will definitely inconvenience us but we have other options. You're not going to get the islands or their riches though.
Ha ha ha ha ha!
It will be Great to see how argentina will re-act to the UK's TOTAL support of the Falkland Islands!!!!
Dec 19th, 2011 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Long Live the Falklands.
Dreyfroos- When are you guys ever going to work it out?
Dec 19th, 2011 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stop the overflight of Lan - yes you can! Results =
Falklands will withdraw recognition of Argentine Passports-as per pre 1999.
NO Argentine family or relatives of the Argentines living here will ever be able to visit them again.
No Argentine next of kin family of the war dead buried here, nor veteran will ever be able to vist the cemetery or battlefields again.No Arg tourists will ever be allowed to land again(unless they have another passport)
The families of the 300 or so Chilean people living here will have to fly around 10,000km return to visit here- and those from here to Chile.Chile will loose the remaining exports to the Islands - about US1million ayear from a small firm that will close and thus Chileans loose jobs(not Islanders).
Lan will loose a small but Profitable route.
The Islands? - for a few weeks or a month or two we will loose 1/3 - yes just 33% - of our airlinks with the outside worl! THAT is ALL.
But we have 2 options planned in case and one or the other will be up and running in a couple of months so we will have lost NOTHING.
GET IT - Nett LOOSERS = Argentina!!
Same with all your bullshit about ports etc. Yes we will be inconveniienced a bit and need to put in alternatyive arrangements for a year or two - But Then - You will have been the driving force in making us go ahead with and develop our own DeepWater Port and terminal and fishing vessel layover facilitiers etc etc.
Go on as you are - and yes - in 5 years we could have no contact at all with the whole of S America. Instead we will gave air-routes to 2 other continents dorect and deepwater port and fish and container terminal etc - and oil revenue starting to flow.
So are we Islanders worried? - Not At All Che! The more you piss us off - the more Independent of you we will get!
Yep, we will continue to make your life hell. Have fun muchachitos!
Dec 19th, 2011 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bennyassed prick!
13 dreyfoss
Dec 19th, 2011 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We probably will buy an Airbus.
In the meantime, why do you thing we are keeping that budget surplus in reserve? Cut the LAN flight and we will just put on something else. Loser.
@21 Sir Rodderick Bodkin. Do you understand the effect of a bodkin? You get a prick. Get the picture, a**hole?
Dec 19th, 2011 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here's a tip for all you SA tossers. As long as there is one Briton left alive you will never colonise and enslave the people of the Falkland Islands. In the unlikely event that you might defeat us once, we'll be back. Those Islanders are our people on their Islands. Generally we are nice, courteous, considerate people. But, when pushed, we can get unpleasant. Think about this. By 1945 we had killed nearly 9 million krauts and more than 3 million japs. How do you reckon your chances? In 1982 you pulled a sneak, underhand, cowardly invasion. It took less than 10% of our armed forces 74 days to kick you scum back to where you belonged.
Would you like us to mobilise ALL our forces and eliminate anyone and everyone who thinks that the Falkland Islands should belong to Argentina? Perhaps we could offer a typical Argentine solution and toss such people out of an aircraft over the River Plate at 10,000 feet.
So funny Clunkerer. You are living in the past caballero. Even if you could raise the $4 billion to hire an armada which you can't do you really think the Vicious British Press will not tell the British people that they will be fighting for a handful of oil company executives and foreign investors?
Dec 19th, 2011 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And to correct you on your knowledge of history: It was Russia that won the war. You British spent most of the war mass murdering civilians from 7,000 meters and you had to borrow money from the Americans to even do that.
@24 “$4 billion to hire an armada”
Dec 20th, 2011 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0LMAO you clearly have a complete lack of reality. It cost us around what 360 Million sterling in libya, sending a few ships down to the falklands would cost less than 20 million with a further 500 millions for munitions, supplies and personnel to pay for a conflict lasting 10-12 months.
By 2009 the cost of the war in afganistan cost us 20.5 billion pounds and the war had been going on since 2001 making that cost a total spent over 8 years at the time.
The falklands war in 1982 only cost britian 1.19 Billion USD.
The cost of the Two new aircraft carriers will be 7 billion pounds thats more than twice the 4 billions USD you claim it would cost us to send an armada to the falklands.
But hey why would we need to send an armarda, you have virtually no navy, your planes fall apart when flown. We can easily demothball the Harriers as they can still be put on the HMS Ocean and Illustrious and at least 6-7 harriers will be able to vertically take off at the same time from there decks with partial load out that would be more than enough to perform bombing raids and take on incoming argentine flying rust buckets.
We also have cruise missles on our ships and subs, that can easily destroy argentina's major infastructure, such as power plants, manufacuturing sectors, military bases, airfields, ports, government buildings. We would basically put your country back 100 years all for less then a cost of 500 million to britain.
20 Islander1 “The Islands? - for a few weeks or a month or two we will loose 1/3 - yes just 33% - of our airlinks with the outside worl! THAT is ALL”.
Dec 20th, 2011 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's all Brit? Remember you live in South America not Europe, care to know how far is London when you need to see a good doctor or you want to buy fresh milk or vegetables?
14000 km
Marcos,
Dec 20th, 2011 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0No reason why emergency AeroMedic evacuations will not continue by air to S America if needed - those flights are irrespective of politics- unless of course you really want to become an international pariah state? S Africa is only 6-7000km if needs be though,
75% of all overseas medical treatment fo to Uk anyway even now, so dont see what you are on about anyway!
Fresh Milk - we dont import that anyway from anywhere!
Fresh Vegetables are ALREADY arriving from London - and do you know what - they are barely any more expensive than from S America and much better quality, so actually folk prefer them. Also a good stimulus to folk here to grow more locally.As it is Lan is often so full of tourists in summer there is no incoming fresh veg etc anyway!
Sorry - you had better think of some new ones! London is not so far - hop on a flight one mid-morning- relax, read a book and snooze or watch the videos - and hey presto bright and early next morning you are in England!
We are indeed close to and part of S America - but if you insist - we can do quite nicely without S America.
Think about it. Arg wants one day to own the Islands - start being nice to us and who knows - in 50 years us lot will be dead and the nastyness of 1982-2012 forgotten, and the next gerations on both sides could be friends of each other and who knows where that could lead?
Drive us out and away from S.America - where will we be in 50 years? - totally cut off from S America and getting along quite nicely, maybe even a fully Independent nation, and regarding Arg as an unpleasant lot and a total historical irrelevance.
Your Choice - we are easy either way
Teaboy - this what your own British press says about the Falklands.
Dec 20th, 2011 - 01:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“In other words, 2,500 colonists cannot enjoy an unqualified veto on British government policy. Thatcher thought it was in Britain's interest to negotiate with Argentina in 1982, even when it was a dictatorship. Now that Argentina is a democracy that interest can hardly have diminished. Subsequent British governments knew this, but were too gutless to act on it. The Falklands will remain an expensive nuisance to British diplomacy – and possibly trade – in Latin America, the more so after last week's vocal support for Kirchner in Mexico.
The best hope for a stable and prosperous Falklands under British occupation is a revival of leaseback under UN supervision. The islands must have links with the adjacent mainland. It is absurd to supply them for ever by an air bridge from Britain and Ascension. Nor should the security of British citizens necessarily entitle them to the exploitation of oil on South America's continental shelf.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britains-expensive-nuisance
Britain's adventures in Iraq and Afganistan have cost the British Taxpayer over $35 billion and still counting. Your involvement in Libya was one ship and five aircraft and that cost £180 million.
The 1982 Falkland conflict lasted 74 days and cost $6 billion but that does not include the annual cost of maintaining a garrison there ($120 million per annum for 30 years and the cost of building the infrastructure and an airport to support that presence ($1.2 billion)
Now calculate at today's prices how much it would cost you to send an armada (which you would have to renta) back down to the islands along with air support and at least 8,000 troops.
I suggest a figure around $60 billion would be about right for the first 50 days then $60 million a day thereafter.
Doesn't add up does it?
@23 @21 Sir Rodderick Bodkin. Do you understand the effect of a bodkin? You get a prick. Get the picture, a**hole?
Dec 20th, 2011 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, no and i don't lower my standarts to a toothless chav.
Wow, did someone's feelings got hurts. Haha ;)
Like i say to every keyboard warrior around here. Bring it, if you dare!
I'm having a blast trolling people like you in this particular forum. Keep it coming, you're amusing me ;).
Cheers
@Dreyfuss #28
Dec 20th, 2011 - 03:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have no idea what your talking about and you clearly have a lack off research in the costs of libya and actually assets used by britain. 60 billion for a 50 days ware against argentina when we had spend less then 1.20 billion USD in a 74 days war in 1982 and your miltary is no where near as capable now as it was in 1982, serious do not make me laugh.
For the record. In libya the total amount spent was around 360 million, HMS ocean with apache helicopters were involved, so was HMS liverpool, HMS HMS Iron Duke, HMS Westminster, HMS Sutherland, HMS Brocklesby and HMS Bangor were all involved in libya. Thats seven ships and thats without naming the rest or the 2 submarines that were also operating in libyan waters. Also 5 planes you say. Thats funny, because we sent at least 10 typhoons and around 6 tornado jets not to mention surveillance planes for intelligence gathering. And you know what the best thing about libya in naval capabilities was - It proved we can field a task force of ships with a carrier capable of carry the harriers even though the harriers would have to take of veritcally and land vertically. And it proves we can and will be able to take on argentina for only 500 million pounds over a period of 10 months. As one we would not need to send the army in as we can simply shoot our missles at you from our ships sitting perfectly comfortably and unthreatened in international waters of the argentinian coast.
And as you do not have the military means to stage another invasion we can quickly reinforce the airbase on the falklands with fighter jets and fighter bombers along with army personnel and armor, so would not even need a carrier to defend the islands. We can even use the islands as a staging post for building up an invasion force of our own and there would be sweet f all you could do about. Plus if we did invade, your army would simply be crushed and wed be ruling BA within days, as the air campaign will have wiped out your military
@3 RedBaron. I agree. Uruguayan, Argentine, Mercosur and UNASUR acts in this matter appear to be a matter of regional politics, and appear to be unlawful acts contrary to UN Charter Articles 2, 73 and 74, to which all members are obligated to respect and prevail over any other decisions they may make by UN Charter Article 103
Dec 20th, 2011 - 08:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0And to correct you on your knowledge of history: It was Russia that won the war. You British spent most of the war mass murdering civilians from 7,000 meters and you had to borrow money from the Americans to even do that.
Dec 20th, 2011 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0And the Argies great war effort,apart from being a haven for Nazis
Argentina Declares War Against Japan and Germany
(March 28, 1945)
The high-level intelligence produced at Bletchley Park, codenamed Ultra, provided crucial assistance to the Allied war effort. Sir Harry Hinsley, a Bletchley veteran and the official historian of British Intelligence in World War II, said that Ultra shortened the war by two to four years and that the outcome of the war would have been uncertain without it
@30
Dec 20th, 2011 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0How delusional, haha!
Cool story, it lacked dragons and wizards, but still cool story tho!
And to correct you on your knowledge of history: It was Russia that won the war. You British spent most of the war mass murdering civilians from 7,000 meters and you had to borrow money from the Americans to even do that.
Dec 20th, 2011 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0And just to add to what Stick up your junta said above.
Do you remember stalingrad? Russia very nearly lost the war with germany, and if it had not been for the british merchant and Royal Navy convoys through the baltic sending supplies Russia will not have been able to have turned the war round or build such a vast amount of military armour without the supplies we shipped to them. So what did britain do, we give Russia the means to turn things round and to push the germans back.
What did Argentina do, oh they joined the war right near the end only once it was clear germany and japan would lose purely as a cosmetic political decision just to look like they were on the allies side, when really they have secretly had talks with the nazis to allow them a safe haven in argentina where for years allied government and nazi hunters spent looking for nazi war criminals, and argentina knew perfectly well where they lived. CFK youth movement, is simply her version of the Hitler Youth Movement. There are so many things that CFK does that would make Hitler proud.
Dross - the 'lease idea is long dead. 'Back' never came into it!
Dec 20th, 2011 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 06 Malvinero1 (
Dec 20th, 2011 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with you,Islas MAlvinas!!
Argentina is finished, so sad,
Join the brits and be better .ol.
The Uruguayan position is potentially very worrying
For her, does she think, that by doing this, Argentina will thank her, if she gets retaliated by other powers; the Argentinean government will drop her, like a hot stone,
[Nothing to do with us, argie will say,]
Boy the indoctrinated deluded Argies are out in force ,
It must be their breeding time .
28 dreyfoss
Of course, we always take you seriously,
So, as the UK are finished, we presume the Argies will be in Stanley by [say] Friday at noon then,
Or shall we take you as a joke,
And the Argies will have more luck invading brazil, , than getting the British Falklands,
[][all this over a rock,, and its not even Brighton .]]lol
20 Islander1:
Dec 20th, 2011 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 01 million per year?
We are loosing 30% on taxes-
Thank you for your data! I´m sure know we can collect this tax !
Because Chile recognize our rigths on Malvinas, and is our rigth to collect taxes in our territory ;)
Thank you thank you!!!!
Regards--
It does not matter, WHO recognizes your rights,
Dec 20th, 2011 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As long as the islanders wish to remain British
Their is NOTHING you can do,
Nothing you will do,
except talk .
Dental floss and Teaboy....
Dec 21st, 2011 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let me reel you in fellas. Your current thinking is based on the rather deluded assertion that the UK is going to need an Armada to take back the Falklands, quite simple for the below reasons we are not:
1. The Argentine Military is far less capable than it was in 1982 and really has got worst since, namely in terms of its ability to launch and sustain an amphibious or airborne invasion over such a distance, their current ORBAT has one landing platform ship and 5 C-130's which would probably get them at a push 2 companies of light infantry with minimal supporting elements and enough supplies for 24 hours, they would also have to be constantly reinforced by air drops and would be suffering the same problems air power wise that they had in 1982.
2. The British garrison is FAR MORE capable than in 1982, chiefly in terms of air, artillery and seaborne assets, the garrison can also be reinforced in under 18 hours to battle group strength by C-5 and our vast fleet of C-130's. Also the garrison has provisions for a months fighting.
3. Our Intell and surveillance assets are second to none in the area, we would have at least a week's warning if we saw any combat units suddenly appearing in the only two air bases in the Southern Cone.....
4. The Argentine military and Political establishment doesn't have the balls they have never recovered from the severe shock to national self confidence they had in 1982 and are unlikely to do so ever, (the current cries of victim-hood by CFK and the morbid celebration the invasion of the Falklands and not the subsequent humiliation are evidence of this) means that no current sane or insane Argentine leader would risk launching an invasion which they WILL lose in phase 1.
So relax boys, there is going to be no invasion the Daygo Navy will do what they do best and what they have done before in the run up to 1982, cold war style harassment of civilian targets associated with the islands.
@39
Dec 21st, 2011 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh am more than aware of that Rhaurie, i was simply making it clear what the UK is capable of doing if it were forced to do so, and correcting Dreyfuss in regards to his/her deluded statements of what assets and costs where involved in Libya and that the most likely cost of any conflict in the south atlantic would not cost us 4 or 6 billion USD like dreyfuss likes to believe, but would more likely only cost us 500 Million pounds. Which is perfectly reasonable given the fact that the falklands war actually only costs us 1.19 Billion and we would need far less assets and personnel.
I also made it clear that argentinas military would not be able to invade the islands again in their current state but britain could reinforce the islands with fighter and bomber jets and bomb argentina using the islands as their base for such operations, whilst the ships could launch missiles at argentina whilst unthreatened from international waters of their coast. Also we have the ability to, if we were to wish to do so, to to use the islands as a staging post for preparing our own invasion force to invade argentina, which given the arial bombardment, would likely be quick and successfully reach BA within days.
Basically i was making it clear to dreyfuss what the consquences argentina would face should there ever be any future conflict as clearly he/she is deluded with his/her believe that they would get the islands back and that UK could not do anything about it.
by following argentina, south america may well be dragged into something they would surley regret,
Dec 21st, 2011 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is sabre rattling.
Dec 21st, 2011 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I doubt Argentina is stupid enough to try anything militarily.
Firstly because their air capabilities are a joke and easy prey for the EF-Typhoons.
Secondly because one thing GB is still world-beating at is attack-submarines, the Trafalgar class and Astute class are as good as anything else out there - the Argentine navy has no effective countermeasures against them, if they enter an exclusion zone they die, simple as.
So, Argentina, think about it like this, you are pissed off because your country has been run by despots since it existed, because there is abundant oil in the Falklands basin and because you can't have it. You have a flimsy claim going back almost 2 centuries and absolutely no links to the islands other than this - talking of colonisation makes little sense when the inhabitants of the islands themselves want to remain British.
You can do whatever you want, the oil is THEIRS the fish is THEIRS, and it will remain so. If your foreign policy hadn't been so idiotic you might have had a share of the oil revenue.
And one last thing, whatever you say about GB (I don't care btw) the one thing that has been proven time and time again in our history is that the more you try and pressure us the more we tend to resist, that is true of the Falkland islanders who resemble the very best of our heritage.
As a taxpayer and citizen I can assure you there is absolutely no limit to what I would advocate us spending to ensure the freedom of those islands for their inhabitants, and that goes for the vast majority of us.
So focus on something else, if you want to make the Falklands a scapegoat for your own failings as you did in the 80's the result will be the same or worse for you.
It may hurt your pride to accept this but you have no choice, they will remain British and there's nothing you can do about it.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!