MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, May 29th 2023 - 01:05 UTC



A Positive Outlook for the Falklands at FIA's annual general meeting

Tuesday, December 8th 2015 - 09:36 UTC
Full article 82 comments

The Falkland Islands have received assurances of sustained support from the British Parliament and from the Falkland Islands Association at that organisation’s annual general meeting in London where members were given a positive report of progress and economic development in the Islands. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • ChrisR

    And why shouldn't there be a positive outlook for the Falklands?

    They are not part of TDC and never will be, that alone is enough to make them all smile and look forward to the future without worry.

    Just how Argentina COULD be if the Peronista scum keep themselves to themselves. Hopeless optimist am I!

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @1 ..... if the Peronista scum....

    Unfortunately the Malvinas silliness is not limited to the Peronista scum since reckless expansionism is in the national DNA. Though we do have the Kirchneristas to thank for effectively reducing the military capacity of Argentina to less than half of that of 15th-century Andorra, thus removing that sort of threat to the islands for many years to come.

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    Article by Peter Pepper....huh, I thought he was that unbiased historian...

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brasileiro

    The only thing you do is go fishing. And the fish is low. What's up? Do you will kill more sea lions?

    A great war! Pirates X Sea Lions

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (3) Mr. Voice

    Article and pictures by Peter Pepper... (he also serves the drinks at the FIA.)
    And he ain't no historian..., unbiased or otherwise...

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @3. Aren't you a scotch tosspot?
    @4. Aren't you forgetting the sheep? And the crops? And the OIL and GAS?
    @5. But he's much better than you at honesty. I remember you describing your tour around your argie estate on your stallion. When you were actually living hand to mouth in northern Europe. But thanks. Just more proof that argie scum always lie.

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Voice

    Malvinas Secretary abolished! Filmus will now join the ranks of tbe Cartoneros :-))) Think/Voice must also have become redundant, out into the night for him too pushing an old pram. No word yet on the Trolley Dolly or Gollum?

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    No surprises there Mr. Think...
    How can we trust his research when he is obviously a Falklands Activist and or Administrative member of the British proper Ganda machine...(FIA)
    Poor British Befuddled Baseless Bob...all his blogs are based on it....
    ...and Terry Hill ...the Canadian living in Brazil ...continuously quotes Pepper as Gospel...

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    5,8, avoiceofthink

    and you're a fantasist - Chew Butt rancher, Trout Run Walmarter, and Scottish Patriot...

    pffft.... !

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    I wonder if Brasilero Falso is aware (not likely, so stop there...) that the sheep that provided the principal industry and source of wealth in southern Argentina during the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries -- were in large part brought from the Falklands ! (To Chubut, Sta Cruz, Tierra del Fuego). The most successful estancias in southern Argentina were developed by the British and many of their descendants still live here: names like Fenton, McGeorge, Macleod, Hobbs, Evans, Macdonald...... The sheep -- Corriedale, Romney Marsh, and Lincoln -- certainly didn't have argento names. The meat-packing plants were built by companies like Coxon and Cuthber (Australia) since Argentina was largely incapable and uninterested in doing that sort of work down here in the south (too cold and windy for the effete and wussy porteños).

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    And you are busy destroying the world's greatest rainforest as fast as you can to your detriment-idiot.

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    10 Marti

    “Think” has not only Scottish pretentions, but false Scottish personas, “voice” and “Doveoverdover”.

    “voice” makes references to Scottish ancestors, hates the British, and the English in particular.

    He tried to avoid answering who he was honouring on Remembrance weekend - it sure wasn't the British war dead

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Skip


    Have you found actual fault with his research or are you just besmirching him without foundation?

    One shows a degree of intellectual ability..... the other shows a lack of it.

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    that this did not mean the end of Argentina’s claim,

    in other words we will try to conn you again, and if this fails, we will start the aggression again,

    I don't trust him,
    just my opinion.

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    13 Skip

    That's why people like avoiceofthink are successful Trolls.

    They only have declare academic research as “flawed” and introduce a bit of doubt for the uninformed reader.

    No substance is needed to tie up forum contributors refuting propaganda and false history.

    The goal is to exhaust posters and displace relevant debate - if the lie is repeated enough ....

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Britain will defend you as long as we have a British government, to defend you

    who knows what the future holds, especially in David's brain.

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (13) Skippy, meine liebe Rübe aus Australien...
    Please allow me to answer your question to Mr. Voice...

    You ask...:
    “Have you found actual fault with his research or are you just besmirching him without foundation?”

    I say...:
    “...besmirching him without foundation”, you say?
    Where could I start?
    I know, let's start with his (and his matey Mr. Pascoe's) false claim of academic credentials.., I quote...:
    “.........this month’s annual debate at the United Nation’s Special Committee for Decolonization being glamorized by the President of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez’s appearance on June 14th, it is perhaps apt that an ***”ACADEMIC SCRUTINY“*** of a previous performance before the UN Committee should appear.
    In this detailed work, ***”HISTORIANS“*** Dr. Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper have considered the claims made by Argentina’s ...”

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • mollymauk

    @17. Your point is?
    Pascoe and Peppers publications appear well researched, with extensive bibliography and references to their historical sources. They have obviously researched and studied the history of the Falklands in an academic way.
    Would you care to elaborate as to what specific faults you have found with their research?

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    As we know Think - you are rather poorly informed. In fact PP is a retired geologist now recognised as an amateur historian, able researcher and author, while GP is a linguist, professor and author. Together they make an excellent, if slow moving, team that have already highlighted the many holes in Argentina's spurious version of history.

    They currently have two books in various stages of production. The larger is now so large that it will likely be out of the reach of most readers. The smaller I am expecting to see soon.

    I can add this Think, Alicia Castro was sufficiently concerned with the work of P&P to take every opportunity to find out how the work was progressing.

    You still know nothing Think, but you are never too old to learn. You may be an exception of course.

    Now, while we are all waiting for P&P's tomes, may I suggest this :-)

    Or in a more manageable form here -

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Hi Roger....

    Instead of all those explanatory antics of yours..., wouldn't it be more cricket just to correct the info in your Blog... and call Mr. Peter Pepper for what he actually is...:
    An Amateur Historian at the paid service of the Falkland Island Association?

    Hope life is being kind to you in your ale-free tropical paradise...
    El Think...

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Good morning Think

    I have been as accurate as I can be. PP is a member of the FIA and also, last I heard, a member of the Committee none of whom are paid although they are probably entitled to a free cup of coffee at meetings.

    Life is good - apart from the ale-free bit.


    Dec 08th, 2015 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    What's your problem ? The Islanders are sitting there quite content with their lot. Argentina can do nothing practical but bleat like sheep. You are keeping up a distant sniping attack to no effect except you are probably lost for anything to do.
    In 10 years time, if you are still with us, you will be doing the same to no real effect and nothing will have changed.
    Nothing better to do ? It would be more productive if you went least you would have something to show for it.

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • mollymauk

    @20. And once again, your point is what?
    You admit they are historians (amateur). You admit they are academics.
    You have not explained what part of their research is flawed, and in what way. You have not countered their versions of the history. I have read their accounts, referred to the original documents they reference, and have not found anything that is clearly wrong, and they appear to present a plausible, cohesive account. If their version has shaky foundations, point us to a different version of the truth.

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen

    Silly arguments, all of you.

    The Facts are:
    Mr. Macri had already indicated he would tone down the rhetoric and abolish the post of Malvinas Secretary.
    “Mr. Andrew Rosindell MP, the long-standing Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Committee on the Falklands, assured the AGM of continuing cross-party support for self-determination. He said “You do have the support of huge numbers of Parliamentarians of all parties in both the Lords and the Commons”.”

    You can all stand down now.

    ilsen says: “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    Well Skip...I was thinking about going with option 2....
    You are obviously missing my point...
    Believing that an active member of the Falklands Islands Association would write and research an unbiased history of the Falklands like believing that Mein Kampf is definitive proof of Aryan Superiority....

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Skip

    Think, your comment made no sense. Did you miss part of your post? Or was the point that they entitle themselves historians? Do they need permission to do this?

    Voice, didn't miss your point. You are attempting to create an idea that he is biased based on who he associates with. That is nothing more than an opinion. Your attempt at an analogy was woeful.

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 03:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • mollymauk

    25. My comments to Think at 18 and 23 apply to you as well. (Joking aside, you are often hard to distinguish from Think).
    What are your actual factual issues with P & Ps research. Which part of it is not true?

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 04:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • gordo1

    Peter Pepper (together with Graham Pascoe) revealed the lies, the myths and the fairy stories committed by Argentina by way of José María Ruda at the UN on 9th September 1964.

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 06:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    #25 .... or like believing that any Argentine historian could write an unbiased history?

    That misses the point entirely. Histories do not have to be unbiased - they have to be evidenced.

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 07:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Voice

    After 12 years of propaganda and brainwashing which has included all sorts of devices - posters, broadcasts, trumped up ceremonies, war celebrations etc, the weak brained in Argentina (vis VoiceofThink) are absolutely sold on the falsity that the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina.

    However, practically the first thing that the incoming President does is to abolish the post of 'Malvinas' secretary' and his new foreign minister is quickly at pains to point out that whilst the so called 'Malvinas issue' should be recognised it is not an impediment to friendly relations between Britain, The Falkland Islands and Argentina.

    These actions and statements clearly signal that Kretinas campaign of hostility and intimidation is at an end and that at last Argentina intends to stop acting like a Banana Republic and that references to the 'Malvinas myth' are only uttered for the benefit of the weakbrained idiots whose exposure to propaganda has left them unable to face the truth i.e. the Falkland Islands are British and this won't change until the islanders collectively decide otherwise.

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • zathras

    So Voice, Brasileiro & Think.

    Do tell what exactly has Argentina gained with regards the Falklands in the last 12 years, or say the last 34 years.

    As far as I can see, the Falkland islands have thrived and prospered with a growing population, including significant immigration. A more diversified Economy. And a significantly improved security situation.

    How has the Argentinian Economy and Military fared during this time?

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    What do you analogy was woeful...?
    You do understand how analogies are used...I take it...?
    Mein Kampf is a classic example of how available facts are manipulated and interpreted to give a biased view that supports the writers beliefs...All based on opinions...
    Pepper's factual history is a classic example is of how available facts are manipulated and interpreted to give a biased view that supports the writers beliefs....All based on opinions...
    I call that a good analogy...
    There are some basic facts that are indisputable...

    The English were not the first to discover the islands...Fact or Opinion...?

    The French settled the islands in 1764 before anyone else....this gave them good legal title...meaning the British settlement in 1766 was illegal and irrelevant..Fact or Opinion...?
    The French having legal title based on settlement sold their interests to the Spanish in the legal entitlement passes to the Spanish...Fact or Opinion...?

    The Spanish now having legal entitlement take over the settlement...some stay some leave...they demand the British vacate their illegal settlement of one of the smaller islands...the British comply....Fact or Opinion...?

    To save face for his Britannic Majesty... a compromise is reached to allow the British to return to their military base on condition that they vacate it of their own accord....This is an opinion, but it is based on the ensuing facts and most likely occurred to prevent a war...
    The British abandoned their illegal occupation..Fact or Opinion,,,?
    The Spanish eventually abandoned their settlement....
    At this point...I still do not see any legal entitlement to the islands for the British and they now become Terra nullius...

    It doesn't matter how the facts are interpreted by Pepper the simple fact remains....
    How does settling islands already claimed and more importantly already settled give legal entitlement and Sovereignty to the British...?
    Does that answer your question...?

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • zathras

    32 Voice (#)

    The first recorded landing on the islands is attributed to English captain John Strong, who, en route to Peru's and Chile's littoral in 1690, discovered the Falkland Sound and noted the islands' water and game.

    The Falklands remained uninhabited until the 1764 establishment of Port Louis on East Falkland by French captain Louis Antoine de Bougainville, and the 1766 foundation of Port Egmont on Saunders Island by British captain John MacBride.

    So in fact the British did discover the Falkland Island, first.

    Seems that you are the person misinterpreting the facts.

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    For starters...there are many claims to are cherry picking...
    In law discovery doesn't give legal entitlement, but settlement does...
    As the French settlement pre-dates the British one...the British one is irrelevant....
    Soooo....the British settlement was just as illegal in 1766 as it was in 1833 and 2015...
    Theft is theft...then and now ...not a claim to sovereignty....
    As for the Pepper interpretation....
    Would I employ Mrs MacDonald from no. 22 with her trusty sewing machine to make me a fine suit....?
    No...I would employ a Saville Row Tailor....
    Would I expect my GP to perform open heart surgery...
    No I would employ an open heart surgeon....
    Would I expect a Falklands Islands Association Geologist using a linguist that understand French and Spanish to produce a credible unbiased version of the Falklands History...
    No ...I would expect a renowned Historian with impeccable and trusted credentials well versed in antiquities and knowledge of the historical periods to produce a credible and impartial history of the Falklands...
    Is it common practise for States to use propaganda to reinforce their position...?
    Yes it is..
    Would the British ever do it...I think they would....

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Voice

    Think/Voice - three times Argentina was offered to IJC to adjudicate on sovereignty. Three times Argentina refused and tbe last time they said they wouldnt accept the judgement of the IJC anyway, the only court in the world that can decide the issue!

    Your arguments are just the dronings of weakminded biased brainwashed morons. Kindly belt up. You lost, and you lost absolutely in 1982. Get over it. There is a new administration in Argentina which has a chance of transforming it from a quasi failed socialist state into a modern progressive nation. Give it a chance.

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    Three times you say...?
    Was the Falklands included in these three times or was it South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands...
    Stick to facts...and save your drivel...
    Ps...Skip doesn't like you.....;-)))))))

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Voice

    Voice, NO-ONE likes you (except a self confessed sad person)! And… you live in that sad place, hows the rain been?

    Nit pick with meaningless drivel all you like, Argentinas claim has no merit and will never have force. A new era is dawning and you are positioned on the losing side. THINK about it :-)

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    Part of the ICJ opinion on the legality of the UK/Falklands condition, and the rejection of the Argentine imagination:

    Prescription (effective control) .....the accepted and approved practice of nations show that the uninterrupted possession of territory for a certain length of time, by one State, excludes the claim of every other. (The Falkland Islands meet the ICJ call for sufficient period of effective control and thus rejection of overlapping or conflicting claims).

    The ICJ also roundly rejected any “continental shelf contiguity” basis for claim (REF: 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf and Contiguous Zone, Article I) , also in the Law of the Sea Convention, Article 76 denies that states have inherent sovereignty over islands in a continental shelf. Quite the opposite: the law specifies that islands such as the Falklands have their own continental shelf.

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    Marti my man...please direct me to the link where...
    “the ICJ opinion on the legality of the UK/Falklands condition, and the rejection of the Argentine imagination: ”
    As far as I'm aware the ICJ has never adjudicated on the legality of the UK/Falklands condition, and the rejection of the Argentine imagination....
    If there was a hard and fast set of rules that applied to each case...there would be no need for the ICJ to exist....
    Each case is judged on its merits and a judgement applied....generalisations are not applicable....

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    How dare you quote facts to an Argentinian audience. They do not believe in such things. The Falklands is in the DNA , el alma. el corazón.
    Without it, they are an incomplete people. At night they hear the siren voices calling from across the sea.... come for us...we need you....our lives are blighted without you etc etc. When we are yours there will be a golden age of love and prosperity and the hated usurpers will be banished from the hemisphere.

    Or am I getting mixed up with the song, “ the age of Aquarius” from Hair .....probably !

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    You are all missing the great leap of “logic” (not) that the wee man makes - to paraphrase, the French sold their ownership to the Spanish, THEREFORE, the islands were inherited by their new owners, the Argentines.

    The Spanish colonies revolted against the Spanish crown and took the land in their vicinity by force.

    1850 - Spain does not support any Arg claims.

    That's just his biased opinion, from a Brit-hating, English-detesting, entitled, malcontent.
    Where is the professionalism, the qualifications, the research on the part of wee man?

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    FACT=the Falkland's are British,

    and have been for over 200 years.

    end of

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Voice

    Drone drone drone, whinge whinge whinge. Its all irrelavent 1982 sorted it and Roger Latchford put the Argentines in their place.

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @39 You are clearly not “informado y al día” on the determinations of the ICJ on the concepts of international law that affect the questions of claims affecting the islands, and I rather suspect that any attempt to do so would quickly find you beyond your ken. But just for fun, and here you can get valid outside help when you need it, explain for us how just those two ICJ concepts (continental shelf limitation, and prescription) in any manner support an Argentine claim. Include in your essay the amount of time that the ICJ determines is applicable for the claim of prescription that supports the UK/FI position. This essay is worth 15 points on the final.

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    Marti me old mucker...This is going to be a very short essay indeed....
    Think of it more as a lesson in International law....
    You are confusing National..(State law) with International Law...

    There is not one piece of legislation in International law that states a time limit concerning Extinct Prescription...prove me wrong...
    As for continental shelf is irrelevant to my why would I dispute it...
    My ken that you don't do your homework properly....
    Terrence Hill you are not....

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Skip

    Voice you keep repeated the same facts again and again and again.

    Repetition doesn't mean they gain traction.

    In 2015 no one recognises any form of Spanish sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
    In 2015 no one recognises any form of French sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
    In 2015 Britain is recognised as having sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

    Even your friend Think recently recognised and stated this.

    The UN and EU both recognise UK sovereignty. Recognition of Argentina's sovereignty claim isn't recognition of sovereignty but merely a recognition of a claim.

    So please continue your micro-analysis of minor historical points in the belief that they will somehow alter the facts in existence in 2015. The reality is that French, Spanish and Argentinean attempts at claiming ownership and sovereignty of the Falkland Islands in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries FAILED.

    They failed because none of them have it now.

    And while the French and Spanish states have moved on, Argentina refuses to.

    Like many Argentineans you believe that by waging the war in the court of public opinion, that you will somehow alter the realities of international law.

    But international law in 2015 is on the UK's side. The EU recognises the Falkland Islands as an OCT. The UN only recognises the UK as having sovereignty and as the Administrating Power.

    I know you'll claim otherwise. But if the UK doesn't have sovereignty then who does? Because the only logical option would be the Falkland Islands themselves. Doesn't mean Argentina has it.

    So, please keep dragging up minor and inconsequential hisotrical points. After all, it's worked so well for Argentina NOT.

    It's 2015 and the Falkland Islands are British. Present reality weighs so much more than historical footnotes.

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, Vestige, Think et al
    3 Voice; 5 Think etc; I see your abusing the forum again by posting under two aliases, yet again. While P. Pepper may not have any degree in the field of history. He is most certainly recognised as an expert on the Islands history. “ someone widely recognized as a reliable source of… An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, …and in a particular area of study…”
    His main body of work with Graham Pascoe,to date, while may not be agreed with it's content remains accurate and effectively unrefuted.

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Voice

    I think the trolls should make a substantial donation to Wikipedia. Without it they would be sunk. They seem oblivious to the fact that they clearly cant see the wood for the trees. Nothing will change.
    As for the puppetry, with a new Argentinian President perhaps they can turn over a new leaf?

    Dec 09th, 2015 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Aussie Turnip at (46) tells following porkies...:
    “ In 2015 Britain is recognised as having sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
    Even your friend Think recently recognised and stated this.
    The UN and EU both recognise UK sovereignty.”

    Fact is...:
    In 2015 Britain is recognised as having DE FACTO sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
    Think recognises this, because it is a DE FACTO fact...
    The UN, the United States and the EU recognize the UK's DE FACTO sovereignty as well as they recognized Argentina's sovereignty claim...

    What a big differernce a couple of small words like DE FACTO make... huhhhhh???

    Dec 10th, 2015 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @45 so you so terribly confused, and failed to do the most fundamental research into ICJ findings on prescription in this context, much as I expected since the results would be entirely inconvenient for promoting Argentine claims. But if Argentina would like to have its claim arguments completely and embarrassingly shredded before the ICJ, it has only to bring the matter for their consideration.

    Dec 10th, 2015 - 01:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Skip

    Thank you Think. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

    De facto it may be, but sovereignty it is nonetheless.

    Therefore there is no lie in stating the both the UN and EU recognise UK sovereignty because you yourself have stated that it has it. I did not qualify if it was de facto or de jure. But even after you have qualified it, my claim is still true.

    So who else is holding any form of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands other than the UK?


    De facto is Latin for 'in fact, in reality, in actual existence, force, or possession, as a matter of fact'.

    Every state that exercises sovereignty exercises it as de facto sovereignty. The US, Argentina, UK, Australia..... every state.

    If no one is exercising de jure sovereignty Think, then does this matter?

    Is de jure sovereignty needed if de facto sovereignty is being exercised?

    And if de jure sovereignty is needed then it obviously exists now.

    So who is exercising it?

    Recognising a sovereignty claim does nothing to reduce the sovereignty exercised by the UK. How would it? To use a very good example, even the UK recognises that Argentina has a sovereignty claim. This is a very, very old intentional fallacy.

    A claim cannot equate to a solution. Otherwise war would be unnecessary as the simple claiming of sovereignty over someone's territory would equate to sovereignty.

    Argentina's claim is just that.... a claim. It is not de facto nor de jure sovereignty. by some amazing sleight of hand.

    There is nothing that the UN, EU or the US has ever said that would say they believe Argentina currently holds some form of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

    But who holds the de jure sovereignty? How does one prove de jure sovereignty outside of obviously exercising de facto sovereignty?

    Interesting questions because I doubt you will answer them.

    Dec 10th, 2015 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    @51 Skip


    Hey, Thinky...

    *Smirk... smirk... smirk.... mock... mock.... mock... *

    Dec 10th, 2015 - 05:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    WTF are you going on about Skip...?
    The UN doesn't recognise UK Sovereignty..De facto or otherwise...
    It recognises De facto Administration...or De facto Control..or De facto Illegal occupation...
    The UN describes the Territorial Status thus:

    ”Falkland Islands (Malvinas)*
    Territorial status
    The Falkland Islands (Malvinas) have been on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories since 1946, following the transmission by the United Kingdom of information under Article 73 e of the Charter.
    See: A/RES/68/95 A-B of 11 December 2013
    Administering Power
    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the administering Power of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).
    United Nations-related action
    The General Assembly’s Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization has considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) since 1964. Following its recommendation, in 1965 the General Assembly adopted resolution 2065, See: 58/136 of 1 July 2004
    United Nations Annual Working paper on the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) See: A/AC.109/2014/15
    * A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).”

    Instead of stating this nonsense...Show me one single link from or anywhere else that states that the UN recognises UK Sovereignty ....
    One single statement...
    One single supporting link....
    While you are at it you might want to then show me all the countries that officially recognise UK Sovereignty....
    How many is that Skip...?
    Is it none...?

    ps.... Mr. Think has his own opinions...I don't necessarily share them...

    Dec 10th, 2015 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    53 Voice, Vestige, Think et al
    “Mr. Think has his own opinions...I don't necessarily share them..”
    Your sock puppetry was exposed eons ago, give it up.
    The sovereignty of the Islands is is purely a legal question which is outside the remit of the UN, which is confined largely to the role of debating issues solely. The subject is purely an internal matter. That is in fact, protected under international law and a UNGA resolution preventing interference in a countries internal affairs. Article 2.7 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter...
    Éven if Argentina could establish that it had ever had title to the Islands.'A State which has ceased to exercise any authority over a territory cannot, by purely verbal protestations, indefinitely maintain its title against another which for a sufficiently long time has effectively exercised the powers and fulfilled the duties of sovereignty in it.''(Theory and Reality in International Law, de Visscher, 1957, p201).
    The only legally relevant facts are those from 1833, when not one country recognized the Argentine claim. But, by the same token this tacit admission accepted the UK's claim.

    Dec 10th, 2015 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    That's a Terrific Tried and Trusted Tangential Technique Terry....
    I'm proud of you...
    ...but it still doesn't address my statement...that the UN doesn't recognise UK Sovereignty and only ever refers to the UK as the Administering Power...
    Would you like to discuss the price of eggs too...?
    Or maybe You could help Marti out and provide me with a piece of International Law legislation that categorically states a time limit on Extinct generalisations from existing State Law please.... for “Your sock puppetry was exposed eons ago, give it up”...please provide evidence of this”
    Eagerly awaiting your efforts....
    pps...You are still confusing Your and You're you never learn...?

    Here is an abundant supply of apostrophes to use in future...'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''....;-)

    Dec 10th, 2015 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (53) Mr. Voice...

    I stand corrected...
    “DE FACTO ADMINISTRATION” it is, of course...
    British proper Ganda must be penetrating my delicate skull...
    Anyhow... What a big differernce a little word like ADMINISTRATION makes.... huhhhhh???

    Always a pleasure to see you run rings around them turnips ...
    Yours truly...
    El Think

    Dec 10th, 2015 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    55, 56

    The Pantomime Horse is back!!

    Talking to yourself again!!

    Chuckle - waiting for Dame Dover now, to complete the cast.

    No, don't bother, it's just another attention getting device


    Dec 10th, 2015 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Fulvio Pompeo said: “We have to restore this relationship that has been frozen in recent years, as a result of this conflict.
    “We will maintain forever our claim to the Falklands. But our relations with Britain should be broadened.”
    Some say=
    Make the Falklands a full part of the U.K. with a few MPs
    That is an idea, rather like the French which allow Guadeloupe, Martinique and the like to have representation in Paris. If we went this route we would also have to offer similar representation to Anguilla, Turks and Caicos and the other British Overseas Territories. It is worth considering,
    Make the Falklands a full part of the U.K. with a few MPs

    Dec 10th, 2015 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    55 Voice, Vestige, Think et al
    It's irrelevant legally whether or not the UN extends formal recognition to the UK sovereignty as you well know their silence is suffices as endorsement. The same as silence in 1833 by other nations endorses the UK's claim. Moreover, Argentina's failure to bring an action before the ICJ to estop the Referendum is tacit acceptance of it's legitimacy.
    Sheer sophistry, since no one has claimed there is any international legislation that places a time limit on claims. What exists is precedent from an arbitration ruling in 1904 that wouldn't accept a claim that was over thirty years old. So there is a bar in international law against claims that are not procedded with when there nothing barring them accept thir own negligence, Just as there are similar bars in all areas of law and all jurisdictions including Argentina's
    I am not required to provide evidence of your sock puppetry. As your failure to deny the practice is sufficent endorsement as to the truth of my statement.

    Dec 10th, 2015 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    Hear hear... !

    I was going to remain quiet and tacitly approve, but this requires being explicit!

    “voice” is a DE FACTO shit-disturber, ADMINISTERED by “Think”

    Dec 11th, 2015 - 02:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Skip

    Very interesting thread.

    I feel we are making progress.

    It now seems that no one has sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. This is something that I will mull and return to when I have a keyboard.

    However now that we have clarified that I guess we have solved two issues.

    Voice need no longer continually harp on about events from 17th, 18th and 19th centuries as they no longer have any bearing on the current legal status of the islands as none of those parties have sovereignty. None of those events were capable of conferring sovereignty it seems.

    And Think can finally move on from calling or inferring that the Falkland Islands are a colony as the UK doesn't have sovereignty.

    See!!!! Real progress.

    Potentially a breakthrough.

    No one has sovereignty and the islands aren't a colony. More to come....

    Dec 11th, 2015 - 03:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    Didn't I tell you...Didn't I Tell You Terry???
    Didn't I tell you NOT to quote State Law and use it as some sort of Yardstick for the lack of a piece of legislation in INTERNATIONAL LAW!!!
    State Law is within the confines and jurisdiction of the State...and yes their are examples of 30 years being quoted.... I have to shout...Do...I...HAVE...TO...SHOUT...?
    There is not one single piece of legislation in INTERNATIONAL LAW that states a TIME LIMIT on EXTINCT PRESCRIPTION....
    if there is.... provide the link...give me the quote...SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!

    Now you are learning Skip....
    Only the UK officially claims it has Sovereignty over the Isles....everyone else sees it differently....
    The UN especially not keen on Colonialism..the idea that one State having Sovereignty over another Country or Territory...they prefer association...
    The Falklands...after all, are not on the De- Colonialism list because they have a measure of Self Government that satisfies the UN that they are no longer a Colony...
    Are we getting there Skip...?
    See!!!! Real progress.
    Potentially a breakthrough.
    In your understanding...

    Dec 11th, 2015 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    62 Voice, Vestige, Think et al
    Ah! Your usual main-stay when effectively refuted, fraud, by misstating your opponent. “NOT to quote State Law..” Whereas I haven't. Otherwise you would have so indicated. What I stated was there is precedent. ”There is a general principle, first confirmed as early as 1885 in international law jurisprudence, that claims may be extinguished by the passage of time. The 1885 Williams Case held that “On careful consideration of the authorities...—prescription has a place in the international system...” 6 Further, this principle has been embraced in arbitral jurisprudence as early as 1903. Umpire Ralston, in the oft-cited Gentini case observed:
    The permanent court of arbitration has never denied the principle of prescription, a principle well recognized in international law, … The universal opinion of publicists and lawgivers has been that the statutes of prescription … The principle of prescription finds its foundation in the highest equity—the avoidance of possible injustice to the defendant, the claimant ...having only his own negligence to accuse.7 .. claimants should not be rewarded for negligence.
    6 Williams Case, Claims Commission under the Convention of 1885 between the United States and Venezuela as cited by H. Lauterpacht, PRIVATE LAW SOURCES AND ANALOGIES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 2002.
    7 Gentini. H. Ralston and W. Doyle. Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, Italian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission (1904),
    “…no fixed time-limits have ever been agreed. In its resolution of 1925, the Institut de droit international had suggested
    that the limitations on delictual claims were shorter than in the case of contractual claims; furthermore, in 1970, the Swiss Government expressed the view that a lapse of 20 to 30 years was required.73
    73 Cf. Annuaire suisse de droit international, 1976, p. 153. ...”
    Waiver, Acquiescence and Extinctive Prescription Christian J. Tams

    Dec 11th, 2015 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    Thanks Terry for proving my point...
    “…no fixed time-limits have ever been agreed.“
    That about sums it up....
    I see you are now quoting 20 to 30 years for ”limitations on delictual claims ”
    Nice try Terry...that's civil claims (losses) and NOT EXTINCT PRESCRIPTION!!!
    ....give it are flogging a dead horse...
    I'm right and you are wrong....
    ...but good effort...;-)

    Dec 11th, 2015 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    62 Voice, Vestige, Think et al
    The difference between the accuracy of my statement, and your fraud. Is mine is supplemented by authoritative citations. Thus, extinct prescription is an acknowledged part of the fabric of international law. Whilst, there is no definitive time for its application, tribunal rulings have not exceeded thirty-years.
    In fact their relevance, is supported by their postings on the UN site. Case of John H. Williams v. Venezuela
    Gentini Case (of a general nature) While you cannot show any legal support, and thus we are left with nothing more than your unqualified opinion on the subject matter.

    Dec 11th, 2015 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Skip

    Don't worry Voice.

    I got it.... no one has sovereignty.

    Creates some extremely interesting points.

    But as long as no one currently has sovereignty...... because that is important.

    No one has it? Just checking..... tell me if I got it wrong somehow.

    No one!

    Dec 11th, 2015 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    As his position falters, I see that wee voice is once again trying to shout down other posters and offer his opinions as facts, whilst Skip uses reason, and Terry cites legal rulings and precedents.

    voice is out-classed, but then, he sees it as a Class War anyway.

    Cue the Panto-horse...

    Dec 11th, 2015 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    I just love it..Terry...I just love it when you provide links that somehow manage to shoot you in the foot...
    Yes there are various opinions both for and against Extinctive Prescription there.....opinions...
    Then comes a little, but important FACTUAL gem....

    “There is no statute of limitation as to international claims, nor is there any presumption of payment or settlement from the lapse of twenty years. Gov- ernments are presumed to be always ready to do justice, and whether a claim be a day or a century old, so that it is well founded, every principle of natural equity, of sound morals, requires it to be paid.”

    Oh my goodness Terry isn't this what I've been claiming all along....;-)))))))

    You are up to something Skip...I can feel it coming....
    What do you know....? there a sting coming...;-)

    Jumped the gun again...Faltering...Moi...?
    Not my opinions....FACT!!!
    What part of ...“There is no statute of limitation as to international claims”... is everyone failing to Comprehend...?

    As I swagger to the exit...followed by a little jump that manages to click my heels together...shall I pause to glance back with a self satisfied smirk...nah...that would be too much....;-)))))

    Dec 11th, 2015 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Skip

    No. But I see you can't answer.

    As usual, you fail to follow through.

    Dec 11th, 2015 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    68 Voice, Vestige, Think et al
    No! What you have claimed is there can be no application of extinctive prescription as it is not incorporated into formal international statutes. I have clearly indicated that international tribunals have already applied the principle. The decision in Williams v. Venezuela indicate the reliance on the opinions of legal writers and jurists from antiquity till their decision . Wheaton, Vattel, Phillimore, Hall, Polson, Calvo, Grotius, Taparelli, Sala, Lord Coke, Sir Henry Maine, Brocher, Edmund Burke. While the author who you have quoted also said “While international proceedings for redress are not bound by the letter of specific statutes of limitations, they are subject to the same presumptions as to payment or abandonment as those on which statutes of limitations are based. A government can not any more rightfully press against a foreign government a stale claim, which the party holding declined to press when the evidence was fresh, than it can permit such claims to be the subject of perpetual litigation among its own citizens. It must be remembered that statutes of limitations are simply formal expressions of a great principle of peace which is at the foundation not only of our own common law but of all other systems of civilized jurisprudence.” “..time itself is an unwritten statute of repose”.
    While the ICJ would be guided in its consideration of such a judgement: by Article 38, paragraph 1 of the statute indicates that, in disputes submitted to the ICJ, the law the ICJ will apply will be: d.... judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as a subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

    Dec 11th, 2015 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    “There is no statute of limitation as to international claims, nor is there any presumption of payment or settlement from the lapse of twenty years. ”

    So the British leaving the islands in 1774 and returning to settle permanently after 20 years is no longer a problem for Argentina then?

    The British claim (unsettled) was from 1690.

    The settled claim was from 1765.

    These claims were never dropped.

    If there can be no limit to the Argentine claim to the Islands, then what you are saying is there cannot be a limit to the original claim by the British either.

    Make your mind up.

    Dec 11th, 2015 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Skip

    This thread was extremely productive.

    We have both Voice and Think now agreeing that no country currently has sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. No one ever has had it is the logical conclusion.

    And Voice agreeing/claiming no extinguishment of any claims, no matter how old! Think has kept his opinion of this to himself (perhaps seeing the consequences?).

    Real progress.

    I must bookmark this page.

    Dec 13th, 2015 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    wee voice again hoisted on his own petard.

    “Think” is frustrated in any attempt to give a 'clever' response.

    Just a pair of meanies on the outside looking in.

    Dec 14th, 2015 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    You can conclude whatever you wish, but don't twist my words...
    I was quite clear in stating FACTS...
    The UN recognises De Facto Administration for the UK nothing more and nothing less...
    Where did I say “no extinguishment of any claims”....
    I clearly stated that there is a time limit in State Law that varies between 20 and 30 years concerning Prescription...a claim will be automatically barred from being judged after this period....there is no time limit in International Law for Prescription a claim may be judged and in certain circumstances Prescription may be applied....BUT it has to go before a tribunal like the ICJ and be judged on its merits there is no automatic bar....
    So the likes of Marti and Terry claiming Argentina is barred through Prescription is pure fantasy and nonsense...
    Read the last line @39...

    If you have difficulties understanding what I CLEARLY STATE....should you really be commenting...?

    Don't get confused the British have no claim of was already settled by the French at the time....
    Settlement is good legal entitlement....discovery is not...
    ps...Also get your facts right...there was no British settlement in 1765...only the French one...

    Dec 15th, 2015 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    74 Voice, Vestige, Think et al
    “The UN recognises De Facto Administration for the UK nothing more and nothing less…” Is simply your unqualified humble opinion, there is nothing within the myriad of international law that supports your view. In fact all views of international law without exception state the exact opposite. That the UN's silence is a legal endorsement of the UK's claim.
    “BUT it has to go before a tribunal like the ICJ and be judged on its merits there is no automatic bar….” If for example the issue was submitted, the claim of a bar, due to extinct prescription would be invoked, as a preliminary objection. It would first have to be dealt with. There's absolutely no chance of Argentina overcoming that hurdle, based on the precedents established by previous international tribunal judgements. Since you have been unable to show even one case, after such a long,long,long, time that refutes my contention. So what ever claims I have made it has always been based solely on clearly cited international law. So the only “pure fantasy and nonsense….” is you're completely unsupported personal ramblings. So your claim is nothing but empty unsupported hogwash, there is nothing that you have proved.

    Dec 15th, 2015 - 02:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @ 75 ... to wit....

    In 1866, in the Elements of International Law, Wheaton describes prescription by stating, ‘the writers of international law have questioned how far that peculiar species of presumption, arising from the lapse of time, which is called prescription, is justly applicable, as between nation and nation; but the constant and approved practice of nations show that, by whatever name it be called, the uninterrupted possession of territory, or the other property, for a certain length of time, by one State, excludes the claim of every other…’ (Elements of International Law, Wheaton H. 1866, Chp IV, p 164.)

    ‘It cannot be seriously doubted, that long-continued firm possession, especially if practically undisputed by force, is sufficient to create sovereign title, and give to all attempts to subvert it the character of mere rebellion, if by subjects, or of attempted conquest by other nations.’ The lapse of time is discussed regarding a dispossessed state reclaiming title to conquered territory and states that, ‘as to what is a reasonable time in such cases, it is generally said that the lapse of time allowed for a new generation to be born and educated, and come into possession of the powers and duties of the State, furnishes the negative limit.’ (Elements of International Law, Wheaton H. 1866, Chp IV, p164-5, footnote 101)

    From the period 1833 to the present date the UK has maintained effective control over the Falkland Islands. In this respect, the Island of Palmas case USA/Netherlands is relevant inasmuch as ‘effective occupation’ – ‘prescription’. In the case the Court stated, ‘the Netherlands title of sovereignty, acquired by continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty during a long period of time going back beyond the year 1700 therefore holds good.’ The Court rejected the claim of a presumption of Spanish sovereignty stating that ‘no such claim can bebased in international law on the titles involving the United States as successor to Spain.’

    Dec 15th, 2015 - 03:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Skip


    “The UN recognises De Facto Administration for the UK nothing more and nothing less..”

    So no country has sovereignty.

    “....there is no time limit in International Law for Prescription a claim may be judged and in certain circumstances Prescription may be applied....BUT it has to go before a tribunal like the ICJ and be judged on its merits there is no automatic bar....”

    So what you are saying is...... that there is no extinguishment of any claims....

    If not, the please feel free to clarify both points further.

    Dec 15th, 2015 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    “So what you are saying is...... that there is no extinguishment of any claims....”

    I am not saying anything of the sort....
    How you interpret and how you phrase the FACTS that I state, is entirely up to you...
    You are offering an opinion...
    I am stating a fact...
    Terry and Marti are offering opinions made by various people...
    I am still stating the facts...
    Read it for yourself...straight from the horses mouth...and this particular horse is not offering an opinion...

    1. Extinctive prescription
    40. In the Ambatielos claim (1956),127 the United King- dom Government argued that “the claim of the Greek Government ought to be rejected by reason of the delay in its presentation”. The Commission ruled that
    It is generally admitted that the principle of extinctive prescription applies to the right to bring an action before an international tri- bunal. International tribunals have so held in numerous cases (Oppenheim—Lauterpacht—International Law, 7th Edition, I, para- graph 155 c; Ralston—The Law and Procedure of International Tribunals,paragraphs 683-698, and Supplement, paragraphs 683 (a) and 687 (a). L'Institut de Droit international expressed a view to this effect at its session at The Hague in 1925.
    THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THERE IS NO RULE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW WHICH LAYS DOWN A TIME-LIMIT WITH REGARD TO PRESCRIPTION, except in the case of special agreements to that effect, and accordingly, as l'lnstitut de Droit international pointed out in its 1925 Resolutions, the deter- mination of this question is “LEFT TO THE UNFETTERED DISCRETION OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL which, if it is to accept any argument based on lapse of time, must be able to detect in the facts of the case before it the existence of one of the grounds which are indispensable to cause prescription to operate.”128

    ...are we clear now...?

    Dec 16th, 2015 - 02:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    They can perhaps consider it, but only in the context of events before and in the intervening years. Certainly your continuous “de facto sovereignty” of the past 180 years and the Self Determination of the inhabitants would 'usurp' the validity of your own wild assertions and opinions, which cannot stand alone.


    Dec 16th, 2015 - 03:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen


    Has everyone forgotten one unassailable FACT, that in 2015, The Falkland Island are a British Overseas Territory?

    You are all entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

    Argue all you like.

    Reality Is. [realitatem]

    Dec 16th, 2015 - 06:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    Not worth arguing about - it's only wee man voice after all

    Dec 16th, 2015 - 06:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    78 Voice, Vestige, Think et al
    “I am still stating the facts...Read it for yourself...straight from the horses mouth...and this particular horse is not offering an opinion…” What an absolute liar you are when you describe your written treatise as facts. Yet properly ascribed decisions by a competent international tribunal proffered by others are consigned to a mere opinion status, in your topsy turvy world of so-called logic. Nor does your proffering alter in any way refute a properly constructed claim of extinct prescription. In the particular instance that you refer too, the tribunal stated “..even though the legal basis of the claim has been changed during the diplomatic exchanges—• the facts which constitute its substance have remained the same from the beginning, and from the point of view of difficulty of proof, these facts are above all, are important,..” I would love to see an Argentine government trying to claim that extinct prescription doesn't apply to them as there are no “TIME-LIMIT WITH REGARD TO PRESCRIPTION”. It would certainly make my day.

    Dec 16th, 2015 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0

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