MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Resolution 2065 on Falklands: United Nations 'royally deceived' 50 years ago
The United Nations was “royally deceived”, said Falkland Islands Member of Legislative Assembly Mike Summers in response to Argentina celebrating the 50th anniversary of a UN resolution that recognised the existence of a sovereignty dispute over the Falklands. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe previous Argentine lies are now explicitly and clearly refuted by the FI and the UK.
Dec 19th, 2015 - 06:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0To pursue the Malvinas Issue, Macri and his Foreign Ministry Officials will have to very obviously compromise their own integrity.
The islanders have the security of Mount Pleasant defense but not of international law.
Dec 19th, 2015 - 07:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0@2 Then Argentina should take this issue to the International Court of Justice.
Dec 19th, 2015 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why don't they?
So treaties ARE forever (1849), right Mr Summers?
Dec 19th, 2015 - 08:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fine, no problem. UK cannot leave the European Union...
Like 5 treaties it has signed (Rome, Maastricht, etc, all prohibit leaving the EU)
@4 No, those treaties did not prohibit leaving the EU, they just didn't contain anything about leaving. So the Treaty of Lisbon was drawn up to clarify the situation, which is that “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” (Article 50).
Dec 19th, 2015 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why, did Argentina renounce that treaty?
Dec 19th, 2015 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Another Nostrils fail.
@2 Hey 'Marcos'... when are you going to do a 'James Peck' and acknowledge the error of your ways??
Dec 19th, 2015 - 09:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marcos,
Dec 19th, 2015 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Then WHY does your Country not take its border river water pollution issues with Uruguay to the UN?
Why do you bother with the Int Court over that (the correct place of course for a legal dispute) - yet NOT appeal at the ICJ about the Islands?
WHY waste time for 50 years at the wrong place?
“MLA Summers said Resolution 2065 was based on a series of lies, deceptions and half truths put to the UN by the then Argentine Ambassador José María Ruda.”
Dec 19th, 2015 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0MLA Summers has conducted a comprehensive demolition of Argentina’s fraudulent sovereignty claim. It is a sad indictment of the lack of integrity in Argentine diplomacy and the slackness and partisan workings of the UN processes that 2065 was ever allowed to breathe the light of day.
But today truth and history have prevailed and it is like Argentina's magnificent Malvinas myth - dead.
@4 The Lisbon Treaty has an exit clause (Article 50 refers).
Dec 19th, 2015 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ “but I think I would just like to reiterate from our perspective the way is open for the new government of Argentina to find a better and more cooperative way of living together in the South West Atlantic“......”That doesn’t mean, never has meant and never will mean that we are prepared to discuss sovereignty of the Falkland Islands””
Dec 19th, 2015 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Macri has to play along with the mythical Malvinas or he will alienate a significant part of the indoctrinated citizens, especially the 'argy' contingents and to what avail?
No, better to let 'sleeping dogs lie'. Nothing will change by diplomacy and Argentina have no military muscle left.
“Although for the first time Argentina obtained international recognition of the existence of the dispute and succeeded in tying the Falkland's decolonization to that dispute's resolution, there was no UN acknowledgment of Argentine sovereignty or open acceptance of the superiority of territorial integrity over self-determination as guiding principles for the settlement of this conflict. ...”
Dec 19th, 2015 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0(González M. A. The Genesis of the Falklands (Malvinas) Conflict 2014)
2065 is long dead. RIP 2065
#4
Dec 19th, 2015 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here we go again having to correct the ignorant.
The Treaty of Lisbon introduced an exit clause for members who wish to withdraw from the Union. Under TEU Article 50, a Member State would notify the European Council of its intention to secede from the Union and a withdrawal agreement would be negotiated between the Union and that State.
Before typing message....engage brain....if any !
Yes, the Treaty of Lisbon which is invalidated because previous treaties are perpetual, this according to the British.
Dec 19th, 2015 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0So why is the 1849 treaty “perpetual” but the treaty of Rome or Maastricht NOT perpetual. I'd like to know please.
persuaded a number of Argentine and Uruguayan civilians to stay.” “many of the Argentine civilians stayed on”
Dec 19th, 2015 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How many of the original families can trace their ancestry to Uruguay and Argentina?
When a lawyer recommends to take “political” action like this one instead of going to court it speaks of not having a legal point to make in the court.
Dec 19th, 2015 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When a president risks loads of kids lives instead of going to court, it speaks of his certainty that he would unquestionably loose if he behaved within the laws between nations.
There is no official action taken by Argentina today that assures us that Argentina believes in the strength and legality of its sovereignty titles, regardless of the lies it tells its people.
Instead of indoctrinating, Argentina should publish the originals of all the documentation and release them to the general public and to pupils in schools without comments and let the debate begin and the indoctrination stop.
Look. We South Americans do not want you here. You will never be safe in our land. When we feel strong enough to challenge the 5 eyes, we will take the islands back.
Dec 19th, 2015 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Go away!
The United Nations was “royally deceived”? ¡ Inaudito !
Dec 19th, 2015 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No me lo puedo creer.
2 Marcos Alejandro “..have the security of …but not of international law.”
Dec 19th, 2015 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Since the UK has never been in violation of the UN Charter, nor rulings of international tribunals and Argentina has. So it's impossible for you to justify your spurious claim.
4 CapiTrollism_is_back!! “..UK cannot leave the European Union…” and wrong as usua.l
Treaty of Lisbon
“…The Treaty for the first time gave member states the explicit legal right to leave the EU and a procedure to do so.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon
United Nations is an organization that belongs to the 5 Eyes. Only Russia and China should keep a representative on the Security Council to veto anything to go by Council.
Dec 19th, 2015 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The BRICS and its allies (the world except 5 Eyes and EU) have forgotten that there is the Disunited Nations.
Total War! Get ready because any day our armies invade the islands again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHLqxs3DK_w&list=LLmXPTu1f8AdGlizWNiASx2A&index=125
Just another piece of territory where details show G.Britain (whichever mask it wears) to be right and the various locals to be wrong.
Dec 19th, 2015 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Funny how that (still) keeps happening.
Yours independently.
- Vestiges phone.
@2. Which international law? Don't bother with UN resolutions. They aren't law. Except for UNSC 502 and 505. Both ignored by argieland.
Dec 19th, 2015 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@4. Not really. Countries, being sovereign, can always repudiate or renounce treaties. Has argieland repudiated or renounced that treaty as it has so many others that became “inconvenient”? Nope. But then THE Royal Navy might sail into the River Plate and start shelling Buenos Aries. Has the UK repudiated or renounced the treaty? Nope. But we could.
@13. Just told you. Wake up!
@14. Only 4 people left the Islands with the failed military expedition. As for the rest, few had argie or Uruguayan nationality. And they had to become British subjects.
@16. Who? You aren't South Americans, you're transplanted Europeans. And illegally transplanted at that. Just taken a look at Brazil's demographics. Did you know that 99.57% of the population has no legal/moral right to be there. Brazil really belongs to the 0.43% Amerindians. How does it feel to know that, like argies, you are genocides? And yes, there has been much population movement over the years. But “Brazil” got started when you should have known better.
@17. Have you read this? “Comments must be in English.” Perhaps you don't have the intelligence.
@2 Marquitos Alejandrito
Dec 19th, 2015 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are BUFFOON Number 2! You really must read http://www.falklandshistory.com/false-falklands-history.pdf and
http://www.falklandshistory.com/false-falklands-history.pdf
These two links will put your mind at rest - if you have a mind!
We are writing down the names and IP of each user Saxon. When the South American armies, supported by BRICS armies invaded the Islands we will personally interrogate each user who mistreated our America.
Dec 19th, 2015 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So you should be very careful about what you speak and write.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1LCmZAjKZU
This is a warning and who advises friend is.
@2
Dec 19th, 2015 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The islanders have the security of Mount Pleasant defense but not of international law”
So why haven't you gone to the ICJ if you think international law is on your side?
There is more international law as expanded by posters such as Terence Hill et al on the UK 's/Falkland Islander's side than Argentina's.
It's just that you're too lazy to find out.
@4
”Like 5 treaties it has signed (Rome, Maastricht, etc, all prohibit leaving the EU)“
But they don't prohibit the UK living the EU-you are just too lazy to investigate with a typical troll throwaway comment with no basis.
So has the UK broken the 1849 treaty with Argentina, that makes no mention of a dispute?
@16
”Look. We South Americans do not want you here.
So the Chilean worker sin the Falklands are not South American? Lan Chile that makes a bit of money out of the Falklands is South American.
These South Americans are quite happy with the Falklands
Go away!
The Falkland Islanders are still there-they have ignored your request.
“You will never be safe in our land.
When we feel strong enough to challenge the 5 eyes, we will take the islands back.”
South American maschismo with no real likely hood of becoming reality.
You can at least enjoy dreaming about it.
In 1982 Argentina with then modern forces couldn't keep the Islands after sending 10 000 men against 80, and we gave you a months head start before we arrived.
And we still won.
@19
“. Only Russia and China should keep a representative on the Security Council to veto anything to go by Council”
If you had assisted with the winning side in WW2, you might have been on the UN security Council.
And why should the US not be on the SC?
They fund the UN-how much money does your country spend on the UN?
@20
”Just another piece of territory where details show G.Britain (whichever mask it wears) to be right and the various locals to be wrong. ”
What details?
What makes you think you'll have a chance the next time?
Whatever happend 200+ yrs ago matters little today.
Dec 19th, 2015 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine's are sore losers.
Cry babies
and
Cowards.
Pay them no mind.
If Brazil are paying anything to the 5 Eyes or Disunited Nations I never will vote in PT.
Dec 19th, 2015 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are too rich. I do not.
Now I need to bring down 10 trees to make a fire. It's getting cold in here.
OK, kelpers:
Dec 19th, 2015 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN is inept, corrupt and irrelevant in the post Soviet era.
Might makes right is the undeniable basis for state formation and perpetuation up and until a 5.56 can be stopped by liberal rhetoric.
rr has neither the resources or the intestinal fortitude to again mount a failed occupation of the Islands.
This is not to say that they won't ever mount an action but they will only do so if Britain blinks or otherwise signals its waning commitment to the FI.
So anything coming out of rr is just bluster up and until you lose the Tory's back 'home'.
Kelpers: Worry about the left in England because they are the only variable in this game.
24
Dec 19th, 2015 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“There is more international law as expanded by posters such as Terence Hill et al on the UK 's/Falkland Islander's side than Argentina's.”
Is that the Terrence Hill that keeps quoting International Opinions...or the Terry Hill that quotes International legislation....?
The first...I'm familiar with...
...the second...I've never heard of.....
wait for it....
....wait for it.....
......;-))))))
@23 Brasileiro - palhaço!
Dec 19th, 2015 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do tell me what my name is and also my IP - please!
28 Voice, Vestige, Think et al
Dec 19th, 2015 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Heres a sampling of both. I've yet to see one piece of relevant international law derived from either international legislation or from judicial decisions that supports Argentina.
“UN Charter; DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES; Article 73; Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for ..peoples have not yet attained .. self-government recognize the principle ..b. to develop self-government, ...”
October 16th,1975
The ICJ presents its advisory opinion on two questions concerning Western Sahara; “The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of peoples, ”
The Court also states; “The Charter of the United Nations, in Article 1, paragraph 2, indicates, as one of the purposes of the United Nations: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on ...the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples . .” This purpose is further developed in Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter. Those provisions have direct and particular relevance for non-self-governing territories, which are dealt with in Chapter XI of the Charter. As the Court stated in its Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 on The Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) .. “. . . the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them”
Judge Dillard, .. adds; “ .. it is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people.”
30
Dec 19th, 2015 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah it's a pity the UN has never defined what constitutes a “people”....
Do British citizens count...?
What about British Citizens in Britain...let's say a couple of thousand Muslims in Birmingham do they have the right to independence...free association or what...?
After all .”..it is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people.”
31 wee man,
Dec 19th, 2015 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How often are you going to rehash this question ? It was put to bed years ago, but you bring it up monthly.
You obstinately return to obsolete irrelevant controversies that muddy the waters and generate some personal attention.
Yawn, get lost.
Troy, Joanie, Brian and Gordon on the iPod dock today. Brilliant Canadian artists, brilliant friends and alies.
Dec 19th, 2015 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0VoiceofThink - noxious Scotch twat!
UNESCO has defined a 'people“. Not that it matters as the UN recognised the Falklanders as a people in 1952. The C24 also recognised the FIG as the ”representatives of the Falklands people” in 1982.
Dec 19th, 2015 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 033. The Voice,
Dec 19th, 2015 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, and they've done very well on the international music scene, in spite of being 'just' Canadians. :-)
wee voiceofthink tries to do his laughable best to establish himself as 'superior' through where he lives, but refuses to name his nationality. All while he tries to put others down for theirs and pit them against each other.
Even calls Our friend from Melbourne “Skip”
as though it's an insult - LOL !!
Chronic/YB criticises 'Skip' for defining an identity and relationships, by “where he is from”.
Right after asserting he is better than Canadians due to being a Yank.
Just can't make up the hypocrisy and contradictions of these forum Trolls.
Just watch - wee man is obsessed by national identity and discovering personal information, and trying to 'one up' everyone else.
Never ending comedy.
Sad for him.
Love the gibberish.
Dec 19th, 2015 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Rave on.
#23
Dec 19th, 2015 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are some dummies on this site but, congratulations, you have won the first prize. What makes you think Russia, China India give a flying f*** about invading anyone to make YOU feel better. Do you wish to start a nuclear war in which YOU will be annihilated ?
You are an absolute nobody with nothing to offer anyone except a penchant for showing dodgy videos to boost your warped insignificant ego. Maybe if you did some work to help your own country improve it's economy it would be better for all.
Troy, where the twat lives, or says he lives, is a howling mistake, a bit of a joke really, where Billy Connelly was brought up, and takes the pee out of. It is one of the least expensive areas in the UK however, and that means people dont want to live there because of poor weather, bad communications, little work. Like many of Britains seaside towns its in bad shape. So, if its a lieing trolls choice, its a fail especially in one who is so fond of bigging himself up. Pity all the trolls have now melted away, they were quite good fun! Only Nostril left and he is obviously deteriorating daily poor sod.
Dec 20th, 2015 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 035
Dec 20th, 2015 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hey Trumpet....
.....“pit them against each other.”
Are you having a larrf.....
I'm on the sidelines watching all the cat fights...
The united Anglo Front is in tatters....
The only person that has ever claimed that I use Skip as an insult...is you....
Skip is short for Skippy which is what he is ...it's not and never has been an insult..only in your eyes...even Skip adopted it as his preferred handle....
Now where has Terry Hill gone....?
I'm interested in his legal opinion why a resolution becomes invalid after one party ignores it and decides to settle the dispute after years of non compliance....Do all UN resolutions become redundant for non compliance or do they have to be officially revoked by the UN...?
Perhaps UNGA Resolution 68/262 against Russia is now no longer applicable because of the self determination of the Crimean people...
Or does it still stand...?
Hahaha 10 territories under british colonial situation in this 21 century most of them under no sovereignty dispute at all!!!! and you british are trying to convince the UN that the whole dispute its based on an argentine lie????.
Dec 20th, 2015 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0So lets imagine for a moment, that Argentina ( a third world nation), has fooled the world community with a lie. Lets pretend the british imperialism did not existed in 1833 and they were fine gentlemen that did not expelled the argentine colony with a threat of force. So then why are other eight territories under british colonialism with no sovereignty dispute?. Is the UN Decolonization's Committe paid too by the powerfull diplomacy of the argentine government over these years?.
#39 UN resolutions require repetition to remain relevant. Not being relevant = being dead. For example, Res 2065 has not been mentioned by the General Assembly since 1984. This would explain why the Sec-General noted in 2012 that the UK was not in breach of ant “relevant” Un resolutions.
Dec 20th, 2015 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0RIP 2065
@40 ” ....So lets imagine for a moment, that Argentina ( a third world nation), has fooled the world community with a lie”
Dec 20th, 2015 - 12:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0---- No need to imagine.
@37 If you are a coward who is afraid to die, you better get out of here. Because English and South America are two things that do not match.
Dec 20th, 2015 - 12:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Scandal in Argentina over ex-Russian AHTs for patrol duties - unable to operate in ice and max speed is 10 knots.
Dec 20th, 2015 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://twitter.com/seawaves_mag/status/678268251835641857/photo/1
people
, you cannot speak to the indoctrinated, they are either brainwashed, or just pulling your legs,
we presume they can all read,
then read they must,
it is not our fault that they cannot or will not accept the truth,
nothing will please them,
they will only accept what they are told, and if that mean theft then so be it, they know nothing else,
democracy freedom and free elections are totally alien to them.
#40 The dispute is most certainly based upon a lie. There was a dispute between Spain and England. Argentina was never a party to that dispute. And Buenos Aires was warned to stay out of the islands in 1829 and again in 1832. Nothing much happened in 1833. A minor police action to remove the trespassers from Buenos Aires who had ignored the 1829 and 1832 warnings.
Dec 20th, 2015 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Spain could have reasonably protested in 1833, but it chose not to do so. As a result Britain consolidated its claims to the whole archipelago which were first founded in 1594.
As for why there are not more territorial disputes over the other British Overseas Territories is easily explained. Argentina hasn't attempted to distort history in relation to those territories.
https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/
40@
Dec 20th, 2015 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0why not you argies complain abt other European countries that have territories around the world,
its always abt the British colonies,
well, their are NO British colonies [ name one and prove it ]
the islanders have freely elected to remain British,
and you refuse to accept this result,
now lets presume for a mille second that the islanders voted to be Argentinian,
would you accept it or refuse the result,
of course you would jump for joy and denounce any objections from Britain,
rather hypocritical is this not,
seeing as they have been living there for over two hundred years, why not just leave them in peace,
you wont=why=because you Argentina want to colonies them, is this not true,
and if this is NOT true, then why the hell do you want them,
it wouldn't have anything to do with oil or minerals and greed, would it,
they wish to peacefully remain British,
do the world a favour, leave them alone and deal with your own problems,
...
41
Dec 20th, 2015 - 02:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Got any facts to back up that opinion...?
A link perhaps from UN.org...
If it is no longer relevant why, when the resolution has been mentioned consistently by Argentina and countless other countries, doesn't the UN not state that the resolution is no longer relevant and is redundant...
Personal opinions without verifiable facts are meaningless....
45
If the French settlement was legal, then the British settlement after the islands were already settled ...was not
...so the British had no authority to warn BA from occupying the islands that were abandoned by the Spanish...(the French/Spanish transfer being also legal)
Falkland Islands Member of Legislative Assembly, Mike Summers, WELL DONE SIR!
Dec 20th, 2015 - 02:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0#47 Opinion?
Dec 20th, 2015 - 04:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is a fact that the Sec-gen stated that the UK was not in breach of any “relevant” Un resolutions back in 2012.
http://tiempo.infonews.com/nota/14913/todavia-espero-el-acuerdo-del-reino-unido-a-mi-propuesta
Another fact for you - relevant resolutions are repeated or referred to every year. Please check - http://tiempo.infonews.com/nota/14913/todavia-espero-el-acuerdo-del-reino-unido-a-mi-propuesta
Whether or not Argentina or any other member mentions 2065 is of no importance. What is important is that the General Assembly have not mentioned it since 1984. The GA does not have to confirm the death of an old resolution - it merely has to ignore it.
Oh, and the British claimed the islands in 1594, long before the French arrived. Spain came in a poor third. Argentina was not even on the board. http://tiempo.infonews.com/nota/14913/todavia-espero-el-acuerdo-del-reino-unido-a-mi-propuesta
You opinions are certainly meaningless. Go do some real research, you may learn something :-)
49 Roger
Dec 20th, 2015 - 06:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0You opinions are certainly meaningless. Go do some real research, you may learn something :-)
The British Empire
“Three years later, the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'. It also reflected a weakening of British power in the Western Hemisphere coming shortly after the embarrassing loss of the 13 colonies partly thanks to French and Spanish intervention.
The Spanish claim on the islands would falter with the South American Wars for Independence at the start of the nineteenth century. The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811. The islands were left to their own fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands in order to assert their control as part of the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority there. Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823 who tried to limit the whole-scale slaughter of seals which were in danger of being made extinct on the islands. A penal colony was also established on the island”
@50 Marquitos Alejandrito
Dec 20th, 2015 - 06:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nene - kindly quote the source of your information as without this we are unable to determine its veracity. Or is it just an invention of your lurid imagination?
50 MA
Dec 20th, 2015 - 06:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Must we go through this again, just for you.. ?
What are you quoting?
Link please.
#47 Voice
Dec 20th, 2015 - 07:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0If the French settlement was legal, then the British settlement after the islands were already settled ...was not
...so the British had no authority to warn BA from occupying the islands that were abandoned by the Spanish...(the French/Spanish transfer being also legal)
That is only your opinion; can you back that up with argument?
The French were the first founder of a settlement on East Falkland, at Port Louis in 1764. Spain acquired title to this settlement by purchase.
The British were the first to settle on West Falkland, at Port Egmont in 1765.
The agents of both parties proclaimed their rights over the rest of the territory, but the actual decision as to which claim was valid was a matter of diplomatic bargaining between Madrid and London.
After the forcible expulsion of the British settlers by Spain in June 1770 and the subsequent diplomatic bargaining , the Spanish disavowed the expedition against Port Egmont and restored “all things to the precise situation in which they stood before the 10 th of June 1770” So Spain itself acknowledged the legality of the British settlement at Port Egmont.
In spite of the Monroe doctrine, the United States Government did not protest when Britain reoccupied the Islands in 1833. The UK was regarded as continuing its 18th century settlement. The Falkland’s were classified as existing possessions of European Powers in America which, as Monroe stated, were accepted by the United States.
So in restoring the settlement at Port Egmont, the Spanish acknowledged that the settlement was legal and actions by the United States during and after Britain’s re-occupation showed its acceptance of British sovereignty over the Falkland’s.
(Metford J.C.J Falklands or Malvinas? The Background to the Dispute July 1968)
Voice...“Yeah it's a pity the UN has never defined what constitutes a “people”....
Dec 20th, 2015 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not really Voice, by not providing a definition, one cannot justifiably argue that they are not a ”people“ in the eye's of the UN. It is merely an opinion that they are not a ”people“ to further a sovereignty claim.
How ever, UN 2065 did mention that ”....Implementation on the declaration of the granting of independence to colonial countries and PEOPLES, relating to the Falkland Islands....“ So it seems that even in 2065 the Falkland Islanders were regarded as”people” as it quite clearly states PEOPLES.
Opps, looks like Ruda got so excited he forgot to edit that out of the final draft.
There was a united Anglo front?
Dec 20th, 2015 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why wasn't I invited?
Were there meetings and everything?
@47. More meaningless piffle. Thrown out of the Combined Services again, and needing an argument to bolster your weak ego? Its like you, irrelavent! Whatever the VoiceofThink says you have no way forward. Have you been secretly watching An Island Parish just lately. Bet that gets right up your nose! Reminds you of those insults…
Dec 20th, 2015 - 10:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0let's look at the numbers and see who is more credible
Dec 20th, 2015 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British over seas territories =14 out of at least 150 colonies.
Argenina = 0
As far as being “Invited to stay” We can argue that the United States invited Mexicans to stay in California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and Utah after we (U.S) invaded Mexico and forced a a contract that took 60% of Mexico's territory.
To complete the holes in Roger Lorton ignorance space, i have to say that he is wrong in every thing he said.
Dec 20th, 2015 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are more than 40 UN resolutions regarding the sovereignty dispute and the colonial situation in the islands. Ergo, they do not have to mention res 2065 in all resolutions to prove there is a sovereignty dispute and a colonial situation.
Last resolution regarding Malvinas was in 1988 which stoped from being presented to the GA by an Argentine-british Agreement in 1989 that decide to try another form of agreement under an umbrella formula.
Nevertheless, since 2004, the Malvinas Islands are back on the GA agenda for one of the parties (the UK or Argentina) ask for the topic to be treated in the Assembly. The umbrella agreement are still valid so no resolution will be expected soon by that body of the UN. Nevertheless the MAlvinas sovereignty is still in the General Assembly agenda.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/63/100
No police action was taken by britain in 1833. The british government had not a single representative nor a “police” since 1774. 59 years without any british police there!!!. I forgot you claim the eventual british sealers and fishermens that from time to time went to fish to the islands as governmental prescence and administration.
There are 10 territories under british colonialism!!!! stop the excuses. Argentina have no better diplomatic muscles than britain. We have no control nor a single influence over that world forum. You should be ashame of defending colonialism and even accusing a nation that suffered once colonialism of being one. The UK was, and still is, one of the most colonialists nation on earth.
Brasileiro - this link is for you to read and ponder. It contradicts everything you tell us.
Dec 20th, 2015 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.elsalvador.com/articulo/trends/estos-son-los-mejores-paises-para-vivir-segun-onu-96582
#58
Dec 20th, 2015 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you so thick that you don't know what colonisation is?
Take Argentina...before it's name came into being, S. America was systematically raped by mainly Spanish immigrants who seized large tracts of country from the indigenous population. You gained independence from Spain and continued your land-grab from the river Plate South...colonisation. What else can you call taking land, settling it and incorporating it into your country.
You seem to think the European Argentina suddenly appeared from the soil with NO reference to your antecedents.
Why would we need police in force to guard our land. We expect countries to know what is British territory and respect that. Do we need a police force on all of the sub-antarctic islands to verify our sovereignty. Get real !
Now for the punch line.
Please tell us what countries Britain is still colonising against the wishes of the populations involved. What colonies have we recently acquired ?
Liberato, please give your house and any land you own back to a Mapuche and return to Spain where your family came from and stole Mapuche territory. The Falkland Islanders stole no ones land. They have lived there for 7 generations since before Argentina existed. Idiota! Look on your 100 Peso note…
Dec 20th, 2015 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@23. Re your warning. And when you're crispy?
Dec 20th, 2015 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@31. But you're not part of an indigenous “people”. Back to Ireland. Will the Irish want you?
@40. Have you ever thought about being relevant? Or about how death falls from the skies? Or about your eyes being crispy.
@50. One of your spanish “sources? Try 1982.Try ”uti possidetis”. Try UCJ ruling in the Burkino Faso vs Mali ruling.
@58. Pity you don't have a brain. UNGA resolutions are not worth anything. Worthless. Like you.
@58 Liberato
Dec 20th, 2015 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Kindly name just one UK colony.
58@
Dec 20th, 2015 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK was, and still is, one of the most colonialists nation on earth.
prove it, we say it time and time again, prove it. prove it,
otherwise people just ignore you,
just like they ignore Argentina,
after 200 years it been British, grow up and leave them alone,
you quote historical years, yet forget Argentina did not exist as a sovereign nation,
either prove it or leave them alone,
have you any idea how many nations today did not exist two hundred years ago,
if Argentina was allowed to claim after 200 years,
how many independent nations, today, would be claimed and won by silly immature nations like Argentina,
leave them alone, grow up, look to the future and leave the past where it belongs==in the past.
#63 and #64: List on territories under a colonial administration under the UN process of decolonization:
Dec 20th, 2015 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml
3 years out of date, and needs to be updated.
Dec 20th, 2015 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0$64: Quote: “after 200 years it been British, grow up and leave them alone,
Dec 20th, 2015 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you quote historical years, yet forget Argentina did not exist as a sovereign nation,”
Before Argentina exist as a sovereign nation, there was no sovereignty right for britain in Malvinas either. Due to the fact they did not discovered the islands, nor were the first to settle the islands, nor the first to administer the islands. And the fact their settlement was hidden from France and Spain do not help your cause either.
Still can't believe there was a united Anglo front..... oooh should it have initial caps?
Dec 20th, 2015 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0United Anglo Front!
If there were meetings and I wasn't invited I'll be rooollly upset. Especially as Voice, an Anglo, knew about it.
@68 Skip
Dec 20th, 2015 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't forget,.... big UAF meeting tonight. Did you get the memo?
We have some new initiates - there will be a final linguistics test before the Swearing-in ceremonies...
@67 WRONG! On every single point. Sorry, you have been misinformed. If what you say is true why has your country ran away every time you have been offered to have your claim tested in court.
Dec 20th, 2015 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have no rights and your country is a would be colonialist. Get lost..
When is Argentina going to de-colonise Tierra del Fuego?
Dec 20th, 2015 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#58 Idiot, a “police” action does not require the police. It was carried out by the Royal Navy.
Dec 20th, 2015 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now some facts please - can you show me these “40” UN Resolutions that you claim exist? - http://www.un.org/en/sections/documents/general-assembly-resolutions/index.html
Somehow I doubt it as there were never 40, indeed there are currently none. UN Resolutions do require either repetition or reference to continue being relevant. The only mention that 2065 gets these days is in the C24 resolution which, every year, the C24 DOES NOT recommend to the General Assembly for adoption. Check - http://www.un.org/en/sections/documents/general-assembly-resolutions/index.html
As for history. The British didn't leave in 1774 (not that Spain even noticed that the garrison had gone till 1776) and Spain failed to extend its exercise of sovereignty over the whole archipelago because of those sealers and whalers. We also find HMS Nancy in 1813 arresting American sealers in the Islands.
Britain's dominance over the Falklands was recognised by France in 1801/02 when Joseph Bonaparte demanded an establishment on the islands - from the British during the treaty of Amiens negotiations. Spain was aware, but did not protest. Read - http://www.un.org/en/sections/documents/general-assembly-resolutions/index.html
As I've said, there was a dispute between Spain and England who both claimed the whole archipelago whilst each maintaining control in only part of it. This was resolved at the same time as the police action in 1833. Spain did not protest so the matter was settled.
Argentina was never in the game.
No go learn - http://www.un.org/en/sections/documents/general-assembly-resolutions/index.html
Ref your post at #65
Dec 20th, 2015 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How many of these “colonies” have asked for independence from the UK.
Do you wish them to be “freed” against their wishes?
YOU FAILED TO ANSWER MY QUESTION
Please tell us what countries Britain is still colonising against the wishes of the populations involved. What colonies have we recently acquired ?
There are no colonies. The UN says that there are only Non-Self Governing Territories with the right of self-determination.
Dec 21st, 2015 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing more.
Isn't it simple?
#73: I was been sarcastic you silly. You say that no police means no royal navy. Since 1774 to 1833 there was no royal navy, ergo no “police”.
Dec 21st, 2015 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hahaha “ there are currently none”????.
Sealers and whalers backed up british administration?
HMS Nancy, arresting American sealers in 1813 when there was no british government nor a single british settlement?. Not even Port Egmont that was destroyed by Spain long time ago?.
France dominance in the Malvinas Islands ended in 1767 when they recognized spanish rights of sovereignty and transpassed the colony to Spain.
There was only 7 years of disputes between Spain and England over the islands. The british illegally established a hidden colony, and they left in 1774. Spain administered the whole territory since then until 1811. Where was britain dispute from 1774 to 1833?.
Can you at least name those sealers and whalers that, according to you, mantained british administration from 1774 to 1833?. You are a grown man to be that stupid.
#73: The aim of the UN Decolonization process is to end all forms of colonialism. One form of colonialism is when there is a subjugated people. You mentioned that form of colonialism which do not apply in the case of Malvina's colonial situation. Now i recomend you to study the rest of cases of colonialism where do not involve a subjugated people.
#74: The UN says more than that. Nevertheless, let me see if i underestand correctly. You said there are no colonies and at the same time you say there are non self-governing territories with right to self determination?.
So, you are saying they do not govern themselves, they are instead governed by others?. Is that what you are saying?. A people govern other people and that is not a colony?.
58 Liberato (#)“To complete the holes in Roger Lorton ignorance space, i have to say that he is wrong in every thing he said............”
Dec 21st, 2015 - 02:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Opps the head shed must been getting rattled, they have deployed their best brain!
Stop lying with propaganda. Truth will always prevail as it did in 1965! Check facts at https://factsandfictionsofmalvinasislands.wordpress.com/
Dec 21st, 2015 - 02:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0#75 Yes - I can name all the sealers and whalers. HMS Nancy's presence in the Falklands is also well recorded.
Dec 21st, 2015 - 03:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0No, Spain did not control which is why I also have the import/export records from the Falklands - listed amongst the other colonies - for 1776 and 1779.
The UN's decolonization process is aimed at the NSGTs on its list. The falklands is on the UN list and the people of the falklands were recognised by the UN in 1952. It would seem that it is you Liberato that is in need of study.
You need to read the UN definitions. A Non-self Governing territory is quite simple a territory that is on the UN list of NSGTs regardless of the level of self-government achieved by the people of a particular territory.
You appear to be a little daft child and you obviously have not referred to the links I provided or you would have known the answers already. You need to learn a whole great deal more.
You would do worse than try here - https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/
A Falkland Fact:
Dec 21st, 2015 - 04:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkand Sound is the name given to the straight between the East and West islands by Captain John Strong in the Welfare in 1690, in honour of Viscount Falkland.
(Metford J.C.J Falklands or Malvinas? The Background to the Dispute July 1968)
In 1982, the Falkland Sound was suddenly thrust into the world spotlight thanks to Argentina’s brutal and illegal invasion. The Argentines discovered that they had no Argentine name for the Falkland Sound so they quickly invented one. Unfortunately the name they came up with was more of a sentence than a name and, along with other niggling lapses, betrayed their lack of awareness of the local geography and topography on the Islands. This ignorance was very strange coming from a country that claimed ownership of the Falklands.
@77 alejomartinez
Dec 21st, 2015 - 06:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0in 1965 Ruda lied at the UN and your link to his nephew's site is just another pack of lies. Seems the Ruda family have a problem!
#75
Dec 21st, 2015 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0You still have not answered my question !!!!!!!!!
Please tell us what countries Britain is still colonising against the wishes of the populations involved. What colonies have we recently acquired ?
#78: Great name them then.
Dec 21st, 2015 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.falklands.gov.fk/our-people/our-history/
In the webpage of the islands, there is no theory that the sealers and whalers administered the islands. Dont you think it is really illogic that the islands do not share your theorie?.
After 1774, Port Egmont was used as a refugee for the whalers from climate until it was destroyed by Spain (who according to you had no control over the islands) in 1780.
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/our-people/our-history/
In 1946, several UN Member States identified a number of Territories under their administration that were not self-governing and placed them on a UN list. Countries administering Non-Self-Governing Territories are called administering Powers. As a result of the decolonization process over the years, most of the Territories were removed from the list.
Quote:“a territory that is on the UN list of NSGTs regardless of the level of self-government achieved by the people of a particular territory.”
So for you then the legal status in the UN is quite in accordance with the situation in the islands?.
#80: Yeah, Ruda, The c24, the General Assembly. They are all liers that wants to put the poor United Kingdom into a vulnerable position. How cruel!!!.
#81: My goodness. You did not read my response. Subjugating a people, is one form of colonialism. Britain is not subjugating A people in the islands. In the islands there is no people subjugated. There is a colony, that exploit a territory taken by force to another nation.
@82 Liberace - WRONG! On every single point. Sorry, you have been misinformed. If what you say is true why has your country ran away every time you have been offered to have your claim tested in court.
Dec 21st, 2015 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have no rights and your country is a would be colonialist. Get lost..
@82 Liberato
Dec 21st, 2015 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes the Falkland Islands are on the UN NSGTs list . The U.K. put them there when they were a colony. However the corrupt UN C24 Committee, whose job is to assist the peoples of NSGTs to one of three outcomes:
1. Full independence.
2. Integration with the original colonising country.
3. Integration with another country.
However, the UN were short sighted when they came up with these ways for removing counties of this list because they never thought that the peoples of the colonies would be happy with the status quo.
But one thing is absolutely certain. The ONLY people who can decide which of the 3 options currently offered is best are the people who live in those territories.
1. It doesn't currently suit them to be independent.
2. It doesn't suit the Falklanders to become fully integrated with the U.K.
3. The Falklanders have already told Argentina to feck off during their referendum in 2013.
Argentina has NO say in the matter. That's what the UN says. Ban Ki Moon stated that ALL NSGTs had the right to determine their own future.
As for your last paragraph, the only time the UK used force in regards to the Falkland Islands was in 1982 when we booted a bunch of murdering fascists off British territory.
Prior to that we found some murdering thieves on our islands in 1833, but they ran away without a shot being fired. Then the British left the Union flag, and the RN left, but the thieving murdering cowards never returned.
But please Liberato, why don't you take your case to the ICJ? This is the ONLY legal way you can ever gain sovereignty of the islands unless the Falklanders choose to become Argentine (which is unlikely given Argentina's treatment of them). All you have to do is prove why an illegal occupation by mutinous murdering military forces of the UP can overrule the right to self determination as laid out by the UN Charter and numerous UNGA resolutions, not least your precious 2065 resolution.
Go on, try it, you might win...NOT!
#81
Dec 21st, 2015 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I did read your response and it made absolutely no sense !
I presume that you are referring to the Falklands supposedly being held by force from Argentina. A load of twaddle. The Falklands have never belonged to Argentina except in your fanciful imagination. You are the attempted colonists as you proved in 1982.
Back to my original question You said :-
The UK was, and still is, one of the most colonialists nation on earth.
What colonies have we recently acquired ?
@82 Liberato
Dec 21st, 2015 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0¡En mi vida nunca he leído tanta mierda!
Argentina on the other hand has failed to de-colonise Tierra del Fuego and return it to the original indigenous inhabitants who survived the genocide inflicted upon them.
Dec 21st, 2015 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Personally I think that most of the English into Spanish translation or should I say Castellano is being missinterpeted , because I cannot for one minute that the Trolls on here are that stupid but heho THE FALKLANDS ARE STILL A BRITISH OVERSEAS TERRITORY until the FALKLANDERS deem otherwise.
Dec 21st, 2015 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The world is built on liars
Dec 21st, 2015 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and argies believe them all,
they should implode and start again,
better next time.
The UK will return the Malvinas within the next 25 years.
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0#83: Im sorry,but as far as i remember Argentina was never ever offered to have our claim to Malvinas tested in court. Quite the contrary, The only nation to propose arbitration to end the sovereignty dispute was Argentina in 1884.
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0#84: I think its not that the c24 is corrupt. For you, is corrupt becouse it doesnt favour the british side. The UN has maid many resolutions regarding the sovereignty dispute too and the colonial situation. They have stop making resolutions regarding the islands for an Anglo-Argentine agrement called “sovereignty umbrella”. Nevertheless, with the reorganization of the UNGA agenda, since 2004 the Malvinas are back waiting for one of the two sides to bring the topic to the Assembly for consideration.
But, again, the c24 is not corrupt. If you suggest that Argentina pays the c24 to mantain the islands in the colony list, who pays them to keep the other 8 territories which have no sovereignty dispute to be on board the colony list?.
The UN is not corrupt either and is not short sighted as you suggested. There are many forms of colonialism. the american continent, for example, were colonized many times subjugating the aboriginal people. Many times there is not a people to subjugate and the colonial power implement a colony to exploit natural resources for example. Its as easy as looking to a dictionary to learn all forms of colonialism. For you there is only one, where the islanders were subjugated and with rights to self determination. For us they were not subjugated, they are a colony composed by british, not distinct to those living in the uk.
The USA is accused by some of the british as traitor for not supporting the uk saying that the uk helped them in wars. Which is the same as saying i washed your dirty hands, you wash mines. While it should be instead: “ we are right, and the argentines are not”.
In 1833, the uk did not atacked militarilly becouse the Argentine governor had one ship against a very superior force that expelled them.
Liberato
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 01:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0I name all the whalers & sealers here - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/falklands-history30.pdf
They did not 'administer' the islands, but they were a British presence that prevented Spain from “administering' the whole archipelago.
Spain destruction of Port Egmont was an act of war, not an act of sovereignty. Spain never attempted to raise its flag over Egmont - a simple act that would have confirmed their pretensions. An act that never happened.
The islands legal status is fully in accordance with the UN's Charter and resolutions. The responsibility of Administering Powers is to lead the NSGTs to ”a full measure of self-government.” This the UK has achieved with its Overseas Territories ( with a couple of exceptions, not including the FI).
Argentina did not propose arbitration in 1884. There was a conversation at a party which was to sound out Britain's views. Argentina did not like the response it got, but never submitted a formal invitation to take the matter to arbitration. All correspondence is here - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/falklands-history30.pdf
The C24 is now irrelevant. In fact the UK has not fully cooperated with the C24 since 1971. The C24 allows Argentina to rant and rave for one or two days of the years; approves a resolution which the C24 then DOES NOT recommend to the General Assembly for adoption.
Argentina is screwed. The matter is settled.
One further small, but very relevant point, Argentina is not Spain.
82 Liberato “In the islands there is no people subjugated. There is a colony, that exploit a territory taken by force to another nation.”
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 01:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0What colour patches will the ‘colonists’ have to wear if the Falklands ever fall under Argentine administration?
Of all the arguments put forward by Argentine in support of its claim this one is the most bizarre. What is a colonist? “a person who settles or colonizes an area” So colonists are people!
This argument also overlooks that fact that around 80 percent of the present population of the Falklands is native born and some descendants of the very first settlers still live there.
Even the UN disagrees with Argentina on this, Resolution 2065 states, inter alia: “…and peoples relating to the Falkland Islands…” Note “the peoples’
http://daccess-dds-y.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/218/28/IMG/NR021828.pdf?OpenElement
This is the argument that exposes the wanton nakedness of Argentina’s claim, the semantic argument over the meaning of a ‘person’ shows how morally reprehensible Argentina is and that it cannot be entrusted with the administration of another people, especially a people as culturally different as the Falkland Islanders. The Islanders would not be safe under Argentine administration. The world witnessed the results of Argentine administration during its brief occupation in 1982.
And as for you Liberato, it is one thing to just parrot the same old rhetoric provided by the Argentine government- that just makes you a galah. But by mindlessly supporting the ‘non people’ argument you become complicit in a sinister, morally reprehensible argument. This reflects badly on you as a person.
Well said!
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 03:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Especially the galah bit.
Thanks Skip!
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 04:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0We must get together one day.
Merry Christmas!
Chapter XI of the UN Charter deal with decolonization and non-self governing territories. http://www.un-documents.net/ch-11.htm
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 04:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Annex 1 of Res. 567 of 1952 states clearly: “The territories which are covered by Chapter XI of the Charter are those territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.”
Simple enough even for an Argie to understand (LOL). No people = no NSGT.
Therefore ALL NSGTs have a people and all the people of all the NSGTs have the right of self-determination.
Easy. Isn't it?
96# Easy. Isn't it?
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 04:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Easy for some! :>
96...Lord Ton....
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is this easy enough for you to understand....?
” In trying to assess the legal significance of these provisions it should not be assumed that the concept of self-determination became a legally binding principle of conventional international law by the mere fact of its incorporation into the UN Charter. Although the provisions concerning non-self-governing and trust territories entail binding international obligations, the general principles of self-determination and of equal rights of peoples, which in the formula used by the UN Charter appear to be two component elements of the same concept, seem to be too vague and also too complex to entail specific rights and obligations. In particular, the UN Charter neither supplies an answer to the question as to what constitutes a ‘people’ nor does it lay down the content of the principle. In the absence of any concrete definition, and taking into account the highly various facts of international life, it cannot realistically be interpreted, applied or implemented like a legal norm and thus primarily possesses a very strong moral and political force in guiding the organs of the UN in the exercise of their powers and functions. This interpretation is supported by the fact that self-determination is conceived in the text of Art. 1 (2) UN Charter as one among several possible ‘measures to strengthen universal peace’ and, in order to fulfil its instrumental function, must therefore be of a highly flexible nature.”
Liberace, budding invader and colonialist - WRONG! On every single point. Sorry, you have been misinformed. If what you say is true why has your country ran away every time you have been offered to have your claim tested in court.
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”the United Kingdom offered to take the dispute over the Falkland Island Dependencies to mediation at the International Court of Justice in The Hague (1947,[37] 1948[38] and 1955[39]). On each occasion Argentina declined.”
You have no rights and your country is a would be colonialist. Get lost..
As for VoiceofThink what you posted is totally irrelavent (as usual)
Hepatitis and Liberace
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why do you keep repeating myths, lies, and fairy stories? We need the facts here!
You are confused Voice.
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Art 1(2) outlines a general self-determination applicable (in theory) to all the peoples of the world.
I'm talking about the very specific right of self-determination made out by UN Resolutions for the peoples of the NSGTs. There is no confusion regarding that.
Do try to keep up.
101 Lord Ton....
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Haha... maybe I should have include the previous paragraphs so that you would understand which provisions and UN Charters it was referring to...
6 Ultimately, the provisions of the Atlantic Charter had a considerable influence on the work of the San Francisco Conference of 1945 where the concept of self-determination took shape and was incorporated into the United Nations Charter (‘UN Charter’). Art. 1 (2) UN Charter states that it is one of the purposes of the UN to ‘develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace’. In Chapter IX UN Charter on International Economic and Social Cooperation, Art. 55 UN Charter lists several goals the organization should promote in the spheres of economics, education, culture, and human rights with a view, as is noted in the introductory clause, ‘to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples’. The UN Charter also implicitly refers to the principle of self-determination in the part concerning colonies and other dependent territories. Art. 73 UN Charter affirms that:
(Art 73 is inserted here...not enough space to include...
7 Furthermore, Art. 76 (b) UN Charter provides that one of the basic objectives of the trusteeship system is to promote the ‘progressive development’ of the inhabitants of the trust territories towards ‘self-government or independence’, taking into account, inter alia, ‘the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned’ (see also United Nations Trusteeship System).
8 In trying to assess the legal significance...etc...
Do try to keep up....
@ 102 .. The islands have satisfied UN guidelines for evidence of self-governance and are no longer considered colonies. Except to Argentina, which has always been a little slow in understanding of the circumstances.
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0103
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah of course...that's why the UN have taken them off the NSGT list...
.....not
Both the UN and the Argentina can be a little slow.
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'In trying to assess the legal significance of these provisions it should not be assumed that the concept of self-determination became a legally binding principle of conventional international law by the mere fact of its incorporation into the UN Charter.'
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps not. But it has become a legally binding principle due to what has happened since: UN Conventions which are legally binding and UN Resolutions on self-determination, which in themselves are not legally binding, but by states putting into practice their provisions on self-determination, self-determination has become legally binding.
Do try to keep up with the chronology of the situation
'Yeah of course...that's why the UN have taken them off the NSGT list...'
Resolution 1541 gave 3 ways an NSGT can be decolonised
1)Independence
2)Integration with another state
3)Free Association with another state
Resolution 2625 added a 4th way
4)The emergence into any other status freely determined by the people
Now tell us in precisely what ways the UK's arrangement with its NSGTs doesn't comply with 4) and then tell us if its the UK that's not complying with its obligations or the C24 that's not complying with its obligation to recommend their removal.
“Both the UN and the Argentina can be a little slow.”
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marti, so can Willy VoiceofThink. Please note although he posts from Dunoon he is not one of ours…
So the Falkland Islands are a NSGT. Placed on that list voluntarily by the United Kingdom.
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And NSGTs are all eligible for independence.
So there's nothing about the current situation that gives any support to Argentina's sovereignty claim.
Voice, you once chose to deride the UK's rights to the Falkland Islands but now you do the same for Argentina. Your arguments seem to be veering to position that it is the Falkland Islanders that have all the power to do what they want.
104 Voice, Vestige, Think et al
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It matters not a jot whether “the UN have taken them off the NSGT list” or not, as that is simply ineffectual political posturing. As the central issue is legal, and both the UK and the Islanders have complied fully with all the requirements of international law. There is no legal compulsion for them to do anything more.
What are you wittering on about Voice? The matter is already settled. The UN recognise the right of the Kelpers to decide their own future. The ICJ recognises the right of all the peoples of the NSGTs to decide their own future. Self-determination for the peoples of the NSGTs is recognised as a right.
Dec 22nd, 2015 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nobody recognises Argentina's right to decide anything.
Delisting has not been requested by the UK. One day it will be.
Keep up lad.
#106 - nicely put DAB :-)
Argentina: mucho ruido, pocas nueces.
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0106
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are confused....
You are combining two entirely different resolutions...
1541 (XV). Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter
1541 Pertains to NSGT's....
2625 (XXV). Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
2625 Pertains to States and the people that constitute a State and the States obligations..
“The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.”
It then goes on to clarify the position of a States relationship with a colony.
“The territory of a colony or other Non-Self-Governing Territory has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles.”
I noticed you have omitted 1514 (XV)
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer ALL POWERS TO THE PEOPLES OF THOSE TERRITORIES, WITHOUT ANY CONDITIONS OR RESERVATIONS, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
That is all powers...not some powers....
Until that happens they will stay on the list...
It's time for Argentina to de-colonise Tierra del Fuego. Without any conditions or reservations.
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 03:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Voice
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 03:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0All powers..... “in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire”.
So the people decide which powers.
Have the people decided? Did the referendum decide this?
So glad you are arguing the British position now and not the Argentinean one.
Article 5 of 1514 is about those NSGTs that opt for independence because 1514 is about independence. The clue is in the title to the resolution. 1541 and 2625 add other ways in which an NSGT can be decolonised. It's obvious that those NSGTs that were removed on the grounds of integration, free association, or the emergence into any other status did not have all powers transferred to them.
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 05:27 am - Link - Report abuse 02625 covers both the rights and obligations of states and the rights of territories that don't form part of states, such as NSGTs. The clue is in the title to the section: 'The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples'. Not 'self-determination of peoples that form part of a state' 'All peoples have the right freely to determine ..... their political status' covers both the people of a state and the people of a territory that's not part of a state.
Something to think about Voice, on the issue of self-determination -
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 06:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/self-determination-points-to-ponder1.pdf
Self-determination of the people of NSGTs has been recognised as a right since 1952's Resolution 637 (VII).
In 1960, Resolution 1514 (XV) confirmed the right to self determination of “all peoples” and required, in the case of NSGTs, that Administering Powers; “ .. transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, … in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.”
Resolution 2200A (1966) required Administering Powers to; “ .. promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and .. respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter,” within NSGTs.
Resolution 2554 (XXIV) (1969) reaffirmed; “.. the inalienable right of the peoples of the colonial Territories to self-determination and independence ..”
Resolution 2625 (XXV) (1970) reaffirmed the right of all peoples to self determination and confirmed that a NSGT has; “.. a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate
and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter..”
In the Namibia case (1970), the International Court of Justice recognised that the principle of self- determination was applicable to ALL Non-Self Governing Territories.
At its Fourth Committee meeting in 2008, the UN rejected a draft-resolution which limited the right of NSGTs to self determination where there was a “sovereignty dispute.”
Every year, the UN's General Assembly confirms that there is “no alternative” to self-determination in decolonization cases.
Easy enough even for you. Possibly :-)
Sure, he's had his fun.
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 06:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0A month from now he'll make indignant goading remarks and start it all over again.
#92: Quote:“They did not 'administer' the islands, but they were a British presence that prevented Spain from “administering' the whole archipelago.”
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0So the sealers and whalers did not administer the islands. Well said Lorton. I disagree with the rest of what you said. The sealers and whalers did not prevented Spain from Administering the whole archipelago. In fact quite the contrary, the spanish Inspected Port Egmont, they saw it empty, they took also the british plaque, and destroyed the place. What more of an act of administration than that?. An act of war? Spain did not considered the british to have any right over the place.
#94: Everybody is a people and belongs to a people. I, for example, am part of the argentine people, i cant say im a chilean or uruguayan. The same to the islanders. They are british, most of them were born in britain or any of the other BOTs.
#95: Yeah chapter 11, for the most atrocities committed many were made following a general law. The illegal invasion of Iraq was made “acording to a law”. But what about all resolutions regarding the Malvinas?.
#116: Lordon, how many times the Malvinas situation was treated in the General Assembly and the Decolonization Committe?. How many times resolutions regarding the islands favoured self determination?.
There are too many colonies under british administration to have the c24 accused of corruption, or the UN accused of a useless body while the uk is a member of the security council.
Grow a pair, and end this dispute.
Whether you disagree or agree is irrelevant Liberace.
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Spanish act of taking the plaque was a minor criminal damage which they kept secret. The act of burning the fort down was an act of war - because Spain and England were at war. Two different occasions.
Most importantly - Argentina is NOT Spain. Spain did not protest in 1833 - the only country entitled to do so. And please, do not waste my time with the fantasy of an inheritance. It was not recognised in 1816, now 1820, nor 1825, not 1833. What Spain gave you, you got in 1863 and Spain did not have the Falklands to give.
What dispute? The matter is already settled.
Grow a pair, and end this dispute.
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0WAR War war
that will end the dispute,
Dispute, what dispute, their is no dispute only in the heads of indoctrinated argies.
But what IF, ah yes the dreaded IF...lol
Liberace - WRONG! On every single point. Sorry, you have been misinformed. If what you say is true why has your country ran away on the 3 seperate occasions Britain offered to have your claim tested in court.
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 01:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have no rights and your country is a would be colonialist. GIve the land back you stole from the Amerindians compensate them for the Genocide, go back to Europe and finally get lost..
Sound like a great idea.
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@118
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ most of them were born in britain or any of the other BOTs.”
The majority of Falkland Islanders were born in the Islands.
Those that have emigrated were not sent by Britain, Chile, St Helena , they chose to go there
#123
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are confusing him with the truth.
He has swallowed his country's propaganda hook, line and sinker and has no interest in any other point of view...even if it is the truth.
@121 Argentina: “ GIve the land [Tierra del Fuego] back you stole from the Amerindians compensate them for the Genocide, go back to [ Venado Tuerto] and finally get..... ”
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What abt Resolution 2065 A paragraph 3 section 2
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina can do what it wants, curtesy of the stupid UN.
silly people, everybody knows Argentina belongs to Spain...lol
#119: quote:“The Spanish act of taking the plaque was a minor criminal damage which they kept secret”
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Minor criminal damage?. Spain did not recognized british rights at all. And the destruction of Port Egmont and the plaque that was taken, was not made in secrecy. You do in secrecy if you are going to the neighbour living room to stole him the tv set. In your own house, you move your own tv or destroy your car in any way you want without having to advise anybody.
Why britain didnt protested for the destruction of Port Egmont?. If britain considered it an act of war, where were those fishermens you talk about to impede it?. The place was empty when the spanish inspected.
Britain is not France nor Spain. Britain did not discovered the islands, were not the first to settle the islands and not the first to claim the islands. Ergo, they have nothing to do there other than make a hidden settlement. Which they did.
#120: For you there is no dispute. For the UN, and Argentina there is a dispute.
#121: No offer were received by Argentina from Britain to settled in court the Malvinas Islands dispute. Ever. If you think the contrary, please feel free to name those offers.
quote:“You have no rights and your country is a would be colonialist.”
Would be, could be, will be...... Many possibilities while the only truth in this world, in this century, are the 10 territories under british colonialism. And that is no a would be.
The fact is, The falklanders freely voted to remain British full stop,
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has no claim to this.
#127
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We would happily let the Falklands be independent BUT the bully of Argentina invaded in 1982 with popular support and no doubt would do again if they could. So we have to keep them safe from a rather undesirable untrustworthy nation !
You also think that we should “decolonise” the few remaining territories against the will of the peoples who live there.
I can't think of any economic advantage accruing to the UK being responsible for these last vestiges of Empire.
If we divested ourselves of St.Helena or Tristan de Cuhna, would it make your life any better ? You haven't a clue about real life have you !
“ ”Britain is not France nor Spain. Britain did not discovered the islands, were not the first to settle the islands and not the first to claim the islands.“ ”
If we take this to your logical conclusion, Argentina did not exist until AFTER Britain reclaimed the islands. So that gives you NO rights whatsoever.
You took Patagonia by force, so return it to the native population.
Act your name, liberate them from the tyranny of Argentina. COLONIALIST !
Colonialist Liberace, Gordon told you - no further negotiations on sovereignty. Sovereignty was finally settled in 1982 , although it was established in the 1700's.. Three times you turned down the offer of the ICJ - say it all, Argentina is chicken because it has no case that will stand up in the only court that can decide. 99% of Falklanders want nothing to do with Argentina , kapish?
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stop trying to steal territory and give back the territory you stole from the Mapuche and compensate their dependents for the genocide celebrated on your 100 Peso note.
Every import into Argentina just got 30% more expensive. Worry about that and forget your lost cause.
Your Comment#128: quote:“The fact is, The falklanders freely voted to remain British full stop,”
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hahaha we have no doubt that british people will vote to remain british people. What we say is that that people is specifically british people and NOT a different people than british. What the uk is saying practically, is that they are a different people, which share british citizenship for its own choice. Its the excuse of not talking about sovereignty. “we are no longer governing Malvinas, there is another nation there!”. But when they have to “clean” an island to build a military base, their recognition of its own citizens turns out to be more dificult.
#127: quote1: “We would happily let the Falklands be independent...”
Yeah right, Argentina would happily let the argentine base in the antartic to declare self determination rights with their right to be associated to the Argentine republic incorporating the whole antartic continent, but i guess we lack of the experiance in colonialism of the british.
#130: Sovereignty was not settled in 1982. If you read the less basic of law, you will know that winning a war does not grant sovereignty rights. If it would do so, everynation would be invading everytime to everybody dont you think?.
There was no offer of the ICJ. You were fooled by the british propaganda. There was only one case in the ICJ against Argentina by the UK and it was not about Malvinas Islands. It was about Malvinas's dependencies (South Georgia, Sandwich) and Antartica.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=cc&case=26&code=uka&p3=9
Look at the map at this link shows the zone of british claim:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=cc&case=26&code=uka&p3=9
Liberace - the destruction of Egmont and the removal of the plate were not the same occasion. Why don't you idiot Malvinistas actually know any history?
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The plate was removed by Callejas on January 24th, 1776. The fort was destroyed between March 17th and March 25th, 1780. The only person to claim that the 2 events occurred on the same date was Luis Vernet in his report to the UN envoy baylies in 1832. You need to learn more.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/4-1775-to-1822.pdf
Britain did not protest, because protests are not made when you are at war. I would have thought that was obvious.
Actually England was the first recorded discoverer although the Portuguese undoubtedly saw the islands around 1505. England has also the first recorded claim in 1594. The word 'recorded' is important. Once again, you lack knowledge.
When you have read this lot you'll still only know half of the information I have :-)
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/4-1775-to-1822.pdf
Liberace, it was settled in 1982 , you got thrown out. Britain is certain of its sovereignty. There is no-one on earth that can do anything about it. The islanders reject Argentina, Britain protects them, nothing will change. If you attack again you wont get off so lightly. So it is settled. As for the claim on S Georgia and the other islands that is ludicrous. Macri has to do the silly dance for brainwashed fools like you, think about it. Peoples lives come before trade and Argentinian trade is peanuts, you obviously dont understand British people or how they think.
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah ok Britain is certain of its sovereignty you said?. Oh i didnt know that... Well if britain said they are certain of their sovereignty over Malvinas then it must be truth. Sorry to bother all this times with claims. I think that if the uk is certain, no judge is needed, why would the uk lie about it?.
Dec 23rd, 2015 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good luck.
154
Dec 24th, 2015 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0More to the point, why would Argentina lie about it?
#134
Dec 24th, 2015 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0The difference being that there are treaties covering the Antarctic and settling/claiming territories. Do you really think that your “settlement” gives you the right to claim the whole continent ? Of course you do. That's how you arrived and stopped in Patagonia. No more land on the S.American continent so we will move east and south to try it on there.
We stopped colonising decades ago and let these lands decide their own destiny EXCEPT for a few who are under direct threat from avaricious neighbours or are too small to fend for themselves.
If the Falklands wish to be incorporated into Argentina, arrange a vote supervised by the UN . The UK would not stand in their way if the result was to join with Argentina.
The direct opposite of this is Argentina who wish to colonise the Falklands and sub Antarctic islands against the direct wishes of the inhabitants...even the penguins prefer us !
@131
Dec 24th, 2015 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Yeah right, Argentina would happily let the argentine base in the antartic to declare self determination rights with their right to be associated to the Argentine republic incorporating the whole antartic continent, but i guess we lack of the experiance in colonialism of the british.”
Argentina signed the Antarctic Treaty that agrees that no further claim advances are made.
“What we say is that that people is specifically british people and NOT a different people ”
Which is wrong because Islanders are descended from South American , Scandinavian and German stock to name a few, other than of British origin.
You are still convinced that the Islanders and their ancestors are wholly British in origin, another of your myths.
” It was about Malvinas's dependencies (South Georgia, Sandwich) and Antartica. ”
But you claim them (with no record of occupation whatsoever) so why didn't you go to the ICJ.
The same reason you would not go to the ICJ over the Falklands-your claim is so weak it is hardly visible.
#132: Quote: “ Spain failed to extend its exercise of sovereignty over the whole archipelago because of those sealers and whalers. We also find HMS Nancy in 1813 arresting American sealers in the Islands.
Dec 24th, 2015 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain's dominance over the Falklands was recognised by France in 1801/02 when Joseph Bonaparte demanded an establishment on the islands”
Lets follow your theorie:
-Spain, inspected Port Egmont, there was no sealers, no whalers no administrator.
-They took the Plaque in secrecy, you claim they did not destroyed the settlement until 1780, ok.
-In 1780 the spanish destroyed the Port Egmont, in an act of “war”.
Now where the hell were the sealers and whalers administrators during this time????.
Frankly, ive never heard that the sealers and whalers administered Port Egmont in the first place, even looking into british sources. And secondly, never heard of them impeding the Spain to make sovereign acts.
#136: It was a comparison. Argentina ratified and respect the antartic treaty and claims what is already known it claims. IT would be as illegal as what the british did in Malvinas.
Quote:“We stopped colonising decades ago...”
Decades ago? So from decades ago you accuse Argentina of being colonialist? and at the same time you british call your self the defenders of self determination?.
Do you think Britain respect self determination?.
#137: Argentina do not claims the whole of the antartic continent. What im saying is that the scientifics that works in the Antartic, many times with their families, could said they form a different entity to those of Argentina and ask for a self determination rights to choose later an association with Argentina. ITs the same maneuver the british are making with islanders instead of talking of sovereignty with Argentina.
Quote:“Which is wrong because Islanders are descended from South American , Scandinavian and German stock to name a few, other than of British origin.”
Have you ever read their own census?.
It's Christmas give yourself and others a break...get drunk and enjoy the festive occasion. I am sure the Falkland Islanders will be doing this....as for the Malvinas, they will be as miserable as ever.
Dec 24th, 2015 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Merry Christmas Clyde.
Dec 24th, 2015 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I received a bottle of Glenmorangie 18 for Christmas, and an Aberlour a'bunadh Batch #52 - will enjoy those.
Jolly Holidays!
Liberace - your confusion is laughable.
Dec 24th, 2015 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The once a year (if that) check by the Spanish at Egmont was to ascertain whether the British had returned - Spain always knew we would. The sealers and whalers ignored the Spanish and operated with impunity thereby putting the lie to Argentina's ridiculous modern claim that Spain “administered” the islands effectively.
You've never heard? Then you haven't been asking the right questions.
I can recommend - Headland R. Chronological List of Antarctic Expeditions and Related Historical Events 1989 - for an excellent list of the whalers and sealers that operated around the Falklands from 1774 to 1825.
The 1771 accord was more enduring than some would like to give it credit for. France certainly recognised its existence with their claims for a base in the islands during the negotiation for the Treaty of amiens in 1801/02.
Britain in the west, Spain in the East.
So tell me - why did Spain never raise its flag over Fort George ?
Merry Christmas to everyone!
Dec 25th, 2015 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let's hope we all have a peaceful and prosperous New Year!
142 LEPRecon
Dec 25th, 2015 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cheers, good Sir !!
Best Wishes to you and the family!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!