MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands second commercial flight: “Damage from touchdown in Argentina”
The recent statement entitled ‘Progress made towards establishing a second commercial Falkland Islands air link’ released by the Falkland Islands Government has met with a mixed reception in the Islands. While some have expressed favor others have reservations and questions such as the current letter from Eric M Goss MBE publishes in the Penguin News. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesTWIMC...
Feb 26th, 2018 - 08:08 am - Link - Report abuse -12I normally avoid 2 WK analogies..., but..., I MUST SAY..., I luuuuuuuuuuuv these auld Engrish Kelper squatting Adolfs ..., ranting, tirading and raving in their lying philippics against us Argie Winstons and our Country...
They are doing a magnificent job...
Chuckle...chuckle..., rechuckle
Freedom of expression a problem for you Think?
Feb 26th, 2018 - 08:21 am - Link - Report abuse +7But of course, you are a 1st generation Malvinista.
Goood morning..., Rodge...
Feb 26th, 2018 - 08:29 am - Link - Report abuse -10Not a problem for me at all... I said I luuuuuuv it..., didn't I...? Is it a problem for you...?
I sincerely hope (but strongly doubt) that your little Bürgerbräukeller Kelper group succeed in fckucking the second commercial flight idea...
I have no opinion either way Think. None of my business as it's an internal matter for the Islanders to resolve. Glad to see that there is a lively debate though. Always a good thing in a real democracy.
Feb 26th, 2018 - 09:03 am - Link - Report abuse +7You are soooooo full of porkies...., me dear Engrish copper...
Feb 26th, 2018 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse -9Calling me as liar Think? You are in error. I have friends and contacts on both sides of the debate. Internal matters can only be decided by the Islanders. I shall watch with interest.
Feb 26th, 2018 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse +8Ain't you coppers allowed to tell porkies in the line of duty..., laddie...?
Feb 26th, 2018 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse -8Ain't you live mission for the last eight years been the Falklandist cause...?
Just adding 2+2 ...
Nothing personal..
Am I a supporter of the Islanders' rights? Yes. Does that give me the right to interfere in a local issue? No. Whichever way they decide I will continue to support their wishes. It's called self-determination Think. You may have to look that up.
Feb 26th, 2018 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse +6Self-determination is for “Peoples”..., laddie...
Feb 26th, 2018 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse -8Not for British militarily backed British Individual Citizens..., squatting Britishly in the antipodes of the British Heartland...
The Islanders were recognised as a 'people' in 1952 Think, and by the C24 in 1982. You may need to read more.
Feb 26th, 2018 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse +6Link?
Feb 26th, 2018 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse -8Falkland Islanders – A People (single page):-
Feb 26th, 2018 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse +4https://www.academia.edu/34442484/Falkland_Islanders_-A_People
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/567(VI)
Feb 26th, 2018 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse +9UN Resolution 567 (VI) adopts the factors to be taken into consideration in deciding whether; “... any territory is, or is not, a territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of selfgovernment.”
The Annex to the Resolution lists these factors and states; “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.”
There had been no people, then the territory could not be listed as a NSGT for the purposes of decolonization.
As for the C24, please see the UN records for August 19th when two members of the Falkland Islands' Legislative Assembly, John Cheek and Anthony Blake, arrived at the UN's Special Committee on Decolonization meeting in New York to represent the Falkland Islands' people. Venezuela, Cuba and Czechoslovakia objected, claiming that, as petitioners, they first had to be approved by the Sub-Committee on Petitions. Australia remind the Committee of Resolution 1466 (XIV) of 1959 which promoted the participation of representatives of the NSGTs in the work of the Committee. However, Chairman Abdulah of Trinidad and Tobago gave his decision.
“I am not going to ask members of the Secretariat to read General Assembly resolution 1466 (XIV), although I shall refer to it. I would point out that these two gentlemen are not here as petitioners; they are here as representatives of the people of the Territory which we are about to consider. Therefore, the question of referring any requests to the Sub-Committee on Petitions, Information and Assistance does not arise. That is the practice, has been the practice, and, I hope, will continue to be the practice in this Committee.”
Look it up old man.
Geeeeeeeee....
Feb 26th, 2018 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse -9A group of British militarily backed British Individual Citizens..., squatting Britishly in the antipodes of the British Heartland..., calling themselves a “People” in front of the United Nations...?
Is that it..., laddie...?
Please try again...
If there was no 'people' (for example South Georgia) then the territory could not be listed as a NSGT for the purposes of decolonization (for example South Georgia). Easy enough even for an old, 1st generation, Malvinista to grasp.
Feb 26th, 2018 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse +8And they are not squatters but owners. It was Argentina that was trespassing in 1833 and 1982. Kicked off twice for it in fact.
I don't have to 'try again' - job done. It's in the record. Feel free to break your indoctrination and go do some research :-)
Rodge..., Rodge...
Feb 26th, 2018 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse -10A group of British militarily backed British Individual Citizens..., squatting Britishly in the antipodes of the British Heartland..., calling themselves a “People” in front of the United Nations........
Amout for you as if...:
“The Islanders were recognised as a 'people' in 1952 and by the C24 in 1982.”
And it is “me” that has to do some Research...?
Chuckle..., chuckle...
The 1952 resolution is clear. If there aint a 'people' then there aint a NSGT. Now, are you telling me that the UN has not got the Falklands listed as a NSGT?
Feb 26th, 2018 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse +9Are you losing reason too Think?
Don't get semantic at me..., laddie...
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse -9Ya know that Engrish is just one of the official languages of the ONU (UN)...
Ya know that in Engrish... the terms “people” and “population” are interchangeable...
Ya know that in all other official UN languages the correct term...“population” has been used...
In short...
Ya know that the UN has NOT RECOGNIZED THEM KELPERS AS A “PEOPLE”...
Ya could try reading the 1952 resolution in French..., German or Spanish..., laddie...
I'm not getting semantic on you Think, I'm getting legal on you. Words are important, in any language. People = People. It's plain enough even for you. Argue all you like, but while the Falklands are listed as an NSGT, then the Falklands have a 'People.' If the UN had decided that the Islanders were not a 'People' then, as some of the chairpersons have stated, the Falklands would have to be delisted.
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse +9End of....... ;-)
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/153
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse +5O'really
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse -8Words are important, in any language...., huhhh?...:
The UN 1952 Resolution in French reads...: “Population”... not...: “Peuple”...
The UN 1952 Resolution in German reads...: “Befölkerung”... not...: “Folk”...
The UN 1952 Resolution in Spanish reads...: “Población”... not...: “Pueblo”...
Why do you THINK they did that...?
Poor old Twinkle, pwned again. Must hurt…
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse +7Argentina will finally twig they cant colonise the Falkland Islands within 25 years... ;-)
And what does Res 1514 say in those languages Think? Or 2625?
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse +7Uuuups...
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse -8Changing Resolutions when your own..., personally picked 1952 got uncomfortable..., laddie...?
The United Nations International Court of Justice (UNICJ) General Report 1971 (page 31) states the following:- ”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”.
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse +8I repeat - both the UN and the UNICJ proclaim that the principle of self-determination, under the UN Charter and Article One of the UN Covenant of Human Rights, applies to ALL non-self-governing territories.
Nope. What were the official languages in 1952 Think? And why didn't the English language version use population?
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse +7https://www.un.org/press/en/2012/gashc4051.doc.htm
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse +7I believe that Think's research is very useful .... for proving that the term 'people' and 'population' are interchangeable ..... an argument I have heard before :-)
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse +8If I remember correctly... the absolute first language at the ONU IN 1952 was French...
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse -9And they used the absolutely unambiguous French word...: “Population”..., NOT “Peuple”...
You will have to ask them Engrish diplomats why they chose the quite ambiguous Engrish word...: “People”
I have a theory about their reason.., but contrary to you..., laddie I don't present it as a fact...
There were two official languages in 1952 Think - English and French. And the English diplomats didn't write the resolution, that was the job of the multi-national registry.
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse +9That you've shown the words 'people'and 'population' to be so interchangeable is, however, rather important, I think :-)
Interchangeable only in Engrish... Laddie...
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse -8All other ONU official laguages perfecly correct that Engrish incorrect anbiguity...
There were only two official languages in 1952 Think. So, if not interchangeable terms, why would it be the English language one that is incorrect?
Feb 26th, 2018 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +9@Think
Feb 26th, 2018 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +9“The UN 1952 Resolution in French reads...: “Population”..
'Population' must refer to people, unless the population described, is of a non human life form.
Next question, were any of the 'population' born on the territory in question? If yes:
Next question, have there been several generations of that 'population' born on the location in question?
If the answers are yes, then @ Stoker applies:
”The United Nations International Court of Justice (UNICJ) General Report 1971 (page 31) states the following:- ”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”.
I repeat - both the UN and the UNICJ proclaim that the principle of self-determination, under the UN Charter and Article One of the UN Covenant of Human Rights, applies to ALL non-self-governing territories.”
Thanks Stoker, bang on, you have just helped another British people seeking self determination with their submission to the ICJ........ ;-)
You are again geting semantic at me..., laddie...
Feb 26th, 2018 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -10As the French version clearly shows... the desired term to use was...: “POPULATION”...
I suspect the responsible Brit for the choosing of the Engrish wording to be a Scot...
He obviously chose “PEOPLE” over “POPULATION”.... to cheesepare some letters...;-)
There has long been an argument that the terms “people/population” were always used by the UN in such a way as to be interchangeable and that the rights of a 'people' were also right appertaining to a 'population.' It has been Argentina that has argued against this trying to keep the two terms separate. The issue of differing translations is intriguing and I should thank Think for raising it.
Feb 26th, 2018 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +8I shall look into the various translations. Could be interesting.
You are of course quite correct PB, the ICJ did hold that the rights of self determination were applicable to ALL the NSGTs. The ICJ still use French and English ..... suppose I'd better check that out too ;-)
I seem to recall I have heard that “they are not people so they have no rights” argument somewhere before......
Feb 26th, 2018 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +8Where was it now.......?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Reich_Citizenship_Law
TWIMC...
Feb 26th, 2018 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -9Three quite different unambiguous Frog words ...:
Les gens...
La population...
Le peuple...
Ambiguously translatable to Engrish as..:
The people...
The people...
The people...
Educate yourself..., Engrishmen...
“Not all of those, who appear human are in fact so.”
Feb 26th, 2018 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +8Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/deruntermensch.html
Two versions of a single resolution Think and yet you presume to know that the original was in French. How biased of you. Perhaps the ambiguity was deliberate on the UN's part? Fudge is so often the way of politics.
Feb 26th, 2018 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +7Of course, the only way to be sure would be to approach the ICJ, but Argentina won't do that ..... will it?
TWIMC...
Feb 26th, 2018 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -8Three quite different unambiguous Spaghetti words ...:
La gente...
La populazione...
Il popolo...
Three quite different unambiguous Dago words ...:
La gente...
La población...
EL pueblo...
Four quite different unambiguous Kraut words ...:
Der Mensch...
Die Leute...
Die Befölkerung...
Das Folk...
All of them ambiguously translatable to Engrish as..:
The people...
The people...
The people...
The people
Educate yourself..., Engrishmen...
Only 2 official languages in 1952 Think, or did you forget that already?
Feb 26th, 2018 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +9https://www.falklands.gov.fk/headline-results-of-2012-falkland-islands-census-released/
Feb 26th, 2018 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +8“The census shows that 59 per cent of residents consider their national identity to be ‘Falkland Islander’. 29 per cent consider themselves British; 9.8 per cent St Helenian, and 5.4 per cent Chilean.”
Are they all “untermenchen” (ie “not people”) Think?...or only the 59% who consider themselves to be “Falkland Islander”?
We play this one with your crooked rules..., laddie and then..., I'm off fishing...
Feb 26th, 2018 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -10Frog unambiguous word used in 1952... “POPULATION” = Precisely 100% certainity of meaning...
Engrish ambiguous word used in 1952...: “PEOPLE” = About 50% certainity of meaning...
And the winner is...: E_ T _ _ _ k
.......so in Think's warped version of the Nuremberg Laws a “people” (eg ethnic Italians who call themselves “Argies”) can have rights but a “population” (eg ethnic Brits who call themselves “Falkland Islander”) can have no rights........
Feb 26th, 2018 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +9People means people Think. We know what that means. It means the Falkland Islanders - and the people of every other colony listed as an NSGT back in the day. It has been Argentina (and Spain) that argued the term. Not the British.
Feb 26th, 2018 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +9Careful watch you catch old man
Dont fall in! (Yesss please do…..)
Feb 26th, 2018 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +9Think
Feb 26th, 2018 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +5“Frog words” - what a racist remark! Shows your ignorance and nastiness!
@Think
Feb 26th, 2018 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -4What is supposed to be the big difference between people and population in French? Those words certainly are not interchangeable in English, or did you think it would be acceptable to say ”The village has a large people of old population?
Gooooooooooood boy....
Feb 26th, 2018 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -6You are sooo right..., sooo right...
As unacceptable as saying...:
”The Falkland/Malvinas have a small people of Engrish population...
Any Anglo Turnip should know that the right way of using those words is...:
”The Falkland/Malvinas have a small population of Engrish people...
Thanks for clarifying that central point to them..
Still making assumptions Think. I shall attempt to discover which of the two official languages the draft of 567 was submitted in and/or who sponsored it. That would be very revealing. Finding it in the UN's bloody awful records system however, will be a major pain. Such is the way of it.
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +4I did note that when I asked for a French translation of 'people' 'population' was one of the options. I'm no French expert though, so I'll ask a linguist.
Exactly Twinkle, Mt Pleasant is where the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish are. The Falkland Islanders are in Stanley and the Camp, generations of them.
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +7Two squatter invasions failed the first in 1833 which lasted only a few months and the second in 1982 when the British forces sent them packing.
Nobody seems to have mentioned Unesco's definition of a 'people' so I'll add it:-
Feb 26th, 2018 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +3The UNESCO International Meeting of Experts for the Elucidation of the Study of the Concepts of Right of Peoples, in 1989, provided a detailed and standard description of “people”.
According to the description which is some times referred to as the “Justice Kirby definition”, a ‘people’ is:
“a group of individual human beings who enjoy some or all of the following common features:
(a) a common historical tradition;
(b) a racial or ethnic identity;
(c) cultural homogeneity;
(d) linguistic unity;
(e) religious or ideological affinity;
(f) territorial connection;
(g) common economic life.
All seven of which, (with the possible exception of item (b)) clearly apply to the Falkland Islanders
In addition to the above description, the UNESCO Experts added that: “the group must be of a certain number which need not be large…but which must be more than a mere association of individuals within a state”; the group as whole must have the will to be identified as a people or the consciousness of being a people…”; and “the group must have institutions or other means of expressing its common characteristics and will for identity.”
Again, this clearly applies to the Falkland Islanders
darragh - also known as the Kirby definition, it is the closest that the UN has ever got to defining the term. Obviously, it does not suit the Malvinistas who go to great lengths to denigrate it.
Feb 27th, 2018 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse +2There is no real doubt outside of Argentina that the Islanders are a people. If they weren't, then the UN would never have listed the territory for decolonization.
“Malvinas son Argentinas”????.......as unacceptable as saying “Danzig ist Deutsch”......unless you happen to Think like a fascist
Feb 27th, 2018 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse +2http://img-3.onedio.com/img/2r0/54f197eae1684b6103e9dc17.jpg
Think
Feb 27th, 2018 - 01:18 am - Link - Report abuse +3“Gooooooooooood boy....
You are sooo right..., sooo right...”
DT
As Master Think says,
Good doggy!
@Think
Feb 27th, 2018 - 06:17 am - Link - Report abuse -1So then either the UN did not care about making a distinction when drafting that resolution, or they used 'people' deliberately.
It's an inherently fuzzy definition, anyway. When did Canadians or Australians stop being British? Are Catalonians a people or are they Spanish? Or both? Some would like to say all Latin Americans are one people - that Patria Grande idea. If you believe the Scots are not English then you cannot reasonably say the Falklanders are.
@Kanye
Fuck off back to your drawer, sock puppet.
Jesus Christ Twinkle, get a life, why not take up knitting or crochet or something similar. You are a contrarian aren't you. If he says this I will say that. Grow a pair.
Feb 27th, 2018 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse +2Whatever any non Malvinista says Twinkle and any other brainwashed colonialist Nazi Malvinista turnip is never going to agree with you. Thus its pointless argueing with them. They have no legal claim to the Falkland Islands and the sovereignty of the islands is never going to change. Thats all that matters. Keep calm and carry on.
Feb 27th, 2018 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse +3It is nice to watch Think squirm though… he's just a serial loser.
UNESCO is not the UN it does not represent the UN the US and the UK are not part of it, they abandoned that useless talking shop and do not subscribe to it...
Feb 27th, 2018 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse -3So... has anyone discovered whether the first draft of the resolution was in French or English, it is an interesting point...
Think
Feb 27th, 2018 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse +4'useless talking shop' - oh you mean like the so-called 'UN Special Committee on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples' that you Argentines are so fond of or that other paragon of right and wrong the UNGA or the OAS or Mercosur etc.
Who or what does represent the UN other than the Security Council and the ICJ?. You'll remember the ICJ it's that organisation that Argentina is afraid to take it's case to.
If you can't even get my name right...it is not surprising that you don't understand the difference between the UN and UNESCO...
Feb 27th, 2018 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse -2Mr. Roger Lorton...
Feb 27th, 2018 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse -3A couple of slight necessary amendmends **(between brackets)** to remedy your semantic misunderstanding on your above post due surely to your understandable confusion provoked undoubtly by the desorienting multiplicity of uses of the word... “PEOPLE”... in the Engrish language...:
”There is no real doubt outside (OR INSIDE) of Argentina that the Islanders are a (POPULATION). If they weren't, then the UN would never have listed the territory for decolonization.“
You are welcome...
El Think
Mr. Voice...
Don't expect much from Mr. Lortons ”Linguistic Research”...
It is extremly monolingual..., and fkuckingly biased..., pardon my French...;-)
As some Yank said to me “What part of England is Scotland in? ”
Feb 27th, 2018 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse +4UN, UNESCO, people, population, porridge, sausages, horsemeat…. Its all irrelavent, nothing will change. As Clyde said “put Simon Weston on the TV and any Argentine claim is dead in the water”
If you can't even get is name right..., Paddy..., it is not surprising that you don't understand the difference between the UN and UNESCO...
Feb 27th, 2018 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse -4;-)
Well surely if the UN do not accept that the inhabitants of the Falklands are not a 'people', it should be easy for Think and Voice to produce the GA Document/ resolution that states the only NSGT on the list of the 17 that are not a 'people' are the Falklands.
Feb 27th, 2018 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse +6Every time the UN (including the C24 produce a general document mentioning the rights of the peoples of the NSGT's to self determination etc, they must clearly be lying or making a mistake.
I have never seen a GA document that specifically singles out the Falklands as being different to the other 16 NSGT's. The draft resolutions produced by the C24 use the words population, inhabitants and people interchangeably in their use. This doesn't just apply to Falklands.
So if the Falklands are different from the other 16 NSGT's, it would be made very clear by the GA that this is the case. If however it is only the C24 that makes the distinction in their draft resolutions that are not adopted, well that says all we need to know....
As I said, Mr. Think, outside Argentina the Islanders are recognised as a people. What else could they be? Even the notoriously pro-Argentine South Atlantic Counsel now recognise them as a people with the right of self-determination. Only Argentina persists in the fantasy - supported for political purposes by its nearest neighbours (who don't actually believe it).
Feb 27th, 2018 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Voice - I'm away from home at the moment, but should be back tomorrow or the day after. I'll start digging then. It makes no sense for their to be two differing resolutions with the same number and issued by the same people with incompatible terms. There must be a reason. I'll do my very best to find it.
I'll also send the two versions of resolution 567 to a linguist I know of. And, even further, I'm going to trawl through some other resolutions - 1514/2625 etc - to see if there are similar translation differences. I'm intrigued and, today, after her first 18 months, I've handed my grand-daughter back to her parents, so I'll have plenty of time on my hands, particularly if the wife does as much baby-sitting as she's talking about.
You have roused me Mr. Think, I should thank you. :-)
Mr. Lorton...
Feb 27th, 2018 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -4You say...:
***“ It makes no sense for their to be two differing resolutions with the same number and issued by the same people with incompatible terms. There must be a reason. ”***
I say...:
Of course It makes no sense for their to be two differing resolutions with the same number and issued by the same people with incompatible terms....
That's why..., there ain't no two differing resolutions with the same number and issued by the same people with incompatible terms...
The French and the Engrish language resolutions with the same number and issued by the same people are quite identical..., if only one utilizes the intended Engrish “POPULATION” understanding of the Engrish “PEOPLE” word...
As the French version most clearly shows..., by utilizing the French “POPULATION” word..., quite different from the French “PEUPLE” word...
Capisce now...?
Nice try Think, but no Banana.
Feb 27th, 2018 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +4In English, a people is a people and a population is a population. A people has the right of self-determination. Perhaps a population does too?
You worried Think? Sounds like it, but fear not, I'll do what I do and will report back. I won't let you down.
:-)
The people of the Falkland Islands and the people of the UK say that all this academic chit chat is irrelavent., and it is, just like Malvinistas and their acolytes.
Feb 27th, 2018 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Mr. Lorton...
Feb 27th, 2018 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -4You say...:
***“I'll do what I do and will report back. I won't let you down.”***
I say...:
That will surely make “the people” from the Falkland Islands Association (FIA) very happy...
That will surely make “the people” from Merco Press and Penguin Press very happy...
That will surely make “the people” reading your biased material very happy...
BTW... My regards to all “your people”..., specially to that sweet 18 months grand-daughter of yours that has done her very best kept you away from your evil South Atlantic Pirate designs ;-)
Chuckle..., chuckle
Biased? I've said it before, but I repeat ... Let me know of anything you believe I've missed.
Feb 27th, 2018 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +4The truth will out ..................... scary, isn't it?
Yet for all this talk of 'people' or 'population', whatever the outcome, it doesn't detract from the fact that all the 17 NSGT's are afforded the same rights under the UN, there ore no special cases or exceptions which single out the sue of the words....
Feb 27th, 2018 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +5As an aside maybe someone could explain why the 'Report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for 2015' uses the words 'people of the territory' and 'Population' to describe the Pitcairn Islands (implanted population, ) and uses on the word 'population' to describe St Helena's inhabitants (implanted), but yet, they are both included in the 17NSGT's and I do not see anyone suggesting the inhabitants of St Helena are not entitled to Self Determination.
There is no UN resolution that says that 'implanted' peoples/populations don't have the right of self-determination. Whatever 'implanted' means, they are not excluded. There are no exclusions.
Feb 27th, 2018 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Think/Voice and other aliases.
Feb 27th, 2018 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +4No, I got his name right. Just because you are unable to remember who you are pretending to be is your problem not mine.
Yes I realise you only call me 'Paddy' to try and get a rise out of me but then that is what you (and all your aliases) get paid for isn't it?
Just demonstrating your ignorance as per usual.
Indeed. “universal and inalienable” means no exclusions.
Feb 27th, 2018 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +4https://developmenteducation.ie/media/documents/human-rights/Sheet-1-Universal-indivisible-and-inalienable.pdf
Think/Voice etc
Feb 27th, 2018 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +4I forgot to mention that according to UNESCO's web site
https://en.unesco.org/
the UK and the USA are members...so wrong again eh.
Your orcs really aren't fit for purpose I'd get rid of them if I were you, they just make you look more idiotic every day.
Yet certain people would have us believe that there are exceptions without supplying any evidence to back up that claim, while ignoring all the evidence that supports the opposite....
Feb 27th, 2018 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +3I guess some people fail to note where their intelligence ends and their ignorance begins...
TWIMC...
Feb 27th, 2018 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Here Think typing...
Not Mr. Voice typing...
Nor nobody else typing...
Just humble Mr. Think typing...
A controversy seems to have risen betveen a Scottish resident and a Paddy native about the membership or not of a couple of namegiven Countries at the UNESCO...
Both honourable gentlemen are half right...
Fact is that the UK still is a full paying member of UNESCO...
The Yanks ain't no more..., no they ain't...:
https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/10/274748.htm
“One more time for Prince Knud”..., as they say in a small, nice, flat Scandi Country...:
Here is Think typing...
NOT Mr. Voice typing...
Nor nobody else typing...
Just humble Mr. Think typing...
CAPISCE...?
Neither the UK nor the US were members when this piece of nonsense was written...that would be 1989 they left in 1984 and 1985...so it could hardly be deemed representative of the United Nations...who drafted it an Aussie...?
Feb 27th, 2018 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -4The Labour party rejoined in 1997 and the US rejoined in 2003...
The US has given notice to quit again end of this year...
”Yes I realise you only call me 'Paddy' to try and get a rise out of me but then that is what you (and all your aliases) get paid for isn't it?”
btw. It was Mr. Think that called you Paddy...Paddy...
I think it's your wife's responsibility to get a rise out of you...not ours...
Twinkle, give it a rest , you are on here 24/7. Go back to knitting.
Feb 27th, 2018 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +4'....Self-determination is for “Peoples”..., laddie...
Feb 27th, 2018 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Not for British militarily backed British Individual Citizens..., squatting Britishly in the antipodes of the British Heartland...'
and
'..Ya know that the UN has NOT RECOGNIZED THEM KELPERS AS A “PEOPLE”....
Links please...
Link please laddie......
You got me there..., Mr. Voice...
Feb 27th, 2018 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -5I didn't check thoroughly enough...
My most sincere apologies for my inexcusable mistake...
I guess that make you 100% right and the Paddy 100% wrong..., then...;-)
Nah. Voice said “the US and the UK ARE not part of it”, so he is wrong and Darragh is right. What difference does it make whether either were members at the time? Just proves that the definition of 'a people' was not due to the UK's influence.
Feb 27th, 2018 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -2More importantly it was not due to the worlds only super power...
Feb 27th, 2018 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Whether you like to admit it or not...without the US there is no UN...
So essentially a bunch of nobodies with no influence wrote an ideal that is not international law...big deal...
“So essentially a bunch of nobodies with no influence...”
Feb 27th, 2018 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Like the C24?
No links then eh.....there's a surprise.....
Feb 27th, 2018 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +7Typical MO from Think, opinions not facts....
Voice, good summary, bit like the C24 a bunch of nobodies with no influence write draft resolutions that have no basis in international law and little basis in fact.....big deal.
How very strange two similar replies that appear to suggest that I in some way support the C24...
Feb 27th, 2018 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -7I don't... it is a waste of time and money...the US still have colonies and the UK still have colonies by any other name, still governed with a Governor and all the pomp and circumstance that goes with it...welcome to the 21st Century......not
...big deal
Australia and New Zealand also have Governors. Are you suggesting that they are still colonies Voice?
Feb 27th, 2018 - 11:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +5(susurrus) psst..., mr. voice...
Feb 27th, 2018 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -6(whisper) i think that they appear to suggest that you in some way support the C24 because they believe you to be me...,
(purr) chuckle...,chuckle...
Age appears to be reducing your brain to jelly Think
Feb 28th, 2018 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse +5Different thing altogether the governor-general is the independent, personal representative of the New Zealand monarch...
Feb 28th, 2018 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse -5It just so happens that the New Zealand Monarch is the same as the UK's
The UK Govt has no power over New Zealand...
psst....mr. think...
(sotto voce) i have no idea why they would think that...;-)
I luuuuuuuuuuv jelly...,
Feb 28th, 2018 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse -4Me favourite being the Berry Blue Jell-O Yankee brand...
Resolution 567 says 'pueblo' in Spanish
Feb 28th, 2018 - 05:13 am - Link - Report abuse +1Pueblo as in 'Town' ? .......... gets better and better.
Feb 28th, 2018 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse +3Mr. dab14763...
Feb 28th, 2018 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse -4Resolution 567 says 'pueblo' in Spanish...... 1(one) time...
Resolution 567 says 'poblacion' in Spanish...... 6(six) times...
Resolution 567 says 'habitantes' in Spanish...... 6(six) times...
Mr. Roger Lorton...
Resolution 567 in French doesn't use the word 'peuple'... Not even once...
Resolution 567 in French only uses the words 'habitants' and 'population' throughout...
Not the best of bases for your wishful thinking about Resolution 567 recognizing them Engrish squatters in Malvinas as...: *** “A People” ***
Dont you THINK...?
The Falkland Islands have been listed by the UN as a non self governing territory (NSGT) and the judicial arm of the UN - the International Court of Justice - have confirmed that all NSGTs have the right to self-determination under the UN Charter and Article One of the UN Covenant of Human Rights.
Feb 28th, 2018 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse +4Seems clear don't you Think? ;-D
Squirming, old man?
Feb 28th, 2018 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse +3Let us be specific Think. The important bit is paragraph 1 of the Annex, which I quoted way above and, in English, says - “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.”
In Spanish, as Dab rightly says, the same paragraph says - ”Los territorios a los que se aplica Capitulo XI de la Carta son aquellos cuyos pueblos no han alcanzado todavia la plenitud del gobierno propio.“
Google translates that as - ”The territories to which Chapter XI of the Charter applies are those whose peoples have not yet attained the fullness of their own government.”
I seem likely to have some fun with this. :-)
Voice. Why don't the UK Gov have any power over New Zealand? Possibly because they are independent? So why does the UK Gov retain some power over the Falklands? Possibly because they are not?
TWIMC
Feb 28th, 2018 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse -3.......... and another arm of the United Nations..., the C24..., has declared the Falkland/Malvinas issue to be a...: “Special and Particular Case”..., subject to further separate study and analysis..., as clearly stated in Resolution 567 from 1952...
Capisce...?
.......and which arm of the UN has legal jurisdiction over sovereignty disputes.......the ICJ or the C24?*
Feb 28th, 2018 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse +3Don't worry......I know which ;-D
Link Think?
Feb 28th, 2018 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse +2I'm back home by the way. Quick scan shows that we were both wrong and that, in addition to French & English, Spanish was added as a working language by the UN in December 1948.
I'll get into the 1952 Yearbook later, but the section starts on page 559 of that Yearbook should you wish to give it a go.
Love to see you squirm Think .... ;-)
Rodge...laddie...
Feb 28th, 2018 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse -3You, and only you were wrong...
Please do not include me in your wishful dreaming...
You, and only you said that the two only ONU working languages were French and Engrish...
Reminder. Mercopress rules
Feb 28th, 2018 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse +3Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Comments must be in English.
Not Engrish! No Spaniard gabble allowed..
You thought it was just French ... it's all above, but thank you for giving me the opportunity to get back in. First an apology as the 1952 Yearbook promptly referred me to the 1951 Yearbook because the session overlaps the New Year.
Feb 28th, 2018 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse +3Following a lot of discussion and, mostly, disagreement, the draft of resolution 567 was submitted to the General Assembly by a sub-Committee comprising Australia, Cuba, Denmark, France, Guatemala, Iraq, the United States and Venezuela. The language used in the submission was not noted but could only be one of the 3 working languages, two of which use the word 'people/pueblo.' The French word for population can, I'm told, also be translated as 'people' in this particular context.
The draft resolution proposed by the Committee was adopted by the General Assembly
at its 361st plenary meeting on 18 January without further discussion, by 46 votes to none, with 7 abstentions, as resolution 567(VI).
So, I feel confident that I can restate my original point which was that the UN recognised the Falkland Islanders as a 'people' back in 1952. No 'people' equals no NSGT.
Capisce?
;-)
Rodge..., laddie...
Feb 28th, 2018 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse -3You asked me quite early on the thread...:
***“What were the official languages in 1952 Think?”***
I answered (correctly) from the top of my mind...:
***“ If I remember correctly... the absolute first language at the ONU IN 1952 was French...”***
As it factually was...
ANYBODY that was SOMEBODY at the ONU spoke French during the forties..., fifties and sixties... Including them Engrish...
You immediately replied twice (wrongly)... that...:
***“There were only two official languages in 1952, Think”***
For your kind info..., there has always been five (5) official languages at the ONU since 1945... I believe them to be six(6) today...
I THINK your problem is that you are...,again and again..., confused by words...:
OFFICIAL ONU LANGUAGES
AND
WORKING ONU LANGUAGES
AIN'T THE SAME..., LADDIE
Educate yourself...
(And..., if your memory continues to fail you..., you can always read above what you previously wrote
Think: I do not believe you are the same person as Voice, he at least backs up his assertions with facts
Feb 28th, 2018 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse +3Voice: My post does not suggest anything further than using your own summary as a basis to summarize the C24, whether you support the work of the C24 is your affair, for me it really is.... no big deal.
Again Think - no Banana, English & French from the off (it wasn't the 19th century) and yes there were 'official' and 'working' and no, it doesn't change the fact that the Islanders were recognised as a 'people' by the UN in 1952.
Feb 28th, 2018 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse +4Love that squirming, old man. Like a fish, on a hook ;-)
Funny..., young man...
Feb 28th, 2018 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse -4From my point of view..., it's you looking ”like a fish, on a hook ;-)
None so blind ........
Feb 28th, 2018 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse +4Hook, line & sinker Think ......... squirm away Jajajajaja
But the point being has Think provided any facts to support his original opinion that the UN does not recognise the Islanders as a people......
Feb 28th, 2018 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse +7All he has done is taken the post off in a different direction so he can side-step his lies and uninformed opinions....
Nice try though, but where are the links.....
“Jajajajaja”....?
Feb 28th, 2018 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse -6Goooooooooood boy...
You finally learned some Spanish...lad... ;-)
Careful Roger, you'll have Kanye accusing you of being Think's sockpuppet if you carry on like that.
Feb 28th, 2018 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -6And so it says 'pueblo' in Spanish, which unlike English is ever so clear and unambiguous according to Think. Ooooops. :)
Does anyone know if Think was born stupid or if his stupidity is the result of an intense study?
Mar 03rd, 2018 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse +4The official title of the decolonisation committee is:
“The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial countries and peoples.” [1]
Thus: If the Falkland Islands belongs under this committee, then the committee acknowledges the Falkland Islanders as a people.
[1] http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/specialcommittee.shtml
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Mar 04th, 2018 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You don’t know how to reason and instead rely solely on argument from authority” Merely your unsupported sophistry.
“AN ASSERTION IS A STATEMENT OFFERED AS A CONCLUSION WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. SINCE AN ARGUMENT IS DEFINED AS A LOGICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREMISE AND CONCLUSION, A SIMPLE ASSERTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.”
Ignoring the Burden of Proof h ttp://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm
“THE ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY IS SOMETIMES MISTAKENLY CONFUSED WITH THE CITATION OF REFERENCES, WHEN DONE TO PROVIDE PUBLISHED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE POINT THE ADVOCATE IS TRYING TO MAKE. IN THESE CASES, THE ADVOCATE IS NOT JUST APPEALING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE AUTHOR, BUT PROVIDING THE SOURCE OF EVIDENCE SO THAT READERS CAN CHECK THE EVIDENCE THEMSELVES IF THEY WISH. SUCH CITATIONS OF EVIDENCE ARE NOT ONLY ACCEPTABLE REASONING, BUT ARE NECESSARY TO AVOID PLAGIARISM.”
https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/argument-from-authority/
What I'm correctly doing is 'Deferring To An Authority On The Issue'
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!