Port security.
Steve
with passports and ID cards at the ready we proceeded to the security
post to gain access to the port.
We were told that because we did not have a fishing rod with us we
could not enter even though we had gib ID cards with us.
He's the best bit
The security Guard then when on to say that there was aprox 50
Spaniards and fishing up at the mole,
So Lets get this right.
If you're a Gibraltar resident you can't go up the mole for a walk,
but you can if you have a fishing rod with you.
If your anyone else with a passport and a fishing rod then you and
spend as much time as you like.
The whole point of having a security post is to reduce the risk of
anything happening in the port .
This just another case of the government reducing access to more parts
of Gibraltar to us!
My point to all this is, the Spaniards have no right to be up there.
In-fact anyone who does no reside in Gibraltar unless they have came
via a cruse liner have no access. A 2 tier annual marine license, 1 for
Local and 1 for non-residents should be introduced. This would limit
the amount people who would have access.
Ken
"Steve" <st...@gibraltarian.net> wrote in message
news:1119374232.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Agree to a great extent, just the terms of permits I would take issue with.
I would go further and say that in order to fish locally from ANY site in
Gib you need to be in possession of a valid permit. Such could only be had
on membership of a local club. In order to prevent local clubs beng usurped
by hge numbers of non-residents making up the committee, I would AT THAT
STAGE have two tier membership - resident and non-resident. This latter
would be open to visiting anglers from Sp and anywhere else in the world.
Non-resident would be at a different scale of fees, and could be had for v
short periods of time e.g one week, to reflect the fact that holidaymakers
could fish also.
K
Ken
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d99jsi$vpj$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
I forgot - at the point of two-tier membership it would be very easy to
arrange to have two-tier access, with visiting anglers not permitted in to
certain potentially sensitive areas re. security, for example. In order not
to inconvenience local folk who want to go for a walk, production of a pink
Gib ID card should suffice for port access at certain times e.g. when there
is no cruise liner in.
K
Jim Watt
wrote:
>I would go further and say that in order to fish locally from ANY site in
>Gib you need to be in possession of a valid permit.
there is no legislation to enable this.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
Jim Watt
Its a good point, one which has been mentioned already in a letter
in the 'chronicle'. As at present, unlike Spain, there is no
requirement to have a permit to go fishing and they have published
a notice saying that the port area is now a 'no-go' area officially
the fact that they allow any nationality fishermen there is a
discretionary matter. I think you should have persisted and asked
them to call the RGP, because its really up to them to tell you
you have not access, not a security guard and in the event that
said guard touches you, make a complaint against them for assault.
There is also the issue of access to the 'nature reserve' although the
last couple of times I've gone for a walk up the rock, with an ID card
in my pocket, nobody has asked for money - nor was it offered.
Perhaps its time the 'usual suspects' tested the waters at the port.
Ken
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:cqogb1h5mttffeqdq...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:48:05 +0100, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>I would go further and say that in order to fish locally from ANY site in
>>Gib you need to be in possession of a valid permit.
>
> there is no legislation to enable this.
So? All it needs is the will by the politicians to enact it.
Ken
DCC
How would you like to be hanging from a hook or have half a dozen sticks
dangling from the back of your neck.
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:maogb11mh85eg1l1u...@4ax.com...
Jim Watt
>They should ban sports fishing (and bull-fighting) totally.
>How would you like to be hanging from a hook or have half a dozen sticks
>dangling from the back of your neck.
sounds fishy to me
However a lot of people here fish to eat the fish not the 'sport'
DCC
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:48eib1h18a0v4td2h...@4ax.com...
Lynx
"DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:d9dah9$2vb$1...@nobel.pacific.net.sg...
Jim Watt
>Are they glowing green with radiation or do they taste a bit 'leady'?
Contrary to popular thinking, the nuclear submarines do not leak
into the bay.
The fish may be well fed from the sewage outfall though.
Ken
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:32:36 +0800, "DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>Are they glowing green with radiation or do they taste a bit 'leady'?
>
> Contrary to popular thinking, the nuclear submarines do not leak
> into the bay.
>
> The fish may be well fed from the sewage outfall though.
When last in Gib I had ample opportunity to look at the water around the
North Mole in some detail - I'd gone over specifically for a week's sailing
on the Stavros Niarchos ( www.tallships.org ).
Now as with many things that change slowly you don;t notice the change from
one day to the next e.g. children's growth. It's only when you stop looking
for a while and then look back that you really notice the magnitude of the
changes that have occurred.
So too with the water in and around the harbour. I noticed for example on
the outside of the harbour where the port lookout tower is located I could
actually see the bottom, where I happen to know the water is 10m deep. I
cannot recall ever having seen the bottom there. Those familar with the
harbour will know that it was (and I say was, because it is no longer so)
usual when looking at the surface of the water on the inside always to make
out the colours of the rainbow, typical of a thin floating oil film. Well
this has gone too.
The only conclusion I can come to is that the water in and around the port
is far far cleaner than it ever was during my formative years. I have no
idea if the fishing is any better, and I doubt it is - not because the fish
won't live there but because the place is fished so continuously that the
only fish you catch there are transients there hardly being a resident
population within a rod's cast of the harbour wall.
K
DCC
thinking more of what Acerinox is capable of churning out.
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:mrpkb19ojjkt8jhc3...@4ax.com...
Jim Watt
>Having worked on and for nukes before, I know how safe they are. I was
>thinking more of what Acerinox is capable of churning out.
Ah but thats in the air not the water ...
Although there was some coverage on Telesur last week about
workers at Acerinox complaining of skin cancer as a result if
working there. Its an ongoing situation.
DCC
seabed is getting closer to the surface?
There was talk of doing that for the benefit of QM2, but it was quite
expensive and there was concern the depth required might undermine the
walls.
In the end (as far as I know) it was not done and when the good ship visited
the Rock they had to anchor in the bay. True?
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d9e3ke$1mq$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Ken
> Could it be that they have not dredged there for so long...... that the
> seabed is getting closer to the surface?
>
> There was talk of doing that for the benefit of QM2, but it was quite
> expensive and there was concern the depth required might undermine the
> walls.
>
> In the end (as far as I know) it was not done and when the good ship
> visited the Rock they had to anchor in the bay. True?
The depth there has been reported as being 10m for a long time. The dredging
for the QE2 was dredging required for one ship and one ship alone, Cunard
flag ship or not. The rest of the wrold's cruise liners appear to have no
difficulty tying up. I see your point, but it is very possible in any case
to see the seabed from the surface when the depth is greater than 10m - it's
all to do with water clarity.
Nothing said above has any relevance on the fact that there was no oil film
visible on the water surface, and the port activity now is far greater than
it was some 30 yrs ago.
K
DCC
greater and thus the need to dredge. Although the Cunard website gives them
similar drafts 32' and 32'10'' We need an expert in here to clear the
matter. I am not.
It must be good news that there seems to be less pollution around despite
the increase activities. It can be done with the right will. Singapore is
the busiest port on the planet (by tonnage) and is the no1 bunker port on
the globe and eclipses Algeciras by some 10 million TEU's. Yet there is
little evidence of pollution on our shores. Alas, we'll never have the
clear blue waters you enjoy on the rock. But that's not about pollution, but
rather nature doing her thing with the rivers when it rains by the bucket.
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d9o32a$7vk$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Jim Watt
>In the end (as far as I know) it was not done and when the good ship visited
>the Rock they had to anchor in the bay. True?
Yes, and a fine sight it was, however the issues were that it needed
more water at the berth than other ships, it was felt that the
dredging would destabalise the quay and for one ship the cost was
not justified
Ken
>I don't think QE2 has a problem. QM2 is the lady with an issue. Her draft
>is greater and thus the need to dredge. Although the Cunard website gives
>them similar drafts 32' and 32'10'' We need an expert in here to clear the
>matter. I am not.
You're right, it's the QM2. Force of habit made me write QE2 in error.
>
> It must be good news that there seems to be less pollution around despite
> the increase activities. It can be done with the right will. Singapore
> is the busiest port on the planet (by tonnage) and is the no1 bunker port
> on the globe and eclipses Algeciras by some 10 million TEU's. Yet there is
> little evidence of pollution on our shores. Alas, we'll never have the
> clear blue waters you enjoy on the rock. But that's not about pollution,
> but rather nature doing her thing with the rivers when it rains by the
> bucket.
It is the case that murky - meaning cloudy, not dirty - sea waters are
caused mostly by silt washed in by rivers. Have a look at the plumes of silt
from the Amazon into the Atlantic, or the Mississippi into the Gulf of
Mexico - truly amazing, with hundreds of tons of silt being washed in daily.
This is the principal reason why the Red Sea is the clearest of all - there
are no rivers flowing into it at all. There is the occasional wadi, but the
last time it rained in the Sinai was 1997 or thereabouts. The other main
non-filth cause of cloudiness is plankton.
There are two rivers which flow into the Bay of Gib, the Palmones and
Guadarranque, both between Algeciras and the refinery, but the atlantic
flush would not let any silt hang about for long. Which one of these rivers
used to be referred to as "el rio de la miel . . . da" ?
DCC
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d9pdb4$hnt$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
DCC
matter) eventually finds it's way to the sea .
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:5banb1d74732m6ght...@4ax.com...
Ken
> How about a job at Discovery Channel?
Heaven! Mind you I enjoy my current job a great deal too. It gives a degree
of satisfaction that cold not be readily derived from many other pursuits.
It must be said it also makes me appreciate how damned fortunate I am, all
too often surrounded by fates which but for the grace of God might have been
mine.
Serious bit over, let's get back to slanging each other off!
Ken
DCC
I thought you said you were an atheist or was it anaesthetist?
Or perhaps both?
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d9s70e$kbi$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Jim Watt
>GOD! What God?
>I thought you said you were an atheist
I think you are mixing Ken up with the dyslexic atheist who
did not believe in dog.
AND still top posting ...
Ken
> GOD! What God?
> I thought you said you were an atheist or was it anaesthetist?
> Or perhaps both?
The latter yes, as the former. "God" is a figure of speech in the context
used. If there is a God I'm sure he (or she) is alive and well and working
on a far less ambitious project than planet Earth. There are serious flaws
with this version.
Ken
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:25:06 +0800, "DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>GOD! What God?
>>I thought you said you were an atheist
>
> I think you are mixing Ken up with the dyslexic atheist who
> did not believe in dog.
Or perhaps the dyslexic devil worshiper who sold his soul to Santa?
Or the dyslexic pimp who bought a warehouse?
But we should not make jokes about dyslexia. It's not clever, and the jokes
aren't furry.
K
Lynx
"DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:d9sta9$fa4$1...@nobel.pacific.net.sg...
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:25:06 +0800, "DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>GOD! What God?
>>I thought you said you were an atheist
>
> I think you are mixing Ken up with the dyslexic atheist who
> did not believe in dog.
>
> AND still top posting ...
The warlock has spoken..........
Lynx
Either you're good, or you're on something goooood.....
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
news:f8Jwe.9836$oJ....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> An athiest by definition belives in God. Ole yo! Oops! I mean, Ole me!
The difference between atheism and agnosticism is very fine, sometimes
blurred, and occasionally non-existant. The difference between not having a
personal Gob you believe in, and the certainty that there is no God at all
for ANYONE to believe in.
Like the difference between illegal and unlawful. Unlawful is against the
law, illegal is a sick bird.
Ken
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
> news:f8Jwe.9836$oJ....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> An athiest by definition belives in God. Ole yo! Oops! I mean, Ole me!
>
> The difference between atheism and agnosticism is very fine, sometimes
> blurred, and occasionally non-existant. The difference between not having
> a personal Gob you believe in, and the certainty that there is no God at
> all for ANYONE to believe in.
>
> Like the difference between illegal and unlawful. Unlawful is against the
> law, illegal is a sick bird.
An agnostic does not deny nor confirm the existance of God. An athiest
believes there is no God. The former is non-commital. The latter confirms
the non existance of that to which he makes reference! There is no fine line
deviding these two entities.
By the way, quoting you, everyone has a personal "Gob", or cakehole.
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
:)) Well spotted! Inadvertent on my part.
K
Lynx
Love these slogging matches! :))