Will some NEVER learn?
Ken
that we must forget to discuss sovereignty of anything and concentrate on
issues of mutual interest. In this manner, when we will have over some years
to come have ironed out all the differences and obstacles between Spain and
Gib, we will come to realise that we have many common interests in Gib and
the entire Campo area and beyond. Many advantages will REQUIRE that Gib and
Spain be of different jurisdictions. It will be in no-one's interest to
attempt to absorb Gib into Spain, and the matter will be dropped, eventually
forgotten, eventually irrelevant, and everyone can live a better life.
I know it will be difficult to do so in particular in the early stages.
Therefore, before opening any mouth, the speaker needs be attentive as to
what is about to be said lest it impede rather than promote good governance
and progress in this regard.
I thought on reading the Chronicle today that Juarez (Mayor of La Linea) had
at last seen the light. He spoke of how Gib's financial sector can be useful
for the Campo, and that such a financial position can only be had with a
jurisdictional divide between the two places. Then he opened his mouth a wee
bit further and put his oversized foot in it, saying of the isthmus;
==========================================
"This land was never ceded, neither is it in the Treaty of Utrecht," he
said.
"It was usurped and I hope that a solution can be found, because this piece
of land would today belong to a city, and that is La Linea de la
Concepción."
==========================================
The solution is to accept the status quo and shut up bleating on about it.
It has never occurred to him perhaps that a country can accrue land by
conquest or by dint of continual occupation without the need for a Treaty,
without the need for anyone else to agree to that expansion. That is
precisely the means by which Spain holds on to Ceuta and Melilla - there is
no Treaty agreeing that these are Spanish lands, any more than there is a
Treaty to state that Manchester is part of England nor that Paris is in
France or Texas, depending on which Paris one refers to.
We are also continually reminded by the Sp authorities that Ceuta and
Melilla are an integral part of the Spanish state, and not a colony nor
overseas territory of the "patria". Yet, a proposed helicopter service
between Ceuta and Gib has been grounded simply BECAUSE Ceuta (and one
assumes Melilla therefore) are different from Spain overall. How else does
one explain the report in today's Panorama, where it is stated when giving
reasons as to why these flights cannot occur that;
===========================================
This is because the resumption of air services are limited to flights with
the Spanish mainland - and not with any other Spanish territories such as
Ceuta, Melilla or the Canary islands, it is pointed out. Campo MP Salvador
de la Encina said such a helicopter service depended on EU directives
related to Schengen.
===========================================
What a load of tosh! If Ceuta and Melilla ARE an integral part of Spain,
then they too should be in Schengen. If they are not in Schengen, then they
are constitutionally different from the Spanish state! If they are not in
Schengen, neither is Gib and so a flight arriving in Gib from Ceuta would be
no different from a flight arriving in Gib from anywhere outside Schengen,
such as Morocco.
Instead they now talk of an Algeciras link to Ceuta by helicopter, so that
Ceutis (obviously not Spaniards, given there is a constitutional difference
that was previously denied) wishing to link with other air services have
then to travel by road to Gib or Malaga. Once again, we see Spain hampering
her own citizens so as not to give any advantage to Gibraltar. Oops sorry -
I forgot, these are NOT Spaniards, they are Ceutis!
And to think that it was always Spain that claimed that it was Gib that
wanted "el pan mantecado por los dos lados"! (bread buttered on both sides -
the Sp equivalent of heads I win, tails you lose)
Ken
Jim Watt
wrote:
<snip>
Yeah I saw that. Wonder if the 'city of La Linea' is an error
in translation or it has gone to his head. Gibraltar is a city
the other place a town.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
PaulusAr
You are so right in all of this Ken. Also, if the airport agreement is
meant to make air travel more convenient for Campo Spaniards why are
Ceutis excluded? Flying from Ceuta to Algecirias then travelling by
road to Gibraltar will be no more convenient than flying straight to
Malaga on the helicopter.
If the Cordoba agreement is supposed to herald a new sensible attitude
by Spain on Gibraltar matters, why is Spain still opposing Gib's entry
into UEFA? Why are military aircraft still subject to the idiotic
airspace restrictions? Who needs enemies when you have NATO friends and
allies like Spain? Why is the radio mast designed to cause an aircraft
to crash into La Linea in flagrant disregard to civilised air safety
principles still there? Why do they need to use the Gibraltar airport
anyway? There is hectare after hectare of empty land north of
Gibraltar, more than enough to build their own airport. Why can't
planes fly over Algecerias or Los Barrios? Because of noise? What about
Gibraltarians or Linenses hearing the noise of Iberia flights?
Why do they still maintain that they have a claim on the isthmus? A
claim that uses the "Idiot's guide to 18th Century International Law"
as evidence. If they claim that all Gibraltar should be Spanish, why
differentiate between the ithmus and the rest of Gibraltar? Are they
giving up on the rest of Gib and only claiming the ithmus now?
Ken
"PaulusAr" <paul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166558179.2...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Beats me. Logic? Pah! We used to say in Gib that the Algecire~os thought
themselves superior to the rest of the Campenses. It appears the adjective
"especiales" applies to the whole of the rest of them too.
Speaking of treaties, if they are so honourable as they like to portray,
when is Olivenca going back to Portugal? When is Llivia joining France? How
come neither France nor Portugal make any noise about this? Why oh why do we
have to have THEM as neighbours and not someone else instead? Heck if we had
Italy next to us we'd all be Italian by now - and they would never have
asked once!
Ken
K
Lynx
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:em9cr...@news4.newsguy.com...
snip
> I thought on reading the Chronicle today that Juarez (Mayor of La Linea)
> had at last seen the light. He spoke of how Gib's financial sector can be
Sorry to intercede like this. I recall writing somewhere sometime ago that
Gib could be the financial powerhouse to the Campo. Of course, I was
extravagant with my comments. But Gib's been geared for an administrative
command for many decades. In fact, Gib's disposition today is not dissimilar
to the role it played back in the 1500's. A dream perhaps, but wouldn't it
be something to see Gib in such an illustrious role?!
I'm currently denied time to further expand and contribute moments of
wondrous madness to the ng. "I shall return".
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
news:ynaih.10975$HU.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:em9cr...@news4.newsguy.com...
> snip
>> I thought on reading the Chronicle today that Juarez (Mayor of La Linea)
>> had at last seen the light. He spoke of how Gib's financial sector can be
>> useful for the Campo, ......snip
>
> Sorry to intercede like this. I recall writing somewhere sometime ago that
> Gib could be the financial powerhouse to the Campo. Of course, I was
> extravagant with my comments. But Gib's been geared for an administrative
> command for many decades. In fact, Gib's disposition today is not
> dissimilar to the role it played back in the 1500's. A dream perhaps, but
> wouldn't it be something to see Gib in such an illustrious role?!
I would have no problem with that - but fail to see why it is so blinkin'
vital for Gib to become part of Spain. If it could happen without Gib so
becoming well and good. If OTOH in order for Gib to become the admin
powerhouse it HAD to become part of Spain, then I for one would vote against
the change.
K
Jim Watt
wrote:
>I would have no problem with that - but fail to see why it is so blinkin'
>vital for Gib to become part of Spain. If it could happen without Gib so
>becoming well and good. If OTOH in order for Gib to become the admin
>powerhouse it HAD to become part of Spain, then I for one would vote against
>the change.
Me one of many too.
Lynx
news:q5ego2556v5rukp7p...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:55:37 -0000, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Yeah I saw that. Wonder if the 'city of La Linea' is an error
> in translation or it has gone to his head. Gibraltar is a city
> the other place a town.
St Mary the Crowned made Gibraltar a City. Gib's always been a City.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
I'm afraid you're mixing apples with oranges again. You two would be that
type of gene which inhibits natural evolution! Paranoia personified!
Why was the treaty signed in Cordoba, anyway? Has anyone bothered to find
out why? Is there any historical linkage between Gibraltar and Cordoba?
Diego Lamela might have hit the nail on the head!
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
I understand there is no need for a place to have a cathedral in order to be
a city. Otherwise the term "city" would be defined as a qualification which
can only apply where there is a signiificant Christian representation. If
OTOH you are correct, Gib could only have been a city since it acquired a
cathedral.
It's like Spain claiming that Gib has "always" been Spanish, manifestly
untrue becuase it isn't Spanish now nor for quite a considerable time, and
there has not always been a Spain.
Semantics, pedantic, but I'm in a particualrly picky mood just now! :))
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
>
> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> news:tnvio21311kn5hpmq...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:24:27 -0000, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I would have no problem with that - but fail to see why it is so blinkin'
>>>vital for Gib to become part of Spain. If it could happen without Gib so
>>>becoming well and good. If OTOH in order for Gib to become the admin
>>>powerhouse it HAD to become part of Spain, then I for one would vote
>>>against
>>>the change.
>>
>> Me one of many too.
>
> I'm afraid you're mixing apples with oranges again. You two would be that
> type of gene which inhibits natural evolution! Paranoia personified!
It is my democratic right to choose not to have my homeland come under the
soveriegnty of another state. Why is it so hard to accept? It is not
paranoia, it is a simple expression of fact. It would have been improper of
me to say that I would never permit this to happen, but I said I would not
vote for it to happen, showing true democratic credentials - I submit my
view to a poll of the totality, and am subject to following the wishes of
the majority. If our neighbours were so enlightened we wouldn't have had the
trouble we've had over the last 53 years!
> Why was the treaty signed in Cordoba, anyway? Has anyone bothered to find
> out why? Is there any historical linkage between Gibraltar and Cordoba?
> Diego Lamela might have hit the nail on the head!
Perhaps they signed it there because they met there. Had they met in
Barcelona, they would have signed it in Barcelona instead. For Barcelona
read anywhere else you care to mention. Example - why was the Treaty of Rome
signed inRome? Because had it been signed in Amsterdam it would have been
the Treaty of Amsterdam instead!
Why are elephants big grey and wrinkly? Because if they were small, white
and smooth they'd be aspirins.
K
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
> news:retih.11343$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>> news:q5ego2556v5rukp7p...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:55:37 -0000, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Yeah I saw that. Wonder if the 'city of La Linea' is an error
>>> in translation or it has gone to his head. Gibraltar is a city
>>> the other place a town.
>>
>> St Mary the Crowned made Gibraltar a City. Gib's always been a City.
>
> I understand there is no need for a place to have a cathedral in order to
> be a city. Otherwise the term "city" would be defined as a qualification
> which can only apply where there is a signiificant Christian
> representation. If OTOH you are correct, Gib could only have been a city
> since it acquired a cathedral.
In Christendom, a City is so defined once the town acquires a Bishop's
Throne, hence the Cathedral. Until then, a grouping of dwellings can,
depending on size, be termed a hamlet, township, town. It's not fashionable
being a Christian these days, the pendulum will swing back. Lookout :)
> It's like Spain claiming that Gib has "always" been Spanish, manifestly
> untrue becuase it isn't Spanish now nor for quite a considerable time, and
> there has not always been a Spain.
Spain has always been Spain. A collective of culturally and traditionally
diverse peoples. The catholic Monarchs forging all these peoples into one
powerful entity called Spain. I don't say that. Historical records point to
that general conclusion.
As for Gib having been Spanish, of course it was. Who else did Rooky's
hordes pillaged and rape, if not the Spanish inhabitants in Gib at the time?
> Semantics, pedantic, but I'm in a particualrly picky mood just now! :))
That's okay. While on semantics, as nothing has come of it in some 300
years, why is it that no memorial has ever been erected to Fr. Figueroa?
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
> news:Qjtih.11348$HU.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>> news:tnvio21311kn5hpmq...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:24:27 -0000, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>> I'm afraid you're mixing apples with oranges again. You two would be that
>> type of gene which inhibits natural evolution! Paranoia personified!
>
> It is my democratic right to choose not to have my homeland come under the
> soveriegnty of another state. Why is it so hard to accept? It is not
> paranoia, it is a simple expression of fact. It would have been improper
> of me to say that I would never permit this to happen, but I said I would
> not vote for it to happen, showing true democratic credentials - I submit
> my view to a poll of the totality, and am subject to following the wishes
> of the majority. If our neighbours were so enlightened we wouldn't have
> had the trouble we've had over the last 53 years!
Your democratic rights, like mine, rests within the boundaries of your
country of residense. If not, why then are we not included in Gib
referendums? As for Gib being the powerhouse of the Campo, whoever said Gib
had to be Spanish? The reality of the EU is already erasing this type of
argument. Comprende?
Our neighbours fell, not entirely of their doing either, under a dictatorial
regime. Some often forget that not all spaniards were baddies, ther were
some goodies too. There must've been, otherwise how could there ever have
been a civil war?
> Perhaps they signed it there because they met there. Had they met in
> Barcelona, they would have signed it in Barcelona instead. For Barcelona
> read anywhere else you care to mention. Example - why was the Treaty of
> Rome signed inRome? Because had it been signed in Amsterdam it would have
> been the Treaty of Amsterdam instead!
I was simply stretching a long bow. No takers I see.
> Why are elephants big grey and wrinkly? Because if they were small, white
> and smooth they'd be aspirins.
So what would you have if you were holding a big mothball in your left hand
and another in your right hand?
Jim Watt
>As for Gib having been Spanish, of course it was. Who else did Rooky's
>hordes pillaged and rape, if not the Spanish inhabitants in Gib at the time?
Now, now no giving comfort to the enemy;
By the standards of the day the capture of Gibraltar was an
orderly affair and Rooke too pains to ensure that the incumbents
were not molested unduly.
Indeed they were allowed to remain or leave in an orderly
manner with their possessions.
Whatever, they are not coming back to reclaim the territory
Indeed these days the Gibraltarians are buying Spanish homes
in San Roque and may soon outnumber the natives ...
Jim Watt
>Some often forget that not all spaniards were baddies, ther were
>some goodies too. There must've been, otherwise how could there ever have
>been a civil war?
I don't think you can assume that the commie republicans were
necessarily 'good'
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:emei3...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
>> news:Qjtih.11348$HU.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>> news:tnvio21311kn5hpmq...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:24:27 -0000, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
> snip
>>> I'm afraid you're mixing apples with oranges again. You two would be
>>> that type of gene which inhibits natural evolution! Paranoia
>>> personified!
>>
>> It is my democratic right to choose not to have my homeland come under
>> the soveriegnty of another state. Why is it so hard to accept? It is not
>> paranoia, it is a simple expression of fact. It would have been improper
>> of me to say that I would never permit this to happen, but I said I would
>> not vote for it to happen, showing true democratic credentials - I submit
>> my view to a poll of the totality, and am subject to following the wishes
>> of the majority. If our neighbours were so enlightened we wouldn't have
>> had the trouble we've had over the last 53 years!
>
> Your democratic rights, like mine, rests within the boundaries of your
> country of residense. If not, why then are we not included in Gib
> referendums?
I can express myself as I please, about whatever I please - as long as I
offend no-one in this politically correct world!
> As for Gib being the powerhouse of the Campo, whoever said Gib had to be
> Spanish? The reality of the EU is already erasing this type of argument.
> Comprende?
> Our neighbours fell, not entirely of their doing either, under a
> dictatorial regime. Some often forget that not all spaniards were baddies,
> ther were some goodies too. There must've been, otherwise how could there
> ever have been a civil war?
. . . after which "The Most General" went about purging the country of much
of the support for the side he defeated. While in 1930 there were all types,
by 1950 there were few who dared support any side other than Kiko's side.
>> Why are elephants big grey and wrinkly? Because if they were small, white
>> and smooth they'd be aspirins.
>
> So what would you have if you were holding a big mothball in your left
> hand and another in your right hand?
The undivided attention of a very large, and possibly very angry moth? :))
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
No. Spain was not Spain unitl the various warring factions pulled together
to rid themselves of the incursion which started in 711 and finished in
1462. What the Moors accomplished in 7 years, the Spaniards took 700 to
reverse. Equally Italy was not Italy until Garibaldi pulled them together,
hecne my ancestors were not Italian, they were Genoese.
> That's okay. While on semantics, as nothing has come of it in some 300
> years, why is it that no memorial has ever been erected to Fr. Figueroa?
Rather than bitch about it, if you feel strongly enough about it, why don't
you do something about it? Start a collection/charity for funding, find a
site, get planning permission etc. I must agree there are few historical
references to the period prior to 1704. Anyone walking through Gib today
would be hard pressed to find anything of the gap between 711 and 1704 other
than the Tower ofHomage and Moorish Baths. One thousand years of habitation
during which SOMETHING must have happened, but precious oittle is
commemorated. Personally, I don't feel THAT strongly about it to do anything
along the lines I suggested. But surely the Heritage Society (which has
hitherto been obsessive about preserving fortifications) might / should be
interested?
K
Ken
> ===========================================
> This is because the resumption of air services are limited to flights with
> the Spanish mainland - and not with any other Spanish territories such as
> Ceuta, Melilla or the Canary islands, it is pointed out. Campo MP
> Salvador de la Encina said such a helicopter service depended on EU
> directives related to Schengen.
> ===========================================
Further to this, I now read in
http://www.gibfocus.gi/details_headlines.php?id=872 that some or other EU
directive prevents Gib (non-Schengen) from having air links with Ceuta.
Is Ceuta in Schengen? If not, and neither is Gib, it's a bit like a flight
from the UK to Gib - neither in Schengen - so what's the beef? If Ceuta IS
in Schengen, and so is Madrid, then it's like a flight between Madrid and
Gib - which also occurs now! I'm not denying that the EU is NOT the cause
for the non-establishment of the service, but we the interested public
deserve a clearer explanation that just the use of the word Schengen, which
explains nothing!
Anyone out there know the full explanation? Anyone out there know how to get
around it?
K
K
Lynx
>
> I can express myself as I please, about whatever I please - as long as I
> offend no-one in this politically correct world!
This politically correct world is doing more damage than good. Kids and
students, from kinder to secondary, are being denied Xmas decorations and
the likes for fear of offending others! It's not Happy Christmas anymore,
but Season's Greetings! Sodom and Gomora would be fashionable today too!
> . . . after which "The Most General" went about purging the country of
> much of the support for the side he defeated. While in 1930 there were all
> types, by 1950 there were few who dared support any side other than Kiko's
> side.
The PS OE is currently breaking eggs. So it follows that not all who were
against Kiko had been done away with.
>>> Why are elephants big grey and wrinkly? Because if they were small,
>>> white and smooth they'd be aspirins.
> The undivided attention of a very large, and possibly very angry moth?
> :))
Good one!
Lynx
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:46:27 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote:
>
>>Some often forget that not all spaniards were baddies, ther were
>>some goodies too. There must've been, otherwise how could there ever have
>>been a civil war?
>
> I don't think you can assume that the commie republicans were
> necessarily 'good'
Whether they were good or bad I have no idea. The point being made was that
to label all people of any given nationality as one and the same is simply
irrational.
Lynx
>
> No. Spain was not Spain unitl the various warring factions pulled together
> to rid themselves of the incursion which started in 711 and finished in
> 1462. What the Moors accomplished in 7 years, the Spaniards took 700 to
> reverse. Equally Italy was not Italy until Garibaldi pulled them together,
> hecne my ancestors were not Italian, they were Genoese.
Spain or Hispania was coined by the Romans. They also gave Gibraltar the
name of Calpe, and named Britannia, today's Britain. They built roads all
over Europe, including Britain, and did much more. As for the Arab
colonization of Spain, it should be remembered that Christians were second
class citizens, or slaves, in their own native lands.
The Genoese go way back to the Greeks and earlier still to the Etruscans.
Interesting stuff. But really, short of tracing one's family name to an
actual historically recorded linage or city, town, etc. there's little value
in clinging, as it were, to such notions. Tracing a family-tree back a mere
3 generations is enough to appreciate how diverse we really are. Like you, I
too take pride in knowing the origin of my family name. But I still respect
those many other "family names" attached to my ancestry. Gibraltarian should
be the first and foremost identity we should all cling onto. Italians,
Maltese, Portuguese, etc.should be left to their own devices.
>> That's okay. While on semantics, as nothing has come of it in some 300
>> years, why is it that no memorial has ever been erected to Fr. Figueroa?
>
> Rather than bitch about it, if you feel strongly enough about it, why
> don't you do something about it? Start a collection/charity for funding,
> find a site, get planning permission etc. I must agree there are few
> historical references to the period prior to 1704. Anyone walking through
> Gib today would be hard pressed to find anything of the gap between 711
> and 1704 other than the Tower ofHomage and Moorish Baths. One thousand
> years of habitation during which SOMETHING must have happened, but
> precious oittle is commemorated. Personally, I don't feel THAT strongly
> about it to do anything along the lines I suggested. But surely the
> Heritage Society (which has hitherto been obsessive about preserving
> fortifications) might / should be interested?
When we consider who, how, when and why, it is little wonder the Heritage
Society should be obsessed about preserving fortifications. Any visitor
would be forgiven for thinking Gib's past to be made up of gunners and cave
dwellers. Interesting how we choose to portray our homeland. There's enough
chupeteo going on without me starting a collection.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:36:55 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote:
>
>>As for Gib having been Spanish, of course it was. Who else did Rooky's
>>hordes pillaged and rape, if not the Spanish inhabitants in Gib at the
>>time?
>
> Now, now no giving comfort to the enemy;
I don't consider these people my enemies, for we are not at war with them.
And given the number of British residents and holiday makers in Spain, nor
is Britain.
> By the standards of the day the capture of Gibraltar was an
> orderly affair and Rooke too pains to ensure that the incumbents
> were not molested unduly.
Anyone would be impressed to read the chronicles of the time, where it is
described how women, children and old folks, who run all the way to the
Europa Shrine, were ambushed by the hordes and done with before they could
reach the sanctuary. The constant bombing of a defenseless city is another
issue. Whilst the humanitarian wrongs of the past cannot be corrected, the
gentlemanly thing, surely, would be to acknowdge them.
> Indeed they were allowed to remain or leave in an orderly
> manner with their possessions.
It is not as clinical as you choose to put it. Some had to leave with what
they had on and little esle. Some never found refuge, sleeping under the sky
and no food. There are chronicle stating some did not even have enough
clothes to wear.
> Whatever, they are not coming back to reclaim the territory
> Indeed these days the Gibraltarians are buying Spanish homes
> in San Roque and may soon outnumber the natives ...
It is not a case of claiming or counter-claiming. It is a case of writing
history as it happened. Nothing else.
Gibbos have always owned property in San Roque. Back in the days when the
frontier was closed, I had to make my way home via Tangier. On my short stay
in Spain, I visited San Roque, and was shown a whole street where all the
houses were bolted-up, shut. The guide made it known that these were not
abandoned, they were owned by gibraltarians. Gib has always had a good
relationship with San Roque, at that time it was probably not fashionable to
say so.
Lynx
From afar, it looks like the Campo and Ceuta are still not autonomous enough
to hammer out their own way forward. Wasn't there sometime ago discussions
about forming a business association between all these entities and Gib?
Jim Watt
<snip>
Anyone who wishes to take over Gibraltar by diplomacy or
other means is an enemy. Ignore enemies at your peril.
You confuse bombing with bombardment, the incumbents were
given a chance to surrender peacefully and chose not to
and allowed to when they did.
There are still people sleeping under the sky without food
and adequate clothing, its not because of Rooke. However,
as a result of his actions Gibraltar became propsperous.
When the frontier opened, La Linea was like a third world
town and Gibraltar would have been much the same. Thankfully
the development of the Spanish economy since joining the EU
means today its not.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
No argument. We have reached a stage today, where glorifying war and
creating enemies is a thing of the past. Conscientious objectors were
unheard of, and certainly unacceptable till some decades ago. Times have
changed. And today most people can see past the brainwashing media and
selective educational curriculum. Every country is/has been guilty. To think
that we live in an era where we can see through these smoke screens, would
be a dream come true for the betterment of humanity. If we were all to cling
to 1800th century philosophies, no new countries such as Australia, Canada,
US, New Zealand and even older countries with a mix of ethnic and
nationalities, would be able to function. The arguments, claims and counter
claims coming from this group, begs reassessment and rationale.
Gib should be, and I'm sure it is, setting its rudder forwards to a bright
future. Making the most of its unique geographical position and its unique
bilingual and most capable people, regardless of any colonial baggage.
Maintaining a negative attitude towards your neighbours, will inevitably
isolate Gib. Gib does not need nor wish isolation, I'm sure.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:emgdr...@news1.newsguy.com...
>>
>> I can express myself as I please, about whatever I please - as long as I
>> offend no-one in this politically correct world!
>
> This politically correct world is doing more damage than good. Kids and
> students, from kinder to secondary, are being denied Xmas decorations and
> the likes for fear of offending others! It's not Happy Christmas anymore,
> but Season's Greetings! Sodom and Gomora would be fashionable today too!
Read below an amusing email sent to me by a good friend (janito too) who
like us forms part of the diaspora;
=========================================
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for
an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress,
non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday,
practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion
of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the
religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice
not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically
uncomplicated recognition of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but
not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose
contributions to society have helped make Canada great. Not to imply that
Canada is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only Canada in
the Western Hemisphere. And without regard to the race, creed, color, age,
physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishes.
By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is
subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no
alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to
actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and
is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of
the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual
application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance
of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is
limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole
discretion of the wisher.
============================================
> The PS OE is currently breaking eggs. So it follows that not all who were
> against Kiko had been done away with.
Indeed not - they were just too scared to look above the parapet. About time
there was some diversity in thinking north of the border! See - like I said,
it takes time for a democracy to truly become one, it does not occur just
because you have the constituent parts.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
They are autonomous when it suits the Madrid govt - hence they are not
autonomous enough to permit the Ceuta flights, but they are autonomous
enough to prevent an overflight from a Gib-originating 'plane on whatever
grounds, as previously discussed. The common thread to these expressions,
acceptance and denial of autonomy remains as ever - if it's good for Gib,
block it.
K
Lynx
Excellent. Doesn't seem to be copyrighted....hmmm perhaps, there're some
possibility....$$$
>> The PS OE is currently breaking eggs. So it follows that not all who were
>> against Kiko had been done away with.
> Indeed not - they were just too scared to look above the parapet. About
> time there was some diversity in thinking north of the border! See - like
> I said, it takes time for a democracy to truly become one, it does not
> occur just because you have the constituent parts.
Of course not! Hope there's no war of the red and white claveles. :)
Lynx
>
> They are autonomous when it suits the Madrid govt - hence they are not
> autonomous enough to permit the Ceuta flights, but they are autonomous
> enough to prevent an overflight from a Gib-originating 'plane on whatever
> grounds, as previously discussed. The common thread to these expressions,
> acceptance and denial of autonomy remains as ever - if it's good for Gib,
> block it.
So it seems. Put on a Campo hat for a moment. How does it feel to be
overuled on ventures that might bring prosperity to your city/region, on the
premise that if it's good for Gib block it? It's jumping an eye to see the
other blind!
Jim Watt
>Maintaining a negative attitude towards your neighbours, will inevitably
>isolate Gib. Gib does not need nor wish isolation, I'm sure.
What 'negative attitude' do you refer to ?
Are WE complaining about the Spanish football pitch build
on the neutral ground ?
Have we blocked telephone access to Spain, or banned
helicopter flights from Ceuta, I think not.
Jim Watt
>Put on a Campo hat for a moment. How does it feel to be
>overuled on ventures that might bring prosperity to your city/region, on the
>premise that if it's good for Gib block it?
normal.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
I shall translate for the non-Giblet: Cutting your nose off to spite your
face.
THAT has been the way of successive Spanish govts, both dictatorships and
proto-democratic (infested by the thought patterns of dictatorship no doubt)
for over 50 years. I expect the Campenses don't actually notice it, given
that, as caged birds for generations, they know nothing else. It's enough to
make you pull your hair out though.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
On a traditional nursing note (traditional in the UK that is), you should
never mix red and white flowers in an arrangement. It symbolises war (note F
Nightingale's involvement with the start of modern-day nursing at a time of
war in the Crimea), looking like blood on bandages.
Do you know the words to the song which starts "Clavelito, clavelito,
clavelito de mi corazón"?
K
Lynx
>
snip
> On a traditional nursing note (traditional in the UK that is), you should
> never mix red and white flowers in an arrangement. It symbolises war (note
> F Nightingale's involvement with the start of modern-day nursing at a time
> of war in the Crimea), looking like blood on bandages.
Interesting. Bands of Red and White vertical spirals were exhibited outside
barber shops, as a symbol of first aid, etc, being available therein. The
white bandage and red blodd is an obvious connection. I wonder whether a
connection to the bloody war of the roses could also be made.
> Do you know the words to the song which starts "Clavelito, clavelito,
> clavelito de mi corazón"?
Amazing, thinking of the tune brings back most of the lyrics. As it happens,
I have a splendid version by a very good estudiantina. Many years ago I took
to the bandurria, and even played with real musicians on stage!
Lynx
There's merit in your assumption. I rather assume that the Campenses know
what's cooking, but they're also emotionally driven the constant reminding
that a piece of their land was taken away from them. Needless to say, half
their country had sided with the Hapsburgs. So perhaps Gib is also a
reminder of a time when their kingdom was being torn apart between two
foreign claimants to their crown. Now, that's a concept I had never thought
of before.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:09:13 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote:
>
>>Maintaining a negative attitude towards your neighbours, will inevitably
>>isolate Gib. Gib does not need nor wish isolation, I'm sure.
>
> What 'negative attitude' do you refer to ?
Well, for one thing not even the fresh northerly breeze is positively
acknowledged for fear of misunderstanding.
> Are WE complaining about the Spanish football pitch build
> on the neutral ground ?
The neutral ground, to my understanding and having walked through it
countless times, even while the gerry gunposts were being demolished, was
essentially in Spanish territory. Nothing neutral about that old boy.
> Have we blocked telephone access to Spain, or banned
> helicopter flights from Ceuta, I think not.
Of course not, why should we? Like K said, if its good for Gib it gets
blocked. But Gib's attitude of cooperation is not always shared by some. I'd
rather see cooperation by both sides of the border than a red line within
Gib.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 14:30:20 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote:
>
>>Put on a Campo hat for a moment. How does it feel to be
>>overuled on ventures that might bring prosperity to your city/region, on
>>the
>>premise that if it's good for Gib block it?
>
> normal.
Well, perhaps you're right and perhaps you easily succumb to political
diatribe. Logic and reason cannot be monopolized nor solely owned by any one
people.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:emjna...@news3.newsguy.com...
>>
> snip
>> On a traditional nursing note (traditional in the UK that is), you should
>> never mix red and white flowers in an arrangement. It symbolises war
>> (note F Nightingale's involvement with the start of modern-day nursing at
>> a time of war in the Crimea), looking like blood on bandages.
>
> Interesting. Bands of Red and White vertical spirals were exhibited
> outside barber shops, as a symbol of first aid, etc, being available
> therein. The white bandage and red blodd is an obvious connection. I
> wonder whether a connection to the bloody war of the roses could also be
> made.
The red and white barber pole is indeed a blood-on-bandage symbol. Long
before Medical Acts in Parliament and long before the Royal Colleges and
general Medical COuncil regulating things medical in he UK, medical
apprenticeships were the preserve of the guilds and apothecaries. The
physicians styled themselves "Doctor", but refused to admit barber surgeons
to the title as these were not learned men, but regarded as mere artisans
who had certain skills with the knife who therefore continued to use the
title "Mister". That tradition continues to this day in the UK. All those
who qualify in medicine and surgery assume the title Dr. and keep it for the
rest of their lives. The surgeons, on gaining their Fellowship from the
relevant Royal College, revert ot being known as Mr.
Meanwhile, it is only recently that the Apothecaries have ceased issuing
medical qualifications, fully registerable professional qualifications mind
you, in te UK. Their degree equivalent was the LMSSA - Licentiate in
Medicine and Surgery of the Society of Apothecaries. Sqafeguards were in
place to ensure equivalence. It could be taken by any suitably trained
undergraduate at medical school and was attainable as recently as 1998. Have
a look at
http://www.apothecaries.org.uk/index.php?page=10&PHPSESSID=140309aad5a48
K
>
>> Do you know the words to the song which starts "Clavelito, clavelito,
>> clavelito de mi corazón"?
>
> Amazing, thinking of the tune brings back most of the lyrics. As it
> happens, I have a splendid version by a very good estudiantina. Many years
> ago I took to the bandurria, and even played with real musicians on stage!
Jeez you're big on not letting go! But this is common among emigrants of all
cultures. They take their memories and practices with them, and these remain
a time capsule. Meanwhile, back home, things move on. Those who left often
feel cheated on their return because the place they left no longer exists
anywhere other than in thier heads.
K
Lynx
>snip Meanwhile, it is only recently that the Apothecaries have ceased
>qualifications mind you, in te UK. Their degree equivalent was the LMSSA -
>Licentiate in Medicine and Surgery of the Society of Apothecaries.
>Sqafeguards were in place to ensure equivalence. It could be taken by any
>suitably trained undergraduate at medical school and was attainable as
>recently as 1998. Have a look at
>http://www.apothecaries.org.uk/index.php?page=10&PHPSESSID=140309aad5a48
Most absorbing. I did wonder though, what do female specialusts call
themsleves, Mrs?
>>> Do you know the words to the song which starts "Clavelito, clavelito,
>>> clavelito de mi corazón"?
>>
>> Amazing, thinking of the tune brings back most of the lyrics. As it
>> happens, I have a splendid version by a very good estudiantina. Many
>> years ago I took to the bandurria, and even played with real musicians on
>> stage!
>
> Jeez you're big on not letting go! But this is common among emigrants of
> all cultures. They take their memories and practices with them, and these
> remain a time capsule. Meanwhile, back home, things move on. Those who
> left often feel cheated on their return because the place they left no
> longer exists anywhere other than in thier heads.
You're so right. And I have long been aware of that phenomenon. But then any
migrant who looks around his country of adoption will, after some years,
realize how much his new country has changed. So change happens all over the
place. Yet, my aussie colleagues remain true to their True Blue ways. Can't
say the same of every entity I know of.
Many years ago I asked this old chap, he was old to me then, if he'd go back
to his country of origin. He promptly replied, "And look at old faces?"
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
Sometimes I have difficulty remembering what I ate three meals ago. I
shudder at the possibily of beng asked my whereabouts a week last Thursday
because I frankly can't recall.
It is a well known fact that you cannot remember something that did not
happen to you, yet these folk can't forget or get over events which occurred
to their ancestors so long ago the vast majority couldn't even trace
themselves back that far.
Get over it, move on, live and let live.
K
Lynx
>
snip
> Sometimes I have difficulty remembering what I ate three meals ago. I
> shudder at the possibily of beng asked my whereabouts a week last Thursday
> because I frankly can't recall.
>
> It is a well known fact that you cannot remember something that did not
> happen to you, yet these folk can't forget or get over events which
> occurred to their ancestors so long ago the vast majority couldn't even
> trace themselves back that far.
>
> Get over it, move on, live and let live.
Well said..........
Jim Watt
>The neutral ground, to my understanding and having walked through it
>countless times, even while the gerry gunposts were being demolished, was
>essentially in Spanish territory. Nothing neutral about that old boy.
You are referring to the Spanish half, on the Gibraltar side Spain
claims everything up to and including Glacis Estate, and is blocking
UEFA membership because victoria stadium is built on 'disputed land'.
The probably also claim Marina Bay because it did not exist when the
treaty of Utrecht was signed ...
Jim Watt
Then let us see what the Spanish position is:
"The principal objective for Spain is the recovery of sovereignty over
the territory. Everything else is secondary."
(The secondary considerations include the well being of
Spanish Citizens in the area)
http://www.gibnet.com/texts/incipe1.htm
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:emkcd...@news3.newsguy.com...
>>snip Meanwhile, it is only recently that the Apothecaries have ceased
>>issuing medical qualifications, fully registerable professional
>>qualifications mind you, in te UK. Their degree equivalent was the LMSSA -
>>Licentiate in Medicine and Surgery of the Society of Apothecaries.
>>Sqafeguards were in place to ensure equivalence. It could be taken by any
>>suitably trained undergraduate at medical school and was attainable as
>>recently as 1998. Have a look at
>>http://www.apothecaries.org.uk/index.php?page=10&PHPSESSID=140309aad5a48
>
> Most absorbing. I did wonder though, what do female specialusts call
> themsleves, Mrs?
Well female medical practitioners (let's be official here!) are also
accorded the title Dr. Thos ewho pursue a surgical carreer usually revert to
any of the three "civil" forms, Miss, Mrs, Ms depending on how they feel.
The majority refer to themselves as Miss, for very simple reasons of
expediency.
Most on foirst qualifying from Uni and getting the title Dr are unamarried
and are Miss. By the time those who go on to durgery get their relevant
Felloship Diploma from whatevr Royal College, some will have married. Of
course their married name varies from the name on their roiginal medical
degree, and it is apparently quite a convoluted procedure to get a "Mrs"
Fellowship diploma issued to someone whose name has changed since they were
awarded their original University degree. Therefore, most female surgeons,
married or otherwise, practice as Miss using their paternal surname.
>> Jeez you're big on not letting go! But this is common among emigrants of
>> all cultures. They take their memories and practices with them, and these
>> remain a time capsule. Meanwhile, back home, things move on. Those who
>> left often feel cheated on their return because the place they left no
>> longer exists anywhere other than in thier heads.
>
> You're so right. And I have long been aware of that phenomenon. But then
> any migrant who looks around his country of adoption will, after some
> years, realize how much his new country has changed. So change happens all
> over the place. Yet, my aussie colleagues remain true to their True Blue
> ways. Can't say the same of every entity I know of.
>
> Many years ago I asked this old chap, he was old to me then, if he'd go
> back to his country of origin. He promptly replied, "And look at old
> faces?"
They might be old, but in the words of the song they might also be familiar.
But more seriously, while appearing to deride your bandurria (far from it -
I can churn out a tune or two on a 8-string mandolin myself!) is THIS not
the sort of thing the Heritage Society shold be getting its teeth into also,
before it's lost forever? All over the UK there are Morris Men (well, OK,
bad example, but you know what I'm getting at) and folk groups that retain a
link to the past. Not that it serves any PRACTICAL good, but it ensures the
songs and stories of past generations are retained so that they will not
have sang and danced in vain. Spain we saw on TV brings out its regional
dances at the drop of a hat. Germans and Austrins prance about in leather
shorts and slap their thights to Tyrolean accordion music - and why not?
What traditional folkloric movement, if any, is there in Gib today?
K
Ken
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Maps of the time show the Neutral Ground extended from the area of Galcis
today to a distance approx as far again into present day Spain as the border
is from Glacis. In which case, as soon as the ocncept of a neutral ground
became obsolete, it was divided in two. In the southern (Gib) half we built
homes, an airport, marinas, a cemetry, an RAF base - all sorts.
On the north half (Sp) nothing much happened for many years, and it is only
far more recently that Sp has put ahything up in it, mostly blocks of flats,
a football ground, and an RNE mast. Of course Spain claims everything up to
and including Glacis.
The concept of a neutral ground was that as long as you kept behind your
lines, the distance between checkpoiints was such that each was out of the
other's firearms range and no-one held sway in the middle. The problem is as
the range of firearms became greater, the implications for the dimensions of
a neutral territory became untenable, resulting in "reductio ad absurdum"
when mankind developed missiles that could land anywhere in the world from
wherever they were launched.
The other difficulty arises from a difference in concept of "and
fortifications" as stated in Utrecht. As far as the Sp were concerned, this
went as far as the walls. As far as the UK was concerned, this was as far as
they could defend, which meant the range of gunfire from the same walls. If
you consult maps of the time you will see that the British lines had a
series of guardposts mounted some distance in front of the old walls, and
within the limits of cartography, very much along the same place as the
current border now stands.
Given that the victor becomes correct by default (what otherwise would have
been the point of winning?) we should accept the British interpretation of
"fortifications".
Spain is ingenious as interpretation of historical documents. She claims Gib
has no territorial waters, sice no waters were ceed in Utrecht. A bit rich
this, given that at the time of Utrecht the concept of territorial waters
would not exist for a further 100 yrs or so. If they are not mentioned it is
becuause they were not Spain's to give! Also they claim that all reclaimed
land in Gib is rightfully Spanish, as that too was not ceded under Utrecht.
How could it, when it never even existed in 1713? That land has been nothing
but British since its inception! Curiojsly though, it appears we are
usurping more Spanish land today as much of the stuff being used for
landfill now is brought in from San Roque! Hey, we negotiated a price, and
it became ours. Watch them want it back in 300 years time. Ocean Village,
The Island, you have been warned!
Spain is of course notoriously good at collective amnesia and attempting to
re-write history. They can do so within their own borders where the Govt has
control, but why should the rest of us have the wool pulled over our
collective eyes? Was it not ironic to watch judge Garzon attempt to try to
extradite Pinochet from the UK attempting to try him in Spain for alleged
crimes against humanity in Chile (where Sp has no jurisdiction) when Franco
and his henchmen killed more of his opponents after cessation of
hoistilities than Pinochet ever did, yet NO-ONE in Spain has EVER faced any
court for any of these alleged crimes against humanity? Not that there's any
point now of course, as anyone who may have been guilty is either dead or
senile and unable to defend themselves.
Spain is also v good at forgetting that Ceuta and Melilla were used as
garrison towns from which scourges of colonial repression were visited on
Morocco, before she so ignominiously left, all this of course IMMHO (in my
MOST humble opinion), I present none of it as fact.
K
Jim Watt
wrote:
Good answers although Lynx may now accuse you of being anti-spanish.
There was also a principle at the time of the conquest of Gibraltar
that a fortress would control all the land around it under its guns
naturally putting them up the rock helped extend the range.
Ken
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
You know, I often wondered about this. Imagine you are a Sp soldier involved
in a land offensive against Gib. Thanks to the guns placed in what we know
as the upper and lower galleries, there was absloutely nothing you could do!
I have no idea what the range of these guns was, esp when raised 600ft in
the air inside the cliff - but let's suppose for argument's sake they could
reach one mile. What are you supposed to do about them? How ever can you
take them out? Your target is one mile away, 600ft up, and is no more than a
3ft wide opening in a rock. You'd have a job TODAY silencing that defence,
what chance in the late 1700s? The supply line to these was so secure, so
far back up the rock and so shielded by dense vegetation, there was no
chance of cutting these either.
Conversely if you were a Brit gunner, you could pick out your targets with
ease - no natural cover at all on the isthmus - secure in the nowledge you
were beyond their reach.
K
Jim Watt
wrote:
>You know, I often wondered about this. Imagine you are a Sp soldier involved
>in a land offensive against Gib. Thanks to the guns placed in what we know
>as the upper and lower galleries, there was absloutely nothing you could do!
>I have no idea what the range of these guns was, esp when raised 600ft in
>the air inside the cliff - but let's suppose for argument's sake they could
>reach one mile. What are you supposed to do about them? How ever can you
>take them out? Your target is one mile away, 600ft up, and is no more than a
>3ft wide opening in a rock. You'd have a job TODAY silencing that defence,
>what chance in the late 1700s? The supply line to these was so secure, so
>far back up the rock and so shielded by dense vegetation, there was no
>chance of cutting these either.
>
>Conversely if you were a Brit gunner, you could pick out your targets with
>ease - no natural cover at all on the isthmus - secure in the nowledge you
>were beyond their reach.
Good point, three cheers for Boyd, Ince, koeler, schrapnel and
their associates who came up with some very nasty things at the
right time and the men who operated their inventions.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 22:15:16 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote:
>
>>The neutral ground, to my understanding and having walked through it
>>countless times, even while the gerry gunposts were being demolished, was
>>essentially in Spanish territory. Nothing neutral about that old boy.
>
> You are referring to the Spanish half, on the Gibraltar side Spain
> claims everything up to and including Glacis Estate, and is blocking
> UEFA membership because victoria stadium is built on 'disputed land'.
I don't know about any halves, the only neutral ground that ever existed was
in Spain. As far as I know, Gib's always extended up to the borderline. How
ironic can it get, my understanding is that CEPSA built the football
stadium, where the old Victoria Stadium used to be.
> The probably also claim Marina Bay because it did not exist when the
> treaty of Utrecht was signed ...
You know, most of us have walked past the ancient Devil's Tong Mole, never
realizing it.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 22:21:38 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>news:fukqo258q1s5omtbj...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 14:30:20 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Put on a Campo hat for a moment. How does it feel to be
>>>>overuled on ventures that might bring prosperity to your city/region, on
>>>>the
>>>>premise that if it's good for Gib block it?
>>>
>>> normal.
>>
>>Well, perhaps you're right and perhaps you easily succumb to political
>>diatribe. Logic and reason cannot be monopolized nor solely owned by any
>>one
>>people.
>
> Then let us see what the Spanish position is:
>
> "The principal objective for Spain is the recovery of sovereignty over
> the territory. Everything else is secondary."
Put like that, nothing holds much promise, does it.
> (The secondary considerations include the well being of
> Spanish Citizens in the area)
>
> http://www.gibnet.com/texts/incipe1.htm
I've just downloaded the document(s). Looks very interesting. Warrants
reading. Tks.
Lynx
>
> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> news:90hso2tr01o019ur8...@4ax.com...
>> The probably also claim Marina Bay because it did not exist when the
>> treaty of Utrecht was signed ...
>
> Maps of the time show the Neutral Ground extended from the area of Galcis
> today to a distance approx as far again into present day Spain as the
> border is from Glacis. In which case, as soon as the ocncept of a neutral
> ground became obsolete, it was divided in two. In the southern (Gib) half
> we built homes, an airport, marinas, a cemetry, an RAF base - all sorts.
This is all very interesting. I'm one to read everything historical about
Gib. Where can I get a copy of such maps?
When was the cemetry situated in the present ground? Also, where was the
original cemetry? This is a very interesting subject, it really is.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
No, he's not anti-anything. He just posts for the benefit of those invisible
readers, and ends up with a lengthy convoluted reply. The Spanish realm
captured Ceuta from the Portuguese crown. There never was a Moroccan kingdom
or nation to claim Ceuta in the first place. It is risky business validating
Gib's case by comparing it with any other colony/occupied territory,
especially those under Spanish dominion. What would be your case if Spain
should ever declare any of her territories independent? The only people
Spain could have kicked out of Ceuta would have been Portuguese.
> There was also a principle at the time of the conquest of Gibraltar
> that a fortress would control all the land around it under its guns
> naturally putting them up the rock helped extend the range.
That's an interesting "principle". You mean no one would dare go within
firing range for fear of being shot, right?
Adding fuel to the fire:)) The conquest was carried out under the banner of
the Habsburgs. Making the ToU a parody in itself.
Lynx
>
> You know, I often wondered about this. Imagine you are a Sp soldier
> involved in a land offensive against Gib. Thanks to the guns placed in
> what we know as the upper and lower galleries, there was absloutely
> nothing you could do! I have no idea what the range of these guns was, esp
> when raised 600ft in the air inside the cliff - but let's suppose for
> argument's sake they could reach one mile. What are you supposed to do
> about them? How ever can you take them out? Your target is one mile away,
> 600ft up, and is no more than a 3ft wide opening in a rock. You'd have a
> job TODAY silencing that defence, what chance in the late 1700s? The
> supply line to these was so secure, so far back up the rock and so
> shielded by dense vegetation, there was no chance of cutting these either.
>
> Conversely if you were a Brit gunner, you could pick out your targets with
> ease - no natural cover at all on the isthmus - secure in the nowledge you
> were beyond their reach.
I gather you never read about one Simon Susarte, nor of the French General
Cavanne.
Lynx
>
> Well female medical practitioners (let's be official here!) are also
> accorded the title Dr. Thos ewho pursue a surgical carreer usually revert
> to any of the three "civil" forms, Miss, Mrs, Ms depending on how they
> feel. The majority refer to themselves as Miss, for very simple reasons of
> expediency.
Interesting. Haven't come across a female medical specialist yet. I'll
remember to call her Miss.
> Most on foirst qualifying from Uni and getting the title Dr are unamarried
> and are Miss. By the time those who go on to durgery get their relevant
> Felloship Diploma from whatevr Royal College, some will have married. Of
> course their married name varies from the name on their roiginal medical
> degree, and it is apparently quite a convoluted procedure to get a "Mrs"
> Fellowship diploma issued to someone whose name has changed since they
> were awarded their original University degree. Therefore, most female
> surgeons, married or otherwise, practice as Miss using their paternal
> surname.
Why should a woman change her family name? Isn't that parctice somewhat
primitive?
> They might be old, but in the words of the song they might also be
> familiar. But more seriously, while appearing to deride your bandurria
> (far from it - I can churn out a tune or two on a 8-string mandolin
> myself!) is THIS not the sort of thing the Heritage Society shold be
> getting its teeth into also, before it's lost forever? All over the UK
> there are Morris Men (well, OK, bad example, but you know what I'm getting
> at) and folk groups that retain a link to the past. Not that it serves any
> PRACTICAL good, but it ensures the songs and stories of past generations
> are retained so that they will not have sang and danced in vain. Spain we
> saw on TV brings out its regional dances at the drop of a hat. Germans and
> Austrins prance about in leather shorts and slap their thights to Tyrolean
> accordion music - and why not?
I couldn't agree more. I remember being very young, always had an ear for
music, hearing "villancicos" being sang by a group of Caletenos (from La
Caleta). Never again did I hear this style of songs again! I even asked an
acquaintance in Gib, while visiting, if he knew of their traditional Xmas
songs. He remarked he remembered something! I fear it has all but faded
away.
> What traditional folkloric movement, if any, is there in Gib today?
Once, on another visit, I recall seeing somewhere a photograph of Gib's
mandolin orchestra. Cannot say whether it was a thing of the past or
current. Gib's been gifted with top musicians through the generations, many
becoming professionals, recording their music, etc. I agree, an effort
should be made to enhance and establish Gib's varied musical roots.
Jim Watt
> my understanding is that CEPSA built the football
>stadium, where the old Victoria Stadium used to be.
Your understanding is wrong. CEPSA built a filling station.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 00:36:56 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote:
>
>> my understanding is that CEPSA built the football
>>stadium, where the old Victoria Stadium used to be.
>
> Your understanding is wrong. CEPSA built a filling station.
My understanding is Cepsa financed the building of the stadium in exchange
for a permit to establish a filling station. This, I may add, came from very
good ink.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
>
> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> news:mk2to2dbsu8daciko...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 12:20:55 -0000, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Good answers although Lynx may now accuse you of being anti-Spanish.
>
> No, he's not anti-anything. He just posts for the benefit of those
> invisible readers, and ends up with a lengthy convoluted reply. The
> Spanish realm captured Ceuta from the Portuguese crown. There never was a
> Moroccan kingdom or nation to claim Ceuta in the first place. It is risky
> business validating Gib's case by comparing it with any other
> colony/occupied territory, especially those under Spanish dominion. What
> would be your case if Spain should ever declare any of her territories
> independent? The only people Spain could have kicked out of Ceuta would
> have been Portuguese.
>
>> There was also a principle at the time of the conquest of Gibraltar
>> that a fortress would control all the land around it under its guns
>> naturally putting them up the rock helped extend the range.
>
> That's an interesting "principle". You mean no one would dare go within
> firing range for fear of being shot, right?
Whether that or not, it remained the land which could be defended. It also
acted as a buffer zone in which you would hold sway, would not put up
anything permanent, but could use it for agriculture and lookout posts.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
No idea where the maps were, but I have seen them. I suspect they be those
stuffy maps and pints often framed and put up in crusty lawyers' chambers -
gives them a sense of history and thus authority and austerity. You know the
sort.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
You are absolutely correct - I haven't.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:emltk...@news1.newsguy.com...
>>
>> Well female medical practitioners (let's be official here!) are also
>> accorded the title Dr. Thos ewho pursue a surgical carreer usually revert
>> to any of the three "civil" forms, Miss, Mrs, Ms depending on how they
>> feel. The majority refer to themselves as Miss, for very simple reasons
>> of expediency.
>
> Interesting. Haven't come across a female medical specialist yet. I'll
> remember to call her Miss.
SURGICAL! A female accredited specialist in a cutting specialty. A lady
physician, as all pohysicians, should be referred to as Dr. Only surgeons
use Mr / Miss - in the UK. In USA everyone is called Dr, whether they cut or
not.
K
>
>> Most on foirst qualifying from Uni and getting the title Dr are
>> unamarried and are Miss. By the time those who go on to durgery get their
>> relevant Felloship Diploma from whatevr Royal College, some will have
>> married. Of course their married name varies from the name on their
>> roiginal medical degree, and it is apparently quite a convoluted
>> procedure to get a "Mrs" Fellowship diploma issued to someone whose name
>> has changed since they were awarded their original University degree.
>> Therefore, most female surgeons, married or otherwise, practice as Miss
>> using their paternal surname.
>
> Why should a woman change her family name? Isn't that parctice somewhat
> primitive?
Custom and practice. Some women were given perfectly normal names, and it
can end up a tad comical when they marry if they take up their husband's
surname. Such as (but not limited to) Rose Rose, Teresa Green (say in
quickly), Charlotte Onions etc etc.
>
>> They might be old, but in the words of the song they might also be
>> familiar. But more seriously, while appearing to deride your bandurria
>> (far from it - I can churn out a tune or two on a 8-string mandolin
>> myself!) is THIS not the sort of thing the Heritage Society shold be
>> getting its teeth into also, before it's lost forever? All over the UK
>> there are Morris Men (well, OK, bad example, but you know what I'm
>> getting at) and folk groups that retain a link to the past. Not that it
>> serves any PRACTICAL good, but it ensures the songs and stories of past
>> generations are retained so that they will not have sang and danced in
>> vain. Spain we saw on TV brings out its regional dances at the drop of a
>> hat. Germans and Austrins prance about in leather shorts and slap their
>> thights to Tyrolean accordion music - and why not?
>
> I couldn't agree more. I remember being very young, always had an ear for
> music, hearing "villancicos" being sang by a group of Caletenos (from La
> Caleta). Never again did I hear this style of songs again! I even asked an
> acquaintance in Gib, while visiting, if he knew of their traditional Xmas
> songs. He remarked he remembered something! I fear it has all but faded
> away.
>
>> What traditional folkloric movement, if any, is there in Gib today?
>
> Once, on another visit, I recall seeing somewhere a photograph of Gib's
> mandolin orchestra. Cannot say whether it was a thing of the past or
> current. Gib's been gifted with top musicians through the generations,
> many becoming professionals, recording their music, etc. I agree, an
> effort should be made to enhance and establish Gib's varied musical roots.
The only people who I know whould play publicly were Los Peninsulares.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
Well you get a mgnificent view of it from some of the Watergardens flats
when you can look down on it. The GoG uses the bit of land behind it as a
nursery for the plants that eventually adorn roundabouts, hedges etc.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
If you consult http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Old_maps you will see an
old map of Gib which clearly shows the border then to be where the border is
now, just about +/- accuracies as may be expected. Naturally the bulk of the
reclamations is not there, but the map is dated 1888. We can be quite
confident then that the border as it exists today dates back AT LEAST to
then, meaning that all the Sp claims about the UK usurping land during WW2
to build a runway is total nonsense.
Anyone have any earlier maps showing a border? We know the border cannot
have existed before 1704, and from reference to this map we can state that
the border is where it has been now for 118 years. Let's see how far back it
goes!
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
news:9GFjh.12743$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
OK chaps - found some REALLY OLD maps - as close to 1704 as we're likely to
get short of raiding Admiralty files to see the report Elliott sent back to
England showing where the limits of the territory gained lay!
Have a look at
http://historic-cities.huji.ac.il/gibraltar/gibraltar/maps/homann_1733_gibraltar.html
Here there are clickable maps Part A, Part B and Views. Mucl old writing
accompanies these maps, dated 1727 + 1733. There is much text about these
maps, I can't translate any menaingful amounts of these.
Curously there is no Bay of Algeciras, merely a Bay of Gibraltar. About time
all used this latter historically correct term at the expense of the more
recently put about contender for the title.
It seems to me, looking at the pics, that the UK from way back then occupied
what the Sp term to be "neutral ground" giving lie to their claims that it
was a no-man's-land until WW2 when the UK constructed an airfield there.
Also some pics show fortifications along the line of the present border
(give or take, given cartographic standards and ,easurements) whicih are
distictly Spanish, given the way they point. Therfore the Sp accepted back
no later than 1733 where the border was - where it is now frankly.
The pics have their own reference on their borders, I need not qualify them
further.
Can anyone translate the writing on these maps? I'll see if I can get a
colleague at work (German) to have a go.
K
Lynx
>
>>> There was also a principle at the time of the conquest of Gibraltar
>>> that a fortress would control all the land around it under its guns
>>> naturally putting them up the rock helped extend the range.
>>
>> That's an interesting "principle". You mean no one would dare go within
>> firing range for fear of being shot, right?
>
> Whether that or not, it remained the land which could be defended. It also
> acted as a buffer zone in which you would hold sway, would not put up
> anything permanent, but could use it for agriculture and lookout posts.
Absolutely.
Lynx
>
> No idea where the maps were, but I have seen them. I suspect they be those
> stuffy maps and pints often framed and put up in crusty lawyers'
> chambers - gives them a sense of history and thus authority and austerity.
> You know the sort.
Yes I know the sort. It so happens I have a copy of one of those maps. It
shows Gib, the Campo towns and the formation of attack of the "enemy". The
mapwas produced by and English officer. An interesting piece of work of the
time.
Lynx
>> You know, most of us have walked past the ancient Devil's Tong Mole,
>> never realizing it.
>
> Well you get a mgnificent view of it from some of the Watergardens flats
> when you can look down on it. The GoG uses the bit of land behind it as a
> nursery for the plants that eventually adorn roundabouts, hedges etc.
Yes, am aware. I even got to know the fellow who purports to own the
nursery.
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
> news:S5Gjh.12751$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Interesting. Haven't come across a female medical specialist yet. I'll
>> remember to call her Miss.
>
> SURGICAL! A female accredited specialist in a cutting specialty. A lady
> physician, as all pohysicians, should be referred to as Dr. Only surgeons
> use Mr / Miss - in the UK. In USA everyone is called Dr, whether they cut
> or not.
Right, I'll remember that.
>> Why should a woman change her family name? Isn't that parctice somewhat
>> primitive?
>
> Custom and practice. Some women were given perfectly normal names, and it
> can end up a tad comical when they marry if they take up their husband's
> surname. Such as (but not limited to) Rose Rose, Teresa Green (say in
> quickly), Charlotte Onions etc etc.
We are all accustomed to this "tradition" of ownership, male ownership that
is. There's much to be said about the Spanish tradition where women do not
loose their own identity when marrying. They simply become, using your
example, Rose Williams of Rose, Teresa Smith of Green, Charlotte Bushel of
Onions, etc....:))
>>> What traditional folkloric movement, if any, is there in Gib today?
>>
>> Once, on another visit, I recall seeing somewhere a photograph of Gib's
>> mandolin orchestra. Cannot say whether it was a thing of the past or
>> current. Gib's been gifted with top musicians through the generations,
>> many becoming professionals, recording their music, etc. I agree, an
>> effort should be made to enhance and establish Gib's varied musical
>> roots.
>
> The only people who I know whould play publicly were Los Peninsulares.
Never heard of them, but how apt a name!
Lynx
>
> If you consult http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Old_maps you will see an
> old map of Gib which clearly shows the border then to be where the border
> is now, just about +/- accuracies as may be expected. Naturally the bulk
> of the reclamations is not there, but the map is dated 1888. We can be
> quite confident then that the border as it exists today dates back AT
> LEAST to then, meaning that all the Sp claims about the UK usurping land
> during WW2 to build a runway is total nonsense.
>
> Anyone have any earlier maps showing a border? We know the border cannot
> have existed before 1704, and from reference to this map we can state that
> the border is where it has been now for 118 years. Let's see how far back
> it goes!
So long as Great Britain and Spain adhere to the ToU, this argument cannot
be based on where or how long the border might have been. From memory, it is
La Plaza de Gibraltar....which was ceded. If I'm not mistaken this started
from Landport Gate. Colloquially known as El Tune del Keimi.
Lynx
>
> OK chaps - found some REALLY OLD maps - as close to 1704 as we're likely
> to get short of raiding Admiralty files to see the report Elliott sent
> back to England showing where the limits of the territory gained lay!
>
> Have a look at
> http://historic-cities.huji.ac.il/gibraltar/gibraltar/maps/homann_1733_gibraltar.html
> Here there are clickable maps Part A, Part B and Views. Mucl old writing
> accompanies these maps, dated 1727 + 1733. There is much text about these
> maps, I can't translate any menaingful amounts of these.
The oldest map dating 1727, shows the crisscrossing Spanish trenches going
in as far as where the present day Marina is. The accute angled-mounted
cannon at Casemates is an excellent indication of just how close to the Rock
these guns had to aim at.
> Curously there is no Bay of Algeciras, merely a Bay of Gibraltar. About
> time all used this latter historically correct term at the expense of the
> more recently put about contender for the title.
The Bahia de Gibraltar, formed part of the Campo de Gibraltar. The Bahia de
Algeciras is nothing more than a modernity, which does away with the very
history Spain adheres to with regards to Gibraltar. This shortsighted
renaming of the famous Bay is far from a clever move. Algeciras after all,
was never "one" but two adjoining pieces of undeveloped landmass claimed by
two jurisdictions within the Campo region. Hence its pluralistic name.
Lynx
Lookout for a new posting.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
Devil's Tongue is quite evident in some of those maps I pointed out earlier.
Makes you realise what lttle flat land existed then, and how much exists now
thanks to reclamation. Anyway, why REclamation? Makes it sound like it was
land before, being reclaimed. Surely its simple "clamation"? Semantics!
K
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:emoi0...@news1.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
>> news:S5Gjh.12751$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>> Interesting. Haven't come across a female medical specialist yet. I'll
>>> remember to call her Miss.
>>
>> SURGICAL! A female accredited specialist in a cutting specialty. A lady
>> physician, as all pohysicians, should be referred to as Dr. Only surgeons
>> use Mr / Miss - in the UK. In USA everyone is called Dr, whether they cut
>> or not.
>
> Right, I'll remember that.
>
>>> Why should a woman change her family name? Isn't that parctice somewhat
>>> primitive?
>>
>> Custom and practice. Some women were given perfectly normal names, and it
>> can end up a tad comical when they marry if they take up their husband's
>> surname. Such as (but not limited to) Rose Rose, Teresa Green (say in
>> quickly), Charlotte Onions etc etc.
>
> We are all accustomed to this "tradition" of ownership, male ownership
> that is. There's much to be said about the Spanish tradition where women
> do not loose their own identity when marrying. They simply become, using
> your example, Rose Williams of Rose, Teresa Smith of Green, Charlotte
> Bushel of Onions, etc....:))
Dolores Fuerte de Barriga? Yes I know what you mean, but it gets VERY
confusing when a man and wife have different surnames, and these differ from
their children's! I much prefer simple, easy to follow schemes. Why not
adopt the Icelandic system and do away with surnames?
>> The only people who I know whould play publicly were Los Peninsulares.
>
> Never heard of them, but how apt a name!
They were certainly active for years and years, I'd have thought you'd have
come across them. Or were they Los Trobadores? Anyway, look here
http://www.catholicdiocese.gi/plegaria.htm
At one time the song was audible, not now - no idea why!
K
Ken
I had another closer look at this map. There is a distinct line south of the
"Neutral ground". place names there are Governor's Garden, Governor's
pasture and Watering Place, the last in English - all within the present-day
area of the airport. Gib has had Governors continuously since 1704,
adjoining areas of Spain have not. I think we can safely say that the border
where it now stands (+/- ish) was established AT LEAST as far back as 1888
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
The name has nothing to do with plural I maintain, but is all to do with the
name given to the natural harbour which exists there and which was used way
back by the Moors in 711AD and onward. The original natural harbour was
formed by an island just off the shore from the mainland. This now no longer
exists as the Sp too have filled in the sand bar to make the island a
permanent extension of the mainland. The resulting bay within ther Bay of
Gibraltar, with its opening to the north, was v sheltered. The Arabic for
"the island" is "al jezira" - the same name as the famed news TV station in
arabic which has done a great deal to present the Iraqi invasion as seen
from the wrong end of the bullet, now transmitting in English.
Favourite programmes include Baz el-Brush (boom boom!), and among their
presenters is one David Frost who has had to modify one of his famous
catchphrases fro "back in a minute" to "back in a minorette"
K
Lynx
Yes, Devil's Tongue is quite prominent in old maps. Sea-claimed land might
be a proper term. We have to resort to terms given that English is mostly
made up of borrowed words, made-up words and all round of such poor
vocabulary. Jimbo's quiet, he must be going through countless books trying
to make a contradictory point. Perhaps he's sleeping it off.....
Lynx
Have you not considered that the borderline might have originally started
from where the Laguna used to be? Makes sense to me.
Lynx
Wrong, the children carry the father;s surname first, followed by their
mothers. It's a case of knowing who ones parents are.
Many Oz women are opting for keeping their maiden names. Discussing this
topic once, I recall some of them saying that they do go through a kind of
identity crisis when halfway through their lives they have to be known by
another name. As they themselves put it. They are not related, by blood, to
their adopted name. Again, I know some who have become divorced, only to be
saddled with a name they no longer identify with. Qyuite absurd, if you ask
me.
>>> The only people who I know whould play publicly were Los Peninsulares.
>>
>> Never heard of them, but how apt a name!
>
> They were certainly active for years and years, I'd have thought you'd
> have come across them. Or were they Los Trobadores? Anyway, look here
> http://www.catholicdiocese.gi/plegaria.htm
>
> At one time the song was audible, not now - no idea why!
Been there, thanks. And yes, I knew of Los Trobadores. Any Gibraltarian
worth his salt would know of Los Trobadores.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
Off making a racket with a sambomba perhaps?
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
I'd like to know where the border was changed with time, if at all.
We have the Sp shouting that it was at Landport Tunnel as recently as WW2,
when the UK built an airport on what was until then neutral ground.
Nonsense, there are many people alive in Gib today who remember the
racecourse in undoubtedly Brit soil prior to WW2. Of course as this
generation disappears slowly there will be fewer and fewer eye witnesses to
this fact.
The more accurately we can establish how the border changed with time the
better we may be in a position to refute the Sp claims. After all,
sovereignty by dint of continuous occupation becomes a stronger case the
longer the occupation has occurred.
K
Lynx
Referring to a history book written back in 1605-1610, there were two
Algeciras. One 'Algecira' was situated, "en la boca del estrecho", (at the
entrance to the strait). This could have been in the vicinity of Punta
Carnero or thereabouts. The other around Getares and Carteya, well into the
Bay. It makes further reference to another 'Algecira' in Africa, in close
proximity to Ceuta, these last two owned by a Count Julian (Roman times, I
think). It is not uncommon for Algeciras to be referred to as "Las
Algeciras". 'Algecira' I understand to mean 'delightfully green', though I
wouldn't argue this point. Is it not interesting that the TV station should
not end with an "S"?
> Favourite programmes include Baz el-Brush (boom boom!), and among their
> presenters is one David Frost who has had to modify one of his famous
> catchphrases fro "back in a minute" to "back in a minorette"
It's gone right over my head :))
Lynx
I have checked another old map (1705) in a book. The Spanish trenches went
up to present day Glacis. This makes sense. Glacis being sloping banks of a
fortress. It is also the outer cleared-flatland of a fortress. The defense
facing north, at the back of Casemates Barracks, with the only entrance
being Landport Tunnel, was Gib's northernmost defense line. This is not
politics, but history.
> We have the Sp shouting that it was at Landport Tunnel as recently as WW2,
> when the UK built an airport on what was until then neutral ground.
> Nonsense, there are many people alive in Gib today who remember the
> racecourse in undoubtedly Brit soil prior to WW2. Of course as this
> generation disappears slowly there will be fewer and fewer eye witnesses
> to this fact.
Fear not, I too know people who remember the hippodrome, were they used to
race hippopotamus, I mean horses. :)) Word of mouth is another great way of
transmitting our history to our new generations. The risk with arguing over
what Britain did or did not agree or not agree to, is that we the town folks
have never been privy to such dealings. I have heard rumours of Churchill
promising Franco Gib in exchange for the airfield. How true this is, no
idea. But TBlair embarked on a not so dissimilar route just recently.
> The more accurately we can establish how the border changed with time the
> better we may be in a position to refute the Sp claims. After all,
> sovereignty by dint of continuous occupation becomes a stronger case the
> longer the occupation has occurred.
Jim posted a URL to a most interesting document, which I'm still digesting.
A remarkable statement by Spanish Officialdom is that "Gibraltarians must
know where they are and that they belong in the Campo de Gibraltar". Words
to that effect. I take that to mean that they acknowledge we belong in
Gibraltar as Gibraltarians. They also make it very clear that as far as they
are concerned, they do not recognize us as an independent nation.
Lynx
I'm not sure we should go there, but hell! Hope he hasn't mistaken anything
else for his sambomba! :))
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
S is a Roman letter. Al Gezira / al Jezeera spell it as you will, is all
with Roman letters trying to make the sound that they make with Arabic
script, which has no letter called S. They may have symbols that represent
the same sound, but you can bet your bottom dirham it's not called "ess"!
>
>> Favourite programmes include Baz el-Brush (boom boom!), and among their
>> presenters is one David Frost who has had to modify one of his famous
>> catchphrases fro "back in a minute" to "back in a minorette"
>
> It's gone right over my head :))
Jim'll get it. He's old enough.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
OK, so between 1705 and 1888 the border moved from Landport to the present
location. 183 years between. We need to improve on that, trace the progress
with time.
>
>> We have the Sp shouting that it was at Landport Tunnel as recently as
>> WW2, when the UK built an airport on what was until then neutral ground.
>> Nonsense, there are many people alive in Gib today who remember the
>> racecourse in undoubtedly Brit soil prior to WW2. Of course as this
>> generation disappears slowly there will be fewer and fewer eye witnesses
>> to this fact.
>
> Fear not, I too know people who remember the hippodrome, were they used to
> race hippopotamus, I mean horses. :)) Word of mouth is another great way
> of transmitting our history to our new generations. The risk with arguing
> over what Britain did or did not agree or not agree to, is that we the
> town folks have never been privy to such dealings. I have heard rumours of
> Churchill promising Franco Gib in exchange for the airfield. How true this
> is, no idea. But TBlair embarked on a not so dissimilar route just
> recently.
Churchill's comments have been debunked as being Sp propaganda. Tony's
efforts have achieeved nothing for him, and he is a lame duck. Much of what
he set out to do he has failed to do, his Govt's biggest achievement being
to have taxed the UK taxpayer heavier than ever before, have laid more red
tape than ever, and have a reputation of being control freaks.
>> The more accurately we can establish how the border changed with time the
>> better we may be in a position to refute the Sp claims. After all,
>> sovereignty by dint of continuous occupation becomes a stronger case the
>> longer the occupation has occurred.
>
> Jim posted a URL to a most interesting document, which I'm still
> digesting. A remarkable statement by Spanish Officialdom is that
> "Gibraltarians must know where they are and that they belong in the Campo
> de Gibraltar". Words to that effect. I take that to mean that they
> acknowledge we belong in Gibraltar as Gibraltarians. They also make it
> very clear that as far as they are concerned, they do not recognize us as
> an independent nation.
You consider them most generously. By the statement you quote I read them to
believe that we must be made to realise that we are in Spain and must
accepot Spansih sovereignty. They absolutely deny that we exist as a people,
hence the strenuous efforts to deny our representation anywhere. If we
represent Gib at football, then Gib exists. If Gib is not represented at
football, then Gib does not exist. See?
K
Ken
Don't know why I didn't look at this earlier.
I refer those who have it to open a copy of "Gibraltar" by Maurice harvey on
p95. If you don't have it, it doesn't matter - read on. Refer to the map in
the link above, particualrly part B. The line of fortifications you see in
the map in the link above is the line "Lineas Espa~olas" in thhe map in the
book. The eastern end of the fortifications is Fuerte Santa Barbara, the
western end is Fuerte San Felipe. I have no overlay of today, but it seems
to me that these Forts and the lines are a fair way back into Spain from
where the current border lies.
If I am correct then, the neutral ground that existed between the UK and Sp
lines WAS over the years encroached upon in roughly equal halves, the Sp
taking possession of the northern half and Britain / Gibraltar taking
possession of the southern half. That Gib developed its half sooner and more
intensely than Spain did with her half is hardly surprising given the
pressure on land and space on each side. If Gib / Britain is guilty of a
northward encroachment, so is Spain guilty of a southwards encroachment.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
K
Jim Watt
wrote:
>>> Favourite programmes include Baz el-Brush (boom boom!), and among their
>>> presenters is one David Frost who has had to modify one of his famous
>>> catchphrases fro "back in a minute" to "back in a minorette"
>>
>> It's gone right over my head :))
>
>Jim'll get it. He's old enough.
Sad but true. Quite good really.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
Jim Watt
wrote:
>Don't know why I didn't look at this earlier.
>
>I refer those who have it to open a copy of "Gibraltar" by Maurice harvey on
>p95. If you don't have it, it doesn't matter - read on. Refer to the map in
>the link above, particualrly part B. The line of fortifications you see in
>the map in the link above is the line "Lineas Espa~olas" in thhe map in the
>book. The eastern end of the fortifications is Fuerte Santa Barbara, the
>western end is Fuerte San Felipe. I have no overlay of today, but it seems
>to me that these Forts and the lines are a fair way back into Spain from
>where the current border lies.
>
>If I am correct then, the neutral ground that existed between the UK and Sp
>lines WAS over the years encroached upon in roughly equal halves, the Sp
>taking possession of the northern half and Britain / Gibraltar taking
>possession of the southern half. That Gib developed its half sooner and more
>intensely than Spain did with her half is hardly surprising given the
>pressure on land and space on each side. If Gib / Britain is guilty of a
>northward encroachment, so is Spain guilty of a southwards encroachment.
Quite rightly too, the purpose of the 'Neutral territory' was as a DMZ
to prevent conflict. At a point when there was no chance of it
happening again, it was occupied peaceful;ly by both sides up to the
current frontier line which is the half way mark.
The original 'Spanish Lines' were a distance to the North and are
shown on picture postcards of the pre-war era.
Lynx
I'll be sending my scouts out. :))
Will keep an eye out for other maps, etc.
>> Fear not, I too know people who remember the hippodrome, were they used
>> to race hippopotamus, I mean horses. :)) Word of mouth is another great
>> way of transmitting our history to our new generations. The risk with
>> arguing over what Britain did or did not agree or not agree to, is that
>> we the town folks have never been privy to such dealings. I have heard
>> rumours of Churchill promising Franco Gib in exchange for the airfield.
>> How true this is, no idea. But TBlair embarked on a not so dissimilar
>> route just recently.
>
> Churchill's comments have been debunked as being Sp propaganda. Tony's
> efforts have achieeved nothing for him, and he is a lame duck. Much of
> what he set out to do he has failed to do, his Govt's biggest achievement
> being to have taxed the UK taxpayer heavier than ever before, have laid
> more red tape than ever, and have a reputation of being control freaks.
So what's your alternative? In western democracies most lame ducks seem
opposed by dead ducks.
>> Jim posted a URL to a most interesting document, which I'm still
>> digesting. A remarkable statement by Spanish Officialdom is that
>> "Gibraltarians must know where they are and that they belong in the Campo
>> de Gibraltar". Words to that effect. I take that to mean that they
>> acknowledge we belong in Gibraltar as Gibraltarians. They also make it
>> very clear that as far as they are concerned, they do not recognize us as
>> an independent nation.
>
> You consider them most generously. By the statement you quote I read them
> to believe that we must be made to realise that we are in Spain and must
> accepot Spansih sovereignty. They absolutely deny that we exist as a
> people, hence the strenuous efforts to deny our representation anywhere.
> If we represent Gib at football, then Gib exists. If Gib is not
> represented at football, then Gib does not exist. See?
Yes, I see your point. Makes things difficult. Mind you, as expats we're not
ones to celebrate much either.
Lynx
You may, may not, be right. But in any case if either names had an 'S' sound
at the ending, why would they not use an 'S' when writing these names in
Roman letters? From what I've read so far, my impression is that, just like
we tend to repeat nameplaces in different suburbs and countries, so they too
repeated this name in applicable places which were 'lusciously green'.
>>> Favourite programmes include Baz el-Brush (boom boom!), and among their
>>> presenters is one David Frost who has had to modify one of his famous
>>> catchphrases fro "back in a minute" to "back in a minorette"
>>
>> It's gone right over my head :))
>
> Jim'll get it. He's old enough.
No...! Is he....?
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Identity running thin.........hmmmm?
sig...@binet.is
Lynx wrote:
> > Dolores Fuerte de Barriga? Yes I know what you mean, but it gets VERY
> > confusing when a man and wife have different surnames, and these differ
> > from their children's! I much prefer simple, easy to follow schemes. Why
> > not adopt the Icelandic system and do away with surnames?
>
> Wrong, the children carry the father;s surname first, followed by their
> mothers. It's a case of knowing who ones parents are.
Wrong, children get the first name of their father (+son if it is a boy
or dottir if it is a girl) as a surname and in few cases the name of
the mother is used instead of the father´s name.
Children do not get their parent´s surnames and women do not change
their surname when they marry (they do not change fathers, do they?)
Lynx
>
> Don't know why I didn't look at this earlier.
>
> I refer those who have it to open a copy of "Gibraltar" by Maurice harvey
> on p95. If you don't have it, it doesn't matter - read on. Refer to the
> map in the link above, particualrly part B. The line of fortifications you
> see in the map in the link above is the line "Lineas Espa~olas" in thhe
> map in the book. The eastern end of the fortifications is Fuerte Santa
> Barbara, the western end is Fuerte San Felipe. I have no overlay of today,
> but it seems to me that these Forts and the lines are a fair way back into
> Spain from where the current border lies.
The fortresses and magazines would have been situated well away from firing
range. Santa Barbara is usually where ammunition is stored. The zig-zag
lines representing the trenches which reached much further into firing
range.
> If I am correct then, the neutral ground that existed between the UK and
> Sp lines WAS over the years encroached upon in roughly equal halves, the
> Sp taking possession of the northern half and Britain / Gibraltar taking
> possession of the southern half. That Gib developed its half sooner and
> more intensely than Spain did with her half is hardly surprising given the
> pressure on land and space on each side. If Gib / Britain is guilty of a
> northward encroachment, so is Spain guilty of a southwards encroachment.
Your observations sound plausible.
I would not like to commit myself on this one. But will say that when you
can mount an expedition of 500 men, to make their way around where Devil's
Tower used to stand, and then through today's Catalan Bay and up to Winmill
Hill, without being noticed. I am lead to beleive that the Anglo-Dutch
forces kept themselves very much within the fortified walls. My estimation
is that what we know today as Laguna Estate and Glacis, was 'no go zone'.
That we developed these areas in time is obvious.
> People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Too right.
Lynx
<sig...@binet.is> wrote in message
news:1167177646.3...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Lynx wrote:
I have just said that children carry the father's surname, while they may
also use the mother's as a second surname. The mother always keeps her
maiden name, only that this may be followed by "de Valdez", in the case of a
woman marrying a man by the surname of Valdez, as an example.
sig...@binet.is
Are you certain that you are talking about the Icelandic system (like
the above poster mentioned) ?
Jim Watt
>Laguna Estate and Glacis, was 'no go zone'.
Unless the enemy were equipped with wellies, yes ...
Lynx
<sig...@binet.is> wrote in message
news:1167214325.6...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
I know what I'm talking about. You cut in. Perhaps you got your wires
crossed.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
The coming of Gordon Brown as leader, he so far having been Chancellor of
the Exchequer (some call it "Waiting for Gordo") will make things worse. The
Lab party appears to me IMHO to be amoral or immoral, and Gordo is the main
architecht behind the tax regime, being the dour Scotsman that he is. The
best alternative is a chang eof administration, meaning the Tories (the
LibDems not having enough support to command power given the
first-past-the-post system we're lumbered with).
The Tories will make a nice change, until they introduce their own special
brand of incompetence.
>
>>> Jim posted a URL to a most interesting document, which I'm still
>>> digesting. A remarkable statement by Spanish Officialdom is that
>>> "Gibraltarians must know where they are and that they belong in the
>>> Campo de Gibraltar". Words to that effect. I take that to mean that they
>>> acknowledge we belong in Gibraltar as Gibraltarians. They also make it
>>> very clear that as far as they are concerned, they do not recognize us
>>> as an independent nation.
>>
>> You consider them most generously. By the statement you quote I read them
>> to believe that we must be made to realise that we are in Spain and must
>> accepot Spansih sovereignty. They absolutely deny that we exist as a
>> people, hence the strenuous efforts to deny our representation anywhere.
>> If we represent Gib at football, then Gib exists. If Gib is not
>> represented at football, then Gib does not exist. See?
>
> Yes, I see your point. Makes things difficult. Mind you, as expats we're
> not ones to celebrate much either.
Blessed are those who expect nothing, they are seldom diappointed.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
OK - I am the above poster! Here goes;
In Gib, the UK system is used for surnames (though increasingly there are
opt-outs)
Sons and daughters inherit their father's surname
A woman on marriage loses her father's surname, and takes on her husband's
surname.
IN Spain, sons and daughters inherit their fathers surname
A woman on marriage keeps her father's surname and adds her husband's
surname at the end
Confusingly, some men also use their mother's maiden name but children only
inherit the father's paternal surname, giving rise to the case where the
father, mother and children all sport different surnames.
In Iceland (IIRC from having worked with a few) a son takes on his father's
"name+son" after his given name, whereas a girl takes on her mother's
"name+dottir". No name changes occur on marriage, and there is no family
name at all, as each individual is in effect called by his/her given name,
plus the name of his father or her mother, as appropriate That you then find
a few people (all women, work it out) whose second name is Solveigdottir
does not mean they may be related, it just means each of them had a mother
called Solveig.
Am I OK?
Ken
sig...@binet.is
Not quite, children get the first name of their father (+son if it is a
boy or dottir if it is a girl) as a surname and in few cases the name
of the mother is used instead of the father´s name but it is rarer.
The father of Björk is Gudmundur, that is why she is Gudmundsdottir.
If the above mentioned Solveig did not want her children to be
associated with their father, her daughter would be Solveigardottir and
her son would be Solveigarson.
Sigvaldi Eggertsson.
Lynx
>
>> So what's your alternative? In western democracies most lame ducks seem
>> opposed by dead ducks.
>
> The coming of Gordon Brown as leader, he so far having been Chancellor of
> the Exchequer (some call it "Waiting for Gordo") will make things worse.
> The Lab party appears to me IMHO to be amoral or immoral, and Gordo is the
> main architecht behind the tax regime, being the dour Scotsman that he is.
> The best alternative is a chang eof administration, meaning the Tories
> (the LibDems not having enough support to command power given the
> first-past-the-post system we're lumbered with).
>
> The Tories will make a nice change, until they introduce their own special
> brand of incompetence.
Looks like whatever happensyou're at the mercy of Scottish and other euro
imports. Spotting the Englishman in your main parties could soon be, yet
another, computer game.
>> Yes, I see your point. Makes things difficult. Mind you, as expats we're
>> not ones to celebrate much either.
>
> Blessed are those who expect nothing, they are seldom diappointed.
The audacity to come through as a non-believer! :))