Hymn from the gut
Lynx
a su lado quiero estar,
No hay un sitio para mi,
Como mi buen Gibraltar.....
Anyone care to continue the lyrics?
DCC
But I think your average Johnny from Bayside will not know (or care) what
you are on about. He probably finds it so 'un-cool'
It belongs to another era.
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
news:hQKOe.8321$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Lynx
evacuee during the forced evacuation of Gibraltar! I am truly amazed that we
can be so tuned to what occurred 300 years ago and be so distant from what
happened a mere 50-60 years ago! Tiene cojone la cosa compa!
"DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:deglma$u8a$1...@nobel.pacific.net.sg...
DCC
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
news:ixSOe.8619$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Joe tio! and to think this popular tune was written by a Gibraltarian
> evacuee during the forced evacuation of Gibraltar! I am truly amazed that
> we can be so tuned to what occurred 300 years ago and be so distant from
> what happened a mere 50-60 years ago! Tiene cojone la cosa compa!
Mira que tu! Look at the French/Germans. 60 years ago they were at war.
Today they are in luv.
If you told a local of 240 years to celebrate what had happened 60 years
earlier, he would not doubt, have done so in a very different manner (if at
all).
Time can distort and flower history to the point where it would not make
sense to those that lived it (if they could anyway). Where the hell is that
handle on my time machine?
Top posting otra ve Johny. Careful...you are going to get told off like I
did. El hemasta te va da el strap.
Lynx
>
>
>
>
> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
> news:ixSOe.8619$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Joe tio! and to think this popular tune was written by a Gibraltarian
>> evacuee during the forced evacuation of Gibraltar! I am truly amazed that
>> we can be so tuned to what occurred 300 years ago and be so distant from
>> what happened a mere 50-60 years ago! Tiene cojone la cosa compa!
>
> Mira que tu! Look at the French/Germans. 60 years ago they were at war.
> Today they are in luv.
>
> If you told a local of 240 years to celebrate what had happened 60 years
> earlier, he would not doubt, have done so in a very different manner (if
> at all).
>
> Time can distort and flower history to the point where it would not make
> sense to those that lived it (if they could anyway). Where the hell is
> that handle on my time machine?
>
> Top posting otra ve Johny. Careful...you are going to get told off like I
> did. El hemasta te va da el strap.
No tio! All I'm saying es que if you have a song popularly going about,
especially at Christmas time, y then you tell me que I am out of time...Po
tu me dira! Ah! and Christmas que? Is that out of time too? Ya no more
Pastores pa Belen, ni los peces en el rio, ni na, no? Tiene guasa la cosa,
osu! Y now el tio este with the strap and all, por cojone spikidainglis y no
Yani lingo!
DCC
>>
>> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>> news:ixSOe.8619$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> No tio! All I'm saying es que if you have a song popularly going about,
> especially at Christmas time, y then you tell me que I am out of time...Po
> tu me dira! Ah! and Christmas que? Is that out of time too? Ya no more
> Pastores pa Belen, ni los peces en el rio, ni na, no? Tiene guasa la cosa,
> osu! Y now el tio este with the strap and all, por cojone spikidainglis y
> no Yani lingo!
I have no idea if it's still doing the rounds around Christmas. When I last
did office Christmas party thingy (1993) , it was longer in vogue. Perhaps
someone has resurrected it? I have no idea.
Lynx
>
>>>
>>> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>> news:ixSOe.8619$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>
>> No tio! All I'm saying es que if you have a song popularly going about,
>> especially at Christmas time, y then you tell me que I am out of
>> time...Po tu me dira! Ah! and Christmas que? Is that out of time too? Ya
>> no more Pastores pa Belen, ni los peces en el rio, ni na, no? Tiene guasa
>> la cosa, osu! Y now el tio este with the strap and all, por cojone
>> spikidainglis y no Yani lingo!
>
> I have no idea if it's still doing the rounds around Christmas. When I
> last did office Christmas party thingy (1993) , it was longer in vogue.
> Perhaps someone has resurrected it? I have no idea.
Maybe we need to resurrect our identity a little more, too much frigging
osmosis going about these days. At this rate we won't know whether we're
coming or going. Well, maybe we're goners already.
DCC
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>
> "DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:dej3u2$one$1...@nobel.pacific.net.sg...
>>
>>>>
>>>> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>>> news:ixSOe.8619$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>
I think there is little that folk like you and I can do (or should wish to
do). Societies evolve and change with time and influences. The folk there
today know what to do, even if they are not conscious of it as they do it.
It's OK.
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
> news:0B8Pe.9421$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:dej3u2$one$1...@nobel.pacific.net.sg...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ixSOe.8619$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>>
>
> I think there is little that folk like you and I can do (or should wish to
> do). Societies evolve and change with time and influences. The folk there
> today know what to do, even if they are not conscious of it as they do it.
> It's OK.
Today I caught up with another expat Yani. Hey, we had a good time,
reminiscing over lunch by a street cafe. Just like we all did in the old
days, and still do these days. Old habits die hard. Funnily enough, we
touched on this very topic. Coming to the conclusion, much like you have, we
are but old anachronisms from the past.
Jim Watt
>Today I caught up with another expat Yani. Hey, we had a good time,
>reminiscing over lunch by a street cafe. Just like we all did in the old
>days, and still do these days. Old habits die hard. Funnily enough, we
>touched on this very topic. Coming to the conclusion, much like you have, we
>are but old anachronisms from the past.
Paul Tnbridge from the VOGG tells me he is planning
a trip to Australia later in the year and keen to meet any
Gibraltarians around the places he visits.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:fv0sg1dqmogngp03t...@4ax.com...
Well I am in Melbourne, my Gibbo friend's in Sydney. We visit every now and
then.
Jim Watt
I believe he is doing both, anyhow if you can meet uo he can tell
you all the things that are going on and what the VOGG is up to
locally and internationally.
It seems like the mailform on my website is not currently working
which may account for the silence of people asking inappropriate
questions. I'll look into it this weekend.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
No Probs.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
FWIW;
Llevame donde naci,
Que a tu lado quiero estar,
No hay un sitio para mi,
como mi buen Gibraltar.
Solo donde vi la luz,
tengo puesta mi ilusion.
Llevame quiero morir junto aquel,
mi gran Peñon.
La Linea y el Campamento,
Algeciras y mucho mas,
los dominan con su altura,
el Peñon de Gibraltar.
Aunque America es muy grande,
y tiene mucho que ver,
yo quiero mi Peñoncito.
Aquel que me me dio mi ser.
The problem you describe dear gents is a problem not exclusive to Janis. It
is an issue with all those who migrate, and in particular with those who do
not return often enough, if I may be so bold as to suggest. I am not
attempting in any way to apportion blame, but merely state the case as it
appears to me to be, having had similar discussions with people from other
parts of the world who find themselves for any number of reasons in the UK.
A person leaves his homeland and goes elsewhere. He carries in his head an
idealised notion of what home is / wasm, becoming rosier with each passing
year. The main problke is that that individual's memory is frozen, a time
capsule. His experience sof his homeland do not change, though his homeland
changes with time so thaty eventually it is very different from the place he
left. Wheh he returns he mours, for the plac he left no longer exists. It
has moved on without him. had he remined, he also would have moved on, but
moved on with it.
So indeed the fish no longer drink in the river, the shepherds no longer
are, and Adele never eloped with anyone else. They only ever continue to do
so in those whose memories are frozen in time.
Ken
DCC
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:deshq7$evp$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
> news:hQKOe.8321$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Dear Gent.
You are basically repeating what I said earlier
quote...
I think there is little that folk like you and I can do (or should wish to
do). Societies evolve and change with time and influences. The folk there
today know what to do, even if they are not conscious of it as they do it.
It's OK
.....unquote
But I only used 48 words instead of your 228.
Lynx
So. My memory must be frozen then, even though nothing of what you have said
is new or alien to me.
Well, I challenge you on this topic my friend. Not that I disagree with
people who leave their "home", and thereby encapsulating their memories of
"home". I agree with that concept, it tends to happen, though not as simply
and blindly as you put it. There are those of us who to tend to live in two
worlds though.
Come Oktoberfest, the Germans and Austrians residing in Melbourne celebrate
to their hearts content. Come "El Dia de la Raza", all the Spanish and
Hispanics celebrate to their hearts content. Come Orthodox Easter and you
should see the Greeks going for it with all the traditional celebrations. As
so on and so on and so on. All of these cultures invite all other cultures
to partake in their celebrations. The end result being a huge bash of people
from all cultures and walks of life getting together and having fun. Quite
frankly I see nothing wrong with that.
Are these people then living in memory? Are they encapsulating their
identity and culture in such a way that they want to bring it and share it
with the world? YES!
Go to Singapore and witness their huge celebrations come their National Day.
Now there's something to see!
The trouble as I see it, is that when it comes to Gib and us Gibraltarians,
our identity has become so diluted and screwed up, in no short measure by
politics. That we frown, as some do, on our very supposed culture. I say
that remembering that song, you so eloquently posted, is just one aspect of
remembering who and what we are. To suggest, as some have, that we risk
living in the past by adhering to our identity. An identity forged in the
main in modern times, is tantamount to denying who we are. As I mentioned
before, it is truly amazing that we can work up such a hullabaloo over the
700 hundredth anniversary of some Austrian take over of Gibraltar. And yet,
we can so readily brush aside home spun things such as this song, as if it
were "a thing of the past". I rest my case.
Lynx
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:deshq7$evp$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>> news:hQKOe.8321$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Retaining one's identity and culture is one thing. To live in the past is
quite another. To appreciate that Gibbos back can and do what's best for
them is another entirely different thing again. What exactly are we
discussing? Our identity? Our memories of the past? Or our acknowledgement
that folks back home know what they're doing?
The Anarchist is back! Posting all over the place!
DCC
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
news:gwuQe.14016$FA3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Ken
> news:deshq7$evp$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>> news:hQKOe.8321$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> Dear Gent.
>
> You are basically repeating what I said earlier
>
> quote...
>
> I think there is little that folk like you and I can do (or should wish to
> do). Societies evolve and change with time and influences. The folk there
> today know what to do, even if they are not conscious of it as they do it.
> It's OK
>
> .....unquote
>
> But I only used 48 words instead of your 228.
Wow - you deserve a medal.
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Indeed.
>
> Come Oktoberfest, the Germans and Austrians residing in Melbourne
> celebrate to their hearts content. Come "El Dia de la Raza", all the
> Spanish and Hispanics celebrate to their hearts content. Come Orthodox
> Easter and you should see the Greeks going for it with all the traditional
> celebrations. As so on and so on and so on. All of these cultures invite
> all other cultures to partake in their celebrations. The end result being
> a huge bash of people from all cultures and walks of life getting together
> and having fun. Quite frankly I see nothing wrong with that.
Indeed not.
>
> Are these people then living in memory? Are they encapsulating their
> identity and culture in such a way that they want to bring it and share it
> with the world? YES!
>
> Go to Singapore and witness their huge celebrations come their National
> Day. Now there's something to see!
>
> The trouble as I see it, is that when it comes to Gib and us
> Gibraltarians, our identity has become so diluted and screwed up, in no
> short measure by politics. That we frown, as some do, on our very supposed
> culture. I say that remembering that song, you so eloquently posted,
Copied and pasted from elsewhere actually, but carry on . . .
> is just one aspect of remembering who and what we are. To suggest, as some
> have, that we risk living in the past by adhering to our identity. An
> identity forged in the main in modern times, is tantamount to denying who
> we are. As I mentioned before, it is truly amazing that we can work up
> such a hullabaloo over the 700 hundredth anniversary of some Austrian take
> over of Gibraltar. And yet, we can so readily brush aside home spun things
> such as this song, as if it were "a thing of the past". I rest my case.
It's a matter of degree though. The events of 300 years ago are important
today not because of an Austrian or because of a bit of paper that followed
in particular, but because it was the discernable start of the forging of
who we are today. Our beginning. Nothing else can ever be our beginning,
other aspects may be of greater or lesser importance among themselves such
as the song you decribe and the social upheaval it represents. Memory is a
fickle thing, and that which is meomrable for one person is less so for
another. Don't be disappointed if history fails to record that song. The
time of the evacuation and the upheaval that it represents will NOT be
forgotten though, because it too as the events of 1704-13 was crucial in our
moulding. The referenda were also very important - but I'll bet the earlier
one sticks in more minds than the latter.
Ken
DCC
Wow.....thanks! But not me. Bill Gates is your man. He's the one with the
word counting function. I would have long given up if I had to count them
manually.
DCC
Wow.....thanks! But not me. Bill Gates is your man. He's the one with the
word counting function. I would have long given up if I had to count them
manually.
I see you skipped on your spell check. The man mours for the plac? Almost
as sinful as top-posting?
Another reason to Bill a medal!
DCC
The song does little for me before or now. So I could not care much about
it. But are we certain it originates from the evacuation? What's with the
America being so big thing? I have a feeling I have heard somewhere that it
pre-dates the evacuation? But was used during the evacuation for obvious
reasons.
And on referenda. The stickiness may also depend on time and where one was
in age in relation to them. I for one see the second as far more
important. History will judge. But if one looks at the circumstances, I
think no2 was far more important. For it demonstrated to all that Gib could
and would decide, notwithstanding the consequences. No 'Sraw' would break
our back.
Lynx
"DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:deu1kj$drj$1...@nobel.pacific.net.sg...
Lynx
!704, will be remembered because it happens to be a potent political weapon,
a binding component, if you will. And consequently it will be read about in
the media, and it will form part of the schools' curriculum, as indeed does
the ins and outs of some chappy called Henry, etc, etc. But who amongst us
can claim to "remember" what happened on such a date? Who can claim to have
had their ancestors witnessing or taking part in such an event? Yes, I know
one such person, and a good old chap he happens to be too. Matter of factly
this chap's family has seen service in the Royal Marines since its
inception. 600 hundred years if military tradition in the family. A good old
POME he is too, a noble chap. What binds us to that event today is the
political weight it carries , but as far as forming part of our history?
Sorry, I cannot make the connection.
The event of 1713, was more an act of paper shuffling, which had more of an
effect on the French losing their colonies in Canada, than Gib's inclusion
in article X.
Lynx
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:deu9p2$4a8$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
The 1st or 2nd referendum, only Gibraltarians living in Gib knew and know
what's best for them. In 1st referendum, as I read it, there was no choice.
And if there was a choice, the people were certainly not informed. It was a
case of 'staying as you are or join an autocratic regime'. Australia, on the
other hand, did offer to absorb all of Gibraltar's population. This offer
was rejected by the late Sir Joshua. It was also Australia which had to
"remind" the British government that decolonizing Gibraltar involved
decolonizing "a people and not just a piece of rock".
Jim Watt
>!704, will be remembered because it happens to be a potent political weapon,
>a binding component, if you will. And consequently it will be read about in
>the media, and it will form part of the schools' curriculum, as indeed does
>the ins and outs of some chappy called Henry, etc, etc. But who amongst us
>can claim to "remember" what happened on such a date? Who can claim to have
>had their ancestors witnessing or taking part in such an event? Yes, I know
>one such person, and a good old chap he happens to be too. Matter of factly
>this chap's family has seen service in the Royal Marines since its
>inception. 600 hundred years if military tradition in the family. A good old
>POME he is too, a noble chap. What binds us to that event today is the
>political weight it carries , but as far as forming part of our history?
>Sorry, I cannot make the connection.
>The event of 1713, was more an act of paper shuffling, which had more of an
>effect on the French losing their colonies in Canada, than Gib's inclusion
>in article X.
It was certainly worth celebrating last year, however this year it
slipped by un-noticed. I doubt we will celebrate the aniversary
of the ToU as although it is important in bringing peace to Europe
its not politically correct these days, especially its provisions for
the slave trade.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>
> "DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:deuf8j$i9f$1...@nobel.pacific.net.sg...
>>
>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:deu9p2$4a8$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> The 1st or 2nd referendum, only Gibraltarians living in Gib knew and know
> what's best for them. In 1st referendum, as I read it, there was no
> choice. And if there was a choice, the people were certainly not informed.
> It was a case of 'staying as you are or join an autocratic regime'.
There may have been little explanation as you say. OTOH I don't thnk much
explanation was needed. The choices were so starkly different there was no
point getting bogged down in minutiae.
> Australia, on the other hand, did offer to absorb all of Gibraltar's
> population. This offer was rejected by the late Sir Joshua. It was also
> Australia which had to "remind" the British government that decolonizing
> Gibraltar involved decolonizing "a people and not just a piece of rock".
The more I learn about SJH the less I like. He rejected Australia's offer -
sure, I don't know if it had been put to the people they would have gone for
it - but it was too big a decision for one man to make on his own. He also
rejected Wilson's offer of integration. This I supect might have been more
to Gib's liking than the Australian offer - fewer unknowns, no
displacement - but again too big a decision for him alone to have taken. It
would have been too easy a victory for his political opponents (IWBP) at the
time and he would have lost all his power. But a good leader puts his cause
before his ego.
K
Ken
> news:deu9p2$4a8$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> The song does little for me before or now. So I could not care much about
> it. But are we certain it originates from the evacuation? What's with
> the America being so big thing? I have a feeling I have heard somewhere
> that it pre-dates the evacuation? But was used during the evacuation for
> obvious reasons.
Frankly the song never did anything for me. At a time when Spain seeks to
take us over a song which yearns for parts of Spain is not politically
correct.
K
Jim Watt
wrote:
>The more I learn about SJH the less I like. He rejected Australia's offer -
>sure, I don't know if it had been put to the people they would have gone for
>it - but it was too big a decision for one man to make on his own. He also
>rejected Wilson's offer of integration.
As Gibraltar is a success story, those decisions must have been the
right ones.
I imagine that at the time any Gibraltarian who wanted to go to
Australia could anyway, so although its a generous offer enforced
transportation would not have been a popular choice.
Must say though the story is a new one on me, where is it recorded?
Lynx
Isn't the ICC owned by the SJH entity?
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Agreed, the ToU is an anachronism, if ever there was one.
The folks in Gib, like anyother place need to develop and concentrate more
on civil celebrations, etc.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
The Chronicle's archives must have sometging on it, I'm sure. Then again,
who can access Gib's archives?
I do not agree that Gib should have elected to be transported, yet again, en
mass. The WWII forced evacuation was enough.
Lynx
>
> "DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:deuf8j$i9f$1...@nobel.pacific.net.sg...
>>
>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:deu9p2$4a8$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> The song does little for me before or now. So I could not care much about
>> it. But are we certain it originates from the evacuation? What's with
>> the America being so big thing? I have a feeling I have heard somewhere
>> that it pre-dates the evacuation? But was used during the evacuation for
>> obvious reasons.
The song, as far as songs go, never touched that fibre good music normally
touches. But like it or not, it is a product of Gibraltar's not so distant
past, and yet, how prepared we are to brush it under the carpet. Fancy that,
what little's come out of Gib can be readily disposed of.
> Frankly the song never did anything for me. At a time when Spain seeks to
> take us over a song which yearns for parts of Spain is not politically
> correct.
Absolutely, Gibraltar being located on the moon, after all.....
Jim Watt
>Isn't the ICC owned by the SJH entity?
Its owned by a company incorporated by his firm and they
did the leases, but there again they are lawyers and do that
stuff for a living.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 05:07:51 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>
>>Isn't the ICC owned by the SJH entity?
>
> Its owned by a company incorporated by his firm and they
> did the leases, but there again they are lawyers and do that
> stuff for a living.
That's understood. BTW, with such business properties, do the same lease
arrangements apply as they do with residential properties?
Ken
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:09:49 +0100, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>The more I learn about SJH the less I like. He rejected Australia's
>>offer -
>>sure, I don't know if it had been put to the people they would have gone
>>for
>>it - but it was too big a decision for one man to make on his own. He also
>>rejected Wilson's offer of integration.
>
> As Gibraltar is a success story, those decisions must have been the
> right ones.
Perhaps. The point is, he should not have assumed he spoke for the people on
this issue. It had not arisen prior to the previous general election, there
could have been no public debate on the matter. Arrogance.
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
That our neighbour happens to be Spain does not mean we must like or accept
everything they might care to throw (or prevent from landing) in our
direction. I would take issue with New Zealanders if they held opinions
against Gibraltar (I pick on NZ as it is the nearest land mass antipodean to
Gib, to show that Spain's nearness is not my reason for objection)
K
Jim Watt
no.
Lynx
Arrogance or ownership? We forget how he dispensed with property and other
items belonging to the Gov, the people's, at will amongst those he favoured.
Lynx
But of course we should not always "like or accept" what our neighbours care
to throw at us.
Your previous statement lacks validity, as Spain has never ceased in her
efforts to regain Gib. It is not a question of "At a time when Spain seeks
to take us over..." That Gib's "culture should be dictated by our neighbours
whim is an interesting stance. Another interesting point is that we all cry
foul when Spanish border controls cause delays. I find bread buttered on
both sides a little too rich.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Didn't think so.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
I have no idea what you refer to re "dispensed with property". If it was not
his to give, just as the decisions were not morally his to make, what is
history to make of it all?
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Spanish, having been so for the least time AND even for the time during
which Gib has not been Spanish, Spain has voiced a territorial claim for
less than half this time (1704 to 1789, plus 1953 to 2005 - a total of 138
years out of 301)
> I find bread buttered on both sides a little too rich.
We ask nothing that is not taken for granted by everyone else. Tell me, what
rights did the French, the Germans, Dutch, Italians etc surrender on gaining
their EU rights? None of course. Why then should Gib have to give anything
up in order to gain hers?
Ken
Lynx
The tenor of your response obliges me to remind you that I am not suggesting
Gib should be Spanish, anymore than Gibraltarians should be second class
citizens in their own country. I respect, and expect others to respect,
Gibraltarians resident in Gibraltar to decide their own future. The
interests of the citizens of Gibraltar, in general, cannot be measured nor
compared to the interests of those who exploit a situation, the fixing of
which is long overdue.
The term Spain is often confused with the Iberian Peninsular. Spain as such,
as a nation, became a reality during the realm of the Catholic Monarchs,
Fernando and Ysabel. During which time Gibraltar was singularly named in
their titles as Monarchs of Gibraltar. These monarchs gave Gibraltar and its
citizens their "Fueros" and Coat of Arms and Seal of a City. The Union Jack
we all know so well these days had not even been dreamed of. That Gibraltar
has been British longer than it was Spanish is an argument which runs as
hollow as comparing Gib to Melilla and Ceuta being Spanish. Does it mean
then that if Spain one day decided to leave these two enclaves that Gib
should automatically be returned to Spain? I don't think so. The argument
has no merit.
From a historical view point Spain's claims carry as much legitimacy as the
British government "negotiating" Gibraltar's future is imbued with
illegitimacy.
Lynx
History will make of all this that caciques existed and exist. That people
can be steered like a shepherd steers his flock.
Jim Watt
Can't say as I noticed that. If anything it has been Joe Bossano who
privatised the telephones, water, even collecting the rates all of
which were Government assets and all of which are better since
privatisation.
Jim Watt
>Another interesting point is that we all cry
>foul when Spanish border controls cause delays. I find bread buttered on
>both sides a little too rich.
Its not a matter of that, its more that Spain like Gibraltar has
joined the EU and agreed to freedom of movement of people
and goods across borders.
We do nothing to restrict this.
Jim Watt
>
>"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>news:ih69h1ti1t5mh4kn2...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:37:20 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>>news:m888h19irmk3mnd02...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 05:07:51 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Isn't the ICC owned by the SJH entity?
>>>>
>>>> Its owned by a company incorporated by his firm and they
>>>> did the leases, but there again they are lawyers and do that
>>>> stuff for a living.
>>>
>>>That's understood. BTW, with such business properties, do the same lease
>>>arrangements apply as they do with residential properties?
>>
>> no.
>
>Didn't think so.
Commercial properties involve differenct considerations to domestic
ones, so the lease is different. For a start the payment for
commercial premises is ususally by the month rather than a one time
charge, so its more like a rental with a fixed time period. But lets
not get into the evils of not owning freehold property again ...
Jim Watt
>The term Spain is often confused with the Iberian Peninsular. Spain as such,
>as a nation, became a reality during the realm of the Catholic Monarchs,
>Fernando and Ysabel. During which time Gibraltar was singularly named in
>their titles as Monarchs of Gibraltar. These monarchs gave Gibraltar and its
>citizens their "Fueros" and Coat of Arms and Seal of a City. The Union Jack
>we all know so well these days had not even been dreamed of. That Gibraltar
>has been British longer than it was Spanish is an argument which runs as
>hollow as comparing Gib to Melilla and Ceuta being Spanish.
unless you look at the dates.
Maybe the Aussies confuse the Iberiam peninsular with Spain, the guys
in portugal know the difference.
Ceuta and Mellila, the last colonies in Africa, have nothing to do
with the status of Gibraltar and are not economically self sufficient.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
I think you might have missed the point.
BTW, in Spain Portugal is commonly viewed as its poor neighbour. And given
the ignoble manner in which they exited their colony East Timor, this view
may not be so ill deserved.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Sorry, what goods is Gib known for exporting?
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
No, lets not go into that topic again. But do tell me, when a "business
lease" expires, is it open to public tender or is it automatically re-leased
to the same entity?
And while we're on the subject, did the Gib gov purchase a lease on the
Theatre Royal?
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
I don't know much about Bossano's regime. Only that while he was in Office,
his opponents dirty linen came to light.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:df2l01$h56$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>> news:hn4Re.15635$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:df1oih$jnk$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>>> news:C1SQe.15063$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:df015n$6nm$1...@newsm1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:deuf8j$i9f$1...@nobel.pacific.net.sg...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:deu9p2$4a8$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>>>>
>>
>> what rights did the French, the Germans, Dutch, Italians etc surrender on
>> gaining their EU rights? None of course. Why then should Gib have to give
>> anything up in order to gain hers?
>
> The tenor of your response obliges me to remind you that I am not
> suggesting Gib should be Spanish, anymore than Gibraltarians should be
> second class citizens in their own country. I respect, and expect others
> to respect, Gibraltarians resident in Gibraltar to decide their own
> future. The interests of the citizens of Gibraltar, in general, cannot be
> measured nor compared to the interests of those who exploit a situation,
> the fixing of which is long overdue.
No argument here.
> The term Spain is often confused with the Iberian Peninsular. Spain as
> such, as a nation, became a reality during the realm of the Catholic
> Monarchs, Fernando and Ysabel. During which time Gibraltar was singularly
> named in their titles as Monarchs of Gibraltar. These monarchs gave
> Gibraltar and its citizens their "Fueros" and Coat of Arms and Seal of a
> City. The Union Jack we all know so well these days had not even been
> dreamed of. That Gibraltar has been British longer than it was Spanish is
> an argument which runs as hollow as comparing Gib to Melilla and Ceuta
> being Spanish. Does it mean then that if Spain one day decided to leave
> these two enclaves that Gib should automatically be returned to Spain? I
> don't think so. The argument has no merit.
Indeed it has none. It is Spain that argues however that Gib has "always"
been Spanish. I merely debunked that myth by stating the obvious, in that is
most certainly is not Spanish now. Spain has not "always" existed therefore
nothing can "always" have been Spanish. That there have been in the last
millenium three empires / colonising forces sovereign over Gib is a matter
of fact, and the one with the shortest control over Gib was in fact Spain.
Their use of the term "always" to describe their hold over Gib is therefore
a curious use of the tem I had not previously encountered.
> From a historical view point Spain's claims carry as much legitimacy as
> the British government "negotiating" Gibraltar's future is imbued with
> illegitimacy.
True.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
. . and the ignoble manner in which Spain exited from Ifni tells us what
then?
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Petroleum, cars, wine, bunkering supplies, among myriad others. You of all
people should not need to be reminded Gib's function as a transhipment port.
When goods come in they are imported, when they go out they are exported. It
all depends on definitions of course. Our shipping magnate friend in
Sing-Sing will enlighten us I'm sure.
K
Jim Watt
>I don't know much about Bossano's regime. Only that while he was in Office,
>his opponents dirty linen came to light.
Not really. Joe was in for two terms, in the first one he shook
things up and made major changes, broke the back of the
housing problem and generated a lot of income.
Then he was re-elected with a massive 73% of the vote, largly
because his traditional enemy the AACR disintegrated and the
new GSD had not got its acto together and presented a weak
slate of candidates who were elected into opposition more by
default.
In the second term the fight with the UK became dirty, the
tobacco smuggling got out of hand and public opinion wanted
it stopped, which it was but not before the mood had swung
against him. There were allegations that there were 'jobs for
the boys' and the achievements in the second term were not
of the same order as the first.
The issue of who was going to pay for the Spanish Pensions
was dragged out until the week before the election and it has
been suggested that all the energy of the GSLP went into
sorting that out. Meantime the GSD had got their act together
and swung into Government.
Some who supported them did so because they thought they
would be softer on Spain, which I think is true of Peter Montegriffo
who actually got the highest number of votes and therefore should
have been the man to form Government. However the other
Peter was close behind him and wanted the job. Although some
considered him 'soft on Spain' he did make the point early on in
the original by-election campaign when he beat the AACR
candidate Douglas Henrich, that he was as janito as the next
which despite the public school boy talk he is.
Quite where we go from here becomes difficult, the GSD still
has the strongest party machine, but has lost credibility as
the issue of joint sovereignty has gone to sleep and most
people are more concerned about health care and housing.
The hospital is on stream and the nexct election is two years
down the line, so it will either work or not. There are 500 houses
going o nthe market this week, which have to be built, but that
may convince people the GSD are good boys. If the handle
the airport deal and it looks today like the 350 code and the
Spanish pensions issues have solutions, then with a good
campaign they will be re-elected, despite the fall out that one
gets after three terms of office where you cannot please
everyone.
Meantime, time is passing and although I remember Joe
Bossano and Peter Caruana with lots of hair, theirs has gone
or is receding fast. Peter would be around 50 and easily
has another term of office in him, Joe although 101% with
it and still the sharpest knife in the drawer is much older
and looks a bit frail at times. Danny Feetham aspires to
be CM but could not build the organisation to get him there.
So methinks unless anyone dies, or makes an awful mistake
(like a shared airport deal) we are in for another term of the
GSD with Caruana top, Feetham will be slipped in the slate
replacing Bernard Linares and will take over the next time
around when Caruana retires.
By this time I will have ceased to care, although I am
heartened by the newspaper report of the riot during the
fishermans dispute of one of the 'yobs' who threw a
motorbike at the fishermens car and was reported as
being aged 70. If I can throw heavy machinery at my
enemies at that age and pay the fine I will be content
Better still they may be dead and I can visit their graves
with the excuse of incapacity and incontinence.
Heavens that was a good rant.
Jim Watt
>No, lets not go into that topic again.
Thank god I fear the inquisition
>But do tell me, when a "business
>lease" expires, is it open to public tender or is it automatically re-leased
>to the same entity?
depends.
>And while we're on the subject, did the Gib gov purchase a lease on the
>Theatre Royal?
yes, unfortunately. 60,000 pa comes to mind for a hole in
the ground.
Jim Watt
Are there shops in Main Street?
Jim Watt
wrote:
> Our shipping magnate friend in
>Sing-Sing will enlighten us I'm sure.
just as long as he does not top post, but don't
compare it to a jail, its a fine country.
DCC
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:df51a8$nmn$1...@newsm1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> Petroleum, cars, wine, bunkering supplies, among myriad others. You of all
> people should not need to be reminded Gib's function as a transhipment
> port. When goods come in they are imported, when they go out they are
> exported. It all depends on definitions of course. Our shipping magnate
> friend in Sing-Sing will enlighten us I'm sure.
>
> K
>
I guess bunkering must be the biggest contributor to the export figures.
Although I recall they always highlighted something about 'non-petroleum
products' when giving out data. Do they still do those car import/export
activities? Other than that I cannot think of any significant 'transhipment'
that impact the data. I may be wrong. I've been away for 11 years and so
new business will no doubt have sprung up since I left.
Of course, Gib is dwarfed when it comes to 'transhipment' by that port
across the bay. Are they not the largest container port in the Med today?
You really want to see transhipment in action? Come here. 18 million TEU's
per year (and growing). The mind boggles! The worry for you folks on the
other side of the globe should be that such a large percentage of those 18
million are going in one direction (yours). I can get a container (west to
east) for a song. So many are coming empty!
Your shipping Magnate friend.....I wish!
Lynx
Spain founded Ifni in 1476. It's primary industry being fishing and slavery.
The Spanish were expelled in 1524 by the Berbers. Morocco ceded Ifni to
Spain in 1859. Spain returned Ifni to Morocco in 1969. None of this compares
to Portugal's "washing it's hands" with the defenseless people of East
Timor. Portugal has always been un zero a la izquierda, and it still is.
Lynx
I didn't think there'd be
>> The term Spain is often confused with the Iberian Peninsular. Spain as
>> such, as a nation, became a reality during the realm of the Catholic
>> Monarchs, Fernando and Ysabel. During which time Gibraltar was singularly
>> named in their titles as Monarchs of Gibraltar. These monarchs gave
>> Gibraltar and its citizens their "Fueros" and Coat of Arms and Seal of a
>> City. The Union Jack we all know so well these days had not even been
>> dreamed of. That Gibraltar has been British longer than it was Spanish is
>> an argument which runs as hollow as comparing Gib to Melilla and Ceuta
>> being Spanish. Does it mean then that if Spain one day decided to leave
>> these two enclaves that Gib should automatically be returned to Spain? I
>> don't think so. The argument has no merit.
>
> Indeed it has none. It is Spain that argues however that Gib has "always"
> been Spanish. I merely debunked that myth by stating the obvious, in that
> is most certainly is not Spanish now. Spain has not "always" existed
> therefore nothing can "always" have been Spanish. That there have been in
> the last millenium three empires / colonising forces sovereign over Gib is
> a matter of fact, and the one with the shortest control over Gib was in
> fact Spain. Their use of the term "always" to describe their hold over Gib
> is therefore a curious use of the tem I had not previously encountered.
>
>
>
>> From a historical view point Spain's claims carry as much legitimacy as
>> the British government "negotiating" Gibraltar's future is imbued with
>> illegitimacy.
>
> True.
We are all as passionate about our Gibraltar and the Gibraltarian identity
as can be. History tells us where we come from and to some extend, if we
learn from history, where we ought to be going. From this distance, my
perspective tells me that Gib's going nowhere so long as it remains a colony
and subservient to the British electorate. Not that Gib, nor indeed we,
should adopt an anti-British stance, far from it. By the same token Gib
cannot be handed over to a group of business interested individuals or
caciques. The true voice of the Gibraltarians will need to be heard, less
"The Gibraltarian" will become a figment of our imagination and memory. That
little song we have done over in this thread is an example of what we risk
becoming.
Lynx
Yes, and Gib will continue to serve the interests of the few in the name of
the many.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:44:11 +0100, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Our shipping magnate friend in
>>Sing-Sing will enlighten us I'm sure.
>
> just as long as he does not top post, but don't
> compare it to a jail, its a fine country.
Agreed. And the nickname for that great Nation/State is Singers. I prefer
the name Singapore.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
The crap sold in those shops can be bought anywhere. I often wondered why
people even bothered going there.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
So Gibraltarians, lucky enough to be working, tax payers have to forkout yet
again to satisfy the inhereted outcomes of the legacy British piracy then.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
I read "all" of your "ranting". You obviously keep yourself well informed
and up to date with Gib's current affairs. In fact, you leave some news
media for dead! Pity you don't dedicate more of your time to "ranting" in
this informative fashion. Tank you! Well done!
PC was educated in England, flamboyant and sophisticated. JB is more attuned
to the man about town, the man and woman in the street, he's probably more
grassroots material. Both do Gibraltar proudly as ambassadors. JH was
undoubtedly a man of his time. He gained the admiration of the masses during
the Palomos days. I would be the last one to judge him. At any rate, I left
the Rock shortly after he became CM.
One thing I like to say is that while it may look, at times, like we're
crossing swords with each other via this great newsgroup. We do so in the
knowledge and confidence that we are not "breaking" that great system in
which we were all raised and educated. The British principles of democracy
and freedom of speech are well imbedded within this group and its
participants. I do take my hat off to this group, even if I too form part of
it!
DCC
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Or The Lion City, The Garden City or Temasek (It's old name).
Call it what you like. It's a FINE city and would not lots of other cities
like to be as FINE.
Lynx
The Lion City is also known. The Garden City and Temasek, not so well known.
The latter sounds more Malay.
I have seen both of Raffles statues. The White and the Black statues. But
much as I have tried, I cannot "relocate" the Black statue. Can you tell me
where it is?
DCC
>
>
> The Lion City is also known. The Garden City and Temasek, not so well
> known. The latter sounds more Malay.
Would you not agree that it is a city in a garden?
Not Malay, Javanese in fact.
> I have seen both of Raffles statues. The White and the Black statues. But
> much as I have tried, I cannot "relocate" the Black statue. Can you tell
> me where it is?
Empress Place. In front of the foyer of the Victoria Theatre.
In fact, round the corner from the white one. Never understood why have two
statue of the same guy so close to each other. I think they've been
relocated on one or two occasions. Unique Singapore! It's moved on from it's
colonial past in such a graceful manner.
DCC
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
HE.... is being more obedient these days.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
That may or may not be the case - in any case, we are seriously getting off
ay relevance to Gib here. Wouldn't be the first time though!
Ken
Lynx
> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
> news:pzvRe.18562$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>
>> The Lion City is also known. The Garden City and Temasek, not so well
>> known. The latter sounds more Malay.
>
> Would you not agree that it is a city in a garden?
Yes, I'd agree it is a city in a garden. But you already know my feelings
regarding the encrouchment of concrete into that tropical garden.
> Not Malay, Javanese in fact.
Right, got it.
>> I have seen both of Raffles statues. The White and the Black statues. But
>> much as I have tried, I cannot "relocate" the Black statue. Can you tell
>> me where it is?
>
> Empress Place. In front of the foyer of the Victoria Theatre.
> In fact, round the corner from the white one. Never understood why have
> two statue of the same guy so close to each other. I think they've been
> relocated on one or two occasions. Unique Singapore! It's moved on from
> it's colonial past in such a graceful manner.
Thanks, I'll look out for it next trip.
During my first trips to Singers I'd stay at the then Sheraton atop Nassim
Hill, not far from the botanical gardens. That walk along Tangling Road
leading up to Nassim Hill, day or night, reminded me so much of Gib, I can't
tell you. There was such a colonial air to that section. To top it off, tea
at the Sheraton accompanied by a delicious slice of Linzer torte. Looking
out onto the garden, you could almost imagine seeing the pith helmet of a
colonial guard amongst the foliage. Good old Singapore!
Lynx
Keep it up friend, it makes it so much easier reading your postings....
Lynx
I guess you're right.
Jim Watt
hey you got the posting style right !
Jim Watt
>Yes, and Gib will continue to serve the interests of the few in the name of
>the many.
The many seem to have four wheel drive vehicles and take
expensive holidays abroad to China.
Jim Watt
>>>And while we're on the subject, did the Gib gov purchase a lease on the
>>>Theatre Royal?
>>
>> yes, unfortunately. 60,000 pa comes to mind for a hole in
>> the ground.
>
>So Gibraltarians, lucky enough to be working, tax payers have to forkout yet
>again to satisfy the inhereted outcomes of the legacy British piracy then.
The Theatre Royal is owned by a group of local families
I guess their investment finally paid off. However at least we
are paying for a hole in our ground, rather than the British and
American taxpayers funding a hole in someone elses's ground
like Iraq.
Jim Watt
>Call it what you like. It's a FINE city and would not lots of other cities
>like to be as FINE.
In respect of the importation and distribution of chewing gum
I agree with your solution.
Gibraltar now spends a small fortune removing deposits from
Main Street weekly. In contrast last time I went to Oxford st
in London it was pock marked with the stuff.
DCC
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
And in respect of other matters?
Take your pick:
We fine jay-walkers
We fine those that spit in public
We fine those that smoke in public transport of places
We hang drug traffickers and murderers
We also hang armed robbers (even if they don't kill)
We don't have the dole (so my contributions go to me in my retirement)
We don't have NHS. But our hospitals are tops and cheap for those that need
help.
We don't have much opposition in politics, which can have its advantages
(and disadvantages of course).
etc etc Some pluses and some minuses. We're not perfect.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
That's one way of looking at it, I guess. I was targeting the shameless
manner the British rulers of the day dispersed with Gibraltar land as they
saw fit. Gibraltarians are still paying dearly for such a miserable FU. A
demographic ilustration of Gibs land ownership would be an interesting topic
of study.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
How many beggars did you stumble on along the way?
Lynx
You forgot the rattan, mate.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Psssst!
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:27:41 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>
>>Yes, and Gib will continue to serve the interests of the few in the name
>>of
>>the many.
>
> The many seem to have four wheel drive vehicles and take
> expensive holidays abroad to China.
Don't tell me they still reside in Gib, do they?
Ken
No-one and no place is perfect, and no-one and no place is hell either,
IMVHE.
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Yes - easier to read, easier to see what you're on about, and easier to keep
the context of replies going.
K
Lynx
He must be having a good time.
DCC
>
>>>
>> And in respect of other matters?
>> Take your pick:
>> We fine jay-walkers
>> We fine those that spit in public
>> We fine those that smoke in public transport of places
>> We hang drug traffickers and murderers
>> We also hang armed robbers (even if they don't kill)
>> We don't have the dole (so my contributions go to me in my retirement)
>> We don't have NHS. But our hospitals are tops and cheap for those that
>> need help.
>> We don't have much opposition in politics, which can have its advantages
>> (and disadvantages of course).
>> etc etc Some pluses and some minuses. We're not perfect.
>
> No-one and no place is perfect, and no-one and no place is hell either,
> IMVHE.
>
> Ken
True indeed. But some closer to perfection (or hell) than others. Baghdad on
a bad day is close to the latter.
They've done a great job of this Island (post-Brits) against huge odds.
Singaporeans have a lot to be proud of and lots to teach colonial people
like us. Sure the circumstances are very different. Location,size,culture
etc. But some fundamentals apply to us all. Of course some in Gib would not
want to hear a lot of that advice. It would not suit them. Truth hurts.
Lynx
You cannot hear me, but I am giving you a loud round of applause!
DCC
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
news:HSNRe.19317$FA3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Lynx
"DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:df8o7k$gq$1...@nobel.pacific.net.sg...
Jim Watt
>Xie xie!
aggghhh ! top posting again, fined !
However, that which suits you, sir might not suit us IRO the
chewing gum menace though your government has it right.
Ken
Many in power will always belittle the ideas of others, however good,
simiply because the idea was not theirs.
K