Sp, crime, drugs - and no Gib
Ken
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1640082,00.html
to see how the Costa del Crime operates these days?
Amazing that nowhere is Gib implicated in anything, which will come as a big
surprise to our more notherly neighbours. Pity then that they cannot find
their way to police cooperation seeing as it is a UK-Sp issue, and they have
a bit of Britain on their doortep which they could use to good effect in
this regard if they could rise above their prejudices.
Ken
Lynx
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d7sbdu$hdt$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
It's myopic perspective to believe that the goings on are in anyway
geographically determined. Like everything else, whatever maybe going on
there, it must surely be "multinational" in concept.
M
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
news:H9yoe.3121$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I know that, YOU know that, but try getting the Sp authorities to appreciate
that. As far as they are concerned we are behind anything and everything
that smells iffy - Prestige, White Whale, Yukos . . . .
K
Lynx
In political terms and generalizing, I'd say your right. But, have you ever
given any thought to what exactly constitutes being Spanish? There is a
Spanish identity, but within that identity there's different identities.
Some regional, others racial and yet others religious. The situation, as it
is and has been, must surely benefit some or many in either side of the
borderline. Otherwise, like the Berlin Wall amongst other divides, the
situation would have been sorted out by now. I don't believe one side can be
given all the credit for the despicable situation, and the negativity it
engenders.
M
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
I was not referring to each and every one of the 30m or so Sp folk, but to
that band of fatherless (at least that is how they appear to me to be, IMHO)
and faceless who put out official lines to the various media as to the
involvement of Gib in all matters unclean. Like the chap (whose name I
forget) who on disclosure of White Whale immediately said there was a Gib
banker and lawyer arrested. Challenged to name who these were, his silence
is deafening. PC issued the challenge after he had personally rang around
all the banks and law firms in Gib to see who it was may have been arrested,
and found them all incumbents to be at their posts as usual.
K
Lynx
The press may well have too much freedom. If a newspaper, department or
individual, makes public an unsubstantiated statement, then, it should not
only be challenged but by law, be made to declare its sources or face
charges.
M
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
I disagree. Freedom is an absolute, not measureable in degrees (other than
in statistics, but that's another meaning of the word). One is either free
or one is not, though one may simultaneously be free in some aspects while
not in others.
The problem with the press in many countries, not necessarily just in Spain,
is that investigative reporting by its very nature is difficult. If it were
easy it would not require investigating. It is much easier and cheaper, and
less liable to result in charges of misrepresentation, to simply regurgitate
that which is fed by means of press release by a source which is generally
accepted to be reliable.
The problem in Spain remains the nature of the govt that was, and the way
that the govt that is came to be. Whereas in eastern europe a dictatiorial
left-wing system of govt fell amidst much public disapproval and general
dismantling of the entire workings of govt, when in Sp Franco shed his
mortal coil and a dictatorial right-wing system of govt fell, the public was
acquiescent. Not a murmur, not a complaint. Those who had held high rank
continued to do so under another guise, and there are still people in power
today (though admittedly a diminishing number as "natural wastage" takes its
toll) who owe their original post to a dictatorship. In places that even
includes elected officials (and their nearest and dearest) who were so
appointed. Look no further than Fraga, Matutes, and Aznar (whose father was
the editor of Franco's party newletter).
While elsewhere in the world whenever a newspaper or tv station utters some
govt line, a sceptical public prefers to believe the opposite. In Sp,
whenever that happens a large proportion of the public still believes it to
be true, because the TV station / newspaper said so.
K
Lynx
Freedom to misrepresent is called licency. Freedom should not be confused
with the abuse of power or the law.
You speak about the post Franco era as though the people in Sp had the
freedom to make any changes. The powerful have always remained, no matter
which country you care to look at. What might have changed, as is the case
in Sp, is the level of compromise/participation by different entities within
the new system.
In the case of Sp, it can't be denied they've come a long way. Gib doesn't
lom so large in the populace mind anymore.
M
Ken
"Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d7vu3i$smg$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>> news:o%Joe.3631$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:d7upjf$oen$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>>>> news:ljBoe.3410$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:d7uh4o$p4m$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lynx" <calp...@home.away from.home> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:H9yoe.3121$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:d7sbdu$hdt$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>>>>> ould I suggest readers take themselves to
>>>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1640082,00.html
>>>>>>>> to see how the Costa del Crime operates these days?
>>>>>>>>
>
> with the abuse of power or the law.
Agreed - but do not at tte same time in the name of curbing abuse, cause a
restriction of freedom. The problem as with many things is that along with
rights (in this case, freedom of the press) comes responibility (in this
case, the responsbility to report verifiable truths and not knowingly to
misrepresent). It is the failure to appreciate and apply the principle of
balancing the rights and responsibilities that leads to some of society's
ills. For example, the abuse of the welfare state by those who can work but
feign the inability to do so, thus sponging when they ought to be
contributing.
> You speak about the post Franco era as though the people in Sp had the
> freedom to make any changes. The powerful have always remained, no matter
> which country you care to look at. What might have changed, as is the case
> in Sp, is the level of compromise/participation by different entities
> within the new system.
You are correct, and so am I. We are not at odds with each other here. Of
course the powerful remain as you say. However the Sp people did not react
AT ALL to the change of system of governement. It was TOO peaceful a
transition - not that I'm advocating bloodshed. It was just far too
comfortable.
The only palpable change in attitudes that I recall was to censorship of the
most trivial kind. There were countless entertainers (I hesitate to call
them comedians, but there certainly were many clowns) who would appear on tv
and start swearing, that act alone ensuring a laugh from the audience
unaccustomed to be able to use what words they chose in such a public forum.
Immediately on having done so, the entertainer would justify his fould mouth
with "Ahora claro se puede decir lo que queramos - somos democracia" [[Tr -
Now of course one can say what one chooses - we are a democracy]]
Which underlines the misunderstanding in the earliest days of Sp democracy
by the Sp people. They took it to be an absolute freedom to act and say
whatever the individual chose. THAT is not democracy, it is anarchy. In an
anchary, you have the right to flail your arms around, full stop. In a
democracy you also have the freedom to flail your arms around - but your
freedom to do so is constrained at the point where my nose starts.
> In the case of Sp, it can't be denied they've come a long way. Gib doesn't
> lom so large in the populace mind anymore.
Oh they have jumped in leaps and bounds - materially thanks to the taxes
paid into the EU coffers by the richer N European countries. Spain has
milked the EU (and the common fisheries policy in particular) like no other
state has ever come or probably ever will come close again. Though now that
the even poorer states of the previous Eastern European block are joining,
with Bugaria and Romania still to come Sp has yet to feel the real cost of
it all. They are as a result one of the few nations ever to go from the
donkey and cart to the Renault 5 Turbo in the space of one generation.
Ken
Lynx
>
>> Freedom to misrepresent is called licency. Freedom should not be confused
>> with the abuse of power or the law.
>
> Agreed - but do not at tte same time in the name of curbing abuse, cause a
> restriction of freedom. The problem as with many things is that along with
> rights (in this case, freedom of the press) comes responibility (in this
> case, the responsbility to report verifiable truths and not knowingly to
> misrepresent). It is the failure to appreciate and apply the principle of
> balancing the rights and responsibilities that leads to some of society's
> ills. For example, the abuse of the welfare state by those who can work
> but feign the inability to do so, thus sponging when they ought to be
> contributing.
As your examples so vividly explain, not everyone is apt for freedom, as we
know it. Hence, freedom should be policed, and when abused, suitably
punished.
Beating up a child, who is being accused of being a witch, is out of
character with the average Brit. Where do you draw the line where freedom is
concerned?
>> You speak about the post Franco era as though the people in Sp had the
>> freedom to make any changes. The powerful have always remained, no matter
>> which country you care to look at. What might have changed, as is the
>> case in Sp, is the level of compromise/participation by different
>> entities within the new system.
>
> You are correct, and so am I. We are not at odds with each other here. Of
> course the powerful remain as you say. However the Sp people did not react
> AT ALL to the change of system of governement. It was TOO peaceful a
> transition - not that I'm advocating bloodshed. It was just far too
> comfortable.
They did react, within the demarcations of democracy. Unlike other
"democracies", the Spanish nationals from all over the world, as well as
those in Spain, were registered in their respective embassies and diplomatic
missions. And they did cast their votes when electing their new democratic
system. They did partake in the formation of their country's new governing
system. They ought to be respected for their will to live in peace with each
other. Especially when considering the disaster that visited them, within
living memory, and not losing track of the fact that is was not all of their
own doing.
> The only palpable change in attitudes that I recall was to censorship of
> the most trivial kind. There were countless entertainers (I hesitate to
> call them comedians, but there certainly were many clowns) who would
> appear on tv and start swearing, that act alone ensuring a laugh from the
> audience unaccustomed to be able to use what words they chose in such a
> public forum. Immediately on having done so, the entertainer would justify
> his fould mouth with "Ahora claro se puede decir lo que queramos - somos
> democracia" [[Tr - Now of course one can say what one chooses - we are a
> democracy]]
You're right. They did abuse their newly found freedom (of speech?). It can
be questioned whether those characters were in fact in favour of the
newfound freedom, or were in fact trying to demean the essence of freedom
itself.
> Which underlines the misunderstanding in the earliest days of Sp democracy
> by the Sp people. They took it to be an absolute freedom to act and say
> whatever the individual chose. THAT is not democracy, it is anarchy. In an
> anchary, you have the right to flail your arms around, full stop. In a
> democracy you also have the freedom to flail your arms around - but your
> freedom to do so is constrained at the point where my nose starts.
Agreed. It can be seen as some one whose been tied up for 40 yrs, once set
free they'd run at full speed, without a true sense of direction.
Almodovar's films are a good reflection of going to soem extreme. Of course,
we tend to overlook the extreme other cultures go to with their brutal
violenec in films, etc.
>> In the case of Sp, it can't be denied they've come a long way. Gib
>> doesn't lom so large in the populace mind anymore.
>
> Oh they have jumped in leaps and bounds - materially thanks to the taxes
> paid into the EU coffers by the richer N European countries. Spain has
> milked the EU (and the common fisheries policy in particular) like no
> other state has ever come or probably ever will come close again. Though
> now that the even poorer states of the previous Eastern European block are
> joining, with Bugaria and Romania still to come Sp has yet to feel the
> real cost of it all. They are as a result one of the few nations ever to
> go from the donkey and cart to the Renault 5 Turbo in the space of one
> generation.
The law of nonintervention, forced on the Sp is often overlooked. This
country didn't choose to be in woods and downtrodden for 40 long years. They
are a cultured and educated people. They gave the world that other language.
Sure, from a Gib perspective, they may not seem like the friendliest of
people. But it should be remembered, their perspective on the local (Gib)
issue, is somewhat different to ours. There really is no argument. Rather,
looking for the reasons why.
M
DCC
You are totally wrong on this one mate! Proves that you are acutely bias and
poorly informed. Whether you like it or not, Spain today is a vibrant
democracy. Just put aside your bias blindness and follow the current
intelligent debate in
relation to dialogue with ETA (as one example). That (in relation to us)
some in the establishment is entrenched in the past, true. That a lot of
Spaniards agree with them, true. That lots of them could not care one way or
another, their silence testifies to that. Thus you should not confuse
silence with ignorance or stupidity. If we used that criteria in other
places which claim to be as or more democratic than Spain (including
Sheffield), you may find that others come up tops.
Ken
"DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:d8ekr2$1rk$1...@reader01.singnet.com.sg...
>
> You are totally wrong on this one mate! Proves that you are acutely bias
> and poorly informed. Whether you like it or not, Spain today is a vibrant
> democracy. Just put aside your bias blindness and follow the current
> intelligent debate in
> relation to dialogue with ETA (as one example). That (in relation to us)
> some in the establishment is entrenched in the past, true. That a lot of
> Spaniards agree with them, true. That lots of them could not care one way
> or another, their silence testifies to that. Thus you should not confuse
> silence with ignorance or stupidity. If we used that criteria in other
> places which claim to be as or more democratic than Spain (including
> Sheffield), you may find that others come up tops.
Spain could be a place where honey flows from taps and where pavements are
paved with gold, where doggies emit champagne against lamposts and where
truffles are flushed down loos. It could be the most wonderful of places, as
you appear to be claiming it to be. Yet you too also acknowledge their
severe shortcomings as regards their attitudes to Gib which is THE ONLY
THING this group is concerned with as far as Spain is concerned. I don't
understand why you have launched into this attack, now mentioning the place
where I live. What ever brought this up? Nothing about Sheffield (or
Manchester, or Liverpool AFAIK) is relevant to this discussion.
If you wish to discuss the wondrous nature of Spain, go to es.culture. If
you want to discuss matters regarding Gib including the interface with
Spain, this is the NG to do it in.
As regards its interface with Gib, Spain leaves a very great deal to be
desired. As to the other aspects of Spain, they are of no importance to me
whatsoever.
Ken
Jim Watt
wrote:
<snip>
>As regards its interface with Gib, Spain leaves a very great deal to be
>desired.
Spain has made great leaps away from being a fascist state, however
the Government still imposes a ban on mobile phone operators entering
into arrangements Gibraltar, I could go to Iraq and my phone would
work there.
Spain is the last country to have colonies in Africa, and more to the
point wants to colonise Gibraltar against the democratically expressed
wishes of its inhabitants.
Apart from that, and gassing its citizens, its wonderful.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:8pfma1dqhe4bqg9nn...@4ax.com...
Gassing its people? Hmm...I wonder what Spaniard would be in favour of being
gassed.
One true and undeniable fact about Gibraltar, is that sooner or later we (as
in Gib) will have to learn to live in peace with Spain. To foment a
mentality of hatred, indefference, call it what you like, is nothing short
of going backwards.
Spain has come a very long way. No one should overlook what took Spain to
the abyss of self destruction. Spain is an educated and cultured country. No
one can deny that fact. Gibraltar has to find a way forward, ceasing to be
used as a political football, by both London and Madrid. Gibraltar should
become a contributory entity in the betterment of the whole Campo region,
improving the lot for all, Gib included of course. The divide is absurd.
DCC
it democratic credentials as regards Gib, but to brand it in the manner you
do, is absurd! THIS Group has to also be mindful not to portray everything
Spanish as wrong, evil, ignorant or whatever. You do this at every single
opportunity and that demonstrates something is out of balance in your mind
when you think of that country or its people. And that (even if the subject
matter is not strictly speaking Gib) is of concern to this group. Because
whether you like it or not. what happens in Spain does affect us. If Spain
changes its constitution to allow the Basques to do what they like. it DOES
affect Gib. Spain is there! It will not float away or (as some may wish)
sink into the Atlantic. What happens in Spain, how it develops, etc etc
directly affect us. So we must be sensitive and (for some) be educated in
such matter. Thus, without having to discuss matters such as flamenco or
saetas or heaven forbid Serrano ham, discussing Spain's political
development is of the utmost importance to this group.
The mention of Sheffield was simply as a reference to the need to make
comparisons. There is apathy in UK and I guess Sheffield is no exception.
Any offence is regretted and I apologies for that.
I lived in Gib from 1951 through to 1994 so I think I am well versed in the
wonders (or lack of) Spain. Even today, I keep myself well informed of
matters relating to both Gib and Spain (AND the UK). So I like to think I
have a balance view.
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d8eoph$oqg$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Jim Watt
>
>"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>news:8pfma1dqhe4bqg9nn...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:26:09 +0100, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>As regards its interface with Gib, Spain leaves a very great deal to be
>>>desired.
>>
>> Spain has made great leaps away from being a fascist state, however
>> the Government still imposes a ban on mobile phone operators entering
>> into arrangements Gibraltar, I could go to Iraq and my phone would
>> work there.
>>
>> Spain is the last country to have colonies in Africa, and more to the
>> point wants to colonise Gibraltar against the democratically expressed
>> wishes of its inhabitants.
>>
>> Apart from that, and gassing its citizens, its wonderful.
>
>Gassing its people? Hmm...I wonder what Spaniard would be in favour of being
>gassed.
Let me mention the Bay Bucket Brigade, which is a cross frontier
joint venture between the Gibraltar and Spanish environmental
activists which produces independent tracable air sampling.
The results show things are bad.
seperate from this, TeleSur the Algeciras channel was showing a
protest by workers at Acerinox who are afflicted with skin cancer.
The state has a responsibility to its citizens and its failing them.
>One true and undeniable fact about Gibraltar, is that sooner or later we (as
>in Gib) will have to learn to live in peace with Spain.
Hey, we do. Apart from shopping trips and holidays, tell me when
Gibraltar has invaded Spain (mistakes by the marines excepted)
When there are fires over there our firefighters assist, when there
was an oil spil, we lent them our equipment to contain it, we are
good neigbours. We don't jam their television or cause any
problems.
The fault lies in the outdated fascist mentality that still exists at
the top and in relation to Gibraltar is actively promoted downwards.
>Spain has come a very long way. No one should overlook what took Spain to
>the abyss of self destruction. Spain is an educated and cultured country. No
>one can deny that fact. Gibraltar has to find a way forward, ceasing to be
>used as a political football, by both London and Madrid. Gibraltar should
>become a contributory entity in the betterment of the whole Campo region,
>improving the lot for all, Gib included of course. The divide is absurd.
Yes, we know that, Now read
http://www.gibnet.com/texts/incipe2.htm
Jim Watt
>Gassing its people?
From www.gibnews,net
Environmental Safety Group
Date : 10/06/05
The Bay Bucket Brigade to meet Andalucian Ombudsman
The ESG confirms that a team from the Bay Bucket Brigade will be
meeting with the Andalucian Ombudsman, Mr Jose Chamiso de la Rubia
this coming Monday 13th June 2005.
An appeal will be made directly by the cross border team to the
important office of the Ombudsman for him to take an active interest
in the conditions of the environment and pollution levels in the Bay.
Given the neutrality of the Ombudsman’s’ office it is hoped that
obtaining his support and briefing him of the sample finds and general
concerns in person will be of significant value.
Considering that as many pressure points as possible should be
utilised, the BBB has agreed to meet with Mr. Jose Chamiso to discuss
these and other issues such as the concerns over the CSIC reports and
later retraction.
Other environmental groups will attend as well as representatives from
the worst affected residential area in Puente Mayorga.
A report will be made after the visit.
--
Background: www.esg-gib.net
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
news:nEKqe.13777$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> news:8pfma1dqhe4bqg9nn...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:26:09 +0100, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
>> wrote:
> One true and undeniable fact about Gibraltar, is that sooner or later we
> (as in Gib) will have to learn to live in peace with Spain. To foment a
> mentality of hatred, indefference, call it what you like, is nothing short
> of going backwards.
Your distance may have coloured your memory, or not refreshed it recently
enough. Gib DOES know how to live at peace with Spain - it does so daily.
The parts of Spain immediately adjacent to Gib have also learnt how to live
at peace with Gib. There are daily throngs of workers coming into Gib from
Spain. Tourist traffic goes both ways, the net effect being the influx of
day trippers in great numbers from the Costa. Gib airport is used by many Sp
wishing to go to the UK - it's more convenient that Malaga. Many UK folk
wishing to visit certain parts of Sp prefer to use Gib airport (I work with
two). Rarely is there any friction in Gib or in Sp because of the
sovereignty dispute.
The only point of conflict arises when Madrid and London remember where and
who we are. Madrid drives ahead the process of restrictions and impediments
which lead Gibraltarians (and other residents) and indeed Spaniards on the
north side of the border to wish things were different, and yes, annoy
anyone enough and they come to hate those who annoy them. Were the irritant
not applied, no-one would be irritated.
Hatred is one thing, indifference is another. In the days of the closed
border many families were split. Members of those families could very
understandably harbour resentment, even hatred. In my family's case there
was no such split. Why would I want to go on the almighty detour via Tangier
or London to visit a place just 10 miles up the coast? I developed
indifference - very different from hatred. The authorities to the north had
denied me easy access to their land. OK, I ceased to care about going there.
While communications are difficult - delays at border, telephones etc - it
is difficult to conduct a business which would straddle the border. The easy
thing to do is not to try. You develop indifference. Whose fault is that, or
am I and others to be forced to care about matters which are really very
distant from our daily lives?
>
> Spain has come a very long way. No one should overlook what took Spain to
> the abyss of self destruction. Spain is an educated and cultured country.
> No one can deny that fact. Gibraltar has to find a way forward, ceasing to
> be used as a political football, by both London and Madrid. Gibraltar
> should become a contributory entity in the betterment of the whole Campo
> region, improving the lot for all, Gib included of course. The divide is
> absurd.
Yes, of course it is. Who has the solution to the problem?
Or to put it another way, who created the divide, and in whose hands lie the
solutiuons? Who closed the border and more importantly, who having reopened
it ensured it does not operate like any border between two W European
states? Who placed restrictions on whose telecommunications? Who places
restrictions on whose air traffic? Who fails to recognise whose territorial
limits and juridical authority?
etc etc ad nauseum.
Ken
Ken
>I do not think that Spain is such a wonderful place. Sure it has failed in
>it democratic credentials as regards Gib, but to brand it in the manner you
>do, is absurd! THIS Group has to also be mindful not to portray everything
>Spanish as wrong, evil, ignorant or whatever. You do this at every single
>opportunity and that demonstrates something is out of balance in your mind
>when you think of that country or its people. And that (even if the subject
>matter is not strictly speaking Gib) is of concern to this group. Because
>whether you like it or not. what happens in Spain does affect us. If Spain
>changes its constitution to allow the Basques to do what they like. it DOES
>affect Gib. Spain is there! It will not float away or (as some may wish)
>sink into the Atlantic. What happens in Spain, how it develops, etc etc
>directly affect us. So we must be sensitive and (for some) be educated in
>such matter. Thus, without having to discuss matters such as flamenco or
>saetas or heaven forbid Serrano ham, discussing Spain's political
>development is of the utmost importance to this group.
>
> The mention of Sheffield was simply as a reference to the need to make
> comparisons. There is apathy in UK and I guess Sheffield is no exception.
> Any offence is regretted and I apologies for that.
>
> I lived in Gib from 1951 through to 1994 so I think I am well versed in
> the wonders (or lack of) Spain. Even today, I keep myself well informed
> of matters relating to both Gib and Spain (AND the UK). So I like to think
> I have a balance view.
Well we have to agree to differ. I don't consider myself to be anti-Sp., I
am pro-Gibraltar. On occasions taking the pro-Gib stance requires one to
appear to be anti-Sp, and if that is the price to be paid I am happy to do
so. It has not arisen recently, but I am quite capable of appearing anti-UK
too for the same purpose should it prove necessary.
I disagree that just because something happens in Spain it has bearings on
Gib. Some things do of course, with greater or lesser relevance. But I fail
to see why I or anyone else HAS to be interested in the minutiae of Spanish
society or culture any more than French or Greek.
Ken
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Point taken. Gib's Cepsa, and by virtue the Gib gov and "associates' ",
doing a roaring business selling cheaper fuel to the "neighbours". Without
the refinery situated so conveniently close to Gib, the local related
businesses wouldn't be in business. The Bucket Brigade, good though their
intentions are, might as well be pissing up in the air.
M
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
> news:nEKqe.13777$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>> news:8pfma1dqhe4bqg9nn...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:26:09 +0100, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>> One true and undeniable fact about Gibraltar, is that sooner or later we
>> (as in Gib) will have to learn to live in peace with Spain. To foment a
>> mentality of hatred, indefference, call it what you like, is nothing
>> short of going backwards.
>
> Your distance may have coloured your memory, or not refreshed it recently
> enough. Gib DOES know how to live at peace with Spain - it does so daily.
> The parts of Spain immediately adjacent to Gib have also learnt how to
> live at peace with Gib. There are daily throngs of workers coming into Gib
> from Spain. Tourist traffic goes both ways, the net effect being the
> influx of day trippers in great numbers from the Costa. Gib airport is
> used by many Sp wishing to go to the UK - it's more convenient that
> Malaga. Many UK folk wishing to visit certain parts of Sp prefer to use
> Gib airport (I work with two). Rarely is there any friction in Gib or in
> Sp because of the sovereignty dispute.
No need for patronizing remarks. I do remember, know and see clearly. As it
turns out, I incidentally overheard, on my last visit awhile back now, a
local La Linea gov delegate saying he'd fly to the UK from Gib, when on
business, and returning via Malaga. The inadequate situation at the border
being the reason for using Malaga on the return leg.
That Madrid's hell-bent in ball-breaking at every opportunity is not being
question. As the above shows. But, Madrid is a euphemism for undesirable
elements within the central admin. Gib's stance, as may well be the case,
should be to "broadcast" its existence and situation beyond the worn-out
corridors of "colonial" power, which are forever manipulating the situation,
and not always to benefit the local citizens of the Rock. Spain is not
entirely nor solely the problem.
> The only point of conflict arises when Madrid and London remember where
> and who we are. Madrid drives ahead the process of restrictions and
> impediments which lead Gibraltarians (and other residents) and indeed
> Spaniards on the north side of the border to wish things were different,
> and yes, annoy anyone enough and they come to hate those who annoy them.
> Were the irritant not applied, no-one would be irritated.
According to your rationale, and the point is not in dispute, London is as
much to blame as Madrid. Your stance becomes lopsided when you start
targeting the Spanish citizens for Gib's maladies. Why not blame your
adopted fellow citizens as well? Looks like London becomes transparent in
your "indifference", while Madrid becomes all the more opaque.
> Hatred is one thing, indifference is another. In the days of the closed
> border many families were split. Members of those families could very
> understandably harbour resentment, even hatred. In my family's case there
> was no such split. Why would I want to go on the almighty detour via
> Tangier or London to visit a place just 10 miles up the coast? I developed
> indifference - very different from hatred. The authorities to the north
> had denied me easy access to their land. OK, I ceased to care about going
> there.
Indifference can be far more destructive than hatred. In hatred, negative as
the term sounds, there is acknowledgement of ones foe. When indifference
sets in, ones foe is dead and buried. Your evident concern over "Spain's"
behaviour towards Gib, is far removed from indifference.
> While communications are difficult - delays at border, telephones etc - it
> is difficult to conduct a business which would straddle the border. The
> easy thing to do is not to try. You develop indifference. Whose fault is
> that, or am I and others to be forced to care about matters which are
> really very distant from our daily lives?
As has already been stated in another posting, Spain is a reality, it's
Gib's only neighbour. And like it or not there are close ties between the
two sides of the devide. Giving in to the negative elements, which to quote
another posting, "would gass their own citizens", is not the way forward.
The era of Pitt and Napoleon are long past.
>> Spain has come a very long way. No one should overlook what took Spain to
>> the abyss of self destruction. Spain is an educated and cultured country.
>> No one can deny that fact. Gibraltar has to find a way forward, ceasing
>> to be used as a political football, by both London and Madrid. Gibraltar
>> should become a contributory entity in the betterment of the whole Campo
>> region, improving the lot for all, Gib included of course. The divide is
>> absurd.
>
> Yes, of course it is. Who has the solution to the problem?
>
> Or to put it another way, who created the divide, and in whose hands lie
> the solutiuons? Who closed the border and more importantly, who having
> reopened it ensured it does not operate like any border between two W
> European states? Who placed restrictions on whose telecommunications? Who
> places restrictions on whose air traffic? Who fails to recognise whose
> territorial limits and juridical authority?
Gib's status is, I understand, that of a colony. Territorial limits,
juridical authority, air traffic rights, etc. etc. Need to be addressed by
"our champion". But then, our champion draws its Red-Line somewhere where
we'd truly be in no-mans land!
Jim Watt
>Point taken. Gib's Cepsa, and by virtue the Gib gov and "associates' ",
>doing a roaring business selling cheaper fuel to the "neighbours". Without
>the refinery situated so conveniently close to Gib, the local related
>businesses wouldn't be in business.
You seem to have that which constipated bulls desire.
1. Most of the fuel sales from Gibraltar are heavy oil to ships
2. There was no shortage of petrol when the frontier was closed
3. The problem with the refinery is that it is an old obsolete
design which wastes valuable by-products, like benzene
If money was spent on modernising it, cleaning it up etc
rather than coverups and buying EU officials to turn a blind
eye to it, life for the Spaniards next to the thing would
improve.
>The Bucket Brigade, good though their
>intentions are, might as well be pissing up in the air.
That has not been the experience in other countries,
read about it before giving up.
Jim Watt
>Why not blame your adopted fellow citizens as well?
<large snipapge>
why do you think people demonstate outside the Governors
residence? At his farewell parade someone shouted at the
last one to 'go home and not come back' because he supported
the joint sovereignty deal.
As for the Spanish gassing their own citizens, its a reality, its
shameful but its true.
And if you read the official briefing paper 'recovering the
sovereignty of Gibraltar is considered more important than
the welfare of the campo residents.
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d8h2fu$iiu$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>> news:nEKqe.13777$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>> news:8pfma1dqhe4bqg9nn...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:26:09 +0100, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
> No need for patronizing remarks.
Such was not my intention. You wrote, I (as it turned out, probably)
misinterpreted. Misunderstandings in the writtenword are more common than
the spoken as we are without tonal expression - and we certainly can't see
each other's faces.
> I do remember, know and see clearly. As it turns out, I incidentally
> overheard, on my last visit awhile back now, a local La Linea gov delegate
> saying he'd fly to the UK from Gib, when on business, and returning via
> Malaga. The inadequate situation at the border being the reason for using
> Malaga on the return leg.
>
> That Madrid's hell-bent in ball-breaking at every opportunity is not being
> question. As the above shows. But, Madrid is a euphemism for undesirable
> elements within the central admin. Gib's stance, as may well be the case,
> should be to "broadcast" its existence and situation beyond the worn-out
> corridors of "colonial" power, which are forever manipulating the
> situation, and not always to benefit the local citizens of the Rock. Spain
> is not entirely nor solely the problem.
One of the problems I perceived in the post-dockyard era in Gib has now
(again, my perception) mostly vanished. Good thing too or it could have
bankrupted Gib. This was the mentality of "Isabelita paga". Those who know
it will know what I mean.
>
>> The only point of conflict arises when Madrid and London remember where
>> and who we are. Madrid drives ahead the process of restrictions and
>> impediments which lead Gibraltarians (and other residents) and indeed
>> Spaniards on the north side of the border to wish things were different,
>> and yes, annoy anyone enough and they come to hate those who annoy them.
>> Were the irritant not applied, no-one would be irritated.
>
> According to your rationale, and the point is not in dispute, London is as
> much to blame as Madrid. Your stance becomes lopsided when you start
> targeting the Spanish citizens for Gib's maladies. Why not blame your
> adopted fellow citizens as well? Looks like London becomes transparent in
> your "indifference", while Madrid becomes all the more opaque.
While Spain is blamed for an act of comission, London can be blamed for acts
of omission. It is Spain that has imposed the restrictions mentioned, and
many more besides. That she has managed to do so to a great extent is
because of the UK's acquiesence, but the malicious initiative is entirely
Spain's. The UK's acquiesence arises because there are no votes in Gib that
matter to a UK politician, and the most Gib could ever count is ONE seat at
Westminster. The UK parties are not bothered in that regard, and will do the
expedient thing for the mainland. There are political parties in the UK that
do not bother to campaign in N Ireland, whcih IIRC has 9 seats at
Westminster. THAT is why we need the constitutional change we seek, that and
no more. Otherwise it would make precious little difference to us frankly.
We need the constitutional change to take us off the UN list of non
self-governing territories which would serve to close the door on Spain's
ONLY forum internationally where she can air claim on Gib. We need the
constitutional change to close the UK's ability to agree things for us over
and above our willingness to take the knock. We need an agreement from the
UK to enter in NO agreements on our behalf without our agreement - in other
words, to make every occasion and every forum which touches upon us a
tripartite arragement, as the much-heralded discussions with Sp now are.
>
>> Hatred is one thing, indifference is another. In the days of the closed
>> border many families were split. Members of those families could very
>> understandably harbour resentment, even hatred. In my family's case there
>> was no such split. Why would I want to go on the almighty detour via
>> Tangier or London to visit a place just 10 miles up the coast? I
>> developed indifference - very different from hatred. The authorities to
>> the north had denied me easy access to their land. OK, I ceased to care
>> about going there.
>
> Indifference can be far more destructive than hatred. In hatred, negative
> as the term sounds, there is acknowledgement of ones foe. When
> indifference sets in, ones foe is dead and buried. Your evident concern
> over "Spain's" behaviour towards Gib, is far removed from indifference.
As regards my indifference, the opponent is NOT dead and buried. You seem to
contradict yourself. If I am so vehemently opposed to Spain as you suggest,
I cannot see her as dead and buried. What's it to be?
> As has already been stated in another posting, Spain is a reality, it's
> Gib's only neighbour. And like it or not there are close ties between the
> two sides of the devide. Giving in to the negative elements, which to
> quote another posting, "would gass their own citizens", is not the way
> forward. The era of Pitt and Napoleon are long past.
THAT you will ahve to take up with the other poster, the comment you refer
to is not mine.
>>> Spain has come a very long way. No one should overlook what took Spain
>>> to the abyss of self destruction. Spain is an educated and cultured
>>> country. No one can deny that fact. Gibraltar has to find a way forward,
>>> ceasing to be used as a political football, by both London and Madrid.
>>> Gibraltar should become a contributory entity in the betterment of the
>>> whole Campo region, improving the lot for all, Gib included of course.
>>> The divide is absurd.
>>
>> Yes, of course it is. Who has the solution to the problem?
Ultimately it is for Spain to drop her outdated claim. From that root all
her mischief comes.
>>
>> Or to put it another way, who created the divide, and in whose hands lie
>> the solutiuons? Who closed the border and more importantly, who having
>> reopened it ensured it does not operate like any border between two W
>> European states? Who placed restrictions on whose telecommunications? Who
>> places restrictions on whose air traffic? Who fails to recognise whose
>> territorial limits and juridical authority?
>
> Gib's status is, I understand, that of a colony. Territorial limits,
> juridical authority, air traffic rights, etc. etc. Need to be addressed by
> "our champion". But then, our champion draws its Red-Line somewhere where
> we'd truly be in no-mans land!
This is as said above - the UK's act of omission - of failing to defend us
robustly, only in so far as it interferes wit the agenda of thge UK
mainland. Hence the need for the constitutional change etc etc - see above.
One last thing, and this not in answer to any of your comments but a new
comment of my own. It appears to me that you and DCC see me as anti-Sp which
I assure you I am not, and I am chastised for it. Not that I am, but if I
were, so what?
A Frenchman might not like the Dutch, a German not like the Swiss, a Swiss
not like the Italians. So what? He is entitled to his views, right or wrong.
IF (and it's a big IF) I was anti-Sp, why cannot I be permitted the luxury?
IF I was anti-Sp and I was wrong to be so, so what?
Ken
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:39:54 GMT, "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>
>>Point taken. Gib's Cepsa, and by virtue the Gib gov and "associates' ",
>>doing a roaring business selling cheaper fuel to the "neighbours". Without
>>the refinery situated so conveniently close to Gib, the local related
>>businesses wouldn't be in business.
>
> You seem to have that which constipated bulls desire.
I don't delve in bestiality
> 1. Most of the fuel sales from Gibraltar are heavy oil to ships
Irrelevant to the point made. Though good news for the ship chandler.
> 2. There was no shortage of petrol when the frontier was closed
Irrelevant to the point made.
> 3. The problem with the refinery is that it is an old obsolete
> design which wastes valuable by-products, like benzene
You haven't been inhaling its toxic fumes since the day of its inception.
Modern, obsolete or not, refineries exhausts are known to be harmful to all
forms of life.
> If money was spent on modernising it, cleaning it up etc
> rather than coverups and buying EU officials to turn a blind
> eye to it, life for the Spaniards next to the thing would
> improve.
One of Gib's petrol stations, which will remain nameless, had the biggest
sale in Europe. The local market didn't account for that oddity.
>>The Bucket Brigade, good though their
>>intentions are, might as well be pissing up in the air.
>
> That has not been the experience in other countries,
> read about it before giving up.
Bucket Brigade or no Bucket Brigade, just as there are workers flocking into
Gib, so much pecuniary interests be flowing from Gib (not necessarily locals
interests) to the industrial zone poisoning the neighbourhood.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:32:12 GMT, "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>
>>Why not blame your adopted fellow citizens as well?
>
> <large snipapge>
>
> why do you think people demonstate outside the Governors
> residence? At his farewell parade someone shouted at the
> last one to 'go home and not come back' because he supported
> the joint sovereignty deal.
Ah, yes, the governor. That entity, who had his golf clubs and all trashed
by the Gibbos, when returning from a day out golfing in Spain. This took
place during the period of the 1st referendum. That's the referendum where
the populace were given two choices A// join a dictatorship. B// stay
colonials. Some democratic choice that was.
> As for the Spanish gassing their own citizens, its a reality, its
> shameful but its true.
Just as well Gib's gas-proof frontier is operational. Gib's governor would
do everything to ensure his subjects are not exposed to such nasties.
> And if you read the official briefing paper 'recovering the
> sovereignty of Gibraltar is considered more important than
> the welfare of the campo residents.
But of course, taht's why more and more luxury dwellings are being erected
in Gib. The loclas must indeed be living in luxury.
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
> news:gsZqe.14708$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:d8h2fu$iiu$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>> news:nEKqe.13777$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>>> news:8pfma1dqhe4bqg9nn...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:26:09 +0100, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>> No need for patronizing remarks.
>
> Such was not my intention. You wrote, I (as it turned out, probably)
> misinterpreted. Misunderstandings in the writtenword are more common than
> the spoken as we are without tonal expression - and we certainly can't see
> each other's faces.
No problem.
> One of the problems I perceived in the post-dockyard era in Gib has now
> (again, my perception) mostly vanished. Good thing too or it could have
> bankrupted Gib. This was the mentality of "Isabelita paga". Those who know
> it will know what I mean.
I never worked in the dockyard. Though admittedly, the dockyard was the
lifeline of Gib's economy. Much later though I did, as a whim, expirience
working in the private sector. Much of which is, in turn, dependant on the
Spanish clientele and some Costa del Sol English expats.
>> According to your rationale, and the point is not in dispute, London is
>> as much to blame as Madrid. Your stance becomes lopsided when you start
>> targeting the Spanish citizens for Gib's maladies. Why not blame your
>> adopted fellow citizens as well? Looks like London becomes transparent in
>> your "indifference", while Madrid becomes all the more opaque.
>
> While Spain is blamed for an act of comission, London can be blamed for
> acts of omission. It is Spain that has imposed the restrictions mentioned,
> and many more besides. That she has managed to do so to a great extent is
> because of the UK's acquiesence, but the malicious initiative is entirely
> Spain's..............
So long as Britain adheres to the ToU as the right to its presence in Gib,
Spain will always have the right to demand that the conditions i such a
treaty be carried out to the letter. You cannot adhere to a
half-baked-treaty. But where would that leave the many elusive landlords in
Gib?
> We need the constitutional change to take us off the UN list of non
> self-governing territories which would serve to close the door on Spain's
> ONLY forum internationally where she can air claim on Gib. We need the
> constitutional change to close the UK's ability to agree things for us
> over and above our willingness to take the knock. We need an agreement
> from the UK to enter in NO agreements on our behalf without our
> agreement - in other words, to make every occasion and every forum which
> touches upon us a tripartite arragement, as the much-heralded discussions
> with Sp now are.
So long as there is bad blood, a product of historical mishandlings, no UN
outcome is going to force a sovereign country's claims. The peaceful path to
Gib's future doesn't solely depent on legalities.
>>> Hatred is one thing, indifference is another. In the days of the closed
>>> border many families were split. Members of those families could very
>>> understandably harbour resentment, even hatred. In my family's case
>>> there was no such split. Why would I want to go on the almighty detour
>>> via Tangier or London to visit a place just 10 miles up the coast? I
>>> developed indifference - very different from hatred. The authorities to
>>> the north had denied me easy access to their land. OK, I ceased to care
>>> about going there.
>>
>> Indifference can be far more destructive than hatred. In hatred, negative
>> as the term sounds, there is acknowledgement of ones foe. When
>> indifference sets in, ones foe is dead and buried. Your evident concern
>> over "Spain's" behaviour towards Gib, is far removed from indifference.
>
> As regards my indifference, the opponent is NOT dead and buried. You seem
> to contradict yourself. If I am so vehemently opposed to Spain as you
> suggest, I cannot see her as dead and buried. What's it to be?
Obviously, you cannot be indeferent to Spain then, as you previouslay
stated.
>> As has already been stated in another posting, Spain is a reality, it's
>> Gib's only neighbour. And like it or not there are close ties between the
>> two sides of the devide. Giving in to the negative elements, which to
>> quote another posting, "would gass their own citizens", is not the way
>> forward. The era of Pitt and Napoleon are long past.
>
> THAT you will ahve to take up with the other poster, the comment you refer
> to is not mine.
I acknowledge that Spain is a reality and that it's Gib's only real
neighbour. I don't have a problem with that reality. Most of Gib doesn't
have a problem either. Otherwise the vehicles' queue to Spain would stretch
for hundreds of yards as it has. Sometimes from the frontier all the way to
Eastern Beach!
> Ultimately it is for Spain to drop her outdated claim. From that root all
> her mischief comes.
Those claims are as outdated as the ToU.
>>> Or to put it another way, who created the divide, and in whose hands lie
>>> the solutiuons? Who closed the border and more importantly, who having
>>> reopened it ensured it does not operate like any border between two W
>>> European states? Who placed restrictions on whose telecommunications?
>>> Who places restrictions on whose air traffic? Who fails to recognise
>>> whose territorial limits and juridical authority?
>>
>> Gib's status is, I understand, that of a colony. Territorial limits,
>> juridical authority, air traffic rights, etc. etc. Need to be addressed
>> by "our champion". But then, our champion draws its Red-Line somewhere
>> where we'd truly be in no-mans land!
>
> This is as said above - the UK's act of omission - of failing to defend us
> robustly, only in so far as it interferes wit the agenda of thge UK
> mainland. Hence the need for the constitutional change etc etc - see
> above.
Who will grant Gib that contitutional change? Britain?
> One last thing, and this not in answer to any of your comments but a new
> comment of my own. It appears to me that you and DCC see me as anti-Sp
> which I assure you I am not, and I am chastised for it. Not that I am, but
> if I were, so what?
So what??? Are we defending being anti-Spanish then?
> A Frenchman might not like the Dutch, a German not like the Swiss, a Swiss
> not like the Italians. So what? He is entitled to his views, right or
> wrong. IF (and it's a big IF) I was anti-Sp, why cannot I be permitted the
> luxury? IF I was anti-Sp and I was wrong to be so, so what?
That's a shallow argument, and I am against it.
M
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>
> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> news:2o3pa1109pb8fq758...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:32:12 GMT, "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>>
>>>Why not blame your adopted fellow citizens as well?
>>
>> <large snipapge>
>>
>> why do you think people demonstate outside the Governors
>> residence? At his farewell parade someone shouted at the
>> last one to 'go home and not come back' because he supported
>> the joint sovereignty deal.
>
> Ah, yes, the governor. That entity, who had his golf clubs and all trashed
> by the Gibbos, when returning from a day out golfing in Spain. This took
> place during the period of the 1st referendum. That's the referendum where
> the populace were given two choices A// join a dictatorship. B// stay
> colonials. Some democratic choice that was.
Well for all its faults it was SOME choice, which is more choice than the Sp
were given in any of their daily dealings by their then govt. I agree the
referendum then fell far short of the standards and questions one would like
to have addressed today, but let us not fall into the trap of judging the
events of yesteryear by the standards of today. THAT is precisely the
reverse of what the Sp try to do, trying to solve an issue today with the
remedies of 300 years ago!
>
>> As for the Spanish gassing their own citizens, its a reality, its
>> shameful but its true.
>
> Just as well Gib's gas-proof frontier is operational. Gib's governor would
> do everything to ensure his subjects are not exposed to such nasties.
One can never be sure. Franco put the refinery there supposedly as a means
of providing employment for those Linenses and Algecire~os who he made
involuntarily unemployed when he withdrew them from Gib. He may also have
intended to gas Gib, but failed. I'm not for one minute suggesting Gib never
gets a dose of noxious smells from the place, but if you look at the siting
of the refinery you will see (given a knowledge of prevailing winds) that
Gib is mostly spared the effects. San Roque and Algeciras cop it far more.
And of course the people around its base (Mayorga, Rio de la Miel**) get it
all the time.
>
>> And if you read the official briefing paper 'recovering the
>> sovereignty of Gibraltar is considered more important than
>> the welfare of the campo residents.
>
> But of course, taht's why more and more luxury dwellings are being erected
> in Gib. The loclas must indeed be living in luxury.
For all its faults (and there are, for nowhere is total paradise) the living
in Gib is indeed very good. How come then that with so very many Giblets
abroad who colectively experience so many places, so many come back in
retirement?
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d8i8f9$g9v$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>> news:gsZqe.14708$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:d8h2fu$iiu$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>>> news:nEKqe.13777$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>>>> news:8pfma1dqhe4bqg9nn...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:26:09 +0100, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
> Obviously, you cannot be indeferent to Spain then, as you previouslay
> stated.
Other than her position regarding Gib, "Quite frankly [Mano] I couldn't give
a damn"
>> Ultimately it is for Spain to drop her outdated claim. From that root all
>> her mischief comes.
>
> Those claims are as outdated as the ToU.
Agree wholeheartedly.
>> This is as said above - the UK's act of omission - of failing to defend
>> us robustly, only in so far as it interferes wit the agenda of thge UK
>> mainland. Hence the need for the constitutional change etc etc - see
>> above.
>
> Who will grant Gib that contitutional change? Britain?
Any constitutional change, if it is to occur, has to be agreed bewtween Gib
and the UK. There can be no-one else. Whether it happens or not is a
different matter. This is not unusual in Gib's history, which as stated
elsewhere in a still-active thread (maybe this one?) Gib and the UK present
a struggle not dissimilar from that between a starfish and a clam. Gib is
the starfish. The starfish wants something from the clam. The clam is
stronger than the starfish. The starfish grips the clam and tries to pull
the clam shells apart. The clam is stronger and resists. However though the
clam can close harder than the starfish can pull it apart, the starfish can
pull apart for longer than the clam can hold it's tighter closure.
Eventually the clam opens, exhausted and the starfish eats.
Inevitably and undeniably the UK is stronger than Gib in every way. However
Gib is fighting for survival and development, whereas UK policy is driven by
the expedientof the moment. Gib needs to pursue her position relentlessly,
until such time as Gib's position coincides with what appears to the UK to
be advantageous for it at the time, and at that point in time Gib succeeds
and gets what Gib needs and wants.
>
>> One last thing, and this not in answer to any of your comments but a new
>> comment of my own. It appears to me that you and DCC see me as anti-Sp
>> which I assure you I am not, and I am chastised for it. Not that I am,
>> but if I were, so what?
>
> So what??? Are we defending being anti-Spanish then?
No, but don't pilory someone (not me I add) just because he or she might be.
>
>> A Frenchman might not like the Dutch, a German not like the Swiss, a
>> Swiss not like the Italians. So what? He is entitled to his views, right
>> or wrong. IF (and it's a big IF) I was anti-Sp, why cannot I be permitted
>> the luxury? IF I was anti-Sp and I was wrong to be so, so what?
>
> That's a shallow argument, and I am against it.
Now you are only in favour of deep arguments? How deep - 10 metres? :))
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>
> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> news:g63pa1tqpe0c0c8dt...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:39:54 GMT, "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:39:54 GMT, "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>>
> I don't delve in bestiality
Nor that whcih constipated bulls desire either, I trust. Unlike GM4DHJ who,
by his own admission (and he loves it when I remind the world) tasted the
water in the toilet (yes, IN the toilet) at the Caleta Hotel to establish
whether it was salt or potable. The result was of course nowhere near as
memorable as the experiment.
>> 1. Most of the fuel sales from Gibraltar are heavy oil to ships
>
> Irrelevant to the point made. Though good news for the ship chandler.
. . . and the local infrastructure supported by taxes paid by the same.
>> 2. There was no shortage of petrol when the frontier was closed
>
> Irrelevant to the point made.
Yes and no. It shows we can live without our neighbours, though of course we
can live better with them, as long as they are prepared to live with us.
> One of Gib's petrol stations, which will remain nameless, had the biggest
> sale in Europe. The local market didn't account for that oddity.
Depends how far reaching one trawls when casting the net which defines the
locality. Gib at one time also sold as much sugar as Germany, the vast
majority of this finding its way in Sp taken there (I'm told) by the various
Sp workers who would go to ingenious extremes to do so including (I'm told)
filling the pipes that constitute a bicycle's frame with the stuff.
It must be for such efforts that the monument to te Sp daily migrant worker
has been erected on the Sp side of the border, ostensibly for his valiant
efforts thus making La Linea what it is today. ROTFLMAO. (He wipes the tears
from his eyes, gathering himself) I'm sorry, I shall doubtless be castigated
for my little outburst as being anti-Sp, but I ask you, if not now, when? I
mean, a bloke just can't help himself at times.
These days of course the law enforcement agencies would be far more
suspicious of anyone sneaking white powders across national boundaries.
Ken
Lynx
My stance is simply that, Gib's lot should be far better than what it is.
That includes good and friendly relations with Spain, especially Andalucia
and above all the Campo Region. That something might be done, as other
countries do, to attract expats back home. Everything else is pretty much
hot gassing.
DCC
singer is having it off with some married politician or other. My point is
that if you want to have an opinion you should have a balanced knowledge of
the subject. To do that you have to keep yourself informed on issues THAT
MATTER. I'm not talking about society or culture (although they too
influence ones view) but matters that DO concern Gib.
Politics/Constitution/Regional matters/Environment/ etc etc. The list of
issues that affect us is quite extensive. I suspect (going by your postings)
that you do NOT keep yourself well informed in relation to Spain and your
bias demonstrates that. I would not dream of giving my opinion without
first 'educating myself on the subject. Thus the frustration one feels
that, despite the spectacular changes that Spain has experienced since
Franco, there has not been any progress in solving the Gib dispute. But that
should not be translated into belief that all things Spanish are wrong and
that (going back to the original posting) Spaniards are a bunch of ignorant
fools who believe everything that their government throws at them. Not true!
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. You carry on
with your style and views and I'll do it my way. I'm certain we are both as
pro-Gib as can be.
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
> news:cK2re.14763$F7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>> news:2o3pa1109pb8fq758...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:32:12 GMT, "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>>
>> Ah, yes, the governor. That entity, who had his golf clubs and all
>> trashed by the Gibbos, when returning from a day out golfing in Spain.
>> This took place during the period of the 1st referendum. That's the
>> referendum where the populace were given two choices A// join a
>> dictatorship. B// stay colonials. Some democratic choice that was.
>
> Well for all its faults it was SOME choice, which is more choice than the
> Sp were given in any of their daily dealings by their then govt. I agree
> the referendum then fell far short of the standards and questions one
> would like to have addressed today, but let us not fall into the trap of
> judging the events of yesteryear by the standards of today. THAT is
> precisely the reverse of what the Sp try to do, trying to solve an issue
> today with the remedies of 300 years ago!
I understand, we should not judge events of yesteryears by the standards of
today this side of the border. Fine.
At the risk of repeating myself, the ToU to which the British gov to this
day claims its rights to its presence in Gib, is the very document the
Spanish gov clings to in claiming Gib. It's a fact. The Gibraltarians do not
feature in the ToU.
>>> As for the Spanish gassing their own citizens, its a reality, its
>>> shameful but its true.
>>
>> Just as well Gib's gas-proof frontier is operational. Gib's governor
>> would do everything to ensure his subjects are not exposed to such
>> nasties.
>
> One can never be sure. Franco put the refinery there supposedly as a means
> of providing employment for those Linenses and Algecire~os who he made
> involuntarily unemployed when he withdrew them from Gib. He may also have
> intended to gas Gib, but failed. I'm not for one minute suggesting Gib
> never gets a dose of noxious smells from the place, but if you look at the
> siting of the refinery you will see (given a knowledge of prevailing
> winds) that Gib is mostly spared the effects. San Roque and Algeciras cop
> it far more. And of course the people around its base (Mayorga, Rio de la
> Miel**) get it all the time.
The refinery employs a minimum workforce, When a technical problems arise,
experts are brought in from other countries. That was the status quo up
until some years ago. One who actually worked at the refinery remarked that
changing bulb lights was a life threatening duty. Not only are these placed
at great altitude, but there were no safety measures in place to safeguard
the worker designated to change these bulbs. Refusing to do so, resulting in
immediate expulsion.
The refinery is nothing more than a tourist repellent, and a destructor of
life.
>>> And if you read the official briefing paper 'recovering the
>>> sovereignty of Gibraltar is considered more important than
>>> the welfare of the campo residents.
>>
>> But of course, taht's why more and more luxury dwellings are being
>> erected in Gib. The loclas must indeed be living in luxury.
>
> For all its faults (and there are, for nowhere is total paradise) the
> living in Gib is indeed very good. How come then that with so very many
> Giblets abroad who colectively experience so many places, so many come
> back in retirement?
Who better to answer that question than yourself? But taking on your
question, I have to say that everyman loves his country. Gib gov would be
doing a great deal more good for its citizens, abroad and at home, if it
catered for the thousands of soon to retire baby-boomers. The influx of
foreign currency would be substantial. But I do stand corrected, we are
after all, tenants and leaseholders in our own country.
Lynx
You lost me friend. Arguing is not the reason for my responses. Reasoning,
problem solving, fact finding, yes.
Jim Watt
>You haven't been inhaling its toxic fumes since the day of its inception.
>Modern, obsolete or not, refineries exhausts are known to be harmful to all
>forms of life.
if you consult with DCC, he will tell you about the refineries in his
part of the world which are clean.
Yes it can be done, yes it must be done.
Because its an old dated design its not efficient venting valuable
material onto the neigbours and polluting two continents.
The other thing to note about the BBB is that its an example of
Gib-Sp co-operation which seems to work very well on a local
level.
Jim Watt
wrote:
>Depends how far reaching one trawls when casting the net which defines the
>locality. Gib at one time also sold as much sugar as Germany, the vast
>majority of this finding its way in Sp taken there (I'm told) by the various
>Sp workers who would go to ingenious extremes to do so including (I'm told)
>filling the pipes that constitute a bicycle's frame with the stuff.
One of my relations was here during the war on guard at the frontier
and confirmed that story, the one that amazed him was the conveyance
of butter inside bicycles.
Perhaps we should erect a statue to Spanish workers leaving Gib on
our side of the frontier, with trimmings.
However, one of the more amusing things I saw was a guy who was
supplying Duquesa with meat from Peralta's by sea when the
frontier was partially opened. He also shipped baked beans to the
ex-pat community as at the time such items were unobtainable in
Spain. Since the EU all those opportunities for trade have gone.
Jim Watt
>> And if you read the official briefing paper 'recovering the
>> sovereignty of Gibraltar is considered more important than
>> the welfare of the campo residents.
>
>But of course, taht's why more and more luxury dwellings are being erected
>in Gib. The loclas must indeed be living in luxury.
some indeed are, as average earnings here are now higher than
in the UK along with better social benefits.
Jim Watt
>we are after all, tenants and leaseholders
>in our own country.
However, in the same way that in a block of flats here there is a
management company owned by the residents, so that individual
residences belong to the residents and communal areas belong
to the management company owned by the residents, those things
owned by the Government of Gibraltar are owned communally by
the Gibraltarians.
So ultimately we do own everything apart from the MoD stuff which
is being clawed back.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
How fossil fuel burning can be done safely, without harmful wastes, must
surely be a major scientific triumph. Not do we need to keep the air free of
these harmful pollutants, but our waters and soil. Isn't there talk of
"pumping" this kind of waste into the ground somewhere? Whichever way Gib's
Bay refinery is looked at, it's an eye sore, clean technology and all. The
Campo region, properly exploited, has tremendous tourist possibilities. It
has the incomparable weather, history, landmarks, multiple beaches, rivers.
WTF is a refinery doing in that location?
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 02:25:12 GMT, "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>
>>we are after all, tenants and leaseholders
>>in our own country.
>
> However, in the same way that in a block of flats here there is a
> management company owned by the residents, so that individual
> residences belong to the residents and communal areas belong
> to the management company owned by the residents, those things
> owned by the Government of Gibraltar are owned communally by
> the Gibraltarians.
You're drawing a very long bow, and you know it. What you say is communally
owned is, unfortunately, returning dividents only to the eternal usual few.
Your theory doesn't wash.
> So ultimately we do own everything apart from the MoD stuff which
> is being clawed back.
"Clawed back". The situation sounds soemwhat desperate. Gib deserves better.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Enlighten me, how's the health centre looking these days. Does it still
exist? Because if it does, there's another job for Bob Geldof. Gib deserves
better.
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Indeed you are correct, and we have come full circle on the argument. Gib
generally DOES enjoy good relations with Andalucia and the Campo. Sure
there's the occasional mayor of some or other Campo town who is the
proverbial fly in the ointment - recently it was the Algeciras bloke, now
its the La linea bloke and meanwhile the Barrios chap has been friendly
throughout. You can never get on famously with eveeryone.
Yet the biggest flies in the ointment are Madrid and London. Fortunately
Blair is very distracted at present with other issues (some of his own
making, some visited on him) and we are therefore enjoying a period of quiet
neighbourly getting-alongedness.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Indeed not. At the time there were none. Gib was a garrison with no civilian
population to speak of. HAD there been however, they are unlikely to have
featured anyway. This was a time before human rights, before votes, when
monarchs would give each other presents of whole cities AND their
populations as wedding presents.
THEREFORE the ToU is an outdated document, as it happens the oldest Treaty
by which the UK feels itself bound, and should be thrown out lock stock and
a couple of smoking barrels.
HOWEVER it is conveneient for BOTH the UK and Spain to adhere to it, simply
because ONLY in the ToU can the UK legitimise its presence in Gib against
any will of the Gibraltarians (which is not the will of the Gibraltarians,
but they cling on to it just in case it should become the will of the
Gibraltarians) and the only means by which Spain, using the reversionary
clause within its article 10, can make any sort of claim over Gibraltar.
It is said the relevant article was put there at the insistence of the
French of all people, who are not mentioned in it at all. Why? Because by
placing this reversionary clause ini the Treaty it would keep Spain and the
UK at each others throats for a long while and distract them both away from
France. I don;t think the French could have guessed how well thier ruse
would work, and to this day we continue to pay the price.
> The refinery employs a minimum workforce, When a technical problems arise,
> experts are brought in from other countries. That was the status quo up
> until some years ago. One who actually worked at the refinery remarked
> that changing bulb lights was a life threatening duty. Not only are these
> placed at great altitude, but there were no safety measures in place to
> safeguard the worker designated to change these bulbs. Refusing to do so,
> resulting in immediate expulsion.
> The refinery is nothing more than a tourist repellent, and a destructor of
> life.
Very few people would mourn its closure and dismantling.
>> For all its faults (and there are, for nowhere is total paradise) the
>> living in Gib is indeed very good. How come then that with so very many
>> Giblets abroad who colectively experience so many places, so many come
>> back in retirement?
>
> Who better to answer that question than yourself? But taking on your
> question, I have to say that everyman loves his country. Gib gov would be
> doing a great deal more good for its citizens, abroad and at home, if it
> catered for the thousands of soon to retire baby-boomers. The influx of
> foreign currency would be substantial. But I do stand corrected, we are
> after all, tenants and leaseholders in our own country.
People returning to Gib after living in the UK would not strictly be
bringing in foreign currency as both are in the Sterling area, but yes, they
would bring wealth created elsewhere in to Gib. You are right of course,
just being a tad pedantic here. Walk that you, miarma, are being a bit heavy
with the leaseholder thing :))
K
Ken
> I'm certain we are both as pro-Gib as can be.
So may we all be.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Seen the new hospital?
What I can comment on is further education. My children are soon to start
their tertiary education for which, funded in the UK, I or they shall have
to pay tuition fees (capped for the present time, but not so for students
starting in Sept 2006 or later). This means that my elder will have fees
capped for the duration of his course. The younger (if he goes) will have to
find fees at the full market rate. NEITHER will receive ANY financial
assistance from the state whatsoever - I shall have to do it all - EVEN WHEN
as will happen, there is an overlap and the elder is still at Uni when the
younger one starts.
OTOH if we lived in Gib both my children would have their tuition fees met
in full, and receive grants from GoG which are not means tested AND receive
vouchers for flights home throughout their studies EVEN IF there was NO
OVERLAP. I reckon over the next 6 years or so my children's Uni education
will set me back around £50 - 70k.
How's that for greater social benefit?
K
jim.gm4dhj
> I trust. Unlike GM4DHJ who,
> by his own admission (and he loves it when I remind the world) tasted the
> water in the toilet (yes, IN the toilet) at the Caleta Hotel to establish
> whether it was salt or potable. The result was of course nowhere near as
> memorable as the experiment.
Look it is simple I stuck a finger into the flow from the boat type valve
thingy...and it was fresh...if you don't believe me try it yourself......no
big deal.....or are you one of these people that are scared of catching
nasty things...build up no resistance and get struck down at the first
operchancity.....
Ken
"jim.gm4dhj" <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:VPmre.22246$iy2....@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
No. I just don't drink from toilets. Frankly you're the only person I know
of who'se ever admitted to having done so. At least you didn't stick your
head down the pan! The way you did it, I concede, is no different from
drinking from the tap in a catching-nasty-thing sort of way. But you must
admit it makes for an excellent story!
Ken
jim.gm4dhj
> No. I just don't drink from toilets. Frankly you're the only person I know
> of who'se ever admitted to having done so. At least you didn't stick your
> head down the pan! The way you did it, I concede, is no different from
> drinking from the tap in a catching-nasty-thing sort of way. But you must
> admit it makes for an excellent story!
>
> Ken
>
>
Ken
Hey - the tabloids sell by the thousand! :))
K
Jim Watt
>How fossil fuel burning can be done safely, without harmful wastes, must
>surely be a major scientific triumph. Not do we need to keep the air free of
>these harmful pollutants, but our waters and soil. Isn't there talk of
>"pumping" this kind of waste into the ground somewhere? Whichever way Gib's
>Bay refinery is looked at, it's an eye sore, clean technology and all. The
>Campo region, properly exploited, has tremendous tourist possibilities. It
>has the incomparable weather, history, landmarks, multiple beaches, rivers.
>WTF is a refinery doing in that location?
A very good question.
Jim Watt
wrote:
>No. I just don't drink from toilets.
I thought it was only dogs that did that, and not in Gibraltar where
the things flush on SALT water.
Lynx
Sounds good to me. Hope it lasts.
Jim Watt
Which one do you remember? We have better.
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
> news:c86re.14976$F7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:d8if7v$j3t$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>> news:cK2re.14763$F7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>>> news:2o3pa1109pb8fq758...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:32:12 GMT, "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>
> Indeed not. At the time there were none. Gib was a garrison with no
> civilian population to speak of. HAD there been however, they are unlikely
> to have featured anyway. This was a time before human rights, before
> votes, when monarchs would give each other presents of whole cities AND
> their populations as wedding presents.
>
> THEREFORE the ToU is an outdated document, as it happens the oldest Treaty
> by which the UK feels itself bound, and should be thrown out lock stock
> and a couple of smoking barrels.
>
> HOWEVER it is conveneient for BOTH the UK and Spain to adhere to it,
> simply because ONLY in the ToU can the UK legitimise its presence in Gib
> against any will of the Gibraltarians (which is not the will of the
> Gibraltarians, but they cling on to it just in case it should become the
> will of the Gibraltarians) and the only means by which Spain, using the
> reversionary clause within its article 10, can make any sort of claim over
> Gibraltar.
I dare we are all well read on the history of Gibraltar, the ToU, etc.
> It is said the relevant article was put there at the insistence of the
> French of all people, who are not mentioned in it at all. Why? Because by
> placing this reversionary clause ini the Treaty it would keep Spain and
> the UK at each others throats for a long while and distract them both away
> from France. I don;t think the French could have guessed how well thier
> ruse would work, and to this day we continue to pay the price.
The French? Of course it was the French, the king of Spain, Felipe V, duke
of Anjou was French of the Borbon Lineage. When he was crowned king of
Spain, there was one crucial condition, that being that the Spanish Borbon
dinasty could not join the French Borbon dinasty.
We don't need reminding that Gib was attacked and taken in the name of the
Hapsburgs, who claimed the kingdom Spanish, do we?
>> The refinery is nothing more than a tourist repellent, and a destructor
>> of life.
>
> Very few people would mourn its closure and dismantling.
Amen
>>> For all its faults (and there are, for nowhere is total paradise) the
>>> living in Gib is indeed very good. How come then that with so very many
>>> Giblets abroad who colectively experience so many places, so many come
>>> back in retirement?
>>
>> Who better to answer that question than yourself? But taking on your
>> question, I have to say that everyman loves his country. Gib gov would be
>> doing a great deal more good for its citizens, abroad and at home, if it
>> catered for the thousands of soon to retire baby-boomers. The influx of
>> foreign currency would be substantial. But I do stand corrected, we are
>> after all, tenants and leaseholders in our own country.
>
> People returning to Gib after living in the UK would not strictly be
> bringing in foreign currency as both are in the Sterling area, but yes,
> they would bring wealth created elsewhere in to Gib. You are right of
> course, just being a tad pedantic here. Walk that you, miarma, are being a
> bit heavy with the leaseholder thing :))
According to an article published in Panorama, during the "300 years"
celebrations. The British command (who were commanding in the name of the
Hapsburgs) granted property holdings in Gib to certain elements who procured
supplies to the forces. To this day, Gib seems like a fiefdom, made up of
vassals and tenants.
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
> news:c86re.14976$F7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:d8if7v$j3t$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>> news:cK2re.14763$F7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>>> news:2o3pa1109pb8fq758...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:32:12 GMT, "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>
> Indeed not. At the time there were none. Gib was a garrison with no
> civilian population to speak of. HAD there been however, they are unlikely
> to have featured anyway. This was a time before human rights, before
> votes, when monarchs would give each other presents of whole cities AND
> their populations as wedding presents.
>
> THEREFORE the ToU is an outdated document, as it happens the oldest Treaty
> by which the UK feels itself bound, and should be thrown out lock stock
> and a couple of smoking barrels.
>
> HOWEVER it is conveneient for BOTH the UK and Spain to adhere to it,
> simply because ONLY in the ToU can the UK legitimise its presence in Gib
> against any will of the Gibraltarians (which is not the will of the
> Gibraltarians, but they cling on to it just in case it should become the
> will of the Gibraltarians) and the only means by which Spain, using the
> reversionary clause within its article 10, can make any sort of claim over
> Gibraltar.
I dare we are all well read on the history of Gibraltar, the ToU, etc.
> It is said the relevant article was put there at the insistence of the
> French of all people, who are not mentioned in it at all. Why? Because by
> placing this reversionary clause ini the Treaty it would keep Spain and
> the UK at each others throats for a long while and distract them both away
> from France. I don;t think the French could have guessed how well thier
> ruse would work, and to this day we continue to pay the price.
The French? Of course it was the French, the king of Spain, Felipe V, duke
of Anjou was French of the Borbon Lineage. When he was crowned king of
Spain, there was one crucial condition, that being that the Spanish Borbon
dinasty could not join the French Borbon dinasty.
We don't need reminding that Gib was attacked and taken in the name of the
Hapsburgs, who claimed the kingdom Spanish, do we?
>> The refinery is nothing more than a tourist repellent, and a destructor
>> of life.
>
> Very few people would mourn its closure and dismantling.
Amen
>>> For all its faults (and there are, for nowhere is total paradise) the
>>> living in Gib is indeed very good. How come then that with so very many
>>> Giblets abroad who colectively experience so many places, so many come
>>> back in retirement?
>>
>> Who better to answer that question than yourself? But taking on your
>> question, I have to say that everyman loves his country. Gib gov would be
>> doing a great deal more good for its citizens, abroad and at home, if it
>> catered for the thousands of soon to retire baby-boomers. The influx of
>> foreign currency would be substantial. But I do stand corrected, we are
>> after all, tenants and leaseholders in our own country.
>
> People returning to Gib after living in the UK would not strictly be
> bringing in foreign currency as both are in the Sterling area, but yes,
> they would bring wealth created elsewhere in to Gib. You are right of
> course, just being a tad pedantic here. Walk that you, miarma, are being a
> bit heavy with the leaseholder thing :))
According to an article published in Panorama, during the "300 years"
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
> news:c86re.14976$F7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:d8if7v$j3t$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>> news:cK2re.14763$F7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>>> news:2o3pa1109pb8fq758...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:32:12 GMT, "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>
> Indeed not. At the time there were none. Gib was a garrison with no
> civilian population to speak of. HAD there been however, they are unlikely
> to have featured anyway. This was a time before human rights, before
> votes, when monarchs would give each other presents of whole cities AND
> their populations as wedding presents.
>
> THEREFORE the ToU is an outdated document, as it happens the oldest Treaty
> by which the UK feels itself bound, and should be thrown out lock stock
> and a couple of smoking barrels.
>
> HOWEVER it is conveneient for BOTH the UK and Spain to adhere to it,
> simply because ONLY in the ToU can the UK legitimise its presence in Gib
> against any will of the Gibraltarians (which is not the will of the
> Gibraltarians, but they cling on to it just in case it should become the
> will of the Gibraltarians) and the only means by which Spain, using the
> reversionary clause within its article 10, can make any sort of claim over
> Gibraltar.
I dare we are all well read on the history of Gibraltar, the ToU, etc.
> It is said the relevant article was put there at the insistence of the
> French of all people, who are not mentioned in it at all. Why? Because by
> placing this reversionary clause ini the Treaty it would keep Spain and
> the UK at each others throats for a long while and distract them both away
> from France. I don;t think the French could have guessed how well thier
> ruse would work, and to this day we continue to pay the price.
The French? Of course it was the French, the king of Spain, Felipe V, duke
of Anjou was French of the Borbon Lineage. When he was crowned king of
Spain, there was one crucial condition, that being that the Spanish Borbon
dinasty could not join the French Borbon dinasty.
We don't need reminding that Gib was attacked and taken in the name of the
Hapsburgs, who claimed the kingdom Spanish, do we?
>> The refinery is nothing more than a tourist repellent, and a destructor
>> of life.
>
> Very few people would mourn its closure and dismantling.
Amen
>>> For all its faults (and there are, for nowhere is total paradise) the
>>> living in Gib is indeed very good. How come then that with so very many
>>> Giblets abroad who colectively experience so many places, so many come
>>> back in retirement?
>>
>> Who better to answer that question than yourself? But taking on your
>> question, I have to say that everyman loves his country. Gib gov would be
>> doing a great deal more good for its citizens, abroad and at home, if it
>> catered for the thousands of soon to retire baby-boomers. The influx of
>> foreign currency would be substantial. But I do stand corrected, we are
>> after all, tenants and leaseholders in our own country.
>
> People returning to Gib after living in the UK would not strictly be
> bringing in foreign currency as both are in the Sterling area, but yes,
> they would bring wealth created elsewhere in to Gib. You are right of
> course, just being a tad pedantic here. Walk that you, miarma, are being a
> bit heavy with the leaseholder thing :))
According to an article published in Panorama, during the "300 years"
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
> news:Hsdre.15509$F7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>> news:o3cqa1p8a4011a4on...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:32:40 GMT, "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And if you read the official briefing paper 'recovering the
>>>>> sovereignty of Gibraltar is considered more important than
>>>>> the welfare of the campo residents.
>>>>
>>>>But of course, taht's why more and more luxury dwellings are being
>>>>erected
>>>>in Gib. The loclas must indeed be living in luxury.
>>>
>>> some indeed are, as average earnings here are now higher than
>>> in the UK along with better social benefits.
>>
>> Enlighten me, how's the health centre looking these days. Does it still
>> exist? Because if it does, there's another job for Bob Geldof. Gib
>> deserves better.
>
> Seen the new hospital?
No. Have read some articles, some good, some not so. I was refering to that
thing which used to be (may still be) located at Casemates.
> What I can comment on is further education. My children are soon to start
> their tertiary education for which, funded in the UK, I or they shall have
> to pay tuition fees (capped for the present time, but not so for students
> starting in Sept 2006 or later). This means that my elder will have fees
> capped for the duration of his course. The younger (if he goes) will have
> to find fees at the full market rate. NEITHER will receive ANY financial
> assistance from the state whatsoever - I shall have to do it all - EVEN
> WHEN as will happen, there is an overlap and the elder is still at Uni
> when the younger one starts.
Over here "education is on sale to the highest bidder" too. It has become a
huge earner of foreign income, at the expense of local talent who can't
afford the costs.
Currently there's a pending case of malpractice by an Indian doctor,
nicknamed Dr. Death, who came in from the US. He's taken off back to the
States, leaving tens of cases of deaths and surviving malpractices
unanswered. The point is that the idea of "selling training and education to
overseas students, half of whom can't even speak English (there's food for
thought) has backfired, and we have a shortage of doctors amongst other
professionals.
> OTOH if we lived in Gib both my children would have their tuition fees met
> in full, and receive grants from GoG which are not means tested AND
> receive vouchers for flights home throughout their studies EVEN IF there
> was NO OVERLAP. I reckon over the next 6 years or so my children's Uni
> education will set me back around £50 - 70k.
>
> How's that for greater social benefit?
Send your kids to Gib, then they'd be send to the UK for their studies, so
they'd be back home with you. I'm only joking, but I do hear what you're
saying. I suspect Gib has such a good system because there must be a
shortage of capable students. Failing that, I'd be at a loss as to how
students are selected for government grants. But all in all, it sounds like
Gib's got a good system going.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
I recall once popping my head into this thing called " The Health Centre".
It was anyhting but. Then on later visits to Gib it was still there. It was
at Casemates.
Lynx
I haven't seen anything anti-Gib being posted thus far. Critical of Gib and
the UK, yes. But not anti-Gib, nor anti-UK.
jim.gm4dhj
> and not in Gibraltar where
> the things flush on SALT water.
>
> --
> Jim Watt
Prove it...I have....
Jim Watt
>> Which one do you remember? We have better.
>
>I recall once popping my head into this thing called " The Health Centre".
>It was anyhting but. Then on later visits to Gib it was still there. It was
>at Casemates.
Its a modern building designed to fit into the style of casemates
square tastefully. Its been used for decanting Government
departments and the post office.
However the health centre moved to the ICC a couple of years
ago. The second floor was not very successful for shopping
and the flow of people to the health centre is probably good
for the first floor shops and snack bars.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
From yours and K's postings, I gather things have changed substantially, for
the better, in Gib. Certainly since my last visit, which reminds me I'm
overdue for another visit.
The ICC's got a story all of its own, but that's for another whinging
session.
JW, you're managing this facility, keep up the good work mate.
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
From your mouth to the ears of the angels, as they say.
Ken
Ken
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:42:18 +0100, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>No. I just don't drink from toilets.
>
> I thought it was only dogs that did that, and not in Gibraltar where
> the things flush on SALT water.
Actually it's OK for dogs to drink salt water. You see, when you and I drink
sea water we run into problems as our kidneys can only concentrate urine to
a salt concentration around twice that in our blood (0.9%) AT BEST, which as
it happens is below the concentration of salt in sea water (2.5%). It
follows then that in order to eliminate the salt load we have taken on, we
need to excrete water. Therfore, for every litre of sea water a person
drinks they will pass over a litre of urine. Drinking sea water is
dehydrating.
Dogs OTOH, while having a similar blood salts profile as ours have far more
efficient kidneys which can concentrate salts up to around four times the
blood concentration, and in any case above sea water salt conc. They can
extract water from sea water and would not dehydrate on its consumption.
While seeing your dog drink from the toilet may be an unpleasant aight, it
won't do it any harm in that sense at least.
Bet you're glad of that titbit of useless info. Useless until you need it
for a quiz or something, that is.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d8kc6b$usv$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>> news:c86re.14976$F7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:d8if7v$j3t$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>>> news:cK2re.14763$F7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2o3pa1109pb8fq758...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:32:12 GMT, "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>
> I dare we are all well read on the history of Gibraltar, the ToU, etc.
>
> Hapsburgs, who claimed the kingdom Spanish, do we?
Indeed we are all well aware of this. I took the opportunity to state these
facts not in an attempt to educate you oin the matter - I know you are at
least equally cnversant. It was put there for the benefit of any lurkers who
might not have known. If there are none, I wasted a few moments, that is
all.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
No shortage of capable students at all. The sixth forms are larger year on
year and the number of students ging on to further education is higher than
ever, with a greater proportion doing so than ever before.
When I did so back in 1978, the proportion of school leavers going on to Uni
was around 40% which exceeds the UK's present rate of around 35%. Back then
the UK was sending around 20%. The UK Govt's stated aim is to get 50% into
further education. What the exact proportion in Gib is now I have no idea,
but ex-schoolteachers of mine met during my Gib trips tell me the proprtion
is higher than previously.
The other thing to note is that in the late 70s there was a points system in
place. In Gib you would get funding to go (parental income means tested
benefit) IF you scored a certian number of points according to your A level
grades, regardless of whether you had met the Uni's entrance requirements.
Such qualification has been scrapped, so that if you make the Uni entrance
requirement you get funding - and as previously stated, this is always full
funding, no longer means tested.
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Heck, I tried and you shot me down! Remember when I said I found the use of
the term "ex-pat" racist - it is the term the UK folk use to describe
themselves when migrating FROM the UK, but use the term "foreigner" when
referring to migration INTO the UK?
Ken
Lynx
Why not?
Lynx
Of course there are lurkers. I thought that might have been your intention.
Lynx
What more could the young ones want for?
Lynx
Well, these UK folks are at home, after all. They speak of their own
compatriots, when these leave, they are correctly reffered to as
ex-patriots. Nothing wrong nor racist with that.
The same thing applies to us Gibbos. We can call ourselves ex-pats because
we are living away from our Patria, as DCC said.
The British family is a huge one, not every British man is an Englishman,
nor should he try to be. To assimilate is one thing, to trade-in ones
identity that's something else. JW would see it the same way, I'm sure. I
bet gibbos don't call him an expat, and if they do, they'd be acknowledging
his racial background.
M
Jim Watt
wrote:
There is also the point that although we refer to it as 'salt water'
its actually brackish water, so the salt content may be less than
seawater. I believe its drawn from wells rather than a pipe in the
bay.
I suppose its possible that someone stupid, or used to bad tasting
potable water might not be able to tell the difference, after all they
add all sorts of muck to water in the UK, flouride ash etc.
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Jimbo has embraced Gibness to the full, integrating fully. He is not an
ex-pat. He is an Englishman by birth who has become a Gibraltarian through
choice. And a jolly wise one it was too.
K
Ken
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Oh that fluoride were added to the water in the area where I work (rather
than where I live, which is in the neighbouring city). The jolly good idea
was hijacked by the politically-correct lobby who object to mass medication.
Probably the same lot who avoided immunising their children on non-evidence,
just belief, and are now paying the price with their mumps (and subsequent
infertility). We have an infantile dental decay rate (known as the DMF
index) which each year competes with the worst of Glasgow for bottom of the
national league.
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
They could WANT for little more. Of course they DO get more, with the little
gifts from heaven getting a free ride on parental credit cards etc!
Ken
Lynx
Good to hear. I wasn't challenging Jim's stance nor identity. By his
postings and accute interest in and knowledge of Gib matters, ho does sound
very much like a Gibbo at heart. In fact, it's a shame more Gibbos don't
follow his example. Good onya Jim!!
Lynx
Yes, a very common occurrence.